AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-Atlantic => Topic started by: Alex on February 04, 2009, 12:22:16 AM

Title: Virginia
Post by: Alex on February 04, 2009, 12:22:16 AM
3.5-mile toll spur to serve new development proposed from Interstate 95 in Fredericksburg:

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3979 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3979)

Like Fredericksburg needs more sprawl and Interstate 95 through there needs more traffic.   :-/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 04, 2009, 01:07:11 AM
QuoteWe'll call it the Silver/3 Pike or S3 Pike.

So true.

That area doesn't need any more sprawl. The whole Fredericksburg region is like a giant monument to the Silver Companies and their vast wealth, and I'm not surprised that one of the options for the location of the main toll plaza would benefit them, because customers to their developments wouldn't be tolled.

I also know that no one up there would ever use a toll road, and that this is unlikely to ever be built, like the Outer Connector before it (which pretty much died when the development of Celebrate Virginia before it).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 04, 2009, 10:12:30 AM
Argh. Another proposal destined to fail. I really don't see the point of that proposal.
And agreeing with SyntheticDreamer, Spotsylvania County really does not need more suburban sprawl...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on February 04, 2009, 11:11:08 AM
The whole Interstate 95 corridor between Richmond and Washington is the bane of my existence. That road has changed dramatically since the 1980s. A friend and I filmed it in 1994 from D.C. southward to Richmond, and even then it was terrible. Any additional development along the corridor pinches the gridlock that much more and without any alternate corridors (I tried U.S. 1 once, bad mistake), its just fuel on the fire.

DTP, don't know if you saw this, but the proposal to build a new Elizabeth River toll bridge is moving forward: http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3972 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3972)

FYI, I am attempting to move posts that have topics for them out of the general VA thread and into those topics if possible.  We will see how far I get with this.
-Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: akotchi on February 04, 2009, 01:17:25 PM
I have always been curious about the end of the separated HOV lanes on I-95 well south of the Beltway.

First, are they to be extended?  I seem to recall seeing unused pavement and bridge.

Secondly, how much of a time savings can there really be southbound in the afternoon, when the HOV lanes merge into the general lanes?  I seem to recall getting caught up in tieups there and seeing backups in the HOV lanes, too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on February 04, 2009, 02:20:40 PM
Quote from: akotchi on February 04, 2009, 01:17:25 PM
I have always been curious about the end of the separated HOV lanes on I-95 well south of the Beltway.

First, are they to be extended?  I seem to recall seeing unused pavement and bridge.

Secondly, how much of a time savings can there really be southbound in the afternoon, when the HOV lanes merge into the general lanes?  I seem to recall getting caught up in tieups there and seeing backups in the HOV lanes, too.

Each time they extend it, they leave a stub end. Froggie probably has a better idea of where they may end, but in all honesty they should extend southward to Fredericksburg, perhaps where U.S. 17 leaves the freeway for its route east of Interstate 95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on February 10, 2009, 04:18:37 PM
Is the Staunton bypass complete now? I drove the southern half in 2005 and have not revisited it.

Also I noted on the latest Virginia official state map that Virginia 37 is shown as proposed to continue east of Interstate 81. What is the background on this?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Lyle on February 12, 2009, 03:31:22 PM
QuoteYes the Staunton bypass is complete (was completed August 2006).  And fully signed as VA 262...it replaced VA 275 on the northern segment.

But it's not a full freeway, is it? Google Maps shows it as just a 2-lane highway with some intersections on the northern part.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 13, 2009, 05:41:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 12, 2009, 03:49:02 PM
That's correct.

From I-81 south to west of Old Greenville Rd (but before VA 252), it's a 4-lane freeway.  From there around to US 250, it's a Super-2 Freeway.  From there back around the north side to just west of I-81, it's a Super-2 Expressway.

The section of VA 262(including OLD VA 275) that is two lanes is on a 4-lane ROW throughout similar to VA 171 east of VA 134 to Poquoson right????
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 13, 2009, 11:06:25 PM
Is Victory Blvd. (VA-171) actually on a 4-lane ROW? I know there's a stub for the westbound lanes when it transitions right before Hampton Hwy., (VA-134) but I seem to recall there being a ditch and then woods pretty immediately on either side... and I drive through there every day almost...
Actually, upon closer inspection I see that it is... hmm... I remember that now.

Sorry, slightly OT. I should start a topic about these things...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Chris on February 15, 2009, 01:27:26 PM
What was this intended to be? (at the border of Alexandria and Arlington)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi44.tinypic.com%2Fdph6ia.jpg&hash=d6d3def4e84fa9738c9b13727b24e61cfb25fbe3)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mightyace on February 16, 2009, 01:08:06 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 15, 2009, 05:00:02 PM
Formerly rail bridges across 4 Mile Run.  The commercial area you see south of the creek and east of US 1 was built on what was originally a huge railway yard.  The area is called "Potomac Yards".

I do some of my shopping there.  It's the closest Best Buy and Barnes & Noble to me, and the second-closest Target.


Interesting.

Since I'm a railfan as well as a road geek, I know that while "Potomac Yards" may have been the official name of the location.  However, railfans and railroad employees alike generally referred to it as "Pot Yard".

(I think that name was made before Pot became a synonym for a certain plant people smoke.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 19, 2009, 04:58:37 PM
I am about 95% sure that this is the case but isn't there now a ramp from VA 168 North to VA 190(Kempsville Rd)?  I believe that it is Exit 12 if it exists.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 20, 2009, 08:53:55 PM
Yes there is. I was just down there recently and they were wrapping up some construction on Kempsville, which was the first time I looked and noticed that ramp. It's from 168 North to Kempsville East only though.
And it's already on google earth too btw.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 21, 2009, 09:34:08 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 21, 2009, 12:29:59 AM
BTW, that ramp has been there for several years.

Yeah I remember seeing it going to Nags Head about 3.75 years ago.  I just knew it was there but every website that has something on the Chesapeake Expressway(VA 168) still says that there is no connection there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: slinky on March 04, 2009, 05:28:42 PM
Quote from: Chris on February 15, 2009, 01:27:26 PM
What was this intended to be? (at the border of Alexandria and Arlington)

That imagery is a bit dated.  There's been an apartment building and grocery store on that vacant piece of land for a couple of years now.  The bridges are still there though, I think. If Alexandria decides to replace the shopping center to the south with a street grid in the future, I wonder if those bridges would be carrying vehicular traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 07, 2009, 11:33:08 AM
Does anyone know exactly what's happening on the VA 288 South C/D Road at US 60?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: FLRoads on March 07, 2009, 03:03:00 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 07, 2009, 11:33:08 AM
Does anyone know exactly what's happening on the VA 288 South C/D Road at US 60?

Yes. In a word, sprawl. Westchester Commons (http://www.westchester-commons.com/), a huge outdoor type shopping mall is being constructed at the northwest corner of the interchange. And a part of that construction involves a ramp leading directly to the new shopping area. Nice, eh?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on March 07, 2009, 03:06:38 PM
To go along with flaroadgeek's response:

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/us-060_eb_app_va-288.jpg)

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/mid-atlantic/us-060_va-288_sprawl.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 07, 2009, 03:10:04 PM
Quote from: flaroadgeek on March 07, 2009, 03:03:00 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 07, 2009, 11:33:08 AM
Does anyone know exactly what's happening on the VA 288 South C/D Road at US 60?

Yes. In a word, sprawl. Westchester Commons (http://www.westchester-commons.com/), a huge outdoor type shopping mall is being constructed at the northwest corner of the interchange. And a part of that construction involves a ramp leading directly to the new shopping area. Nice, eh?
At least it makes sense considering that it has already happened at US 360 with the ramps to/from SR 2055/Commonwealth Centre Pkwy and there will now be four VA 288 South exits(Watkins Centre Pkwy, both US 60 exits, and SR 667/Otterdale Rd).  From the Richmond-Times Dispatch(writes about other improvements in the area as well) http://www.westchester-commons.com/RichmondTimesDispatch_021708.pdf (http://www.westchester-commons.com/RichmondTimesDispatch_021708.pdf) 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 25, 2009, 03:11:20 PM
Quotefrom SyntheticDreamer  When signs go up, I'll take photos of them so I can send them to both you and Froggie. It actually took three tries for me to get a response from DPW; I guess former Mayor Wilder wasn't interested at the time, and now that Richmond has a new mayor, they're more interested in getting this stuff fixed.
Could you please post here when they are posted so I can go check the area out if I don't go to Richmond any time soon?  Also I still think it would be much simpler if US 33 stayed on US 250(Broad St) until Belvidere(US 1/US 301) and followed Belvidere to end at VA 33/Leigh St :nod: :spin:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 14, 2009, 11:53:54 AM
QuoteAlso I noted on the latest Virginia official state map that Virginia 37 is shown as proposed to continue east of Interstate 81. What is the background on this?
QuoteThe Winchester long-range transportation plan envisions VA 37 forming a complete loop, on both sides of I-81.  The southeast leg that appears on the VDOT map (and has been appearing as such since the 1998 map) is the next segment being considered.  'Course, VDOT being as broke as they are, I wouldn't expect to see it anytime soon, let alone the full loop...
First VDOT plans to survey the  proposed VA 37 (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/frederick_county_-_route_37_survey.asp) east of I-81 with aerial photographs; however, construction is still many years off.  Second VDOT is installing zigzag pavement markings (http://www.virginiadot.org/news/northern_virginia/2009/experimental_pavement_markings_aimed39774.asp) where SR 846/Sterling Blvd and SR 659/Belmont Ridge Rd cross the Washington & Old Dominion(W&OD) Trail in Loudoun County.  Of course even though VDOT is broke there is now construction on VA 106 in Prince George(not far from my house) for a sidewalk at the I-295 underpass extending west to SR 634/Allin Rd. (no wonder toll roads are sprouting across the country)> ;-) :-/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 14, 2009, 02:51:56 PM
^^ The zigzag markings, I think, are a good idea. They'll get more drivers attention, since it's something different. You'll still have some folks that won't pay attention (or care) one way or the other.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Chris on April 14, 2009, 03:21:14 PM
Oh we have those zigzags a lot in the Netherlands. Works quite good to get the drivers attention, especially in build-up areas with lots of trees etc. where a pedestrian / cyclist crossing is not always very clear to see.

They use a similar thing for the side markings in Britain too, but I'm not sure what it's purpose is...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Truvelo on April 15, 2009, 05:47:13 AM
Quote from: Chris on April 14, 2009, 03:21:14 PM
Oh we have those zigzags a lot in the Netherlands. Works quite good to get the drivers attention, especially in build-up areas with lots of trees etc. where a pedestrian / cyclist crossing is not always very clear to see.

They use a similar thing for the side markings in Britain too, but I'm not sure what it's purpose is...

In Britain they're used at crosswalks and it's illegal to stop or park on them. Schools normally have yellow zigzags near the entrance where stopping is forbidden during school hours.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 15, 2009, 10:39:50 AM
^^ It's illegal to pass along them as well, isn't it?


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Truvelo on April 15, 2009, 01:36:50 PM
Quote from: Bryant5493 on April 15, 2009, 10:39:50 AM
^^ It's illegal to pass along them as well, isn't it?

Yeah, that's illegal also although some people turn a blind eye to it. It's the same with the parking restrictions, for example if someone wants to park outside a store to buy something and there's no other space than to park on the zigzags they will do so and stick their hazard flashers on as if it makes it OK to park illegally.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 15, 2009, 01:57:45 PM
^^ Always an easy way for the parking authority to ticket and tow your vehicle, I'm sure. :D


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on April 15, 2009, 08:51:27 PM
In Hawai`i there are zigzag lanes in Hilo on HI 19 - http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/hi/hi_19/emamo.jpg (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/hi/hi_19/emamo.jpg)

Fixed link... -DTP
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 15, 2009, 10:25:47 PM
^^ Very cool.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 17, 2009, 11:13:12 AM
QuoteAs for the toll road proposal, it should be pointed out that VA 3 to the west of I-95 is a painful drive due to signals and commercialization.  I'd hazard a bet that the toll road promoters are banking on drivers (commuters especially) wanting to pay a toll to avoid that VA 3 mess.
The stimulus has also allowed for widening of  VA 3 (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/042009/04172009/459998)  west of Fredericksburg to six lanes out to Gordon Rd.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 27, 2009, 03:26:31 PM
VDOT is making motorists as of May 29 pay exact change or have an EZPASS to exit  VA 76 (http://www.virginiadot.org/news/courthouse_road.asp) North onto SR 653/Courthouse Rd or from SR 653/Courthouse Rd to VA 76 South
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mightyace on April 27, 2009, 03:30:14 PM
^^
At least there still is some kind of cash option.

Most ramp plazas in Illinois are unattended with a case option.  And, even before EZPass/I-Pass, they've been unattended going back 35 or more years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 27, 2009, 07:42:36 PM
I'm glad we only have one toll road in Metro Atlanta. :D And that route can be avoided several ways.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 29, 2009, 03:44:18 PM
I-295 flyover project officially complete  http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2009/i-295_flyover_project_complete40705.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2009/i-295_flyover_project_complete40705.asp)  I plan to go up there and take photos on Tuesday(since I get to leave school at noon on even days) :colorful:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 30, 2009, 02:44:32 AM
The end shields I emailed Richmond about a while ago still have not been posted, nor has the VA 147 direction conundrum been corrected. I'm likely going to be emailing them again in a couple weeks, although the 90 days have been up for some time now.

I also plan to get some photos of the I-295 flyover project myself when I get the chance. Downtown Short Pump (http://www.downtownshortpump.com/), a local e-zine that I contribute photos to, had to use an old photo of the ramp being built because I haven't gotten new photos yet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 23, 2009, 10:40:11 PM
The I-295 repaving project has finally resumed, with VDOT having set up cones and equipment at Woodman Rd and at US 1. This segment of the project will see I-295's southbound lanes repaved between Woodman Rd and US 1/I-95. Frankly, all of I-295 between I-64 (Short Pump) and I-95 is in dire need of repaving, and the resumption of the project is certainly welcome.

The last remaining section of I-295 between both I-64 exits to be repaved is between I-64 in Short Pump and just past Nuckols Rd, which is probably the bumpier of the two segments. It's a stimulus project and will be repaved this fall.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 05, 2009, 02:31:47 AM
Went to Virginia Beach today (didn't drive but served as a navigator). I noticed that signage within the city has improved quite a bit. Some routes are better posted than they were previously, and a lot of oval shields have been replaced. Unfortunately, the newer shields are either deformed semicircles or Interstate-like shapes. So the signage is better but they have a ways to go.

Old VA 305 is erroneously still posted at the main entrance to Fort Story, but in a semicircle and not an oval. There are also more reassurance markers for US 60 along Shore Dr and Atlantic Ave. VA 190 was well posted at US 58 (but not at I-264 still), as was VA 403. The erroneous VA 343 ovals are now semicircles, but VA 343's southern stub is still not posted.

There is a "decapitated" I-225 shield at the interchange with US 13. Same deal with VA 279 at US 60, but this was noted on the VA Hwys Project already. The US 225 shield on US 60 is still there but I didn't get a photo of it. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few "VA 615" shields lurking about now that Virginia Beach has been putting up more signs.

There's more Clearview, as 74/171FAN captured before. Most of the signage on I-264 has been replaced with carbon copy Clearview, and the BGS for US 60 on northbound US 13 is also Clearview with SHORE DRIVE in all capital letters for some reason. Almost every sign along I-564 is in Clearview now, and I think I-564 is probably the closest to being the first interstate in VA to have 100% Clearview signage (unless I-381 has all Clearview signs now, that is... :p).

The strange, old US 13 and US 60 BGS with the directions inside the route shields is still there.

The VA 564 error at the Naval Exchange is still there.

Nearer to the beach, there is a lot more signage for I-264 now than there used to be. Most of the signage directs traffic to streets other than 22nd Street (which actually becomes I-264) due to congestion, but congestion remains a huge problem. The posted alternates (Norfolk Ave and Laskin Rd/US 58 to Birdneck Rd) are just as congested.

The actual end of US 60 (at the south end of Atlantic) is still not posted. Which is a shame because we went through a ton of trouble to get there (the trip down Atlantic and Pacific took about 30 minutes). The erroneous SOUTH/NORTH US 60 setup at where Atlantic and Pacific split is still there.

I took a lot of photos, and I'll post those later when I've gone through them all. Unfortunately I had to use two different cameras since my Olympus's batteries (I have two packs) both died because I forgot to charge them. :pan:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 05, 2009, 06:48:37 PM
Photos are here (http://picasaweb.google.com/coredesat/VirginiaBeachHamptonRoads7409#). I haven't finished captioning everything, though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 14, 2009, 12:55:14 AM
For some reason Richmond has removed the END VA 6 sign at VA 6's eastern terminus at Kensington Ave and Boulevard (VA 161). Seems the sign was removed to make way for a pedestrian signal. The signal was needed, sure, but they really didn't have to remove the sign.

I also found an END VA 161 shield at Commerce Rd & I-95 in southside Richmond the other day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 16, 2009, 11:36:49 AM
Hampton Roads is trying to get some stimulus money for things such as I-564 and US 58 widening in Suffolk  http://hamptonroads.com/2009/07/i564-lesner-bridge-regions-stimulus-wish-list (http://hamptonroads.com/2009/07/i564-lesner-bridge-regions-stimulus-wish-list)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 30, 2009, 06:26:42 PM
The I-64 Battlefield Blvd project in Chespeake is now officially complete  http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2009/i-64_battlefield_boulevard_project41966.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2009/i-64_battlefield_boulevard_project41966.asp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bryant5493 on August 16, 2009, 11:31:21 AM
I've a question about I-64 & I-664 (Hampton Roads Beltway) in Hampton Roads. Wouldn't it be easier to begin/end I-64 in Hampton, and have I-664 take over the entire beltway? That would end the confusion, wouldn't it?


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 16, 2009, 12:19:53 PM
That got discussed in another thread last month, and it gets brought up in the Virginian Pilot (Norfolk-area newspaper) at least once a year.

To make a long story short, the route numbering won't change because the cities can't come to an agreement on how to renumber the Interstates, and nobody who currently has I-64 wants to give up being on a "major 2-digit Interstate".

This is partially why the Hampton Roads Beltway designation was created....though based on experience, almost nobody down in Tidewater uses the beltway designation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bryant5493 on August 16, 2009, 12:55:12 PM
^^ Okay, thanks.

But, for sake of argument, I-664 couldn't take over the entire beltway and the other spur routes stay in tact?


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2009, 03:58:26 PM
At this point it might be easier just to make the whole beltway I-64 and find some creative way to sign it. Or we can leave it alone. ;)

BTW, I was in the Williamsburg area yesterday (re-clinching VA 359 in the process). VA 359 is no longer signed with directional banners like it was before it was rerouted. There is one VA 359 shield southbound near an entrance to the Jamestown Settlement, but no shields northbound or at the Colonial Parkway (which is understandable). It's also currently impossible to go anywhere from the southern end of VA 359, as part of the Colonial Parkway is closed due to bridge repair. I did take photos (including of the western end of the Colonial Parkway) and I'll post them later. I would've gone into Jamestown to see how the Parkway is signed from in there, but I'm not paying $10 to visit a place I've already been to once in my life! :p

The error US 359 shields mentioned on the VA Hwys Project are long gone.

On another note, there are now overhead END VA 143 signs near Camp Peary and the I-64 interchange. I think I might've seen an end shield near the entrance to Camp Peary, but I didn't want to go near it. :p
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 16, 2009, 05:29:02 PM
QuoteBut, for sake of argument, I-664 couldn't take over the entire beltway and the other spur routes stay in tact?

It could, yes.

More realistic is I-664 taking over I-64 between Bower's Hill (I-64/264/664) and the I-264 interchange in Norfolk.  That's really the only segment that's "directionally challenged" to begin with...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 03, 2009, 04:40:59 PM
The older BGSes on VA 195 westbound (the distance sign and Belvidere St signs) have been replaced with Clearview signs. I don't know if the one on 12th St at the ramp to VA 195 has also been replaced.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: City on September 11, 2009, 08:51:38 PM
Have you noticed yet that when Interstate 74 is extended into VA with I-77, and junctions I-81, it would form an interstate triplex?   :)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 11, 2009, 09:15:18 PM
Chances are, the occasionally-talked-about splitting of the I-77 and I-81 duplex will have been built before that happens...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 13, 2009, 12:18:12 AM
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/ROAD12_20090911-220209/292321/ (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/ROAD12_20090911-220209/292321/)  Some of the stimulus money is going to widen VA 10 in Chester and US 250 in Goochland along with widening SR 802(Lewistown Rd) around I-95 which includes replacing the bridge over I-95 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on September 20, 2009, 04:07:17 PM
Are or were there plans to extend Prince William Parkway northwest?

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=38.797544~-77.570236&style=h&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1 (http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=38.797544~-77.570236&style=h&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: njroadhorse on September 20, 2009, 05:58:38 PM
Yes, there are
http://www.smartergrowth.net/issues/transportation/roads/outerbeltway/vaouterbeltway/tcpbb/index.html (http://www.smartergrowth.net/issues/transportation/roads/outerbeltway/vaouterbeltway/tcpbb/index.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 21, 2009, 12:17:45 AM
IIRC this is one of the proposals for the Tri-County Parkway. It's listed as a proposed VA 411 in the 2001 VDOT route log, source: VA Hwys Project. I really don't like that choice of number, but it doesn't really matter as it isn't likely to happen any time soon, if at all, due to public opposition.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 21, 2009, 09:13:54 AM
Here's VDOT's official site (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/tcp.asp) on the Tri-County Parkway.  PWC's longstanding plans to extend a Manassas/battlefield bypass of VA 234 north of I-66 were eventually rolled into the TCP.  The full TCP may never get built, but I'd hazard a bet that the VA 234 bypass part eventually will...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 16, 2009, 12:46:52 PM
Latest CTB minutes and resolutions are posted.

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings.asp (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings.asp)

Not much worthy of note this month, but frontage road F-100 in Henrico County has been decommissioned. There are also some changes to VA 28's intersection with Steeplechase Dr in Loudoun County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 19, 2009, 05:59:06 PM
Per a good friend of mine, Virginia Beach has done some rearrangement of signage in the city limits. As a result, VA 408 is no longer signed (which is correct, as it was decommissioned a few years ago). However, VA 225 is now erroneously signed on Great Neck Road southbound, part of which is actually VA 279. I'll hopefully get pictures from him in a couple days.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 30, 2009, 01:39:20 PM
The next phase of the John Rolfe Parkway (http://www.downtownshortpump.com/2009/10/29/small-but-important-segment-of-john-rolfe-parkway-opening-friday/) is scheduled to open today. This is a short segment (probably not even half a mile long) connecting US 250 with Three Chopt Rd in the Short Pump area. IIRC, the next segment to be completed after this will be the Three Chopt Rd to Pump Rd segment. All the traffic signals are installed but they hadn't begun paving yet when I was over there a couple weeks ago.
Title: Virginia 37
Post by: Alex on March 04, 2010, 01:20:50 AM
Quote from: AARoads on February 10, 2009, 04:18:37 PM

Also I noted on the latest Virginia official state map that Virginia 37 is shown as proposed to continue east of Interstate 81. What is the background on this?

There was a response to this, but it looks like it was deleted. What is the scoop on the Virginia 37 extension east of Interstate 81? Will it go all the way to U.S. 17 & 50, or just U.S. 522? The Virginia Highways 37 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va037.htm) page only indicates:
QuoteOfficials since 1998 show a proposed extension of VA 37 southeast across US 522 to US 17-50.
and
QuoteIf VA 37 is extended southeast to US 522 or US 17-50, will any of those routes be put on the highway to bypass Winchester?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 04, 2010, 06:22:40 AM
I checked the VDOT site...

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/i-81_exit_310.asp

This mentions that VA 37 will be extended slightly east of I-81 as a result of this project.

The 6-year Improvement Program lists this VA 37 project, which looks to be a full loop east of I-81 all the way back up to I-81 to form a complete VA 37 loop.  Only preliminary engineering is included in the project, it appears.

http://syip.virginiadot.org/LineItemDetail.aspx?syp_scenario_id=158&line_item_id=555559&pf=LineItems.aspx&pfn=Line+Items&showMap=0

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on March 04, 2010, 04:15:19 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 04, 2010, 06:22:40 AM
I checked the VDOT site...

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/i-81_exit_310.asp

This mentions that VA 37 will be extended slightly east of I-81 as a result of this project.

The 6-year Improvement Program lists this VA 37 project, which looks to be a full loop east of I-81 all the way back up to I-81 to form a complete VA 37 loop.  Only preliminary engineering is included in the project, it appears.

http://syip.virginiadot.org/LineItemDetail.aspx?syp_scenario_id=158&line_item_id=555559&pf=LineItems.aspx&pfn=Line+Items&showMap=0

Mapmikey

Thanks for posting that.

Really a full loop? That would have to entail a new interchange and tie in with VA 37 west of US 11, as the US 11 diamond on the north end of town is congested with industrial parks and traveler services. The spread diamond interchange looks like it will have to directly front the commercial sprawl at the southwest corner of I-81/VA 37 (their aerial is way out of date). I also see a signalized at-grade displayed to the east, and the existing eastbound side frontage road would be redirected somehow to a north-south road at that same intersection. So much for a full freeway...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 04, 2010, 07:45:13 PM
Perhaps this (http://www.vahighways.com/froggie/winchester-20yr-plan.jpg) will shed some light on things.

It's Winchester's long range plan from ca. 2000, where they envision a full-loop VA 37.  The tie-in on the north end would be about halfway between US 11 and US 522.
Title: A Fourth Virginia 158?
Post by: Alex on March 22, 2010, 11:34:09 AM
The Virginia 158 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va141-160.htm#va158) page on VAHighways indicates two former alignments of Virginia 158 and the current 2.41-mile route in Wise County. However, Bing Maps and the USGS Quad show VA 56-158 overlapped between Colleen and Piney River. Was there a third decommissioned alignment posted between 1943 and 1999?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 22, 2010, 01:59:33 PM
Upon review, yes there was a third, decommed VA 158 (briefly mentioned on both the VA 56 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va049-060.htm#va56) and VA 151 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va141-160.htm#va151) entries).  It was created in 1947, when US 29 was moved to its present-day alignment between Amherst and Colleen.  It followed the former alignment of VA 151 west of Shady Lane to US 60 (VA 151 was thus rerouted along old US 29 to the present-day US 29/VA 151 intersection), then the former US 29 alignment east of Shady Lane/VA 151 to Colleen.  You can see maps of the change under the VA 150 #1 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va141-160.htm#va150) entry.

In 1954, the stretch west of VA 151 was dropped, becoming today's SR 778.

1970 is when the rest of VA 158 (between VA 151 and US 29) was renumbered to VA 56.  I'm not sure when that USGS Quadrangle was created, but if it was around 1970 (entirely plausible), that would explain why it shows both 56 and 158.  And Microsoft conveniently fed on that for the Bing map.  As far as I can tell (and looking at the CTB minutes), there was never a 56/158 duplex...it simply switched from one route number to the other.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on March 23, 2010, 05:59:30 PM
Have you guys seen this page (http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2009/09/new_roads_recommendation.html)?

QuoteA Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) report on the future of U.S. 29 will recommend the consideration of two new roads in the Charlottesville area. The first would extend the University of Virginia's Leonard Sandridge Road using some portions of the right-of-way previously purchased for the U.S. 29 Western Bypass.  The second would connect U.S. 29 to the 250 Bypass via a partially elevated roadway near the Kroger at Hydraulic Road.

Springer said the idea of a four-lane limited access Western Bypass is "no longer an effective option to serve corridor-wide trips."  However, he said the study would recommend that the right-of-way, currently owned by VDOT be considered as a possible transportation corridor to serve local traffic.. He suggested this could take the form of an extension of Leonard Sandridge Road.

The commercialized hell that is US 29 between the US 250 bypass and the South Fork Rivanna River is such a pleasure to drive!

Quote

"The idea is to extend the parallel road system that comes out of Places29 and taking that down to Route 250," Springer said.

Springer said the study will recommend three potential alternatives for the extension. Alternative 1 would connect Leonard Sandridge Road to the intersection of Georgetown Road and Barracks Road along a new route. Alternatives 2 and 3 would both follow portions of the Western Bypass route, with one connecting at Hydraulic Road near Albemarle High School and the other connecting onto Earlysville Road.

"It would not function as a bypass but would serve local traffic," said Charlie Rasnick, a retired VDOT engineer who is working on the study. He said the idea was to extend the parallel roads concept.
VDOT began purchasing parcels of land along the bypass's route in the mid-1990's and has spent $33.7 million to acquire at least some of the right-of-way. State law requires the agency to begin selling back those parcels twenty-years after the original purchase date if they are not used.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 24, 2010, 06:50:51 AM
Haven't seen that page specifically, but I have read up on Places29, which discusses both the parallel-roads concept and improvements to 29 itself.
Title: U.S. 501 in Buena Vista
Post by: Alex on March 24, 2010, 04:02:43 PM
On the VAHighways U.S. 501 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/us001.htm#us501) page it states:

QuoteIn 2004, US 501 was realigned slightly in Buena Vista, following the former US 501 ALT alignment along Sycamore Ave.  Old US 501 along Magnolia Ave became BUSINESS US 501.

Looking at GSV, the split of U.S. 501 and U.S. 501 Business heading north along Magnolia Avenue at the wye with Sycamore Avenue is signed, but there is no coverage of Sycamore north of there, and no shielding at all along Magnolia north from there.

When I drove through in 2005, signs directed me southward along Beech Avenue. The U.S. 501 shields were coupled with "Truck Route" signs as well. So does U.S. 501 remain along Beech Avenue south from Park Avenue to Sycamore Avenue, or does it turn onto Park Avenue east to make the connection to Sycamore Avenue south? Also, I noted no shields for Business U.S. 501 at Beech and Park or along Park Avenue itself within the immediate vicinity.

Both Bing and Google (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=buena+vista,+va&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.176833,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Buena+Vista,+Virginia&ll=37.738973,-79.354892&spn=0.01215,0.027466&z=16) continue to show the old alignment along Park and Magnolia Avenues as U.S. 501 alone.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 24, 2010, 04:17:59 PM
On the US 29 proposal: Outside of redoing the US 250/US 29 interchange, I don't see how that proposal would really relieve traffic that much(even local traffic) especially north of the immediate Hydraulic Rd area.
Title: Re: U.S. 501 in Buena Vista
Post by: hbelkins on March 24, 2010, 04:29:25 PM
Quote from: AARoads on March 24, 2010, 04:02:43 PM

Looking at GSV, the split of U.S. 501 and U.S. 501 Business heading north along Magnolia Avenue at the wye with Sycamore Avenue is signed, but there is no coverage of Sycamore north of there, and no shielding at all along Magnolia north from there.

When I drove through in 2005, signs directed me southward along Beech Avenue. The U.S. 501 shields were coupled with "Truck Route" signs as well. So does U.S. 501 remain along Beech Avenue south from Park Avenue to Sycamore Avenue, or does it turn onto Park Avenue east to make the connection to Sycamore Avenue south? Also, I noted no shields for Business U.S. 501 at Beech and Park or along Park Avenue itself within the immediate vicinity.


http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2008_Richmond_trip_Day_3/Pages/545.html and the next page (/546.html) show signage but there are no other clues as to routing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 24, 2010, 11:27:50 PM
It should be noted that Buena Vista is an independent city.  Need I say more about signage practices? :)

As for mainline US 501, we may need to reevaluate this.  Mike mentioned the change in 2004 based on the signage that I noted that year.  However, VDOT's traffic log still has mainline US 501 following Park Ave/Magnolia Ave, and ALT US 501 following Beech Ave/Sycamore Ave.  I'll probably have to pull in the shapefiles and/or one of us take a trip over that way (which I may do in a couple weeks anyway) to verify one way or the other...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 25, 2010, 07:01:57 AM
US 501 Business in Buena Vista is posted heading SB on the rerouted US 501.  US 501 Business leaves Sycamore at 22nd, cuts over to Magnolia and heads south.

The VDOT on-line map still shows the old alignments, even the south end which is physically different from before.  I just did a hand search of CTB minutes from 2002-2004 and there was no mention of any changes.

I can't recall if 501 SB was posted to turn onto Beech when I first visited in the mid 90s.  It is definitely not posted to do that now.

Here is Sycamore at 22nd, followed by 22nd and Magnolia (pics from Oct 2008).  These postings were still there last time I visited, in Dec 2009.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fbannered%2Fbus501bv_nt.jpg&hash=e0a2c74b0eadb5d7484042e2608c9f2cb4ea9411)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fbannered%2Fbus501bv_nt_02.jpg&hash=864231e1282cce4fd1a9485c79682ca023ac12ee)

Mapmikey
Title: Virginia 381 designing
Post by: Alex on March 25, 2010, 07:01:02 PM
The US 501 Buena Vista issue still sound confusing...   :confused:

On the Virginia 381 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va381-400.htm) entry:

QuotePosting:  Several reports on mtr that VA 381 is no longer posted anywhere

I did not even realize that Virginia 381 signs were taken down until reading this. Reviewing some photos Andy took in May 2007 and some photos I took in July 2005, sure enough, they were all gone. What was the logic in this? I can understand the multiplex south of Euclid on Commonwealth, but the continuation of I-381 as VA 381 to US 11-11E-11W-19-421 made sense.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 25, 2010, 07:18:28 PM
You'd have to ask the city of Bristol...it's their jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 25, 2010, 08:47:22 PM
Due in part to the earlier discussion, I updated the VA 158 #3 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va141-160.htm#va158) entry this evening, as well as a few other route entries.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 25, 2010, 09:01:50 PM
Regarding Buena Vista confusion, there is a history in Virginia of changing route signage and going a long time without making the change formal in the CTB or elsewhere.  For instance, US 17 Bus in Fredericksburg was rerouted in the field in the early 2000s but not on any document I've seen.  Another example is the creation of US 60 Truck in Lexington.  The longest lived examples I can think of are the US 60 END sign in Virginia Beach (if the intent was to move 60 onto Pacific all the way) and the US 60 duplex with itself in Newport News, which has been around awhile but is not reflected in documents.  VA 31 wasn't officially truncated out of Camp Peary until the late 60s even though it was closed to the public during WW2 IIRC.

VA 113 was also fully deposted in Bristol based on all reports I have seen.  I'm going to try to get out there this summer to see if I can find a stray shield.

As I advocate in the upcoming update to the 381-400 page, VA 381 could either be Green I-381 or US 19 (which should also replace VA 140 - US 19 is a through route and could easily behave like US 58 in this area).

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on March 25, 2010, 09:57:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 25, 2010, 09:01:50 PM

VA 113 was also fully deposted in Bristol based on all reports I have seen.  I'm going to try to get out there this summer to see if I can find a stray shield.

As I advocate in the upcoming update to the 381-400 page, VA 381 could either be Green I-381 or US 19 (which should also replace VA 140 - US 19 is a through route and could easily behave like US 58 in this area).

Mapmikey

VA 381 was fully posted when the cutouts were removed and replaced with modern signage. Now those signs are gone.

There are no VA 113 signs out there, either. I was in Bristol summer before last and drove through town pretty extensively, checking for leftover cutouts and the new alignment of US 421. Saw no VA 113 signage, and don't remember any new signage for that route being installed when the cutouts were removed throughout the city.
Title: Removed Virginia 381 signage
Post by: Alex on March 25, 2010, 11:50:06 PM
Virginia 381 removed signage:
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia010/us-011_019_sb_at_us-011e_011w_421.jpg)

Note the empty space north of the I-81 shield.

Commonwealth Avenue south of Euclid:
before (https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia010/us-011e_019_421_va-381_sb_after_merge.jpg) and after (https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia010/us-011e_019_421_sb_after_us-011.jpg)

This sign assembly was removed completely:

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia010/us-011w_nb_421_sb_app_us-011_011e_019_02.jpg)

As was this one:

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia010/us-011w_nb_421_sb_at_us-011_011e_019_03.jpg)

Priority is now given to the sign bridge (https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia010/us-011w_nb_421_sb_at_us-011_011e_019_02.jpg).



The story is the same along Commonwealth Avenue. I have photos of Andy and Carter's from May 2007 to post in my next update, which will revamp the I-381/VA 381 entry.
In the meantime, I added their photos of US 11 (https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=u0011va), US 11E (https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=u0011eva), US 11W (https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=u0011wva), which also covers US 19 (https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=u0019va) and US 421 (https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=u0421va).

Also made a small update to US 501 (https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=u0501va). I may or may have not gotten the situation at Beech and Park Avenues in Buena Vista correct...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 26, 2010, 08:43:31 AM
your description of US 501 Bus is incorrect.  It leaves Beech at 22nd and used 22nd to Magnolia.  The photos of the US 501 Business shields earlier in this thread show this alignment.  Magnolia north of 22nd is no longer 501-anything.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on March 26, 2010, 12:12:10 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 26, 2010, 08:43:31 AM
your description of US 501 Bus is incorrect.  It leaves Beech at 22nd and used 22nd to Magnolia.  The photos of the US 501 Business shields earlier in this thread show this alignment.  Magnolia north of 22nd is no longer 501-anything.

Mapmikey

I was uncertain if it followed Park Avenue to Sycamore. Your description above addresses the correct alignment, and I will update the page accordingly, thanks!
Title: Old U.S. 211 in New Market?
Post by: Alex on March 26, 2010, 02:01:58 PM
Was Old Cross Road (SSR 1002) leading east from U.S. 11/211 in New Market to Lee Highway the original alignment of U.S. 211?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=new+market,+va&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.77044,84.814453&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+Market,+Shenandoah,+Virginia&ll=38.647679,-78.671014&spn=0.012904,0.028882&t=h&z=16
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 26, 2010, 03:15:14 PM
Yes it was.  Couldn't tell you when it was moved to the current alignment, but the old alignment appears on the 1936 county map.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 26, 2010, 04:47:59 PM
US 211 was removed from SR 1002 in the Feb 1951 CTB (has the same project number matching a 1949 contract for construction on US 211 from US 11 to west of Smith Creek...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on March 30, 2010, 11:38:28 PM
Check out how badly (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=weber+city,+va&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=46.812293,114.521484&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Weber+City,+Scott,+Virginia&ll=36.629374,-82.54642&spn=0.011727,0.036135&t=h&z=16) the aerial, map data, and street view photography jive at the reconfigured US 23/58/421 and VA 224 junctions.

Edited to 421 instead of 221
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 31, 2010, 03:56:17 PM
Quote from: AARoads on March 30, 2010, 11:38:28 PM
Check out how badly (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=weber+city,+va&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=46.812293,114.521484&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Weber+City,+Scott,+Virginia&ll=36.629374,-82.54642&spn=0.011727,0.036135&t=h&z=16) the aerial, map data, and street view photography jive at the reconfigured US 23/58/421 and VA 224 junctions.
I think that might have been the worse I've seen by far.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on March 31, 2010, 11:46:59 PM
Quote from: AARoads on March 30, 2010, 11:38:28 PM
Check out how badly (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=weber+city,+va&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=46.812293,114.521484&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Weber+City,+Scott,+Virginia&ll=36.629374,-82.54642&spn=0.011727,0.036135&t=h&z=16) the aerial, map data, and street view photography jive at the reconfigured US 23/58/421 and VA 224 junctions.

Edited to 421 instead of 221

The map is pretty much accurate. I drove the new configuration last Friday, turning from US 23 south to US 58 east. The through connection here is now VA 224, which is now signed from US 23.

But there is more work to be done here, right?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 01, 2010, 06:27:53 AM
Phases 2 and 3 of this project wil tie VA 72 to this area as new construction.  According to VDOT's website ROW acquisition completion and start of construction are on hold pending funding.

The disparity of satellite vs. street view dates back to at least May 2008 when I took these pictures:
http://www.vahighways.com/va-ends/va200/va224_nt.jpg
http://www.vahighways.com/va-ends/va200/va224_nt_02.jpg


Another disparity (not as bad as this one I suppose) I found earlier this week was at the US 89-180 jct in Flagstaff
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=flagstaff,+az&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.550571,90.175781&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Flagstaff,+Coconino,+Arizona&ll=35.220941,-111.587223&spn=0.006688,0.011008&t=h&z=17

Street view and the map show the interchange shown in the satellite removed (and a US 89 END shield has been put up)

Mapmikey

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on April 01, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 01, 2010, 06:27:53 AM

Another disparity (not as bad as this one I suppose) I found earlier this week was at the US 89-180 jct in Flagstaff
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=flagstaff,+az&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.550571,90.175781&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Flagstaff,+Coconino,+Arizona&ll=35.220941,-111.587223&spn=0.006688,0.011008&t=h&z=17

Street view and the map show the interchange shown in the satellite removed (and a US 89 END shield has been put up)

Mapmikey



Why would anyone remove a grade-separated interchange and replace it with a T intersection with a traffic light?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: rawmustard on April 01, 2010, 11:06:08 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 01, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Why would anyone remove a grade-separated interchange and replace it with a T intersection with a traffic light?
Maybe traffic levels have dropped to the point where all that's necessary is an at-grade rather than taking on the expense of replacing and maintaining bridges. There's been a few places in Michigan where this has happened.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on April 01, 2010, 01:01:02 PM
Replacing a trumpet interchange with a signalized intersection?  :banghead:




(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia077/i-077_sb_081_nb_exit_077_04.jpg)

Anyone recall what was displayed on this sign for I-77/81 Exit 77?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 01, 2010, 02:28:40 PM
QuoteReplacing a trumpet interchange with a signalized intersection?

Brian mentioned one possibility.  Another possibility is that the old interchange was sub-standard, bringing it up to standard was cost- or ROW-prohibitive, but a traffic signal could adequately handle traffic volumes.  One item leading credence to this theory is the bridge over the railroad was replaced.

QuoteAnyone recall what was displayed on this sign for I-77/81 Exit 77?

Couldn't tell you myself, but it's likely an off-shoot of when/how I-81 was built through there, effectively an upgrade of the then-existing US 11/52 4-lane highway back in the mid-80s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on April 01, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 01, 2010, 02:28:40 PM
QuoteReplacing a trumpet interchange with a signalized intersection?

Brian mentioned one possibility.  Another possibility is that the old interchange was sub-standard, bringing it up to standard was cost- or ROW-prohibitive, but a traffic signal could adequately handle traffic volumes.  One item leading credence to this theory is the bridge over the railroad was replaced.

I'm thinking that all the bridges had to be replaced, and it's of course a lot cheaper to do one than two.  Then factor in that I-40 probably wasn't there when the trumpet was first constructed.  Finally, the DOT can sell the extra trumpet land for development.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 02, 2010, 08:27:50 AM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 01, 2010, 09:25:16 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 01, 2010, 02:28:40 PM
QuoteReplacing a trumpet interchange with a signalized intersection?


I'm thinking that all the bridges had to be replaced, and it's of course a lot cheaper to do one than two.  Then factor in that I-40 probably wasn't there when the trumpet was first constructed.  Finally, the DOT can sell the extra trumpet land for development.

The original RR bridge is still listed at nationalbridges.com and shows a build date of 1967.  So I believe the trumpet interchange dates to the completion of I-40 in this area, as US 66 didn't use Country Club Rd (used Historic 66 under the RR bridge) prior to I-40.

As for the Exit 77 sign on I-77/81, I do not recall it looking any different from that either.  It is possible the road to the south was in the SR system at one time.  More remote would be a VA 336 shield or the words State Police HQ

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Stephane Dumas on April 05, 2010, 03:02:11 PM
Quote from: AARoads on April 01, 2010, 01:01:02 PM
Replacing a trumpet interchange with a signalized intersection?  :banghead:

I don't know if it could had been worse or better then the signalized intersection, how about replacing a trumpet interchange with a roundabout? :confused:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 23, 2010, 01:33:51 PM
In a fit of self-congratulations...

Yesterday after an 18-hour, 930 mile ride, I have clinched the entire (normal) primary highway system in Virginia that is accessible to the public (VA 165Y is not).  Yesterday's ride included VA 70, VA 352 and the final route to be clinched, US 421.  My definition of clinched is highways I have actually driven.

The first Virginia route I clinched was US 21 in 1987.  So it only took 23 years...

The only 300 series routes I have not clinched to my satisfaction are 302, 303, and 314.  A few pieces of the 300-series are not accessible to the public, notably 315 (state capitol, which I -have- driven) and some of the prison routes.

One note from yesterday's ride - VA 370 has two distinct, separate segments (SR 871 and also SR 646) and BOTH are posted with shields.

Of course this is all temporary...until the Hillsville Bypass is opened or some other project comes along...

Mapmikey
Co-curator Virginia Hwys Project
www.vahighways.com



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 29, 2010, 11:56:20 PM
Noticed something interesting when for some strange reason I checked my rearview mirror exiting the eastbound (formerly 2-way) tube of the HRBT:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=128+River+Walk+Ct,+Hampton,+Virginia+23669&ll=36.984279,-76.30319&spn=0,0.026157&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=36.984358,-76.303262&panoid=93-JIRniLNr-BBe1ADWsqQ&cbp=12,326.22,,0,-13.97
Very old "Do Not Change Lanes In Tunnel" sign. I would assume that it dates to the 70s at the latest--when the HRBT was twin spanned.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 30, 2010, 10:47:38 AM
The WB tunnel exit has the same thing, in better shape:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=128+River+Walk+Ct,+Hampton,+Virginia+23669&t=h&layer=c&cbll=37.001145,-76.317974&panoid=PINFWHM9tYLL89XoTA0FRw&cbp=12,177.02,,0,5&ll=37.001233,-76.318052&spn=0,0.015235&z=16

I'm pretty sure the HRBT is set up to run 2-way traffic on either side if they needed to. 

Incidentally, the EB direction is the newer structure.  It has the older railings now because the WB bridge (1957) used to have no shoulders and some were added in the 90s.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 01, 2010, 11:11:55 PM
Quick question - how much of the 4di Parkway Routes (3000, 7100, etc) are actually signed as 3000 or 7100 and such?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 01, 2010, 11:59:28 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on May 01, 2010, 11:11:55 PM
Quick question - how much of the 4di Parkway Routes (3000, 7100, etc) are actually signed as 3000 or 7100 and such?

There's nothing really special about those routes, they're normal secondary routes built to high or sometimes freeway standards (often with substantial county funding). The Prince William Parkway (SR 3000), Fairfax County Parkway (SR 7100), Franconia-Springfield Parkway (SR 7900), and Centreport Parkway (Stafford County SR 8900, 2-lane for entire route) are all fully posted. My hunch is the numbers were chosen to be more recognizable; these routes aren't primary because they mainly serve one county's interests.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 10, 2010, 03:54:24 PM
According to TOLLROADSnews the I-495/Capital Beltway HOT lanes could eventually be extended to the Potomac.  http://tollroadsnews.com/node/4743 (http://tollroadsnews.com/node/4743)  Honestly I'm not sure how long it would take before money is financed for this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 11, 2010, 07:34:43 AM
Here's the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/08/AR2010050803030.html) article on the subject.

Meanwhile, BRAC will be causing us further problems (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/08/AR2010050803330_3.html?sid=ST2010050900156) in Northern Virginia...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2010, 06:33:37 PM
....and where is all that traffic going to go once it reaches the Potomac? Unless they are planning on eventually widening the American Legion Bridge, that will be just a tad of a bottleneck.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 28, 2010, 10:19:39 AM
(also posted on MTR)

The Opal interchange (where US 17 splits off from US 15/29 south of Warrenton) was advertised for bids (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/culpeper/2010/opal_interchange_project_advertised47269.asp) last week on Wednesday.  Bids will close on 8/25.  I got a PDF with the project layout in an E-mail from VDOT.  Of note:  this project only addresses southbound travel, with a loop ramp for the SB US 17 "through movement", and a ramp from NB 15/29 to SB 17.  Northbound 17 travel, plus travel to the local businesses on the east side of 15/29, will continue to use the existing intersection.

The "interchange" will be centered about halfway between US 17/SR 687 and SR 844, with the roadway rejoining existing US 17 about halfway between SR 844 and SR 663.  Frontage roads will be built on both sides of 15/29 between the new interchange and SR 844.  It appears that SR 844 will dead-end and be cul-de-sac'd on either side of the new roadway.  It also appears that a southbound auxiliary lane will be built between the existing intersection and the new interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Stephane Dumas on July 05, 2010, 06:15:48 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 10, 2010, 03:54:24 PM
According to TOLLROADSnews the I-495/Capital Beltway HOT lanes could eventually be extended to the Potomac.  http://tollroadsnews.com/node/4743 (http://tollroadsnews.com/node/4743)  Honestly I'm not sure how long it would take before money is financed for this.

I guess they could extend it even further north if they reach an agreement with MD DOT to link the HOT lanes with a proposed ETL (Express toll lanes) with I-270 http://www.i270multimodalstudy.com/highway-improvements/alternatives

Btw, there some pics of the demoliton of the southbound VA-123 bridge http://www.virginiahotlanes.com/beltway/gallery/view.php?id=11

I wonder does the HOT lanes will have a BGS or a BPS (Big purple sign) like the Westpark tollway in Houston have?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 05, 2010, 07:24:58 PM
QuoteI guess they could extend it even further north if they reach an agreement with MD DOT to link the HOT lanes with a proposed ETL (Express toll lanes) with I-270

They'd have to get across the American Legion Bridge first, which won't be possible given the existing configuration.

QuoteI wonder does the HOT lanes will have a BGS or a BPS (Big purple sign) like the Westpark tollway in Houston have?

Neither, since they won't be completed for another 3 years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 20, 2010, 12:21:50 PM
A neat little YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRLeqDojTrk) showing VDOT's demolition and removal last month of the old Outer Loop (I-495/DC Beltway) bridge over VA 123....part of the I-495 HOT lane project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 14, 2010, 07:15:26 PM
While heading home from today's excursion (which got me as far as Warm Springs), I noticed two things.

First, a few of VDOT's older style guide signs, where the route shields are black-bordered and use Series D numerals on the secondary route shields (instead of the present-day Series C) still exist along northbound I-81 between Port Jackson and Strasburg, including this example (https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia081/i-081_nb_exit_279_01.jpg) of Alex's.

Second, Warren County seems to have a fetish for I-66 reassurance shields using Series C numerals instead of Series D...at least eastbound.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2010, 07:24:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2010, 07:15:26 PM

Second, Warren County seems to have a fetish for I-66 reassurance shields using Series C numerals instead of Series D...at least eastbound.


any of them with the state name, or all neutered with the huge numbers?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 15, 2010, 07:50:26 AM
Every mainline shield I've seen or recall seeing west of the Beltway is neutered.  Gotta go to the side roads to find state name trailblazers.  There might be a few lingering inside the Beltway, but I'm not 100% on that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2010, 01:02:59 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 15, 2010, 07:50:26 AM
Every mainline shield I've seen or recall seeing west of the Beltway is neutered.  Gotta go to the side roads to find state name trailblazers.  There might be a few lingering inside the Beltway, but I'm not 100% on that.


not on the mainline as far as I remember - but yes, plenty on the side streets.  '57 spec, too, for the most part, as VA's use of the '70 spec appears to have been brief before they went to neutered, and the side-street trailblazers were planted, and forgotten, before that transitional period.

there are occasional new state-named shields that pop up in VA (some for I-95 just north of Richmond come to mind) and those are '70 spec.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 15, 2010, 11:57:52 PM
There were a handful of state-named shields westbound inside the beltway last fall when I drove it.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_5%2FImages%2F631.jpg&hash=1a30cf47070d0854a656144004e71f10f2cbe20c)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_5%2FImages%2F644.jpg&hash=9c6a3fd9c95e6792b8cc7b054f32c8c37b823b8d)

And at least one well outside the beltway...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_5%2FImages%2F710.jpg&hash=0459696d1cfd04b6ab6c5f885eefdd83df617a90)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 16, 2010, 10:51:00 AM
VDOT's adding another FYA, this time near Roanoke (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/salem/2010/flashing_yellow_arrow_comes48017.asp).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: njroadhorse on August 16, 2010, 01:23:57 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 16, 2010, 10:51:00 AM
VDOT's adding another FYA, this time near Roanoke (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/salem/2010/flashing_yellow_arrow_comes48017.asp).


Sweet! I can actually go check this one out! :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 12, 2010, 08:54:24 PM
VDOT has awarded the contract for a new interchange on  I-295 (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2010/transportation_commissioner_approves_a48347.asp) in Enon at SR 618/Meadowville Rd.  Personally I don't believe the interchange is needed right now as I believe the VA 10 interchange currently handles the traffic pretty well but the business park they are building off Meadowville Rd made this happen. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 12, 2010, 09:28:29 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 12, 2010, 08:54:24 PM
VDOT has awarded the contract for a new interchange on  I-295 (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2010/transportation_commissioner_approves_a48347.asp) in Enon at SR 618/Meadowville Rd.  Personally I don't believe the interchange is needed right now as I believe the VA 10 interchange currently handles the traffic pretty well but the business park they are building off Meadowville Rd made this happen. 

It's not needed at all; it's too close to the existing VA 10 interchange, IMO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 07, 2010, 10:17:27 AM
Both the Post's Dr. Gridlock (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dr-gridlock/2010/12/vdot_oks_11_billion_in_spendin.html%5B/url) and WTOP (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=2191269) are reporting that VDOT is set to advertise about $1.1 billion in road projects for the first half of Fiscal Year 2011.  This is the first large-scale use of the over-$1B supposedly found in the recent VDOT audit.

WTOP goes into a little more detail, noting that the vast bulk of the money will be on repaving and not on new construction or expanded capacity.

One of the projects in this area...repaving I-66 between the Beltway and US 50/Fair Oaks...has been needed for years.

The Governor's office also has a press release (http://www.governor.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=496) on the topic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VaF on December 16, 2010, 01:12:40 PM
I saw a powerpoint from VDOT saying they are going to use asphalt overlay instead of concrete. Which is unfortunate b/c concrete lasts twice as long. But I guess it's because it's cheaper and easier to maintain. Either way... it will be nice to finally drive on smooth road on that stretch of I-66.

I do take issue with the Governor's plan to borrow heavily in order to pay for construction projects. I think the better way to do it is a modest increase in the state gas tax and continuing to ensure VDOT properly untilizes all or most of the funds it has available to it. I don't see how running up the state's credit card is a better way to fund projects. Because it will probably lead to higher taxes down the road anyway when the bill comes due.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 16, 2010, 01:15:23 PM
Doesn't surprise me.  Could you imagine the traffic nightmare if VDOT tried replacing the concrete through there?  Especially at Nutley St.

The first part of the bonding makes some sense, but the GARVEE bonds don't.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 27, 2011, 10:44:57 PM
This past weekend I came across this recently installed Historic Route 1 and US 1 shield in Brunswick County, VA

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15530177@N05/5483031214/in/photostream/

(Sorry, I've yet to figure out how to post flickr images onto here)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mightyace on February 28, 2011, 02:49:40 AM
^^^

Those signs puzzle me.  If it is still US 1, why is there a Historic Route 1 sign.  And, if it is just "historic," shouldn't it have the brown historic US route sign?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 28, 2011, 06:08:29 AM
We have small circular "Historic Route 1" signs that serve a similar purpose up here in Fairfax County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 28, 2011, 08:16:52 AM
Mightyace,

You are looking at it more on a roadgeek level.  My guess they are trying to promote US 1 for highway tourism - similar to old 66, Lincoln Highway's revival, etc.    Historic Route 1 is most likely the name of the drive kinda like the scenic byways they have in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other states.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 28, 2011, 09:21:01 AM
These must be fairly new...I haven't seen any yet in the Fredericksburg to Richmond section.

There is the possibility this applies to the original VA 1 which existed 1918-1923.  Because it is not 4-laned here, the picture is almost certainly north of SR 712.
VA 1 used US 1's corridor from SR 712 to Richmond and also some sections from Fredericksburg to D.C.

Mapmikey
co-curator Virginia Hwys Page
www.vahighways.com
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: njroadhorse on February 28, 2011, 10:28:40 AM
Idk if it's been mentioned, but if you want a lot of nice cutouts, head down US 11 in Christiansburg.  I found a decent amount of nice ones there a few weekends ago.  A couple US 11 shields, at least one VA 8, a couple I-81s and maybe a US 460 too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 28, 2011, 10:45:38 AM
I was hoping VA 1 was the inspiration, but it is not:

http://chrispeace.com/2010/03/08/bill-to-designate-us-1-as-historic-route-1-passes/

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 29, 2011, 11:06:40 AM
Quote from: VaF on December 16, 2010, 01:12:40 PM
I saw a powerpoint from VDOT saying they are going to use asphalt overlay instead of concrete. Which is unfortunate b/c concrete lasts twice as long. But I guess it's because it's cheaper and easier to maintain. Either way... it will be nice to finally drive on smooth road on that stretch of I-66.

....
The issue that concerns me about the switch from concrete to asphalt is the use of the shoulder as a traffic lane at certain times of day on that road. When they first started doing that back in the 1990s, VDOT made a big deal about how the "shoulder lane" would be a different color from the other lanes and would also have the red "X"/green arrow signals. The different color was considered important in light of prior negative experience on I-95 between the Beltway and Woodbridge, where the shoulder had been used as a lane but was denoted simply by a solid line (instead of dashed) and a bunch of signs. An older man suffered a breakdown during the hours when the shoulder was not to be used as a lane, so he stopped on the shoulder and promptly got pancaked by a tractor-trailer using that "lane" illegally. When the shoulder lane thing began on I-66, there was much fuss made about how the different-colored surface would help call drivers' attention to the special status of that lane. (While lots of people use it illegally, especially between the Beltway and Nutley or vice-versa, the violation rate does seem a lot lower than it was on I-95.)

But either way, the most important thing is that they finally repave that road, however they do it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on May 08, 2011, 02:46:53 PM
I don't think VDOT really cares about the shoulder being a different color to denote shoulder running only being allowed at certain times. On I-264 in Virginia Beach there are a few miles where the shoulder is open during rush hour (in order to maintain 4 general purpose lanes when HOV restrictions are in effect for the left lane) and the shoulder is the same concrete as the rest of the road. Admittedly, however, everyone treats it as a regular lane, even though it is separated from the main travel lanes by a solid line and every 1/4 mile or so is an overhead VMS saying whether it is open or closed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 09, 2011, 06:23:29 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 08, 2011, 02:46:53 PM
I don't think VDOT really cares about the shoulder being a different color to denote shoulder running only being allowed at certain times. On I-264 in Virginia Beach there are a few miles where the shoulder is open during rush hour (in order to maintain 4 general purpose lanes when HOV restrictions are in effect for the left lane) and the shoulder is the same concrete as the rest of the road. Admittedly, however, everyone treats it as a regular lane, even though it is separated from the main travel lanes by a solid line and every 1/4 mile or so is an overhead VMS saying whether it is open or closed.

They may well have changed their tune on that since it was first put in place on I-66. I definitely remember them making a big deal when they opened it about how the shoulder lane was paved with asphalt to create a contrast with the other lanes that are concrete. The red "X"/green arrow signs are probably the more important designators on the whole, although of course there are always going to be schmucks who think they're entitled to ignore the "X."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on May 10, 2011, 10:37:44 PM
Trust me, everyone ignores it here. Though rather than use a red X / green arrow as you'd expect, the signs are just a regular old 3-line VMS with a white panel above that says "SHOULDER". The lane closed X is just on the bottom line of the VMS with "SHOULDER CLOSED" above it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 24, 2011, 10:40:09 AM
VDOT is proposing what will be the first Diverging Diamond Interchange in the state, at the I-64/US 15 interchange (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/i-64_zion_crossroads_interchange.asp) near Zion Crossroads.  Construction is expected in 2012.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 25, 2011, 12:55:21 AM
Not exactly surprised at this, there's been an explosion of development near Zion Crossroads over the past few years. I'm actually surprised this was not proposed earlier. I'm actually a little surprised they proposed a diverging diamond, though; I sort of expected them to propose a SPUI first, THEN suggest a DDI as an alternative.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 25, 2011, 09:53:11 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 24, 2011, 10:40:09 AM
VDOT is proposing what will be the first Diverging Diamond Interchange in the state, at the I-64/US 15 interchange (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/i-64_zion_crossroads_interchange.asp) near Zion Crossroads.  Construction is expected in 2012.

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 25, 2011, 12:55:21 AM
Not exactly surprised at this, there's been an explosion of development near Zion Crossroads over the past few years. I'm actually surprised this was not proposed earlier. I'm actually a little surprised they proposed a diverging diamond, though; I sort of expected them to propose a SPUI first, THEN suggest a DDI as an alternative.

Wow. I went through there nearly two years ago (exited I-64 eastbound to go north on US 15) and there wasn't much there at all. Certainly didn't see the need for any kind of renovations to that interchange when I was there.

SPUI -- wouldn't the name SPRI (single-point rural interchange) be more appropriate for that location?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 25, 2011, 09:58:35 AM
Given that the immediate area is urbanizing, no.

Will:  makes sense that they'd propose the DDI first instead of the SPUI.  SPUI would require replacing/expanding the existing bridges over 64...DDI doesn't.  That's a *HUGE* cost factor for limited additional benefit.  Since there's no space constraints at the interchange, there's no real need for the compactness of a SPUI.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 25, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 25, 2011, 09:53:11 AM
Wow. I went through there nearly two years ago (exited I-64 eastbound to go north on US 15) and there wasn't much there at all. Certainly didn't see the need for any kind of renovations to that interchange when I was there.

It surprised me too; I passed by the area late in 2007 and there wasn't much there yet. Since then, a Walmart Supercenter has opened and given rise to a fairly large shopping center for the middle of nowhere, and several fairly large subdivisions have gone up or are being planned (including one with a golf course). It's actually fairly comparable to Short Pump, which was virtually empty in 2000 but developed explosively once Walmart appeared in 2002 or so.

I'm guessing VDOT is working on the reasonably safe assumption that this growth will continue to the point that an improved interchange will be needed within the next few years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on June 25, 2011, 06:45:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 29, 2011, 11:06:40 AM
The issue that concerns me about the switch from concrete to asphalt is the use of the shoulder as a traffic lane at certain times of day on that road. When they first started doing that back in the 1990s, VDOT made a big deal about how the "shoulder lane" would be a different color from the other lanes and would also have the red "X"/green arrow signals. The different color was considered important in light of prior negative experience on I-95 between the Beltway and Woodbridge, where the shoulder had been used as a lane but was denoted simply by a solid line (instead of dashed) and a bunch of signs. An older man suffered a breakdown during the hours when the shoulder was not to be used as a lane, so he stopped on the shoulder and promptly got pancaked by a tractor-trailer using that "lane" illegally. When the shoulder lane thing began on I-66, there was much fuss made about how the different-colored surface would help call drivers' attention to the special status of that lane. (While lots of people use it illegally, especially between the Beltway and Nutley or vice-versa, the violation rate does seem a lot lower than it was on I-95.)

Recently, I had a long discussion over whether or not the different color pavement on I-66 was considered a "traffic control device".  The conclusion we came to is that, in and of itself, the different color shoulder is not a traffic control device, however everyone acknowledged that the different color pavement is an excellent way to emphasize the traffic control devices that do exist (the arrow/X's, the  solid white line, and the white regulatory signs). 

I do know that VDOT is well aware of the existence of colored asphalts, which could theoretically be used to differentiate from plain black asphalt. :)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 25, 2011, 11:50:34 PM
http://maps.google.com/?ll=37.977492,-78.20961&spn=0.037888,0.077076&t=h&z=14

What's the draw here? Proximity to Charlottesville?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on June 26, 2011, 01:31:04 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 25, 2011, 11:50:34 PM
http://maps.google.com/?ll=37.977492,-78.20961&spn=0.037888,0.077076&t=h&z=14

What's the draw here? Proximity to Charlottesville?

Yes, HB.  C-ville and Albemarle County are both very "Progressive" jurisdictions, with all sorts of grand plans to preserve open space, have smart growth, etc.  This in turn drives up the cost of real estate, and limits the amount of housing that can be constructed at reasonable prices within easy commuting distance of C-ville.  Thus, you see the adjacent counties cashing in by allowing the development that Albemarle County residents do not want.  So you have areas like Zions X-Roads, Lake Monticello, Ruckersville, which are booming with new development.  Ruckersville always seemed to be the preferable place to be, but as more and more gets built on 29 north of Charlottesville, the commute gets worse and worse.  At the very least, its an annoying drive, with a lot of signals, whereas Zions X-Roads is a straight shot out on I-64.  Additionally, from Zions X-Roads, you have the ability to commute to jobs in the western fringes of Richmond, while living out in the country. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 26, 2011, 10:17:36 PM
The catch being that the cost of the commute winds up being much higher, not just in time, but in monetary cost.

Nevermind that, if they continue to allow development, it won't remain "out in the country" for long.  Heck, it wasn't all that long ago that eastern Loudoun County was "out in the country"...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on July 06, 2011, 11:58:28 AM
http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-virginia-secondary-roads-wire-20110706,0,6312192.story

Thoughts? This pops up every once and a while but nothing is usually done.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bryant5493 on July 10, 2011, 11:08:36 PM
Quick question: Is the independent city of Chesapeake still referred to as being in Norfolk County, or what? The reason that I ask is because I heard someone refer to it as such, recently.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on July 10, 2011, 11:35:44 PM
No, it's just that - independent.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 11, 2011, 06:56:50 AM
Hasn't since 1963.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bryant5493 on July 11, 2011, 07:49:57 AM
Thank y'all -- that's what I thought.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2011, 10:43:38 AM
I drove out to Fairfax on Wednesday and I discovered that the left lane of the Inner Loop in Springfield has already been restriped in advance of the HOT project and the new ramps from Shirley Highway* opening. The first picture is as you go up the hill after passing under I-395 prior to the point where the existing ramps join on the right (they're on the other side of that wall). The new express lane ramps will join the road at this point. (It's initially what I guess you could call a "double double white line" where the two middle lines later come together and vanish, leaving a single double white line....if all that makes any sense! The lines come together roughly opposite that SUV that's in my lane some distance ahead.)

The second picture is as you come off the overpass above Backlick Road. The new striping shown in the second picture continues up to just before the overpass above Heming Avenue at the point where the lanes shift left and are marked with solid lines. At present, the lane to my left here continues as the left lane of the Beltway; eventually it will become an HOT lane (I don't know whether it will split into two HOT lanes or whether the road will be configured some other way).

When I initially saw this I was rather taken aback because the HOT lanes aren't supposed to open until sometime late next year. I suppose perhaps it's something to do with the new Beltway-to-Shirley Highway ramps—maybe they'll open prior to the HOT lanes. (The big loop-around ramp connecting traffic going to and from the south doesn't look anywhere near ready, though, as can be seen in the third picture below, which of course was taken prior to the other two.)

Incidentally, on Wednesday there was almost nobody in the left lane through there. When I went through again yesterday afternoon more people were using it. I wonder if the striping might cause some people to think that lane is going to end or some such.

The pictures are all screen captures from a video taken on my iPhone when it was clipped to the passenger-side sun visor.

*I sometimes use the name "Shirley Highway" because it sounds less awkward to me than "I-95/I-395."



(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fa299bfc5.jpg&hash=b5264d93bf1585bf32cbf4a9c88bce89abb4b7c2)



(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F63b5cdc4.jpg&hash=70e33bdd373de1e5fa821e93f8f5313892803969)



(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F657e4a34.jpg&hash=889f7a2de451f3278c11975f5116650479d73181)


Incidentally, that last picture shows pretty clearly why the southbound I-95 flyover ramp had to be elevated so much higher than than the northbound flyover in order to provide clearance for the express lane ramp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 05, 2011, 11:19:21 AM
Though your photos don't show it, the overhead gantries for the HO/T lanes on the Inner Loop were installed about a month or so ago.  They'd be located just before the location of your first photo.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2011, 12:45:20 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 05, 2011, 11:19:21 AM
Though your photos don't show it, the overhead gantries for the HO/T lanes on the Inner Loop were installed about a month or so ago.  They'd be located just before the location of your first photo.


I can upload a shot of those later today if anyone likes, as they appear in the video as well. There are similar gantries on the Outer Loop coming from Fairfax as you approach the new express lane ramps, but I don't have any pictures of those.

BTW, I've been watching the new signage on the Beltway as it goes up. The signs on the Inner Loop at I-66 are much improved and make the HOV info clearer, although I think they neglected to post "No Trucks" in any prominent fashion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on August 05, 2011, 12:59:37 PM
I wonder if the pavement on that portion of the Beltway is the final, permanent layer of pavement? If so, there might be an explanation for the striping. 

The type of pavement marking material used by VDOT on all interstates (and many other roadways) is called "B-6 Tape" (Type B, Class VI Tape, or "Wet Night Reflective Tape", according to VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications).  This stuff is the most reflective material out there (or so says 3M), and to install it, the construction workers will press it into the pavement just after it is poured while it is still soft.  This is why, when you see a re-paved interstate in Virginia, the final pavement markings are always there with the top layer (and you don't have "unmarked pavement ahead" for weeks). 

If they just repaved that section of the Beltway, it would make sense that they put the final, permanent markings in now rather than trying to retrofit B-6 tape into existing pavement (which is difficult if not near impossible) later in.  Though I wonder why they re-paved it now?  Typically, in most states on major projects, they will pave up to the second-to-last layer as each phase is completed, and then when the entire project is completed, they'll go back and pave the entire thing with the final layer, including the final markings. I guess maybe the HOT lanes are complicated by the fact that some of the structures (the induction loops and the flex tube plastic pole "barrier") will need to go on top of the final layer of pavement, so they need to get that pavement down as soon as they can? 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2011, 02:18:22 PM
The part after Backlick absolutely hasn't been repaved. Quite frankly I wasn't paying attention to that aspect when I was going up the hill. I'm meeting someone this afternoon who owes me some money and I'll be in that general direction, so if I have the chance I'll make another pass. But getting the money is way more important!!!

I'm going to save your explanation to send to my father, as he always grumbles about how when Virginia shifts the lanes, the old lines leave behind ruts that cause a sensation similar to torque steer. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2011, 03:58:27 PM
OK, this is why you never say absolutely: it's now been repaved from the gantry froggie mentioned as far as the overpass at Heming. They did it last night–the guy who owed me the check was in Fredericksburg and got stuck in the traffic. There is one lane not yet repaved. I swung through on the way out earlier. MUCH better surface than the minefield that was there before.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on August 07, 2011, 11:22:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 05, 2011, 02:18:22 PM
I'm going to save your explanation to send to my father, as he always grumbles about how when Virginia shifts the lanes, the old lines leave behind ruts that cause a sensation similar to torque steer. 

Yes, they actually have to grind up the tape and scrape it out...which leaves behind little grooves. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 08, 2011, 12:33:30 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 07, 2011, 11:22:09 PM
Yes, they actually have to grind up the tape and scrape it out...which leaves behind little grooves. 

When painted lines are reconfigured, why do they grind them up? Why not cover them with black paint?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on August 08, 2011, 09:50:32 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 08, 2011, 12:33:30 AM
When painted lines are reconfigured, why do they grind them up? Why not cover them with black paint?

HB, the lines are not painted.  They are formed from inlaid pre-formed plastic tape.  You cannot remove the stuff.  You cannot paint over it (according to the manufacturer's specs).  It is designed to stay down and in place for the entire life of the pavement.  On 99% of the interstate miles, this is fine.  On the 1% where the lane configuration changes, they have to grind it up to get it out. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 08, 2011, 10:23:14 AM
The tape can be very noticeable if you're driving a front-wheel drive vehicle and you stop facing up a hill at a red light in the rain. The wheel hop can be pretty bad if you don't leave yourself a little room to get moving before you hit the line.


Here's a video capture of the gantries froggie mentioned earlier. This one is on the Inner Loop and you can see the corresponding one on the Outer Loop up above. Interesting-looking assembly because they look a little bit like open-road tolling gantries, but I was under the impression that the HOT facility was not to begin until just west of the Robinson Terminal a bit further up the road from here, so perhaps these are for signs. But having two gantries so close together strongly suggests they're for something other than signage.

BTW, the resurfaced part of the road, as of Friday afternoon at least, began just past the end of that jersey wall on the left where the two lanes coming from the new ramp join the road.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F37b66272.jpg&hash=d52210382a041e2f7743c490f4318c6ed2f99660)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on August 08, 2011, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 08, 2011, 10:23:14 AM
The tape can be very noticeable if you're driving a front-wheel drive vehicle and you stop facing up a hill at a red light in the rain. The wheel hop can be pretty bad if you don't leave yourself a little room to get moving before you hit the line.

Thats actually different material...thermoplastic. 

Paint is...paint. 

Thermoplastic is definitely raised (you can feel it as you drive over it). 

Tape is not raised, and it looks like it has a "waffle pattern" in it.  Some engineers call it waffle tape. 

All pavement markings on Virginia Interstates should be "Wet night reflective tape" (Type B, Class VI tape). 
All stop bars are generally thermoplastic (tape is expensive and would not be cost effective to use for such a wide non-longitudinal marking such as a stop bar). 

Here are VDOT's Road and Bridge Specifications: http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/const/2007SpecBook.pdf
Pavement Marking Material is discussed in the sections that begin on Page 261 and Page 698.  The table of marking material types is on Page 700. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: J N Winkler on August 08, 2011, 01:39:07 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 08, 2011, 12:33:30 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 07, 2011, 11:22:09 PMYes, they actually have to grind up the tape and scrape it out...which leaves behind little grooves.

When painted lines are reconfigured, why do they grind them up? Why not cover them with black paint?

Aside from the reasons Mike mentioned, the MUTCD does not allow covering of inapplicable pavement markings with black paint.  Some other countries (like Britain) do, and you can see the reason why the MUTCD insists on total removal when the black paint wears off and you can see the white underneath.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 09, 2011, 10:17:15 AM
The HOT project has this overhead view of the Beltway through Tysons posted on their online photo gallery (link to the gallery is below the photo). The original Tysons Corner Center is at the bottom left (the part where Woodies used to be). The first overpass north of there, the one rising out of the Beltway, will be an exit ramp connecting the bridge between Tysons I and II to the HOT lanes. The concrete overpass is the Dulles Metrorail trackway.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F70ef64b0.jpg&hash=3f8677bb4af79d03a677de7ac9aec74ef4397d40)


http://www.vahotlanes.com/beltway/gallery/view.php?id=24
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on August 09, 2011, 12:20:01 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 08, 2011, 01:39:07 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 08, 2011, 12:33:30 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on August 07, 2011, 11:22:09 PMYes, they actually have to grind up the tape and scrape it out...which leaves behind little grooves.

When painted lines are reconfigured, why do they grind them up? Why not cover them with black paint?

Aside from the reasons Mike mentioned, the MUTCD does not allow covering of inapplicable pavement markings with black paint.  Some other countries (like Britain) do, and you can see the reason why the MUTCD insists on total removal when the black paint wears off and you can see the white underneath.

And it is especially discouraged to use black paint to wipe out markings on concrete pavement.  I know that was shown in one of the FHWA MUTCD training presentations as a "big no-no".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on August 12, 2011, 09:47:20 PM
If you have a temporary lane shift in place for a day (emergency repairs, let's say), you would use black masking tape over the existing lines and then apply temporary stripes. The life of the special pavement tape is on the order of weeks, not months, so it's not really intended for long-term applications. If you need to restripe anyway at the end of the project, grind em up now.
Title: New express lane ramp signs (Re: Virginia)
Post by: 1995hoo on September 02, 2011, 05:13:29 PM
The first of the signs for the new ramps connecting the Beltway to the Shirley Highway express lanes is in place, though covered with plastic. It went up sometime since Wednesday morning, as we used the Beltway there en route to Woodbridge just before noon on Wednesday and neither the gantry nor the sign had been hoisted yet. I spotted it this morning from the overpass on the on-ramp from Van Dorn and turned on the video camera on my mobile phone to capture an image.

Don't know how the whole sign will look, but this looks like a major improvement over most of the signage for that HOV facility that's currently in place simply because of the addition of the I-95 shield. I assume the variable-message bottom portion will be used to advise whether the express lanes are pointed north or south.

BTW, when I went through there today I was headed out to the Fair Oaks area for a business meeting and I also went through the I-66 interchange. The new signs there are a huge improvement over the old ones because they reflect some level of consistent thought instead of being a mishmash of what was thrown up over the years. The signs for the portion inside the Beltway, in particular, are much clearer than the old signs in terms of advertising the HOV restriction (though I notice they now omit the "No Trucks" banner). I haven't taken any pictures there because driving solo it's simply too dangerous and difficult to work the mobile phone camera and the manual transmission in the traffic near that interchange.

I also see on WTOP's website that Exit 49C, the annoying left-hand ramp from the Inner Loop to westbound I-66, is to close sometime near the end of this month. Good riddance! (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=1015&sid=2525879) I will be very amused to listen to the howls of rage from all the people who use that ramp and who have no idea about its impending demise. Exit 49A, the loop-around ramp on the right side, is being widened to two lanes to accommodate the increased traffic, though currently only one lane is open.

Here's the picture of the new HOV sign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F05983a36.jpg&hash=18291e74a5237feae1eb349d7fd4c759269794ca)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on September 05, 2011, 09:57:45 PM
Heh, I actually wasn't expecting those signs to have an I-95 shield in them.  It is a nice change, and one that makes sense because you can access every interchange on I-95 that you would access after taking the left exit (not 644, because that is accessed directly from the Beltway).  The northbound reversible lanes, I'm torn on whether or not an I-395 shield should be used, as there are very few I-395 exits you can actually reach from those lanes....almost seems easier just to sign "Express to Pentagon/Washington" or something like that. 

I'll be glad to see that left exit to I-66 go too.  What surprises me is the sheer number of people that complain about people entering at US 50 and cutting across all lanes to go onto I-66.  Not because many people feel the need to cut across that many lanes (this is DC, land of rude drivers, afterall), but because there are a lot of people using the Beltway just to go one exit.  Given the horrible traffic, if you are on US 50, it would likely be faster most of the time to get onto I-66 at Nutley or 123. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 06, 2011, 07:47:21 AM
QuoteThe northbound reversible lanes, I'm torn on whether or not an I-395 shield should be used, as there are very few I-395 exits you can actually reach from those lanes....almost seems easier just to sign "Express to Pentagon/Washington" or something like that.

For now.  But there's the planned HOV ramp at Mark Center.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 06, 2011, 09:28:52 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on September 05, 2011, 09:57:45 PM
Heh, I actually wasn't expecting those signs to have an I-95 shield in them.  It is a nice change, and one that makes sense because you can access every interchange on I-95 that you would access after taking the left exit (not 644, because that is accessed directly from the Beltway).  The northbound reversible lanes, I'm torn on whether or not an I-395 shield should be used, as there are very few I-395 exits you can actually reach from those lanes....almost seems easier just to sign "Express to Pentagon/Washington" or something like that.  

Actually, from looking at the construction, I believe you will indeed be able to access 644 from that HOV ramp, though in the westbound direction only, as there is currently an exit from the southbound HOV to westbound 644 (with no turn permitted off 644 until you've passed under the Amherst Avenue overpass). The HOV ramp connecting the south-of-the-Beltway part of the reversible facility to the Beltway will exit on the right (heading north) and enter on the left (heading south) to the north of the existing 644 entrance/exit, so that sort of access will be feasible. It raises the question of whether the "Bob's" slug line in Springfield might someday evolve to serve Tysons Corner as well as the existing destinations at the Pentagon and downtown.

Of course, I don't really know WHY you'd want to use the HOV ramp to make this maneuver unless there were a crash or something.

I definitely DO foresee people using the HOV ramp in order to get from the Beltway to the Franconia-Springfield Parkway–or vice versa–without having to loop around on surface streets through Springfield.


Edited to add: BTW, I suppose there might be an I-395 shield on that sign in the area covered up by the plastic between the white banner on top (which I'm guessing says "Restricted Lanes") and the I-95 shield visible in the picture. There might not be one. Guess we'll find out when the ramp opens, which is still some ways off based on how it looked when I passed through there Saturday afternoon.


QuoteI'll be glad to see that left exit to I-66 go too.  What surprises me is the sheer number of people that complain about people entering at US 50 and cutting across all lanes to go onto I-66.  Not because many people feel the need to cut across that many lanes (this is DC, land of rude drivers, afterall), but because there are a lot of people using the Beltway just to go one exit.  Given the horrible traffic, if you are on US 50, it would likely be faster most of the time to get onto I-66 at Nutley or 123.  

I saw your comment on WTOP and didn't respond because I was reading it on my phone. I think for a lot of people the option you cite has never occurred to them or they just assume it would take too long. People can be funny about these things. When I was in college I worked downtown two summers and rode in with my father. During the first of those summers, I-66 was HOV-3, and during the second it was HOV-2. I suggested we use I-66 and he said the Beltway was too backed up. They live fairly close to Woodson High School in Fairfax and I suggested we go west to Pickett Road, then up to Nutley Street to enter I-66 there. My father thought it was crazy talk because it involved going "the wrong way" for about a mile and a half (west on 236 to Pickett, i.e., away from downtown), but when he gave in and we tried it, we made it downtown in half the time it took us when we used Columbia Pike or I-395. The faster travel when we were MOVING on the HOV portion made up for the slower trip through the lights and the short detour to the west.

I think a lot of people have the same mindset as my father did: It's "out of the way," or it has "too many lights," or they just don't know that there are ways available other than taking the highway. (You know, it's funny, that's the OPPOSITE of the mindset I saw among classmates at Duke who lived along University Drive down near South Square Mall. They ALWAYS took NC-751 and they complained when it was closed after Hurricane Fran and they "had to take 15-501.") Sometimes the seemingly longer way 'round is faster due to fewer lights, or less traffic, or other factors–for example, if you're at Fair Oaks Mall and you want to get to Alexandria, it can be faster to take Shirley Gate to Braddock to the Beltway than it is to take I-66 or VA-236 (236 can be slow due to a lot more lights and passing through the heart of Fairfax City with a 25-mph speed limit).

I've always felt that if you live in the DC area, especially Northern Virginia, it behooves you to know multiple ways to get everywhere, but a lot of people don't. I suppose that should be fine with me because it leaves my alternate routes a bit clearer.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 07, 2011, 10:16:46 AM
Congratulations, fellow Fairfaxer.  You got mentioned by Dr. Gridlock (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/post/virginia-hot-lanes-project-brings-beltway-changes/2011/09/07/gIQANFXG9J_blog.html) this morning about the Inner Loop-to-66 West ramp closure.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 07, 2011, 09:30:56 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 07, 2011, 10:16:46 AM
Congratulations, fellow Fairfaxer.  You got mentioned by Dr. Gridlock (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/post/virginia-hot-lanes-project-brings-beltway-changes/2011/09/07/gIQANFXG9J_blog.html) this morning about the Inner Loop-to-66 West ramp closure.


Hey, thanks for the link. Power just came back on at 21:17 after being out since 10:30 or so, so I hadn't seen this earlier today.
Title: Old "HOV" sign (Re: Virginia)
Post by: 1995hoo on September 08, 2011, 12:21:46 PM
I found this old photo of northbound Shirley Highway (then I-95, now I-395) between Edsall Road and the Turkeycock ramp. I wonder why they used the term "Pool Cars" instead of "Carpools." The term "HOV" didn't appear in Northern Virginia until shortly before I-66 opened inside the Beltway in December 1982.

The HOV signs on that road all used to be the white-on-black color scheme shown here. I seem to recall the signs changing to green sometime in the late 1980s. The old scheme reminds me of how the signs on Route 401 through Toronto use different colors for the collector lanes and the express lanes.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2Ff7c13517.jpg&hash=1858acfd55cb3e00e5dad6034f1d3818905ed05f)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on September 08, 2011, 01:02:06 PM
Wow, neat!!  I especially like that divider line.

I think the term HOV was just beginning to be used around the time I-66 opened.  That is why there were so many educational signs explaining that HOV-2 = High Occupancy Vehicle - 2 or more persons when the term first started to come into widespread use. 

Now, its been so ingrained into everyone's head what HOV means, and the term has been almost universally applied across the country, there really isn't as much of a need for the educational signs.  They are still posted in most locations as a reminder though.

As with anything, my advice is, "if you don't know what HOV means, you probably would be safe by not using those lanes."  But I still pity the poor soul from far away that doesn't realize that all of I-66 is HOV-only during rush hour, and is forced off onto the Beltway after obediently following the signs, and then has no idea how to get the rest of the way into DC. 
Title: Re: Old "HOV" sign (Re: Virginia)
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 08, 2011, 01:08:30 PM
that's an interesting sign for two reasons.

1) 11pm to 11am is an odd set of hours to enforce.  I can see this covering the morning rush, but what about, say, 11pm to 5-6am?  why have a carpool lane then?

2) four-occupant vehicles?  gosh, who has three friends in the same car at the same time?  hmm, probably the same teens joyriding around between 11pm and 5-6am...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 08, 2011, 01:27:33 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 08, 2011, 01:08:30 PM
that's an interesting sign for two reasons.

1) 11pm to 11am is an odd set of hours to enforce.  I can see this covering the morning rush, but what about, say, 11pm to 5-6am?  why have a carpool lane then?

2) four-occupant vehicles?  gosh, who has three friends in the same car at the same time?  hmm, probably the same teens joyriding around between 11pm and 5-6am...

As to point #1, the HOV carriageway on that road is reversible. The road is a triple-carriageway setup. This picture is on the inbound side (heading towards DC) where the peak traffic occurs in the morning. When this picture was taken, they'd close all the entrances at around 11 AM, starting in the south and working north to the Pentagon. Then they'd turn around and open the southbound entrances, starting at the Pentagon and working south to Springfield (which is where the HOV facility ended until the early 1990s). They'd reverse it again at night to be ready for the morning traffic. The general operation is still the same in this respect, although the hours have changed. I've often left Washington Capitals games and hit I-395 at 10:00 PM and the HOV facility is already closed to reverse the direction, but the hours have been tweaked since last season ended.

Also, nowadays the HOV restriction doesn't apply at all times like it did back then. Today, if you enter at the ramp to which that sign shown above applies, the HOV hours are 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM, and at all other times when the lanes are heading inbound all traffic can use the facility. (There is one area at the southern end where trucks are prohibited because they have to go through a weigh station reached from the outer carriageways). The southbound restriction applies from 3:30 PM to 6:00 PM. The lanes are closed to all traffic in both directions at around noon and midnight to reverse the direction.

As to question #2 about HOV-4, originally when I-66 inside the Beltway opened it was also HOV-4. I-66 changed to HOV-3 within a year because nobody used it. I-395 remained HOV-4 until sometime in the 1990s and I-66 became HOV-2 around 1995. The HOV-4 actually didn't pose a huge problem because Shirley Highway has long been the site of very successful "slug lines," or what Caltrans calls "casual carpooling," where at various commuter car parks and other locations people wanting rides to the Pentagon or DC queue up and people wanting passengers so they can use the HOV lanes pull up and call out their destinations. Riders with the same destination get in and away they go. It works very well in large part BECAUSE of the HOV-3 (and earlier HOV-4) restriction–many slugs say the presence of TWO strangers makes them more comfortable than if it were HOV-2 and they were going solo with one stranger. Slugging has never taken off on the HOV-2 roads in the DC area and I'm sure this reason is part of it.

I recall some of the slugging community protesting the relaxed HOV-3 restriction when it was changed; some of them even printed up bumper stickers saying "Restore HOV-4."



Regarding mtantillo's point about the term "HOV" being ubiquitous nowadays, it definitely is, but if there's anywhere that probably ought to have some explanatory signs, the DC area may be it simply because of the number of foreign tourists we get who probably don't know that term. New York would be another except I don't believe they have HOV lanes between Kennedy Airport and the city.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 08, 2011, 02:07:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 08, 2011, 01:27:33 PMmany slugs say the presence of TWO strangers makes them more comfortable than if it were HOV-2 and they were going solo with one stranger.

this reminds me of the joke about Your Favorite Ethnic Person being stopped by security, attempting to board the plane with a bomb.  "why, it makes me feel safer.  what's the probability of there being two bombs on the same flight???"
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 08, 2011, 03:23:17 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 08, 2011, 02:07:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 08, 2011, 01:27:33 PMmany slugs say the presence of TWO strangers makes them more comfortable than if it were HOV-2 and they were going solo with one stranger.

this reminds me of the joke about Your Favorite Ethnic Person being stopped by security, attempting to board the plane with a bomb.  "why, it makes me feel safer.  what's the probability of there being two bombs on the same flight???"

Maybe, but on the other hand, I understand why women, in particular, would be wary of getting in a car alone with a strange man.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on September 08, 2011, 07:08:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 08, 2011, 01:27:33 PM
Regarding mtantillo's point about the term "HOV" being ubiquitous nowadays, it definitely is, but if there's anywhere that probably ought to have some explanatory signs, the DC area may be it simply because of the number of foreign tourists we get who probably don't know that term. New York would be another except I don't believe they have HOV lanes between Kennedy Airport and the city.

The only bona-fide highway HOV lanes in New York State are on the LIE from the Nassau/Queens line out to Route 112 in Coram (about 40 miles long).  They are buffer separated, HOV-2 both directions/both rush hours, open to all at other times.  There is a bus lane in each direction of the Staten Island Expressway between Todt Hill Road and the Verrazano that is open to HOV-2 only during rush hour in the peak direction. 

The only HOV lane a rider from JFK to Manhattan would encounter are the temporary zipper lanes on the LIE (from the BQE to the Midtown Tunnel) or the BQE (from 92nd Street to the Battery Tunnel), which are HOV-3 / Must Have E-ZPass. 

I like VDOT's educational signs, and I would expect to see them stay, where it is convenient to post them, but I think the need to post them at EVERY entrance to a road with an HOV lane is overkill at this point (especially since if you are first encountering an HOV lane after entering from a local road, you likely live here). 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 16, 2011, 12:15:52 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 02, 2011, 05:13:29 PM
....

I also see on WTOP's website that Exit 49C, the annoying left-hand ramp from the Inner Loop to westbound I-66, is to close sometime near the end of this month. Good riddance! (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=1015&sid=2525879) I will be very amused to listen to the howls of rage from all the people who use that ramp and who have no idea about its impending demise. Exit 49A, the loop-around ramp on the right side, is being widened to two lanes to accommodate the increased traffic, though currently only one lane is open.

....

Dr. Gridlock reports today in his blog (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/post/the-weekend-and-beyond/2011/09/15/gIQAZIFKXK_blog.html) that the above-referenced closing of the left-hand exit is scheduled for next Saturday, September 24:

QuoteBeltway exit to close

The Capital Beltway inner loop's left lane exit (49C) to westbound Interstate 66 in Virginia is scheduled to close permanently on Sept. 24 as construction continues on the high-occupancy toll lanes project.

The Virginia Department of Transportation has placed signs to warn drivers about this, but watch for some additional traffic congestion at the I-66 interchange immediately after the closing.

All inner loop drivers heading to westbound I-66 will then use the right-side ramp, exit 49A, which is being widened to accommodate the extra traffic.

As with most changes in traffic patterns, it will take drivers at least a few weeks to get used to the alteration, despite the use of highway signs as reminders. Drivers who forget about the closing won't have time or space to move across the inner loop to reach the right-side exit.

Sounds like next weekend will be a very good time to avoid the Inner Loop through there.


EDITED: He just revised it to say that VDOT may postpone it a little longer because "the contractor needs more time to prepare," but it's still scheduled for "around the end of September." I hope that means "October 1," as that date falls on a Saturday this year. I tend to think making a change of this magnitude might best be implemented on a weekend to start. It's going to cause problems during the week either way, of course.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 26, 2011, 12:46:37 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 02, 2011, 05:13:29 PM
....

Here's the picture of the new HOV sign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F05983a36.jpg&hash=18291e74a5237feae1eb349d7fd4c759269794ca)

Today I got to see what this sign looks like underneath the cover. There is another sign, already attached to a sign bridge, sitting on the right side of the Beltway just to the west of the ramp connecting to Van Dorn Street. It's essentially waiting to be hoisted into place and it's not covered. There's a paved area between the Van Dorn ramp and the Inner Loop that's marked for "Authorized Vehicles Only." I drove in there to get a look at the sign. Wasn't able to take a picture because there was a cop there (I got out of my car to look at my tires and when he asked what was wrong, I told him I thought I might have a low tire–the car HAD been pulling slightly while I was on the Beltway, so I was telling him the truth). But I did get a look at the sign and here's a fuller description:

Top exit tab in yellow says "Left Exit" as on the sign shown above.

Then there is a white band, diamond on the left, that says "Restricted Lanes," just like most of the current signs for the Shirley Highway HOV facility.

Beneath that is a green band with TWO relatively small shields: I-395 on top and I-95 directly beneath it (you can see the I-95 shield in the sign shown above). These have open spaces next to them. I couldn't tell what's supposed to go into those spaces, but I assume there will be some sort of VMS units to give a compass point.

Then there's the VMS portion as in the sign shown above. I presume this will give the HOV information and perhaps a control city.

Then at the bottom there's a yellow bar giving the distance to the ramp, as shown above.

Strikes me as a well-done sign, assuming the VMS part operates properly and is used in an intelligible way. My big gripe about the "off—Shirley Highway" signs for that HOV facility has always been that nowhere do any of the signs give the route number (consider the BGSs on the Franconia—Springfield Parkway, some of which use "Restricted Lanes"–with no shield–almost as if it were a control city). These signs address that issue in a very clear fashion.


Edited to add: Passed it again this afternoon on my way downtown for the Caps game and it's now been covered. I notice there's some work activity just north of Edsall on I-395 that suggests the express lanes will receive a new gantry, which of course makes perfect sense for the new exit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 27, 2011, 05:46:58 PM
Dr. Gridlock reports on his blog that Beltway Exit 49C (the left-hand exit from the Inner Loop to westbound I-66) will close this Friday, although he didn't say when on Friday.

I suggest everyone avoid the Beltway through that area this Friday and possibly this weekend as well. While there ought to be less traffic over the weekend, there's a risk that reduced traffic might actually increase the danger there because it will make it easier for people to try to make high-speed moves across all four lanes to the right-hand exit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 27, 2011, 06:36:04 PM
In looking for a good diagram of the I-66 closure to send to a relative, I stumbled across this overhead picture of the Springfield Interchange taken last month. Good image of what the new ramps will do. It underscores one thing I've wondered for a while, though, and I'm wondering if one of you guys might know the answer (Mike seems pretty knowledgeable about this particular project). Look in the lower left quadrant of the interchange. There's what looks sort of like a ramp paved with especially dark asphalt that splits off the Outer Loop just after that route crosses over I-395; the ramp in question then passes under the southbound I-95 flyover and is joined by the ramp coming out of the I-395 HOV facility.

My question is, does anyone know the purpose of this particular ramp (the very dark one)? I'm surmising it's probably being built to provide a route in case HOV on the Beltway is ever extended east of the Springfield Interchange and that it was simply cheaper to build it now along with everything else rather than doing it later. It doesn't connect the Beltway to either of the ramps to/from the Shirley Highway HOV facility, so it seems that it must be intended for some other purpose.

Just in case it's unclear to anyone, in the picture I-395 to and from DC is to the right, the Beltway to and from the Wilson Bridge is to the bottom, the Beltway to and from Tysons is to the top, and I-95 to and from Richmond is out of the picture to the left.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vamegaprojects.com%2Ftasks%2Frender%2Ffile%2F%3FfileID%3D16E5437B-63DC-4C29-8F5E3AE9C93C034A%26amp%3Bext%3D.jpg&hash=f0cf764319bdf2f3098661b625e8f1dabe5211b6)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on September 27, 2011, 07:12:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 27, 2011, 06:36:04 PM
My question is, does anyone know the purpose of this particular ramp (the very dark one)? I'm surmising it's probably being built to provide a route in case HOV on the Beltway is ever extended east of the Springfield Interchange and that it was simply cheaper to build it now along with everything else rather than doing it later. It doesn't connect the Beltway to either of the ramps to/from the Shirley Highway HOV facility, so it seems that it must be intended for some other purpose.
That's what's shown here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvirginiahotlanes.com%2Fuploads%2F1000%2F385-Springfield.jpg&hash=0ae6eb43c0b9fa6d8f2d06672c8d8b2875535ecc)
There will be a companion ramp to the right, merging into the inner loop near the sign gantry in the photo.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 27, 2011, 07:18:21 PM
Right, but that doesn't address the purpose of the one segment I was mentioning. Look at the diagram. You see how there is an exit from the Outer Loop just below I-395. But it doesn't feed traffic onto either of the new ramps that connect to 395. I'm wondering what it's for.

I'm typing this on my phone, but I could circle the spot I mean next time my PC is on if that would help explain my question.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 27, 2011, 07:43:07 PM
The "ramp" that hoo's asking about will be the HO/T lane for the Outer Loop.  It and the corresponding lane being built on the Inner Loop are so that the HO/T lanes remain on the left side of the roadway even (and especially) with the I-95 merge/diverge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 27, 2011, 07:48:37 PM
Thanks. I didn't realize the HOT facility was to extend that far east. I thought it was to begin/end between Springfield and Braddock Road (which would also allow HOT users to have access to/from Shirley Highway when the express lanes are going in the "wrong direction").
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 27, 2011, 11:11:42 PM
Following up on my prior comment–it occurred to me tonight that if the HOT facility will begin/end just east of Springfield, does that mean a solo driver will pay a toll to use the new ramps between the Beltway and the Shirley Highway express lanes? (That would explain the open spaces in the HOV ramp exit signs I posted earlier–they'd need to list the toll rate there.) I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, though it would also explain the small gantries shown in one of my earlier posts.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on September 27, 2011, 11:26:22 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2011, 07:12:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 27, 2011, 06:36:04 PM
My question is, does anyone know the purpose of this particular ramp (the very dark one)? I'm surmising it's probably being built to provide a route in case HOV on the Beltway is ever extended east of the Springfield Interchange and that it was simply cheaper to build it now along with everything else rather than doing it later. It doesn't connect the Beltway to either of the ramps to/from the Shirley Highway HOV facility, so it seems that it must be intended for some other purpose.
That's what's shown here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvirginiahotlanes.com%2Fuploads%2F1000%2F385-Springfield.jpg&hash=0ae6eb43c0b9fa6d8f2d06672c8d8b2875535ecc)
There will be a companion ramp to the right, merging into the inner loop near the sign gantry in the photo.
What's shown there is a horrible misrepresentation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on September 27, 2011, 11:46:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 27, 2011, 11:26:22 PM
What's shown there is a horrible misrepresentation.
Are you talking about the colors being off (with no actual color for the HOT lanes)?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 28, 2011, 09:10:25 AM
OK, just in case it was unclear, the segment shown in red here is the only part I was wondering about. The diagram NE2 posted includes this segment under the category of "HOT Lanes Access Ramps," but I had been under the impression the HOT lanes weren't extending east past Springfield anyway, so it was unclear why there would be a ramp from the Outer Loop into the HOT lanes at that point. There doesn't appear to be a corresponding segment for the Inner Loop, though that could just be a function of the elevated flyovers blocking out the view. The striping on the Inner Loop, particularly since it was repaved, seemed further to suggest that the actual HOT facility is to begin around the Robinson Terminal or maybe a bit further west (which would also allow traffic coming from, say, the I-95 mainline to merge left and enter the HOT facility without having to use the HOV-lane ramp that non-HOVs can't use at certain times of day).

Maybe I'll just look up the address for the project and send in the question to them.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F80e1dbc7.jpg&hash=43e55ce03593a821f6b1cfce7807bfb545361959)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on September 28, 2011, 07:52:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2011, 11:46:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 27, 2011, 11:26:22 PM
What's shown there is a horrible misrepresentation.
Are you talking about the colors being off (with no actual color for the HOT lanes)?
The I-95 shields, for two reasons.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 28, 2011, 09:37:05 PM
Its nice that one will be able to directly access the Beltway from the I-95 HOV lanes, but I don't think I'll be using the connection because the lanes will no longer be free. I use those lanes during my NJ-NC trips when open in my traveling direction (offpeak/weekend) because of the higher speed limit and generally less traffic.

I thought these HOV lanes were going to extend all the way to the Wilson Bridge? I guess thats the plan.... eventually.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 28, 2011, 10:12:11 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 28, 2011, 07:52:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2011, 11:46:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 27, 2011, 11:26:22 PM
What's shown there is a horrible misrepresentation.
Are you talking about the colors being off (with no actual color for the HOT lanes)?
The I-95 shields, for two reasons.

Actually only one of them is out of place, unless you are talking about their size.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 29, 2011, 10:19:22 AM
No, the HOV lanes end on the east side of the Springfield Interchange.  There have been some conceptual studies on "bridging the gap" between Springfield and the Wilson Bridge, but any construction will be a long time in coming.

The ramps to/from the west (towards Tysons) will most likely be tolled...the gantries are already in place for the ramps to the Inner Loop.  I'm not sure if the ramps to/from the east (towards the Wilson Bridge) will be tolled or not...that would be a good question to ask.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on September 29, 2011, 11:01:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 28, 2011, 10:12:11 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 28, 2011, 07:52:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2011, 11:46:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 27, 2011, 11:26:22 PM
What's shown there is a horrible misrepresentation.
Are you talking about the colors being off (with no actual color for the HOT lanes)?
The I-95 shields, for two reasons.

Actually only one of them is out of place, unless you are talking about their size.
Those would be the two reasons.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 30, 2011, 10:43:26 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 29, 2011, 10:19:22 AM
....

The ramps to/from the west (towards Tysons) will most likely be tolled...the gantries are already in place for the ramps to the Inner Loop.  I'm not sure if the ramps to/from the east (towards the Wilson Bridge) will be tolled or not...that would be a good question to ask.


I sent them a question but they haven't replied. If I don't get an answer by mid-next week maybe I'll e-mail Steve Titunik. I've exchanged messages with him once before when I sent them an e-mail about erroneous exit numbers on the Beltway (Exit 57A was signed twice, once for I-95 South and once for the thru lanes on the Beltway) and he sent me a VDOT pen and some other stuff as a "thank-you."


Unrelated to Springfield but related to this thread: The closure of Exit 49C has been postponed until tomorrow. Seems sensible to me not to make that sort of big change on a Friday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 18, 2011, 11:15:42 AM
The pace seems to be picking up on the Beltway as more portions of the new outer lanes open. This is not such a spot, obviously, but I found it interesting to see the toll gantries hoisted into place between US-50 and US-29. At least one other was recently raised between I-66 and VA-7, but I don't have a picture since it was late night when we went through.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F8c5dfa32.jpg&hash=7b6da27fb982d84ea53baa2697091742ac0b7e1b)


I noticed the new BGSs for the HOV ramps have been put into place for traffic heading from the Inner Loop to Shirley Highway (i.e., going west into Springfield and exiting to the left of the I-95 flyover). Can't seem to get a good picture due to their location behind the flyover unless I were to hold the camera in my hand, which I don't like to do. They have the white "Restricted Lanes" banner at the top, then the shield and destination, then an empty opening where it looks like a VMS will be inserted. Whether that's going to contain toll rate info or instead HOV info, who knows. They haven't hoisted any toll gantries on that end of the project–the first one you see on the Inner Loop is just west of the main part of the Springfield Interchange going up the hill towards the overpass above Backlick Road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 18, 2011, 12:44:43 PM
The open space is where a small VMS will go showing the toll rate.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on October 26, 2011, 03:57:40 PM
The Meadowville exit for I-295 is progressing. Looks like it's going to be a simple diamond, as there are two sets of covered signals going each way with what appear to be left turn signals among them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 27, 2011, 12:48:42 AM
Quote from: Takumi on October 26, 2011, 03:57:40 PM
The Meadowville exit for I-295 is progressing. Looks like it's going to be a simple diamond, as there are two sets of covered signals going each way with what appear to be left turn signals among them.

This would be noteworthy as the first non-cloverleaf interchange on I-295, other than its termini and the VA 895 eastern terminus.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 27, 2011, 06:26:29 AM
Something I'm slowly starting to see a lot more of is VDOT red left arrow installations.  There are several locations I've seen them in now:  US 1 both in Fairfax County and Spotsylvania County, US 301 at VA 3, US 29 in Centreville, and a few out along the I-81 corridor.  I'm sure there are some I'm missing/not-remembering.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 27, 2011, 09:31:46 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 27, 2011, 06:26:29 AM
Something I'm slowly starting to see a lot more of is VDOT red left arrow installations.  There are several locations I've seen them in now:  US 1 both in Fairfax County and Spotsylvania County, US 301 at VA 3, US 29 in Centreville, and a few out along the I-81 corridor.  I'm sure there are some I'm missing/not-remembering.


There are several of them at the intersection of Van Dorn and Franconia. (Meaning two red arrows in a couple of directions and one red arrow in other directions.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 27, 2011, 12:25:56 PM
Quote from: Takumi on October 26, 2011, 03:57:40 PM
The Meadowville exit for I-295 is progressing. Looks like it's going to be a simple diamond, as there are two sets of covered signals going each way with what appear to be left turn signals among them.
Quote from: Takumi on October 26, 2011, 03:57:40 PM
The Meadowville exit for I-295 is progressing. Looks like it's going to be a simple diamond, as there are two sets of covered signals going each way with what appear to be left turn signals among them.

It will be a diamond layout, with space for future loops.  Also with provision for 4-laning of Meadowville Road with a parallel bridge over I-295.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 03, 2011, 02:38:24 PM
More new signs on the Beltway. I was stuck in stopped traffic about half an hour ago coming back from Fairfax and so I took the opportunity to get pictures, as I had noticed the signs on my way out there but couldn't get a good picture due to the ramp in the way. Pictures taken from the eastbound Outer Loop looking across the northbound I-95 flyover; the signs are on the yet-to-open left exit that will lead to the ramps connecting to the express lanes on Shirley Highway. The sign on the right appears to confirm froggie's comments about the HOT facility extending through the Springfield Interchange, although it's a bit odd that there's no space for displaying a toll rate on that particular sign. The renderings I've seen for the HOT lane signs all include a white bar on top with the E-ZPass logo and the letters "HOT." Who knows, perhaps tolling for thru traffic on the Beltway is to begin further to the west of this spot.

I find it mildly interesting that on the advance signs along the Beltway, I-395 is listed above I-95 while this sign reverses it, but since the I-95 ramp will split off first it seems to me that putting I-95 first is the proper order.

You know, the other possibility that occurs to me about the small VMS units that will go on these signs is that they may very well not include toll rates at all (there are still no signs of toll gantries anywhere on that side of the Springfield Interchange) and that instead they may well say "OPEN" or "CLOSED." Obviously, if the ramp from the Beltway to the inbound express lanes on I-395 is open, the ramp to the outbound express lanes on I-95 will be closed–both ramps will never be open at the same time. (My interest in the setup stems from the fact that I can see myself using those ramps very frequently, especially coming home from Caps games.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F5268f1ed.jpg&hash=3b2a09bb9dbf4126811e03e1660c0a1b97e01b57)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fc9fa6718.jpg&hash=703497ec097b90a61dffd6dc561ca340c732ab96)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 04, 2011, 04:49:42 PM
From WTOP Radio: No pain, no gain when it comes to HOT lanes construction (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2620482)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 06, 2011, 09:59:04 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Washington Times editorial on [Virginia] HOT lanes, tolling misleading, ill-informed CRITIQUE (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5598)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 06, 2011, 10:15:25 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 06, 2011, 09:59:04 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Washington Times editorial on [Virginia] HOT lanes, tolling misleading, ill-informed CRITIQUE (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5598)

Unfortunately, the opposition to tolling VA I-95 is far more widespread than one editorial in one newspaper.

I've seen numerous comments from people who are aware that the tolls would support major capacity addition, who still oppose tolls on the notion of "double taxation", i.e. paying tolls on top of road use taxes.

I see I-95 as a "super corridor" or "principal Interstate", where the needs are so great, that I would love to see funding in the form of tolls + road use taxes. 

An I-95 with 10 or more lanes between Richmond and Washington, and upgraded interchanges, would be well worth it.  E-ZPass and open road tolling would allow tolling at full highway speeds.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 07, 2011, 02:13:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 06, 2011, 10:15:25 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 06, 2011, 09:59:04 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Washington Times editorial on [Virginia] HOT lanes (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5598)

Unfortunately, the opposition to tolling VA I-95 is far more widespread than one editorial in one newspaper.

Agreed.  But the opponents have to be educated that the alternative is an increase in the Commonwealth's motor fuel tax rates.  

QuoteI've seen numerous comments from people who are aware that the tolls would support major capacity addition, who still oppose tolls on the notion of "double taxation", i.e. paying tolls on top of road use taxes.

For the indefinite future, there will be a tax on motor fuels (including electric power for electric motor vehicles, if that becomes popular).   Especially in a state like Virginia, where with the exceptions of Arlington and Henrico Counties, all "county" (secondary) highways are maintained by the Commonwealth in the form of VDOT and not by the counties.

Your point about double taxation on toll roads in the U.S. is correct, but I don't see what can be done about that, unless we want to measure the miles that every vehicle drives on every U.S. street, road and highway open to the public.  For trucks and buses that are required to report state-by-state miles because they operate interstate (or to Canada) and weigh over 26,000 pounds (and must display IFTA stickers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fuel_Tax_Agreement)), it strikes me as reasonable to give them a break from road use/fuel taxes that they pay for miles driven on toll roads, though even for that, the U.S., Canada and Mexico might be better off requiring those trucks to explicitly pay for all freeway use, perhaps using technology similar to what Germany uses to toll all heavy trucks (and only trucks) operating on its autobahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn) network (details here (http://www.toll-collect.de/) (site comes up in German, click "English" if you don't read German)).

QuoteI see I-95 as a "super corridor" or "principal Interstate", where the needs are so great, that I would love to see funding in the form of tolls + road use taxes.  

An I-95 with 10 or more lanes between Richmond and Washington, and upgraded interchanges, would be well worth it.  E-ZPass and open road tolling would allow tolling at full highway speeds.

Not sure I would like to see a new functional class or other way of designating I-95, beyond what it is today, a freeway.  And given that it attracts a lot of traffic from non-E-ZPass states (even though N.C. is now a member of the E-ZPass IAG), I think cash tolling might need to be an option for some years to come, though I understand the Maine Turnpike is under pressure to go cashless at its southernmost toll barrier on the Maine Turnpike, which is I-95.

I would not mind seeing the entire thing tolled from the Maryland/Delaware border all the way south to South Carolina/Georgia border at the Savannah River - if the revenue was used to improve the corridor.  And I say that as a regular user of most of that road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 07, 2011, 07:58:28 AM
The Virginia politicians haven't done a good job at all of explaining the differences between the various toll projects, and the media sloppiness doesn't help. Most people here are aware of the HOT lane project on the Beltway. Many people have also heard of the proposal to extend the I-95 express lanes to the south as an HOT facility and to convert the south-of-the-Beltway portion of the express lanes to HOT. But from what I've observed, the majority of non-roadgeeks–and even some politicians to whom I've spoken!!!–don't realize that the "I-95 tolls" proposal is separate from the I-95 HOT proposal. When they realize there's a proposal to toll all traffic on I-95 once you get south of Fredericksburg, they go ballistic and they start complaining that (a) we have a gas tax to pay for that and (b) the General Assembly should just man up and pay the gas tax. People also cannot seem to separate the idea of tolls from their mental images of massive backups in Newark, Delaware, over the years on the Delaware Turnpike. Even people who are aware of E-ZPass automatically envision toll plazas. I suppose that's not unreasonable in this case–what are the chances that the feds would allow Virginia to pursue an all-ORT system on I-95 when the toll will apply to every lane, rather than just to managed lanes?

I certainly understand people's reluctance to pay tolls for a road that used to be toll-free. Nobody likes to pay. But the people in Richmond who understand the way the proposal works could do a far better job of explaining why raising the gas tax would not produce the same funding as toll would. The gas tax is apportioned all around the Commonwealth in a variety of ways and unless they amend those regulations, they can't simply raise the gas tax and dedicate all the money to one particular road. But the General Assembly members from more rural areas where they don't use I-95 are unlikely ever to allow amendments to dedicate the money to a road that doesn't pass anywhere near their districts. (Anyone who lives in Northern Virginia will have witnessed the rest of the Commonwealth's refusal to adjust transportation funding formulas to send more money up here even though we pay more in taxes than the rest of the state. There's no reason to think anything different would happen with an increased gas tax.) The politicians also haven't explained that once I-95 is tolled, Virginia forfeits any federal funding for that road. In a sense, there would be a level of "paying twice" insofar as the Virginia portion of the gas tax would still be sending funding to I-95. But that tax portion would be minute IF people could view it through the prism of considering the portion of the tax that gets devoted to I-95.

I think I'd rather have seen them pursue this on I-81 than on I-95 simply because I-81 is so much more unpleasant to drive due to having only two lanes on a side for most of its length in Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 07, 2011, 12:33:05 PM
I got rid of all the political banter(I think).  Please avoid political arguments in this forum.  They just bring unnecessary debate and argument for a site that is not meant to deal with politics.

-Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 07, 2011, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 07, 2011, 12:33:05 PM
I got rid of all the political banter(I think).  Please avoid political arguments in this forum.  They just bring unnecessary debate and argument for a site that is not meant to deal with politics.
-Mark

You did, and I am pleased!

These political comments are fine, and I agree with them --

<<< The Virginia politicians haven't done a good job at all of explaining the differences between the various toll projects, and the media sloppiness doesn't help. >>>

--
Beltway
"Never saw a beltway that I didn't like"
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on November 07, 2011, 08:48:07 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 07, 2011, 12:33:05 PM
I got rid of all the political banter(I think).  Please avoid political arguments in this forum.  They just bring unnecessary debate and argument for a site that is not meant to deal with politics.

-Mark

I restored the last post minus the one overtly political comment. I think there are some constructive points worth considering.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 09, 2011, 07:49:36 AM
WTOP Radio: Keeping the cheaters out of the new HOT lanes (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2625048)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 09, 2011, 09:11:00 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 09, 2011, 07:49:36 AM
WTOP Radio: Keeping the cheaters out of the new HOT lanes (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2625048)

For some reason I can't keep myself from looking at the reader comments on those articles. A lot of those people make ethanman62187 look like a towering intellectual.

The WTOP article also illustrates a point someone made in one of the now-deleted posts in this thread (one made in response to my comments above about the politicians doing a poor job of explaining the rationale for seeking to toll I-95) where somebody said that the media ignorance just makes it worse. The WTOP article notes that Fluor and Transurban are working out "a deal" with the Virginia State Police to have a dedicated HOT enforcement unit. I might be wrong, but "working out a deal" strongly implies that Fluor and Transurban will pay at least a substantial portion of the cost of these extra troopers, at least in terms of their salaries. But it's unclear. I assume part of the reason the story is vague about it is that the participants won't comment on a deal that's still under negotiation, which is standard procedure in the business world. It doesn't help to silence the whiners, though, when the story is devoid of detail. Adam Tuss certainly knows the details of the project, including the switchable E-ZPass, and it's a shame that WTOP's sound-bite radio format won't allow him to write a longer story for posting on their website.

The level of public ignorance about this project is really quite pathetic. Most of the time when I've talked to people about it and explained what I know of the details, people find it interesting and comment that the usual media outlets could explain these things a lot better. But I think a lot of the people you encounter commenting on these things online are people who don't think much beyond a second-grade level and who like to whine. "The HOT lanes suck, and if you like them, you suck too." Very enlightened commentary there.



BTW, semi-related: Last night I was on my way home from Fairview Park shortly after 10:00 PM and I took the Outer Loop. I noted that they've started laying steel for the HOT exit/entrance at Braddock Road. Those of you who use that part of the Beltway frequently may wish to keep your ears peeled, since at some point there will have to be night closures as they lay steel across the travel lanes (the ramp will fly over the Outer Loop and enter/exit the HOT lanes from the center of the roadway, i.e., a left exit for southbound traffic and a left entrance northbound).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 09, 2011, 09:45:47 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 09, 2011, 09:11:00 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 09, 2011, 07:49:36 AM
WTOP Radio: Keeping the cheaters out of the new HOT lanes (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2625048)

For some reason I can't keep myself from looking at the reader comments on those articles. A lot of those people make ethanman62187 look like a towering intellectual.

The WTOP article also illustrates a point someone made in one of the now-deleted posts in this thread (one made in response to my comments above about the politicians doing a poor job of explaining the rationale for seeking to toll I-95) where somebody said that the media ignorance just makes it worse. The WTOP article notes that Fluor and Transurban are working out "a deal" with the Virginia State Police to have a dedicated HOT enforcement unit. I might be wrong, but "working out a deal" strongly implies that Fluor and Transurban will pay at least a substantial portion of the cost of these extra troopers, at least in terms of their salaries. But it's unclear. I assume part of the reason the story is vague about it is that the participants won't comment on a deal that's still under negotiation, which is standard procedure in the business world. It doesn't help to silence the whiners, though, when the story is devoid of detail. Adam Tuss certainly knows the details of the project, including the switchable E-ZPass, and it's a shame that WTOP's sound-bite radio format won't allow him to write a longer story for posting on their website.

The level of public ignorance about this project is really quite pathetic. Most of the time when I've talked to people about it and explained what I know of the details, people find it interesting and comment that the usual media outlets could explain these things a lot better. But I think a lot of the people you encounter commenting on these things online are people who don't think much beyond a second-grade level and who like to whine. "The HOT lanes suck, and if you like them, you suck too." Very enlightened commentary there.

Or use sloganeering like "Lexus Lanes" ... :-)

The newspapers don't even do well with the issue of increasing the motor fuels tax.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch supports such increases, but conducts and posts "polls" that have questions that seem designed to arrive at a majority negative opinion about increases.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 09, 2011, 10:05:28 AM
BTW, in case it wasn't clear, in my post from Monday morning when I said "Most people here are aware of the HOT lane project on the Beltway," by "here" I meant "in Northern Virginia," not "on the AARoads forum." As I re-read it now I realize it probably wasn't clear how I meant that sentence. People on this forum are by our very nature a lot more aware of the plans for these sorts of projects than your average random local motorist.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on November 12, 2011, 11:23:25 PM
I-95 south of Richmond is in the process of being repaved. The most travelled portion for me is northbound from exits 50 to 54, usually at night when they're working on it (tonight, for example, they were working on and around Exit 52). It's caused some rough travels home for me, but the finished product has been worth it. The exit 61 (VA 10) area has also been undergoing repaving southbound recently.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2011, 09:37:43 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 09, 2011, 10:05:28 AM
BTW, in case it wasn't clear, in my post from Monday morning when I said "Most people here are aware of the HOT lane project on the Beltway," by "here" I meant "in Northern Virginia," not "on the AARoads forum." As I re-read it now I realize it probably wasn't clear how I meant that sentence. People on this forum are by our very nature a lot more aware of the plans for these sorts of projects than your average random local motorist.

Beltway, even after Maryland's ICC opened, it was absolutely amazing to me how many people (working or living right next to the ICC) don't know where it goes or that toll collection will be all-electronic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2011, 09:41:32 AM
Washington Post editorial: Help for Virginia's crumbling roads (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/help-for-virginias-crumbling-roads/2011/11/14/gIQAPqSlzN_story.html)

QuoteAs Bob Chase, a transportation analyst, wrote recently for the University of Virginia's Cooper Center for Public Service, since 1986 Virginia has added 1.5 million licensed drivers, 2 million people and 2.9 million registered vehicles – but not a dime in new, long-term transportation funding. If utilities were similarly ignored, Virginians would lack heat, electricity and water. "The basic problem," says Mr. Chase, "is the people of Virginia are not being asked to pay for the transportation they are using."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2011, 09:50:11 AM
Article by Bob Chase on Virginia's Transportation Funding Crisis in the Virginia News Letter (published by the Cooper Center for Public Service (http://www.coopercenter.org/)) can be read online and optionally downloaded here (http://www.coopercenter.org/publications/VANsltr1111).

In the interest of full disclosure, readers should know that I am a dues-paying member of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, of which Bob Chase is the president.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on November 30, 2011, 02:47:31 PM
VA 109 is, at least temporarily, not accessible or posted from US 460 Business westbound. There's some utility work going on at the intersection and the movement from 460 Business to 109 has been torn up. There are two no-right-turn signs posted and the trailblazer has been removed. Eastbound 460 Business can still turn onto VA 109, and its trailblazer is still there (although it looks like it's about to fall over). If you're in this area I would have already recommended bypassing this segment entirely as 460 Business has serious pavement issues anyway, but it's even worse around the VA 109 intersection.

Edit: I made a blog post about it. (http://highcontrastshair.blogspot.com/2011/12/va-109-work.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 07, 2011, 09:55:03 PM
WTOP Radio report:  Tolls may soar on road to Dulles (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=159&sid=2660757)
QuoteWhether or not drivers on the Dulles Toll Road want the Dulles Rail project or not, they are helping to pay for it -- and they may get hit with an even larger bill in the near future.

QuoteAbout 75 percent of the financing for the second phase of the project -- the section that will run from Reston to Dulles International Airport and continue into Loudoun County -- is coming from toll road revenue.

QuoteWhile toll road rates will jump by 25 cents in January, there is no further toll increase schedule yet in place. But indications are that higher-than-expected cost estimates related to the project's second phase could push tolls way up -- as much as about $7 for a one-way trip by 2020, according to some estimates.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 07, 2011, 10:16:23 PM
Isn't it already $5.75 during peak times by the airport? (Side story relating to this: this summer a friend I was with was driving on 267 for the first time, so he didn't know about the tolls, let alone the non-peak $4.25. Made for some interesting inside jokes, particularly for another person who didn't read the toll costs correctly.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 08, 2011, 07:24:45 AM
Quote from: Takumi on December 07, 2011, 10:16:23 PM
Isn't it already $5.75 during peak times by the airport? (Side story relating to this: this summer a friend I was with was driving on 267 for the first time, so he didn't know about the tolls, let alone the non-peak $4.25. Made for some interesting inside jokes, particularly for another person who didn't read the toll costs correctly.)

I think you are speaking of the tolls on the (privately-owned) Dulles Greenway (http://dullesgreenway.com/), which is Va. 267 west of Va. 28 (Sully Road) and the airport. 

The tolls on the Dulles Toll Road (formerly owned by VDOT, now MWAA) are currently only $2 (one way) from I-495 to Va. 28 (but will be going up again soon to pay for the Dulles Rail project).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 08, 2011, 07:42:28 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 08, 2011, 07:24:45 AM
Quote from: Takumi on December 07, 2011, 10:16:23 PM
Isn't it already $5.75 during peak times by the airport? (Side story relating to this: this summer a friend I was with was driving on 267 for the first time, so he didn't know about the tolls, let alone the non-peak $4.25. Made for some interesting inside jokes, particularly for another person who didn't read the toll costs correctly.)

I think you are speaking of the tolls on the (privately-owned) Dulles Greenway (http://dullesgreenway.com/), which is Va. 267 west of Va. 28 (Sully Road) and the airport. 

The tolls on the Dulles Toll Road (formerly owned by VDOT, now MWAA) are currently only $2 (one way) from I-495 to Va. 28 (but will be going up again soon to pay for the Dulles Rail project).

The toll at the main plaza goes up 25¢ next month. I don't know whether any of the ramp tolls are changing. In the WTOP article cited above, someone involved with the road's operations said to expect annual increases.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 09, 2011, 10:37:06 AM
Washington Post editorial: Half-measures on Virginia's transportation crisis (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/half-measures-on-virginias-transportation-crisis/2011/12/08/gIQA2v8XgO_story.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 12, 2011, 03:54:30 PM
The Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock reports that, weather permitting, the new flyover ramp from eastbound I-66 to the Inner Loop of the Beltway is to open this coming weekend. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/post/big-change-coming-at-beltwayi-66-merge/2011/12/12/gIQA9TKAqO_blog.html)

This is a long-overdue improvement because it will eliminate the annoying left-lane merge for most traffic heading towards Tysons. The left-hand HOV exit will continue to funnel some traffic into the left lane for now, though eventually that exit will connect to the HOT lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 12, 2011, 05:37:39 PM
As I recall, the left-lane merge isn't a merge per-se but begins a new left lane, at least with how the present construction setup is.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 12, 2011, 06:24:18 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 12, 2011, 05:37:39 PM
As I recall, the left-lane merge isn't a merge per-se but begins a new left lane, at least with how the present construction setup is.

It always used to be a merge, but with the construction the configuration changes so often that I wouldn't be surprised if it's presently different. The last time I had to go to Tysons I took Gallows Road due to a wreck on the Beltway, and on all my recent trips that way on the Beltway I've exited at I-66. So I haven't had reason to notice the current setup, but either way, it seems to me that having the traffic enter the Beltway on the right is a big improvement regardless of whether the current configuration is a merge or the beginning of a new lane, especially given how many people going from I-66 to the Beltway there intend to exit at Tysons and so have to try to work their way across all four lanes before the next exit.

At some point in the spring there will be a similar reconfiguration of westbound Exit 64 so that traffic enters the Outer Loop from the right. The existing ramp will serve the HOT lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 13, 2011, 01:56:36 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2011, 03:54:30 PM
The Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock reports that, weather permitting, the new flyover ramp from eastbound I-66 to the Inner Loop of the Beltway is to open this coming weekend. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/post/big-change-coming-at-beltwayi-66-merge/2011/12/12/gIQA9TKAqO_blog.html)

This is a long-overdue improvement because it will eliminate the annoying left-lane merge for most traffic heading towards Tysons. The left-hand HOV exit will continue to funnel some traffic into the left lane for now, though eventually that exit will connect to the HOT lanes.

I strongly agree.  This is one the worst bottlenecks on a very congested section of highway. 

It has been like that ever since the HOV lanes outside the Capital Beltway were built in the early 1990's. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 16, 2011, 10:52:13 PM
The Progress-Index (Petersburg) reports that the I-295 Meadowville interchange is now open: http://www.progress-index.com/news/new-i-295-interchange-expected-to-spur-growth-1.1245753 (posting this from my phone, apologies if it doesn't load correctly). I'll go out into the field tomorrow and get some pictures.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 16, 2011, 11:21:06 PM
While you're out, exit number would be helpful.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 16, 2011, 11:43:34 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 16, 2011, 11:21:06 PM
While you're out, exit number would be helpful.


Exit 16
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 17, 2011, 12:20:11 AM
An interchange less then a mile north of an existing interchange spurs dramatic economic growth? Was access to this office park that cumbersome from VA-10?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 17, 2011, 08:55:38 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 17, 2011, 12:20:11 AM
An interchange less then a mile north of an existing interchange spurs dramatic economic growth? Was access to this office park that cumbersome from VA-10?
I'll be heading that way in a couple hours when I go to work and yes the interchange was built for an office park.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 17, 2011, 09:22:14 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 17, 2011, 12:20:11 AM
An interchange less then a mile north of an existing interchange spurs dramatic economic growth? Was access to this office park that cumbersome from VA-10?

I have had that question at times, but the new interchange is a lot more direct to access the office/industrial park and to facilitate its future growth.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 17, 2011, 10:59:44 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 17, 2011, 12:20:11 AM
An interchange less then a mile north of an existing interchange spurs dramatic economic growth? Was access to this office park that cumbersome from VA-10?

Maryland SHA and the MdTA are doing something similar on I-95 as part of the Md. 200 (ICC) Contract D/E project - completing new C-D roadways along I-95 and a new interchange to link the I-95 C-D roadways to Contee Road, the intent being to ease access for traffic to and from the new development of Konterra to I-95 and Md. 200.  It's less than a mile south of the Md. 198 (Exit 33) interchange and less than a mile north of the Md. 200 (Exit 31) interchange. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 17, 2011, 11:00:06 AM
In the field now. The signage is so weird I had to say something now.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: November 19, 2016, 03:23:19 PM

Back home from the field. I haven't processed the photos yet but I do have some notes:
-The exit number is indeed 16. It and exit 15 (VA 10) are close enough that there's no break in the merge lanes between them.
All the 618 trailblazers (4 on each ramp) and both reassurance markers (one in each direction past the interchange) are ovals. Shields on the BGS's are standard circles, but for some reason the shields on the BGS just at the exit are all the way on the left of the BGS.
-The road names are present on the BGS's. Since it's currently a diamond, the BGS has both: Meadowville Technology Pkwy (eastbound) and River's Bend Blvd (westbound)
-The spacing in the 295 shields looks like they were considering adding Virginia to them, but ultimately did not.
-The work zone extends across the James River Bridge. The left lane was closed in both directions across it.

Edit: The blog update is here. (http://highcontrastshair.blogspot.com/2011/12/i-295s-new-interchange.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 17, 2011, 09:03:05 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 17, 2011, 12:45:38 PM
Back home from the field. I haven't processed the photos yet but I do have some notes:
-The exit number is indeed 16. It and exit 15 (VA 10) are close enough that there's no break in the merge lanes between them.

1.3 miles along the I-295 centerline between VA-10 and VA-618.

0.8 mile continuous 4th auxiliary lanes between the two interchanges.

Quote
All the 618 trailblazers (4 on each ramp) and both reassurance markers (one in each direction past the interchange) are ovals. Shields on the BGS's are standard circles, but for some reason the shields on the BGS just at the exit are all the way on the left of the BGS.
-The road names are present on the BGS's. Since it's currently a diamond, the BGS has both: Meadowville Technology Pkwy (eastbound) and River's Bend Blvd (westbound)

The ultimate design accomodates 4 loop ramps.  Also, the parkway narrows to the pre-existing 2-lane bridge over I-295, and the ultimate design will provide a parallel 2-lane bridge.

There are 2 signalized intersections, to handle the left-turn movements to and from the parkway.

Quote
-The spacing in the 295 shields looks like they were considering adding Virginia to them, but ultimately did not.
-The work zone extends across the James River Bridge. The left lane was closed in both directions across it.

They are replacing the Varina-Enon Bridge bridge approach slabs and joints ... a separate project.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 18, 2011, 09:54:28 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 17, 2011, 12:45:38 PM
Back home from the field. I haven't processed the photos yet but I do have some notes:
-The exit number is indeed 16. It and exit 15 (VA 10) are close enough that there's no break in the merge lanes between them.
All the 618 trailblazers (4 on each ramp) and both reassurance markers (one in each direction past the interchange) are ovals. Shields on the BGS's are standard circles, but for some reason the shields on the BGS just at the exit are all the way on the left of the BGS.
-The road names are present on the BGS's. Since it's currently a diamond, the BGS has both: Meadowville Technology Pkwy (eastbound) and River's Bend Blvd (westbound)
-The spacing in the 295 shields looks like they were considering adding Virginia to them, but ultimately did not.
-The work zone extends across the James River Bridge. The left lane was closed in both directions across it.

Edit: The blog update is here. (http://highcontrastshair.blogspot.com/2011/12/i-295s-new-interchange.html)

I noticed the waypoint signs have punctuation that VDOT does not typically use - namely "Washington, D.C." and "Rocky Mount, N.C." instead of "Washington" and "Rocky Mount NC". That combined with the left-justified signs at the exit on both directions of I-295, and all the ovals, makes me wonder what happened here...that must have been one weird contractor they awarded this project to.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 18, 2011, 10:13:25 PM
Yeah, something told me there was going to be bad signage here. I will give them credit for the 295 shields, though...I absolutely loved those.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 18, 2011, 10:24:47 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 18, 2011, 09:54:28 PM
I noticed the waypoint signs have punctuation that VDOT does not typically use - namely "Washington, D.C." and "Rocky Mount, N.C." instead of "Washington" and "Rocky Mount NC". That combined with the left-justified signs at the exit on both directions of I-295, and all the ovals, makes me wonder what happened here...that must have been one weird contractor they awarded this project to.

It may have been Chesterfield County that posted the signs, given that they shared in the funding of the project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on December 19, 2011, 02:09:31 PM
Looks like Chesterfield County is also using red turn arrows now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 19, 2011, 09:10:47 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on December 19, 2011, 02:09:31 PM
Looks like Chesterfield County is also using red turn arrows now.

This isn't surprising; I've seen these in Henrico County as well...although Henrico County maintains its own secondary roads, so it's interesting to see them popping up in places where all the roads are under VDOT jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 19, 2011, 09:17:39 PM
I'm seeing more and more red arrows (most often for left turns) in Fairfax County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 19, 2011, 09:56:21 PM
I wrote about the topic a couple months ago (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.msg120790;topicseen#msg120790).  Because they're required in the 2009 MUTCD, they're now the VDOT standard.  Several locations where one can see them now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on December 19, 2011, 11:47:15 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 19, 2011, 09:56:21 PM
Because they're required in the 2009 MUTCD, they're now the VDOT standard.
Instead of red balls with 'left turn signal', I assume?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 20, 2011, 01:53:54 AM
The left turn only signals around here with the red ball usually have a sign with a sweeping left arrow above the word "only". Somehow that's something I've never paid attention to when I visit other parts of the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 20, 2011, 06:46:42 AM
QuoteInstead of red balls with 'left turn signal', I assume?

Just red balls, period.  VDOT standard had long been one signal head per lane, including turn lanes.  So they felt there was no need for the "left turn signal" sign.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 22, 2011, 09:55:59 PM
County hopes I-295 interchange will bring tenants to Meadowville park
http://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/news/2011-12-21/News/County_hopes_I295_interchange_will_bring_tenants_t.html

Looks like there are some immediate business improvements.

Amazon to open two local distribution centers, creating 1,350 jobs
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/business/2011/dec/22/tdmain01-amazon-to-open-two-local-distribution-cen-ar-1560928/

Quotes:

Amazon, based in Seattle, plans to invest $85 million to open a 1 million-square-foot fulfillment center in Meadowville Technology Park in eastern Chesterfield. That site would employ about 1,000 people.

In Dinwiddie, the company plans to invest $50 million to open a center in the Dinwiddie Commerce Park that would employ about 350 people.

........

The I-95 Walthall interchange, Exit 58, was greatly expanded in the late 1990s, for assisting in light industrial development in that part of Chesterfield County.  Today there are at least 30 major businesses just to the east of that interchange, built since then.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 30, 2011, 01:42:55 PM
Had to head over to Annandale this morning and spotted the first of the advance signs for the Beltway HOT lanes propped up on the left side of the road as I was heading west out of the Springfield Interchange. I assume the reason the left sign is higher relative to the gantry is that it looks like it will be posted with that particular sign over the yet-to-open ramp coming from the Shirley Highway express lanes.

Interesting to see no mention of the "HO" aspect of "HOT" on these signs, so presumably there will be another sign explaining that part.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F543e60c7.jpg&hash=10c8cac54e43e615c887e21c2fef755012b2879d)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 30, 2011, 03:08:40 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 20, 2011, 06:46:42 AM
Just red balls, period.  VDOT standard had long been one signal head per lane, including turn lanes.  So they felt there was no need for the "left turn signal" sign.

Carl D. Silver Parkway at VA-3 had red arrow turn signals as far back as 2007 (might have been there forever, that was my first time driving in VA), so they were installing them at some intersections before the 2009 MUTCD changes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 31, 2011, 06:46:35 AM
IIRC, that location is (barely) within the Fredericksburg city limits, so it would have been a city installation, not a VDOT installation.  The independent cities are not fully beholden to VDOT when it comes to traffic control devices.  For example, both Norfolk and Virginia Beach have been using red left arrows for over 10 years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 31, 2011, 08:24:02 AM
The new signal on VA 10 at Old Stage Rd(SR 732) just near I-95 as a result of the widening project in the area has the red ball instead of a red arrow.  It was installed as of November but maybe it has to do with leftover stock???
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 31, 2011, 08:40:44 AM
Yeah, I noticed that too. To me, the most interesting part of Old Stage is that it briefly has something similar to a suicide lane, with two lanes in one direction and a broken yellow line.

(edited to add pic)

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-lvHUjEKWz6o/Tv8zdaawZqI/AAAAAAAAAj0/hN_iQBRV4FY/s640/2011-07-08%25252014.16.59.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 31, 2011, 04:35:53 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 31, 2011, 06:46:35 AM
IIRC, that location is (barely) within the Fredericksburg city limits, so it would have been a city installation, not a VDOT installation.  The independent cities are not fully beholden to VDOT when it comes to traffic control devices.  For example, both Norfolk and Virginia Beach have been using red left arrows for over 10 years.

Adam, that's correct on all counts.  In Northern Virginia, I have long observed that the incorporated cities and towns, which usually maintain everything within their limits save for some freeways and expressways, don't always comply with VDOT's way of doing things.  Falls Church, Alexandria, (the City of) Fairfax, Vienna, Herndon and Leesburg all design their signals in ways that don't look like VDOT installations.  Especially Alexandria

Even Arlington County, which maintains its secondary system (while VDOT maintains the numbered primary highways), seems to do some things in ways that do not always have the VDOT "look and feel."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 05, 2012, 01:51:07 PM
Adam Tuss of WTOP reports that the Beltway HOT lanes are getting a name change. (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=654&sid=2694374) As foreshadowed by the photo I posted last week (see above), it seems they're going to be the "495 Express Lanes," similar to the "95 Express Lanes" down in Miami.

They're blaming the MUTCD.


Edited to add: The original version of that story contained MUTCD renderings of managed-lane signs. Transurban then saw the story and sent in some Beltway-specific renderings and the story has been updated.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 09, 2012, 10:00:49 AM
Following up on my last comment:

The new website for the Beltway project is now operative. (http://www.495expresslanes.com/) Parts of this duplicate what was on the old site, including some of the videos; parts of it are new, especially the parts showing renderings of the signage.

I found myself thinking the other day that the new lanes could almost be regarded, from a practical standpoint, as being akin to a new separate road within the Beltway footprint. That is, it's not going to be like I-270 where you can move back and forth between "local" and "express": Once you enter what are now being called the "Express Lanes," you won't be able to move back into the local lanes unless you go all the way to the other end, and you will not have access to all the same exits you would in the local lanes. (For example, if I were driving from Van Dorn Street and I entered the Express Lanes, my first opportunity to exit would be at the new US-29 exit near Merrifield.) The new website notes that there will be a $1000 fine for anyone caught cutting through the plastic bollards that will separate the Express and local lanes, but I have no doubt–given the overwhelming public ignorance about how this project will work and the unwillingness of many drivers to learn about it–that there will be plenty of squawking from people who don't understand it. Too bad. As I've said before, it looks to me as though Fluor and Transurban are going out of their way to make the signs amply clear.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2012, 02:00:51 PM
[Emphasis added in quote below]

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2012, 10:00:49 AM
Following up on my last comment:

The new website for the Beltway project is now operative. (http://www.495expresslanes.com/) Parts of this duplicate what was on the old site, including some of the videos; parts of it are new, especially the parts showing renderings of the signage.

The new website notes that there will be a $1000 fine for anyone caught cutting through the plastic bollards that will separate the Express and local lanes, but I have no doubt–given the overwhelming public ignorance about how this project will work and the unwillingness of many drivers to learn about it–that there will be plenty of squawking from people who don't understand it. Too bad. As I've said before, it looks to me as though Fluor and Transurban are going out of their way to make the signs amply clear.

Heck, many drivers move between the local and express (HOV) lanes in the I-95/I-395 corridor, and I see them regularly using the crossovers (which are clearly signed as being for emergency and official use only).

On the other hand, I have driven the Ca. 91 (Riverside Freeway) express lanes (http://www.91expresslanes.com/) in Orange County, which serve as the model (at least in part) for the I-495 Express Lanes. 

I am not aware that they have had much issue there with drivers (illegally) cutting in and out of those express lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2012, 06:30:53 PM
Tom Jackman in the Washington Post: Herndon traffic roundabout causes an uproar (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/herndon-traffic-roundabout-causes-an-uproar/2012/01/08/gIQAkMbjkP_blog.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 10, 2012, 08:22:37 AM
More from Adam Tuss of WTOP Radio: A look inside: Beltway express lanes will change your commute (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2699940)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 14, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
Disappointing news...the white border unisign on Arlington Road in Hopewell is no more. There's no replacement; the pole is gone and everything. The last VA 36 cutout (in front of the bowling alley downtown) and the ancient I-95 shield are still there, though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 20, 2012, 05:28:14 PM
Another toll bridge on U.S. 17 in Virginia (and this seems like a good improvement).

TOLLROADSnews: Chesapeake City VA launches toll financed bridge replacement/US17-Dominion Avenue (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5709)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 20, 2012, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 20, 2012, 05:28:14 PM
Another toll bridge on U.S. 17 in Virginia (and this seems like a good improvement).

TOLLROADSnews: Chesapeake City VA launches toll financed bridge replacement/US17-Dominion Avenue (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5709)

Over $400 million to build?  What will the toll be? 

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 20, 2012, 06:07:49 PM
The VDOT presentation on this project from their most recent meeting:

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/jan/Pre/Agenda_Item_9_Dominion_Blvd_Presentation_to_CTB_1-12-12.pdf (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/jan/Pre/Agenda_Item_9_Dominion_Blvd_Presentation_to_CTB_1-12-12.pdf)

It breaks down the costs to build this 3.6 mile project but does not suggest what toll would be set...


Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 20, 2012, 10:18:02 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 20, 2012, 06:07:49 PM
The VDOT presentation on this project from their most recent meeting:

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/jan/Pre/Agenda_Item_9_Dominion_Blvd_Presentation_to_CTB_1-12-12.pdf (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/jan/Pre/Agenda_Item_9_Dominion_Blvd_Presentation_to_CTB_1-12-12.pdf)

It breaks down the costs to build this 3.6 mile project but does not suggest what toll would be set...
Mapmikey
I saw that yesterday, and did not see any projected toll.  Given over $200 million in toll revenue bonds, it sure would seem important to announce a projected toll schedule.  It may be rather high.

Also, is there about 1.5 mile on the south end of the old VA-104, that will not be part of this project?  IOW, will remain 2 lanes until a separate project is developed?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 25, 2012, 12:45:01 PM
A dump truck whose bed was in the up position nailed a sign gantry in the Springfield Interchange this morning, shutting the Inner Loop of the Beltway. The road has now reopened. Picture below. Seems pretty pathetic to me, as I've noted that the Beltway work zones have a bunch of orange warning signs specifically directed at the dump truck drivers saying "CAUTION! Make sure your dump bed is DOWN!"

From the picture below this appears to be the sign bridge located just before the exit for I-395 (as the one after that has an "Exit Only" indicator for the ramp to Springfield).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.nbcwashington.com%2Fimages%2F654%2A368%2Fbeltway%2Bbusted%2Bsign.jpg&hash=dae942fd6a15895176d559896d4cce356c252039)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 25, 2012, 01:49:19 PM
The greened-out arrow on the far right of the photo is the give-away.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 28, 2012, 01:01:43 AM
http://www.progress-index.com/news/center-for-disabled-to-close-900-jobs-to-be-lost-1.1263482

VA 357 serves this facility. I'd imagine it would be decommissioned when the place closes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 28, 2012, 02:01:37 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 28, 2012, 01:01:43 AM
http://www.progress-index.com/news/center-for-disabled-to-close-900-jobs-to-be-lost-1.1263482

VA 357 serves this facility. I'd imagine it would be decommissioned when the place closes.

The Lynchburg (VA 334) and Hillsville (VA 392) facilities are also on the closure list.  Target dates for these facilities to close are 2014-2020


Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 30, 2012, 06:31:50 AM
Mecklenburg Prison is scheduled to close in May 2012.    I'm guessing VA 386 is on the chopping block...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2012, 07:55:11 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 30, 2012, 06:31:50 AM
Mecklenburg Prison is scheduled to close in May 2012.    I'm guessing VA 386 is on the chopping block...

Not directly road-related, but here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/town-struggles-to-survive-close-of-prison/2012/01/20/gIQAsq6bYQ_story.html) is a Washington Post article about the planned closure of the prison in Boydton.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 30, 2012, 09:37:44 AM
Hmm, I'll have to go see it before it gets axed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 30, 2012, 12:43:29 PM
Somebody submitted the following link to Dr. Gridlock's online chat today. It's a picture of Tysons looking north from the car park outside where Woodies used to be at the mall. You can see the elevated Metrorail line in the back and the new Westpark Bridge Beltway express lane exit in the foreground.

Certainly a very different view than you get passing through on the surface. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kitcase/6783691217/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 30, 2012, 05:01:37 PM
Nice photo.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on February 04, 2012, 04:49:04 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6819058447/in/photostream/

Is this particular sign a bit overkill?  Why not have a simpler tab on top that reads Exits 50A to 50D? 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 04, 2012, 06:24:50 PM
I've always thought the exit tab was fine, but the BGS portion is outdated, as mainline US 460 eastbound is on I-95 south here. That's now US 460 Business. Petersburg has a good amount of wacky signage in it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 05, 2012, 09:09:46 AM
Washington Post: Consulting commuters on I-66 needs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/consulting-commuters-on-i-66-needs/2012/02/02/gIQADSFIqQ_story.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on February 05, 2012, 09:41:14 AM
Quote from: Takumi on February 04, 2012, 06:24:50 PM
I've always thought the exit tab was fine, but the BGS portion is outdated, as mainline US 460 eastbound is on I-95 south here. That's now US 460 Business. Petersburg has a good amount of wacky signage in it.

I would like to know how Washington and Whythe Streets got to be Exit 50 D when the actual streets are north of Exit 51.  True the ramps bypass that of I-85, but before the tolls were lifted on the old Richmond- Petersburg Turnpike the exit was actually north of the 85 merge.  You had to pay the toll then before reaching the exit.  Now, of course, with more traffic causing weaving it was good to have a long c/d roadway, but nonetheless it is still an exit north of Exit 51 and south of Exit 52.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 05, 2012, 11:05:26 AM
I think they based it off the exit from the "main" C/D road. From what I can tell, they decided all the exits from it would be part of Exit 50.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on February 05, 2012, 11:14:19 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 05, 2012, 09:09:46 AM
Washington Post: Consulting commuters on I-66 needs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/consulting-commuters-on-i-66-needs/2012/02/02/gIQADSFIqQ_story.html)

That article noted the status of "spot improvements" to I-66 inside the Beltway.  Those included the new auxiliary lane on westbound I-66 in Arlington between the Glebe Rd. and Sycamore St. exits, that very, very quietly opened in December without (AFAIK) any mention in the Post.  There are two similar spot improvements in the pipeline, but those are on hold pending an I-66 "multi-modal" corridor study scheduled to be done in June.  I would not bet the ranch on either one going forward.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 05, 2012, 06:38:28 PM
Oh looky here. Police pulling people over on the interstate in Virginia is making others angry. Who saw that coming?

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2012/feb/05/tdmain01-legislative-scrutiny-increases-on-traffic-ar-1665059/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 05, 2012, 10:52:26 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 05, 2012, 06:38:28 PM
Oh looky here. Police pulling people over on the interstate in Virginia is making others angry. Who saw that coming?

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2012/feb/05/tdmain01-legislative-scrutiny-increases-on-traffic-ar-1665059/

"Anderson said about 99 percent of the speeding citations issued are for driving more than 10 mph over the speed limit. More than 500 motorists were cited for driving 90 to 99 mph, and 19 for driving 100 mph or more."

Those miscreants deserved to be ticketed.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2012, 08:33:12 AM
Quote from: Takumi on February 05, 2012, 06:38:28 PM
Oh looky here. Police pulling people over on the interstate in Virginia is making others angry. Who saw that coming?

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2012/feb/05/tdmain01-legislative-scrutiny-increases-on-traffic-ar-1665059/

I've no problem with local law enforcement officers doing their job (enforcing the law), even on an Interstate highway, given that the Virginia State Police force is frequently stretched pretty thin.  But consider also that the segment of I-295 in question probably has a design speed of about 150 MPH ;-) . 

Still, the posted limit is not quite that high (70 sounds correct - I drive I-295 pretty frequently - a bypass highway in the best sense of the phrase - a much easier drive than I-95 through Richmond and Petersburg).  And motorists driving over 80 MPH, especially in the Commonwealth of Virginia, do so at their own risk.

But I have a huge problem with the revenue-raising aspect of this - especially revenue raising for Hopewell's municipal government - that sounds like a speed trap.  Fine revenue from traffic summonses issued by the Virginia State Police (for the most part) goes to the Commonwealth's Literacy Fund, not to the State Police (exception for "liquidated damages" tickets issued to overweight commercial vehicles - I think VDOT gets those revenues).  No financial incentive for troopers in Virginia to write tickets knowing that the dollars come back to them. 

So in a perfect world, fines paid as a result of summonses issued by local law enforcement officers would also go to the Literacy Fund, and not to the county or municipal government employing them. 

In my home state of Maryland, local governments may not pass laws or ordinances concerning traffic (except parking), which means that all "moving violations" are infractions of the state's Transportation Article, and fine revenue goes to the state treasury, not a county or municipal government.

Two other places in Virginia where local law enforcement officers engage in aggressive traffic enforcement include:

(1) I-95 through Emporia (just north of the North Carolina border); and
(2) U.S. 29 through Greene County (between Charlottesville and Culpeper).

Traditionally, the Cities of Fairfax and Falls Church have had reputations for being tough on traffic infractions, but maybe not as much now as they once were.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2012, 08:36:59 AM
Quote from: oscar on February 05, 2012, 11:14:19 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 05, 2012, 09:09:46 AM
Washington Post: Consulting commuters on I-66 needs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/consulting-commuters-on-i-66-needs/2012/02/02/gIQADSFIqQ_story.html)

That article noted the status of "spot improvements" to I-66 inside the Beltway.  Those included the new auxiliary lane on westbound I-66 in Arlington between the Glebe Rd. and Sycamore St. exits, that very, very quietly opened in December without (AFAIK) any mention in the Post.  There are two similar spot improvements in the pipeline, but those are on hold pending an I-66 "multi-modal" corridor study scheduled to be done in June.  I would not bet the ranch on either one going forward.

Let's see what the results of the study says. 

Heck, I-66 might just be the most multi-modal corridor in Virginia - today
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2012, 08:42:26 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 05, 2012, 10:52:26 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 05, 2012, 06:38:28 PM
Oh looky here. Police pulling people over on the interstate in Virginia is making others angry. Who saw that coming?

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2012/feb/05/tdmain01-legislative-scrutiny-increases-on-traffic-ar-1665059/

"Anderson said about 99 percent of the speeding citations issued are for driving more than 10 mph over the speed limit. More than 500 motorists were cited for driving 90 to 99 mph, and 19 for driving 100 mph or more."

Those miscreants deserved to be ticketed.

No problem with ticketing them - and I mean ticketing all of them (if the Hopewell sheriff can muster enough officers to do that). 

Big problem with the Hopewell sheriff doing this to raise revenue for his agency and maybe for the City of Hopewell.

Quoting from the Times-Dispatch (emphasis added):

Quote"It's not about the money to me," Anderson said forcefully and repeatedly during a recent interview. The purpose, the sheriff said, is to slow people down and save lives.

Sorry - I don't believe him.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 06, 2012, 09:10:35 AM
You may not believe him, but the numbers suggest otherwise.  If it were about the money, you'd think they'd be nabbing everybody they could who was going 71.  But they point out virtually all the tickets were for those going 80+.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 09:21:09 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 06, 2012, 09:10:35 AM
You may not believe him, but the numbers suggest otherwise.  If it were about the money, you'd think they'd be nabbing everybody they could who was going 71.  But they point out virtually all the tickets were for those going 80+.

And many going far in excess of 80.  While I have questions about local law enforcement on Interstate highways, I will point out that Hopewell does have part of the responsibilites to provide emergency services to that segment of I-295, such as police, fire, EMS and hospital.  So it is not fair for anyone to suggest that they have no stake in law enforcement on I-295.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 06, 2012, 09:48:41 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 06, 2012, 09:10:35 AM
You may not believe him, but the numbers suggest otherwise.  If it were about the money, you'd think they'd be nabbing everybody they could who was going 71.  But they point out virtually all the tickets were for those going 80+.


On the other hand, though, anything in excess of 80 mph is statutorily grounds for a reckless driving ticket. While I've had the good fortune never to suffer one of those, I assume the average fine is substantially higher given that reckless driving is a criminal offense in Virginia rather than an "infraction" like most traffic tickets are. So there may be a definite incentive for the cops to focus on the "80-plus" crowd.

A ticket for 71 in a 70 zone is something you'll rarely see anywhere because police officers almost universally allow some amount of tolerance in case of speedometer error, which apparently is quite common. To me the most odious law in that respect is in Victoria, where the speed cameras will ticket for 3 km/h over the speed limit even though Australian federal law specifically allows a driver 10% tolerance on his speedometer for error (so, if the speed limit is 120, you'd be allowed 12 km/h error, or about 7 mph).

Getting back to Virginia, while I think the speed limit on most of that portion of I-295 is too low (except through the work zones), I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who get nailed for going over 80 mph and who get tagged with a reckless ticket as a result. As cpzilliacus notes, if you choose to go over 80 mph in Virginia, you do it at your own risk given the well-known reckless driving laws (although a lot of people mistakenly think that the reckless law is solely a "20 over" law; they forget the "in excess of 80 mph" part as well as the various other statutes setting forth other grounds for this offense). I certainly drive slower than I did when I was younger (and dumber), and my desire to keep my lower insurance premiums surely factors into that, but I'm also not regularly going up and down mind-numbing I-85 several times a year anymore.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2012, 10:38:55 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 06, 2012, 09:10:35 AM
You may not believe him, but the numbers suggest otherwise.  If it were about the money, you'd think they'd be nabbing everybody they could who was going 71.  But they point out virtually all the tickets were for those going 80+.

Froggie, I suggest that the Sheriff of Hopewell knows darned well that if his deputies were to issue summonses to all speeders on I-295, he would almost certainly incur the wrath of a substantial majority of the honorable members of the Virginia General Assembly, which would presumably result in nullification of municipal and county traffic laws in Virginia (as an aside, knowing that Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, I find it very curious that the Commonwealth allows its counties and cities and towns to enact local traffic laws at all).

Sheriff Anderson's deputies would almost certainly cause an increase in traffic crashes if he were to engage in "saturation" speed limit enforcement - on what is generally a pretty safe and modern highway.

Again, I have no sympathy for motorists that get stopped for exceeding the posted speed limit, especially those that exceed it by substantial margins (even though, in my opinion, most of Virginia's I-295 could safely have a posted limit of 80 MPH).

But I dislike intensely the use of traffic law enforcement as a way for any unit of government to raise revenue.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 10:46:46 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2012, 10:38:55 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 06, 2012, 09:10:35 AM
You may not believe him, but the numbers suggest otherwise.  If it were about the money, you'd think they'd be nabbing everybody they could who was going 71.  But they point out virtually all the tickets were for those going 80+.

Froggie, I suggest that the Sheriff of Hopewell knows darned well that if his deputies were to issue summonses to all speeders on I-295, he would almost certainly incur the wrath of a substantial majority of the honorable members of the Virginia General Assembly, which would presumably result in nullification of municipal and county traffic laws in Virginia (as an aside, knowing that Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, I find it very curious that the Commonwealth allows its counties and cities and towns to enact local traffic laws at all).

That's a strawman argument.  They don't have the resources to issue tickets to ALL speeders.  They don't have the resources to issue tickets to even a substantial minority.  They DO have enough resources to provide a visible disincentive to the worst speeders (80 to 100+)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2012, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 09:21:09 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 06, 2012, 09:10:35 AM
You may not believe him, but the numbers suggest otherwise.  If it were about the money, you'd think they'd be nabbing everybody they could who was going 71.  But they point out virtually all the tickets were for those going 80+.

And many going far in excess of 80.  While I have questions about local law enforcement on Interstate highways, I will point out that Hopewell does have part of the responsibilites to provide emergency services to that segment of I-295, such as police, fire, EMS and hospital.  So it is not fair for anyone to suggest that they have no stake in law enforcement on I-295.

Though as the article stated, investigation of crashes and other incidents on I-295 are handled by the Virginia State Police, not local law enforcement - an arrangement that holds in most places in Virginia.

And I know that the border between Hopewell and territory to its west, Prince George County is rather "jagged," and the border crosses I-295 several times between the Va. 36 (Oaklawn Boulevard) interchange and the Appomattox River. So yes, presumably Hopewell's fire and EMS agencies do respond to crashes on I-295, and there are probably times when the VSP requests backup response from Hopewell law enforcement.  

But on the flipside, the city derives tax revenue from the freeway-oriented businesses along Va. 36 near the 295 interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 12:22:59 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2012, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 09:21:09 AM
And many going far in excess of 80.  While I have questions about local law enforcement on Interstate highways, I will point out that Hopewell does have part of the responsibilites to provide emergency services to that segment of I-295, such as police, fire, EMS and hospital.  So it is not fair for anyone to suggest that they have no stake in law enforcement on I-295.

Though as the article stated, investigation of crashes and other incidents on I-295 are handled by the Virginia State Police, not local law enforcement - an arrangement that holds in most places in Virginia.

And I know that the border between Hopewell and territory to its west, Prince George County is rather "jagged," and the border crosses I-295 several times between the Va. 36 (Oaklawn Boulevard) interchange and the Appomattox River. So yes, presumably Hopewell's fire and EMS agencies do respond to crashes on I-295, and there are probably times when the VSP requests backup response from Hopewell law enforcement. 

Plus hospital.  The John Randolph Medical Center would be the default choice for about a 10-mile section of I-295.
Quote

But on the flipside, the city derives tax revenue from the freeway-oriented businesses along Va. 36 near the 295 interchange.

Not much, on the balance.  A considerable number of businesses and homes were removed in order to build the I-295/VA-36 interchange, and much of what is there now was there before I-295.  Doubt that there has been any net increase in businesses there.  Hopewell is well aware of this, of course.



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2012, 07:33:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 12:22:59 PM
But on the flipside, the city derives tax revenue from the freeway-oriented businesses along Va. 36 near the 295 interchange.

QuoteNot much, on the balance.  A considerable number of businesses and homes were removed in order to build the I-295/VA-36 interchange, and much of what is there now was there before I-295.  Doubt that there has been any net increase in businesses there.  Hopewell is well aware of this, of course.

I will have to defer to your better knowledge regarding Hopewell and Va. 36 in the pre-I-295 days.  Though it looks like Hopewell might have annexed some land around that interchange (along Va. 36) at some point.

Before 295 was completed, the only thing I know about Hopewell was the Kepone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepone) pollution scandal in the 1970's - like nearly all other N-S driving motorists on I-95, I paid my RPT tolls and stayed on I-95 (or I-85 if headed in the direction of Durham).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2012, 07:46:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 10:46:46 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2012, 10:38:55 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 06, 2012, 09:10:35 AM
You may not believe him, but the numbers suggest otherwise.  If it were about the money, you'd think they'd be nabbing everybody they could who was going 71.  But they point out virtually all the tickets were for those going 80+.

Froggie, I suggest that the Sheriff of Hopewell knows darned well that if his deputies were to issue summonses to all speeders on I-295, he would almost certainly incur the wrath of a substantial majority of the honorable members of the Virginia General Assembly, which would presumably result in nullification of municipal and county traffic laws in Virginia (as an aside, knowing that Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, I find it very curious that the Commonwealth allows its counties and cities and towns to enact local traffic laws at all).

That's a strawman argument.  They don't have the resources to issue tickets to ALL speeders.  They don't have the resources to issue tickets to even a substantial minority.  They DO have enough resources to provide a visible disincentive to the worst speeders (80 to 100+)

From what the Times-Dispatch article said, Hopewell did not have the resources to do any traffic enforcement on I-295 until recently (and as in most Virginia cities and counties with a police department, traffic enforcement is not usually a primary part of the sheriff's office). 

It would be interesting if the T-D were to ask similar questions about speed limit enforcement on I-95 in the vicinity of Emporia.  Like Hopewell, I have frequently noticed local law enforcement issuing speeding tickets on the Interstate in and near that municipality.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on February 06, 2012, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 12:22:59 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2012, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 09:21:09 AM
And many going far in excess of 80.  While I have questions about local law enforcement on Interstate highways, I will point out that Hopewell does have part of the responsibilites to provide emergency services to that segment of I-295, such as police, fire, EMS and hospital.  So it is not fair for anyone to suggest that they have no stake in law enforcement on I-295.

Though as the article stated, investigation of crashes and other incidents on I-295 are handled by the Virginia State Police, not local law enforcement - an arrangement that holds in most places in Virginia.

And I know that the border between Hopewell and territory to its west, Prince George County is rather "jagged," and the border crosses I-295 several times between the Va. 36 (Oaklawn Boulevard) interchange and the Appomattox River. So yes, presumably Hopewell's fire and EMS agencies do respond to crashes on I-295, and there are probably times when the VSP requests backup response from Hopewell law enforcement. 

Plus hospital.  The John Randolph Medical Center would be the default choice for about a 10-mile section of I-295.

That hospital has been owned by the for-profit HCA hospital system since the mid-1990s.  I don't know the details of the hospital's current relationship with the city government, but local taxpayers probably don't provide any significant financial support, especially for auto accident cases, which tend to be the least financially burdensome of trauma and emergency cases for hospitals (victims are more likely to be insured than, say, inner-city "knife and gun club" members).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 10:01:48 PM
Quote from: oscar on February 06, 2012, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 12:22:59 PM
Plus hospital.  The John Randolph Medical Center would be the default choice for about a 10-mile section of I-295.

That hospital has been owned by the for-profit HCA hospital system since the mid-1990s.  I don't know the details of the hospital's current relationship with the city government, but local taxpayers probably don't provide any significant financial support, especially for auto accident cases, which tend to be the least financially burdensome of trauma and emergency cases for hospitals (victims are more likely to be insured than, say, inner-city "knife and gun club" members).

Irrelevant.  The point being that it is part of the medical resource base of the Hopewell area.

A wreck that put 5 or 10 people in the hospital would draw considerable regional resources of ambulances and hospital beds.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 10:03:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2012, 07:33:47 PM
QuoteNot much, on the balance.  A considerable number of businesses and homes were removed in order to build the I-295/VA-36 interchange, and much of what is there now was there before I-295.  Doubt that there has been any net increase in businesses there.  Hopewell is well aware of this, of course.

I will have to defer to your better knowledge regarding Hopewell and Va. 36 in the pre-I-295 days.  Though it looks like Hopewell might have annexed some land around that interchange (along Va. 36) at some point.

No annexations.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on February 06, 2012, 11:07:42 PM
T
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 10:01:48 PM
Quote from: oscar on February 06, 2012, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 12:22:59 PM
Plus hospital.  The John Randolph Medical Center would be the default choice for about a 10-mile section of I-295.

That hospital has been owned by the for-profit HCA hospital system since the mid-1990s.  I don't know the details of the hospital's current relationship with the city government, but local taxpayers probably don't provide any significant financial support, especially for auto accident cases, which tend to be the least financially burdensome of trauma and emergency cases for hospitals (victims are more likely to be insured than, say, inner-city "knife and gun club" members).

Irrelevant.  The point being that it is part of the medical resource base of the Hopewell area.

A wreck that put 5 or 10 people in the hospital would draw considerable regional resources of ambulances and hospital beds.

Huh?  The argument being made above is that local law enforcement has a financial reason to care about what goes on I-295 passing through the Hopewell area, to the extent that travelers end up in the hospital, and so local police have a special need to supplement the Virginia State Police.  Even if a privately-owned HCA hospital is in some sense part of the "medical resource base" of the area, it's a part that HCA handles, and not part of what the local governments (including the one the Hopewell police work for) are responsible for or have a financial stake in.  EMS/ambulance, perhaps, but not the hospital, so the latter is essentially irrelevant to the argument, and you would do better to stick to the former.

BTW, the hospitals in the Richmond region, not just in Hopewell, are generally owned/operated by private companies (mainly HCA and a large Catholic system), or a state university (VCU/Medical College of Virginia), rather than local governments.  That's not always true in other regions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 07, 2012, 06:29:49 AM
Quote from: oscar on February 06, 2012, 11:07:42 PM
T
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 10:01:48 PM
Quote from: oscar on February 06, 2012, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2012, 12:22:59 PM
Plus hospital.  The John Randolph Medical Center would be the default choice for about a 10-mile section of I-295.

That hospital has been owned by the for-profit HCA hospital system since the mid-1990s.  I don't know the details of the hospital's current relationship with the city government, but local taxpayers probably don't provide any significant financial support, especially for auto accident cases, which tend to be the least financially burdensome of trauma and emergency cases for hospitals (victims are more likely to be insured than, say, inner-city "knife and gun club" members).

Irrelevant.  The point being that it is part of the medical resource base of the Hopewell area.

A wreck that put 5 or 10 people in the hospital would draw considerable regional resources of ambulances and hospital beds.

Huh?  The argument being made above is that local law enforcement has a financial reason to care about what goes on I-295 passing through the Hopewell area, to the extent that travelers end up in the hospital, and so local police have a special need to supplement the Virginia State Police.  Even if a privately-owned HCA hospital is in some sense part of the "medical resource base" of the area, it's a part that HCA handles, and not part of what the local governments (including the one the Hopewell police work for) are responsible for or have a financial stake in.  EMS/ambulance, perhaps, but not the hospital, so the latter is essentially irrelevant to the argument, and you would do better to stick to the former.

The local government has a stake in what impacts the community.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 09, 2012, 04:29:34 PM
WTOP Radio on construction impacts at I-66 and I-495 interchange: Construction at Beltway Interchange spurs traffic complaints (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2740958)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 11, 2012, 03:55:44 PM
Colonial Heights has replaced some signage at major intersections with its own custom-made directory signs. One of the removed signs included the US 144 error.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 11, 2012, 06:44:59 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 11, 2012, 03:55:44 PM
Colonial Heights has replaced some signage at major intersections with its own custom-made directory signs. One of the removed signs included the US 144 error.

Do the new signs have correct shields on them? (Or any shields at all, for that matter?)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 11, 2012, 06:57:33 PM
No shields, just directional arrows to city sites and landmarks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2012, 11:13:08 AM
WTOP Radio: VDOT investigates why sign fell on I-66 (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=120&sid=2745060)

QuoteInvestigators from the Virginia Department of Transportation are trying to determine why a 30-foot sign collapsed onto Interstate 66 Saturday.

QuoteThe sign fell into the eastbound lanes of I-66 near Monument Drive around 2:45 p.m. The sign struck a pickup truck, but nobody was injured.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2012, 07:49:03 AM
Also WTOP Radio: Financing approval anticipated for I-95/395 express lanes (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=654&sid=2748079)

QuoteWASHINGTON - The express lanes being built on the Capital Beltway in Northern Virginia promise a speedy commute in exchange for paying a toll.

QuoteAnd, there are plans to put a similar network of lanes in place along 29 miles of Interstate 95/395. That project, which would run from Garrisonville Road in Stafford County to about Edsall Road in Fairfax County, is expected to clear another hurdle Wednesday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2012, 04:54:35 PM
D.C. Examiner: Despite warnings, Virginia rarely enforces speeding from above (http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2012/02/despite-warnings-virginia-rarely-enforces-speeding-above/284461)

QuoteThe state rarely uses Aerial Speed Enforcement operations because of budget constraints. It costs $150 an hour to fuel and maintain the aircraft needed for the surveillance, according to the Virginia State Police, plus overtime expenses for the additional troopers needed to assist in the effort. Missions tend to last four to six hours.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 22, 2012, 08:24:32 AM
WTOP Radio regarding the I-495 (Va.) Express Lanes project: More changes coming along the Express Lanes project (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=654&sid=2756581)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 01, 2012, 11:52:17 AM
Speed Limit increasing to 60 over next few days over the entirety of I-664 and two small segments of I-64 in the Hampton Roads Area...

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2012/speed_limit_to_increase56714.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2012/speed_limit_to_increase56714.asp)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 01, 2012, 01:05:59 PM
 :banghead:  Dr. Gridlock's column today includes a letter from a reader who complains that the 495 Express Lanes (formerly the "HOT Lanes") represent double-charging (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/hot-lanes-take-heat-from-taxpayer/2012/02/14/gIQAYx6biR_story.html) due to tolls being imposed "on roads we've already paid for with tax dollars."

I think I will write a letter to Dr. Gridlock later today or tomorrow responding. I find arguments like this one to be laughable because they represent such a fundamental misunderstanding of the project. I mean, look, it seems to me that if you have four general-purpose lanes in each direction that anyone can use at any time subject only to HAZMAT and "no commercial vehicles in left lane" restrictions, and then you rebuild the road so it STILL has four general-purpose lanes in each direction PLUS two ENTIRELY NEW barrier-separated express lanes in each direction, how are you being "charged a toll to drive on a road paid for with tax dollars"? The new lanes wouldn't have existed at all but for the new project, and all the pre-existing capacity is maintained.

To me, letters like the one Dr. Gridlock published underscore the real difficulty with the 495 Express Lanes project: How to educate a driving public that is simply unwilling to listen or to allow itself to be educated or ruled by anything other than pure uninformed emotional rants. It also underscores to me that in some ways I'd be wasting my time writing the letter to Dr. Gridlock because the people who need to read that sort of thing aren't ever likely to see it. But I may do it anyway just on principle.  :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2012, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 01, 2012, 11:52:17 AM
Speed Limit increasing to 60 over next few days over the entirety of I-664 and two small segments of I-64 in the Hampton Roads Area...

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2012/speed_limit_to_increase56714.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2012/speed_limit_to_increase56714.asp)

I don't get it. 

Most of the Interstate (and non-Interstate but functional classification freeway, such as the Va. 168 toll road in Chesapeake) network in Hampton Roads (except perhaps for the segments of I-64 and I-664 approaching and crossing the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel and the Monitor-Merrimack Bridge Tunnel, respectively and I-264 approaching and crossing the Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge) ought to have posted speed limits of 65. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 01, 2012, 11:56:48 PM
Honestly, at the very least the segment of I-664 between the MMMBT and I-264 could easily do with a 65 MPH speed limit. 55 MPH always seemed painfully slow and I'm glad they're raising it at least a little bit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 02, 2012, 10:10:04 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 01, 2012, 11:56:48 PM
Honestly, at the very least the segment of I-664 between the MMMBT and I-264 could easily do with a 65 MPH speed limit. 55 MPH always seemed painfully slow and I'm glad they're raising it at least a little bit.

I base this statement on my (pretty extensive) driving experiences in Southern California, where very nearly all freeways have a posted limit of 65 MPH. 

Only one with a lower limit (that I can name immediately) is Ca. 110 (the Arroyo Seco Parkway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arroyo_Seco_Parkway), f/k/a Pasadena Freeway) between downtown L.A. and Pasadena.

But if the San Diego Freeway can have a posted limit of 65 MPH, then I think it reasonable to assert that very nearly every freeway in Hampton Roads (and, for that matter, across most of Virginia) could (and probably should) have a posted limit of 65.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 03, 2012, 08:02:46 AM
QuoteHonestly, at the very least the segment of I-664 between the MMMBT and I-264 could easily do with a 65 MPH speed limit. 55 MPH always seemed painfully slow and I'm glad they're raising it at least a little bit.

This segment was already 60 MPH (and has been for at least 10 years, back when I was in Norfolk the last time), except at the southernmost end near US 58.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 03, 2012, 01:22:15 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 03, 2012, 08:02:46 AM
QuoteHonestly, at the very least the segment of I-664 between the MMMBT and I-264 could easily do with a 65 MPH speed limit. 55 MPH always seemed painfully slow and I'm glad they're raising it at least a little bit.

This segment was already 60 MPH (and has been for at least 10 years, back when I was in Norfolk the last time), except at the southernmost end near US 58.

Correct.

So the MMMBT tunnel will be 60 mph ... are there any other major tunnels in the U.S. with a speed limit as high as that?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 10, 2012, 02:06:20 PM
Due to road work on both sides of VA 10 at its intersection with VA 145, the erroneous North-South VA 145 shields are gone, at least for the time being.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 15, 2012, 09:29:53 PM
Virginian-Pilot: Va. officials moving forward with tunnel, tolls project (http://hamptonroads.com/2012/03/va-officials-moving-forward-tunnel-tolls-project)

QuoteState highway officials are progressing on schedule with the Midtown Tunnel expansion despite a threatened lawsuit over tolls and an unresolved state budget that could inject more money in the deal.

QuoteState leaders are so confident the project will move forward that on Wednesday they looked to expedite plans to create a network of retail outlets to sell E-ZPass transponders before the tolling starts, which could be as early as July.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 15, 2012, 10:06:09 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 15, 2012, 09:29:53 PM
Virginian-Pilot: Va. officials moving forward with tunnel, tolls project (http://hamptonroads.com/2012/03/va-officials-moving-forward-tunnel-tolls-project)

QuoteState highway officials are progressing on schedule with the Midtown Tunnel expansion despite a threatened lawsuit over tolls and an unresolved state budget that could inject more money in the deal.

QuoteState leaders are so confident the project will move forward that on Wednesday they looked to expedite plans to create a network of retail outlets to sell E-ZPass transponders before the tolling starts, which could be as early as July.

I can't understand why there is no federal funding for this project, especially considering the massive military presence in the region.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 15, 2012, 10:19:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 15, 2012, 10:06:09 PM
I can't understand why there is no federal funding for this project, especially considering the massive military presence in the region.

The facilities in  question are, of course, intrastate.  But I agree regarding the military bases in and near Hampton Roads.

In addition, Hampton Roads is also home to major seaports, or, in geek-speak, intermodal facilities.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 15, 2012, 10:21:10 PM
WTOP Radio: Va. to make it easier, cheaper to buy E-ZPass (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=120&sid=2787776)

QuoteVirginia is planning to make it easier and cheaper to buy an E-ZPass.

QuoteThe plan comes as the state gets ready to open miles of High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes along both Interstate 495 and Interstate 95 in the next few years. The only way to pay the new tolls in those new lanes in Virginia will be with an E-ZPass transponder.

QuoteThe Virginia Department of Transportation is considering a plan that would make the transponder available at retail locations across the state for $35 with $15 dollars of that available to use right away for tolls. The other $20 could be used for tolls after the transponder is registered.

QuoteUnlike some other states including Maryland, there would be no monthly fee for E-ZPass and no charge for the actual transponder.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 15, 2012, 10:23:33 PM
Hmm. I may actually buy one if that happens.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 16, 2012, 08:15:28 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 15, 2012, 10:19:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 15, 2012, 10:06:09 PM
I can't understand why there is no federal funding for this project, especially considering the massive military presence in the region.

The facilities in  question are, of course, intrastate.  But I agree regarding the military bases in and near Hampton Roads.

In addition, Hampton Roads is also home to major seaports, or, in geek-speak, intermodal facilities.

Major non-Interstate highway projects often qualify for 70% or even 80% federal funding.  Even 50% for this project would provide major reduction in tolls.  Instead it is 0%...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 18, 2012, 06:46:57 PM
D.C. Examiner: Name a Virginia road for $5,000 to $200,000 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/03/name-virginia-road-5000-200000/378941)

QuoteCough up $200,000, promise not to use potty humor, and you could get to name your favorite stretch of interstate in Virginia.

QuoteDesperate for cash to build and fix roads, Virginia recently approved legislation that would allow corporations or individuals to pay to put their names on the state's roads and bridges. Following a successful program that allowed corporations to brand state highway rest stops, the naming-rights measure is expected to generate tens of millions of dollars for roads, according to transportation officials who are now identifying which pieces of the state's infrastructure are ripe for naming and what to charge.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bsmart on March 18, 2012, 09:07:25 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 18, 2012, 06:46:57 PM
D.C. Examiner: Name a Virginia road for $5,000 to $200,000 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/03/name-virginia-road-5000-200000/378941)

QuoteCough up $200,000, promise not to use potty humor, and you could get to name your favorite stretch of interstate in Virginia.

QuoteDesperate for cash to build and fix roads, Virginia recently approved legislation that would allow corporations or individuals to pay to put their names on the state's roads and bridges. Following a successful program that allowed corporations to brand state highway rest stops, the naming-rights measure is expected to generate tens of millions of dollars for roads, according to transportation officials who are now identifying which pieces of the state's infrastructure are ripe for naming and what to charge.



And I can remember when Virginia named highways (for Free) as an honor.  Mosby, Jackson, Lee immediately come to mind.  I think  US 29 is named after the 29th Infantry Division (The Blue and Gray Division, the MD & VA National Guard) 

How times have changed
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on March 18, 2012, 09:20:39 PM
There's a difference between naming roads in someone's honor and because someone paid you money to though. Roads are still named in honor of politicians, but there are plenty of other stretches of road that are not.

As for the idea itself, I don't really care. No one is going to suddenly start calling a highway by a corporate-sponsored name no matter how much they pay.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 20, 2012, 10:21:15 AM
WTOP Radio: Memo reveals Arlington ticket quota (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=139&sid=2793398)

QuoteA memo sent to Arlington County police officers earlier this month appears to outline a quota system for traffic tickets, arrests and parking citations, according to a report from television station WUSA 9.

QuoteThough the memo says "there is not, nor has there ever been a quota for traffic enforcement,"  it goes on to list "monthly proactivity expectations,"  complete with a set number of traffic summons and a maximum percentage of warnings.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 20, 2012, 12:11:16 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 18, 2011, 11:15:42 AM
....

I noticed the new BGSs for the HOV ramps have been put into place for traffic heading from the Inner Loop to Shirley Highway (i.e., going west into Springfield and exiting to the left of the I-95 flyover). Can't seem to get a good picture due to their location behind the flyover unless I were to hold the camera in my hand, which I don't like to do. They have the white "Restricted Lanes" banner at the top, then the shield and destination, then an empty opening where it looks like a VMS will be inserted. Whether that's going to contain toll rate info or instead HOV info, who knows. They haven't hoisted any toll gantries on that end of the project–the first one you see on the Inner Loop is just west of the main part of the Springfield Interchange going up the hill towards the overpass above Backlick Road.

I posted the above this past October 18. froggie replied as follows:

Quote from: froggie on October 18, 2011, 12:44:43 PM
The open space is where a small VMS will go showing the toll rate.


A few weeks later I posted this photo of one of the then-new signs with the open space, along with the speculation quoted below:

Quote from: 1995hoo on November 03, 2011, 02:38:24 PM
....

You know, the other possibility that occurs to me about the small VMS units that will go on these signs is that they may very well not include toll rates at all (there are still no signs of toll gantries anywhere on that side of the Springfield Interchange) and that instead they may well say "OPEN" or "CLOSED." Obviously, if the ramp from the Beltway to the inbound express lanes on I-395 is open, the ramp to the outbound express lanes on I-95 will be closed–both ramps will never be open at the same time. (My interest in the setup stems from the fact that I can see myself using those ramps very frequently, especially coming home from Caps games.)

....

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fc9fa6718.jpg&hash=703497ec097b90a61dffd6dc561ca340c732ab96)


A few minutes ago I received an e-mail from the 495 Express Lanes project in response to my query about whether the ramps will be tolled and it said as follows:

Quote
[My real name],

Thank you for your interest in the 495 Express Lanes.

All of the HOV ramps  will follow the existing HOV rules in effect today when the 495 Express Lanes open later this year. They are not a part of the tolled system. Hopefully this answers your question.

Please let us know if we can help you with anything else.

Safe travels.
495 Express Lanes Team

www.495ExpressLanes.com

Of course it bears remembering that if/when the Shirley Highway HO/T proposal is implemented, these ramps would then require payment of a toll by non-HOV drivers because, even if the ramps themselves are not tolled, the reversible center carriageway on Shirley Highway would be.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 22, 2012, 04:57:28 PM
WTOP: Express Lanes signs about to debut on Beltway (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2797514)

Adam Tuss reports that in the next few weeks we'll start seeing the "495 Express Lanes" signage. I can report, based on a trip to Falls Church today, that at least one is already up and is not covered with plastic–on the Inner Loop stretch between US-50 and I-66 there's a new sign with the white "E-ZPass Express" banner. It looks like it's got a VMS section underneath it, though I didn't get a great look because I was in slow traffic surrounded by trucks (including tractor-trailers driving on the shoulder). I also noted that they've started a bit of lane-striping near Braddock on the Inner Loop (very minimal, to be sure). The pace of construction has really accelerated big-time in the past couple of months, no doubt helped by the great weather recently. It looks like they definitely ought to have it all finished this year–though I hope for all of our sakes one of the final steps in the project would be a full re-pave of most of the existing road surface to get rid of all the annoying ruts and seams left over from the years of construction.

(Incidentally, I noted that the first advance overhead for I-66, which is located just before the Gallows Road overpass, has the exit tab on the LEFT for a right-side exit. I sent an e-mail to Steve Titunik of VDOT, but I rather doubt the sign will be replaced or altered because the exit "tab" appears to be part of the same large piece of metal, making a change uneconomical and impractical. I suppose, given the new standard that exit tabs for left exits include the "LEFT" banner, and given that the new signs on the Beltway follow that standard, the misplacement of this exit tab maybe isn't such a big deal–since it doesn't say "LEFT EXIT 49 B—A," it necessarily means it's a right-side exit.)

The part of Adam Tuss's article that I find most interesting, following a re-read, is his comment that they're going to start testing the tolling equipment in the next few weeks. I have to assume this is going to be on the portion between I-66 and US-29. That section is already paved within the last few weeks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 23, 2012, 01:15:11 PM
WAVY Channel 10: Businesses react to possible toll delay (http://www.wavy.com/dpp/traffic/tolls/businesses-react-to-possible-toll-delay)

QuoteA budget amendment to delay tolls until January 2014 has left some Portsmouth business owners with mixed reactions.

QuoteCrockin told WAVY.com he's been keeping a close eye on Louise Lucas' bill and doesn't think a two year delay will help.

Quote"What I want to see, and what other people in Portsmouth want to see, is no tolls," Crockin added. "Find another way to pay for the tunnels."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 23, 2012, 01:32:58 PM
Following on my other comment from yesterday about the new signs on the Beltway, the 495 Express Lanes project put this picture on their Twitter feed. The overpass in the background is US-29 (Lee Highway) and the ramp under construction to the left is the new northbound exit/southbound entrance from/to the Express Lanes. This is the same sign I mentioned in my previous comment, but when I went through there I was in the right lane because I wanted to exit onto I-66.

The white banner shown here is to be the standard at the top of all signs for the new lanes (width will vary, of course).

(https://p.twimg.com/Aom-GRqCIAAd2s0.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 03, 2012, 06:00:03 PM
Drove to Falls Church on the Beltway today and was glad to see some serious progress. The warm winter and spring have surely helped with that.

Substitute pylons for the orange barrels and the picture below (Inner Loop) gives a pretty good sense for how the Express Lanes separation will look. The gantries just north of the US-29 overpass have the tolling equipment in place, but I didn't get a good picture there since I was in the far right lane trying to exit to I-66 in some heavy traffic and the camera was clipped to the passenger-side sun visor (I don't like using a handheld device when I'm in traffic since our cars are all manual-shift). Also noted a lot of the lane striping leading to the new ramps in Springfield is complete or nearly complete and a crew were out installing the VMS units on the BGSs for the Inner Loop exit to the new ramps.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fef32d0cf.png&hash=e03e1ee4ff82d131d4a3a3127bc6e5ee3618a93c)


In a prior post I mentioned the advance sign for I-66 with the exit tab on the wrong side. It's been fixed. Steve Titunik had someone send me an e-mail saying they would go have a look at it, but I didn't expect it to be fixed so soon.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fea7dfced.png&hash=d9c8b909890d79053eb94413ee32125d5c81f988)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on April 03, 2012, 10:42:30 PM
I was in DC Saturday after a drive on Skyline Drive.  Is the "LEFT" banner on the Dulles Toll Road exit sign a first for VA?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 04, 2012, 07:38:28 AM
No, but close.  We've had one on southbound I-95 at US 1 just north of Woodbridge (Exit 161) for about a year now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 04, 2012, 07:51:01 AM
There have also been a couple at the Pentagon Mixing Bowl interchange since at least sometime last year. I'm not precisely sure when they went up, but they're on southbound VA-27 next to I-395 and they're part of those sign assemblies that use the very ugly large initial caps.

The still-covered signs for the new HOV ramps in Springfield bear "Left Exit" tabs without exit numbers. The tabs on the Inner Loop are visible; they have all-yellow backgrounds instead of using yellow just for the word "Left" like the other signs we've described.


Edited to add: Here's a photo of the ones near the Pentagon. Took this picture last June, but the signs had been there for awhile before then. As I look at this now I'm noticing for the first time the conflict between the "Left Exit" and "Exit Only" designations on this sign (denoting that I-395 and Ridge Road represent "exiting" from VA-27, Washington Boulevard) and the smaller exit sign at the gore that shows the VA-27 thru lanes as the "exit" (look between the white bus and the SUV).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F4e098bcb.jpg&hash=7135cafa67bac0d70b51dd5716c8b9519bea5b36)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on April 04, 2012, 11:48:34 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 04, 2012, 07:51:01 AM
the very ugly large initial caps.

Whatever. You'll get used to them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 04, 2012, 12:09:13 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 04, 2012, 11:48:34 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 04, 2012, 07:51:01 AM
the very ugly large initial caps.

Whatever. You'll get used to them.

So? Does that mean that it's not valid to say they're ugly? I mean, by the end of the Springsteen concert Sunday night I was "used to" the fact that the guy to my right had really bad BO, but it didn't mean I thought it was a good thing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on April 04, 2012, 12:11:38 PM
Oh, never mind. I thought you were talking about the initial caps on the directions, not the other text.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 04, 2012, 12:34:46 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 04, 2012, 12:11:38 PM
Oh, never mind. I thought you were talking about the initial caps on the directions, not the other text.

No, the ones on the directions don't bug me at all, and indeed that style has always made sense to me because people often abbreviate directions as "N," "S," etc. VDOT used the large initial caps for the directions prior to using any Clearview and I was used to that (although it lends itself to some odd results when they have a full line of text in all-caps and then suddenly that one letter is larger). My objection to the signs in the photo above relates primarily to the initial caps on the street names and destinations. I don't think the sign on the right is all that well laid-out either, but it's the initial caps that I find jarring (and there's a series of other signs along VA-27 there that use a similar design). It places undue emphasis on the first letter of each word–for example, on that I-395 sign my eyes note the "S A R R" part more than anything else.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on April 04, 2012, 12:45:02 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 04, 2012, 07:38:28 AM
No, but close.  We've had one on southbound I-95 at US 1 just north of Woodbridge (Exit 161) for about a year now.

I didn't remember seeing that when I drove south on I-95 Sat. night...I figured I would see a "LEFT EXIT 161" there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 04, 2012, 12:58:48 PM
GreaterGreater Washington: "My way or the highway" bill awaits VA governor's decision (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/14285/my-way-or-the-highway-bill-awaits-va-governors-decision/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 05, 2012, 06:25:04 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 03, 2012, 06:00:03 PM
In a prior post I mentioned the advance sign for I-66 with the exit tab on the wrong side. It's been fixed. Steve Titunik had someone send me an e-mail saying they would go have a look at it, but I didn't expect it to be fixed so soon.


There is still one on the outer loop just before I-66 that has the exit tab incorrect for the US 50 exit

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 05, 2012, 07:57:33 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 05, 2012, 06:25:04 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 03, 2012, 06:00:03 PM
In a prior post I mentioned the advance sign for I-66 with the exit tab on the wrong side. It's been fixed. Steve Titunik had someone send me an e-mail saying they would go have a look at it, but I didn't expect it to be fixed so soon.


There is still one on the outer loop just before I-66 that has the exit tab incorrect for the US 50 exit

Mapmikey

Haven't seen that one because I haven't been through there in several months. Sounds like someone at VDOT or Fluor—Transurban made up his own idea of how to use exit tabs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 19, 2012, 10:07:06 AM
WTOP: Plans moving ahead for I-95 tolls (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2832989)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 19, 2012, 10:17:26 AM
Also from WTOP Radio: Dulles Toll Road fee increase on the horizon (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2832750)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 19, 2012, 12:13:06 PM
Last month, VDOT wanted to make it easier and cheaper (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=120&sid=2787776) to get an EZpass.

And now, they want to charge a monthly fee (http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2012/apr/19/4/vdot-proposes-1-monthly-fee-e-zpass-transponders-ar-1854205/) for it. (H/T Allen Seth Dunn for the link)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 19, 2012, 12:49:57 PM
Thanks for the info. We have two E-ZPasses and that sort of fee would prompt me to explore whether to cancel the account and get one from another jurisdiction.

Edited to add: I see Maine has no monthly fee but charges $10 one-time for a transponder. Massachusetts has no fee but their site redirects you to your home state when you try to sign up (like Virginia's does).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 19, 2012, 02:01:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2012, 12:13:06 PM
Last month, VDOT wanted to make it easier and cheaper (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=120&sid=2787776) to get an EZpass.

And now, they want to charge a monthly fee (http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2012/apr/19/4/vdot-proposes-1-monthly-fee-e-zpass-transponders-ar-1854205/) for it. (H/T Allen Seth Dunn for the link)


I have to wonder if the left hand knows what the right hand is up to.

Given that electronic toll collection is substantially less expensive than cash, it would seem to me that encouraging use of E-ZPass, even among (infrequent) toll road/toll crossing patrons, would make sense.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 19, 2012, 02:08:51 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 19, 2012, 02:01:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2012, 12:13:06 PM
Last month, VDOT wanted to make it easier and cheaper (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=120&sid=2787776) to get an EZpass.

And now, they want to charge a monthly fee (http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2012/apr/19/4/vdot-proposes-1-monthly-fee-e-zpass-transponders-ar-1854205/) for it. (H/T Allen Seth Dunn for the link)


I have to wonder if the left hand knows what the right hand is up to.

Given that electronic toll collection is substantially less expensive than cash, it would seem to me that encouraging use of E-ZPass, even among (infrequent) toll road/toll crossing patrons, would make sense.

Agreed. It seems to me that if they want to defray the cost of E-ZPass, maybe they ought to raise the tolls on cash customers since the cost to process cash payments is higher than the electronic payments (in fairness, I suppose electronic payments carry some cost due to the interchange fees imposed by the credit card companies, but that has to be less than the cost of salary plus benefits for toll collectors). You know there are always going to be some people who pay cash as long as the option is offered, either because they don't trust electronic systems to work properly, they're just comfortable with paying cash, they don't drive on toll roads often enough to bother, they live in a state with an incompatible transponder, or they're conspiracy theorists who view electronic tolling as Big Brother in action.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 19, 2012, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 19, 2012, 02:08:51 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 19, 2012, 02:01:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2012, 12:13:06 PM
Last month, VDOT wanted to make it easier and cheaper (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=120&sid=2787776) to get an EZpass.

And now, they want to charge a monthly fee (http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2012/apr/19/4/vdot-proposes-1-monthly-fee-e-zpass-transponders-ar-1854205/) for it. (H/T Allen Seth Dunn for the link)


I have to wonder if the left hand knows what the right hand is up to.

Given that electronic toll collection is substantially less expensive than cash, it would seem to me that encouraging use of E-ZPass, even among (infrequent) toll road/toll crossing patrons, would make sense.

Agreed. It seems to me that if they want to defray the cost of E-ZPass, maybe they ought to raise the tolls on cash customers since the cost to process cash payments is higher than the electronic payments (in fairness, I suppose electronic payments carry some cost due to the interchange fees imposed by the credit card companies, but that has to be less than the cost of salary plus benefits for toll collectors). You know there are always going to be some people who pay cash as long as the option is offered, either because they don't trust electronic systems to work properly, they're just comfortable with paying cash, they don't drive on toll roads often enough to bother, they live in a state with an incompatible transponder, or they're conspiracy theorists who view electronic tolling as Big Brother in action.

Even though  over 50% of the Dulles Toll Road patrons pay with  E-ZPass these days, I am still astounded at the queues (for those paying cash) that form at the main toll barrier near Tysons Corner and at some of the plazas to the west.

West of the Toll Road on the private Dulles Greenway in Loudoun County, all of the ramp tolls (for eastbound traffic exiting and westbound traffic entering) are E-ZPass or credit card only, and even the mainline barrier on the Greenway is now unstaffed during the overnight hours.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on April 19, 2012, 10:15:23 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2012, 12:13:06 PM
Last month, VDOT wanted to make it easier and cheaper (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=120&sid=2787776) to get an EZpass.

And now, they want to charge a monthly fee (http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2012/apr/19/4/vdot-proposes-1-monthly-fee-e-zpass-transponders-ar-1854205/) for it. (H/T Allen Seth Dunn for the link)


Sounds like I'll need to remind VDOT (when the public comment period opens) that I started off with Maryland E-ZPass, then switched to Virginia's after Maryland started imposing a monthly fee.  If Virginia follows suit, maybe it'll be time for me to switch again (need to check the deals out there from other jurisdictions -- last I checked Illinois had a good one, but has that changed lately?).

$1 a month isn't that big a dent in my budget, but I try hard to reduce or avoid even small recurring charges to minimize their combined slow drip from my bank account.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 21, 2012, 12:19:43 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 19, 2012, 10:07:06 AM
WTOP: Plans moving ahead for I-95 tolls (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2832989)

72% needs to be repaved? Bull, they did all the horrible concrete sections south of Richmond with what I presume was ARRA funds a few years back. That was by far the worst section of roadway. The rest is actually in decent shape.... much smoother then what most Northeast states have for Interstate pavement. Plus these tolls won't be used for roadway expansion? Whats the point then? I-95 desperately needs extra lanes between Quantico (where the current HOV lanes end) and I-295 along with the section from I-295 (south end) to the state line. The current HOT lane proposal only goes to Fredricksburg and clearly needs expansion south of there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 21, 2012, 12:32:23 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 21, 2012, 12:19:43 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 19, 2012, 10:07:06 AM
WTOP: Plans moving ahead for I-95 tolls (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2832989)

72% needs to be repaved? Bull, they did all the horrible concrete sections south of Richmond with what I presume was ARRA funds a few years back. That was by far the worst section of roadway. The rest is actually in decent shape.... much smoother then what most Northeast states have for Interstate pavement.

Have you driven I-95 in the City of Richmond recently? They're just now repaving it. But yeah, the tolls are redundant and useless given that they won't be going back to VDOT for the most part (doesn't that technically violate interstate standards?).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on April 21, 2012, 09:07:27 AM
Some of 95 in Chester, Colonial Heights, and Petersburg was paved in November and December, but the end result was atrocious, especially in the latter two. My dad, a construction inspector who often works on interstates, said it was the worst repaving end result he's ever seen. Point is, even that section needs repaving and it's less than six months old!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: PurdueBill on April 21, 2012, 01:32:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 19, 2012, 12:49:57 PMMassachusetts has no fee but their site redirects you to your home state when you try to sign up (like Virginia's does).

Makes me feel fortunate that the MassPike FastLane account I opened over a decade ago still lives, and that they even replaced my transponder free last year (in person while I was visiting Mass.)...at the time I opened the account and started using it I was a Mass resident but now being in Ohio I'm glad I don't have to pay the monthly fees here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 21, 2012, 04:13:39 PM
By experimenting I found you can indeed get a Massachusetts E-ZPass if you're from elsewhere. When it asks what state you're from, tell it Massachusetts, then when you fill in your info you can give it your true address.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 22, 2012, 09:19:44 AM
QuoteI-95 desperately needs extra lanes between Quantico (where the current HOV lanes end) and I-295 along with the section from I-295 (south end) to the state line.

Quantico to Richmond, yes.  Petersburg to the state line, much less so.

QuoteBut yeah, the tolls are redundant and useless given that they won't be going back to VDOT for the most part (doesn't that technically violate interstate standards?).

What do you mean here?  The tolls would be going back to I-95 improvements.  And no, that wouldn't violate Federal law because that's exactly what the law was written for.  Why do you think tolling I-80 in PA was rejected by FHWA?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 22, 2012, 12:36:09 PM
I was under the impression that, as froggie says, the point of the tolling on I-95 is that Virginia would give up any future federal funding for that road and that the toll revenue would be required to be used solely for I-95 maintenance or improvements. I suppose you could accurately say the funding wouldn't go into VDOT's general budget per se, but insofar as VDOT maintains I-95 (outside of the future HO/T project), VDOT would be getting the toll money.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 22, 2012, 03:58:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 22, 2012, 12:36:09 PM
I was under the impression that, as froggie says, the point of the tolling on I-95 is that Virginia would give up any future federal funding for that road and that the toll revenue would be required to be used solely for I-95 maintenance or improvements. I suppose you could accurately say the funding wouldn't go into VDOT's general budget per se, but insofar as VDOT maintains I-95 (outside of the future HO/T project), VDOT would be getting the toll money.

The I-95 toll revenue would be restricted in use to only on I-95 improvements and debt retirement, but federal funds would be a separate issue; as a "Corridor of the Future", an Interstate highway could possibly use a mix of toll revenue bond financing, state tax funds, and federal road use taxes, with the final funding package and toll rates subject to FHWA approval.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 23, 2012, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 22, 2012, 03:58:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 22, 2012, 12:36:09 PM
I was under the impression that, as froggie says, the point of the tolling on I-95 is that Virginia would give up any future federal funding for that road and that the toll revenue would be required to be used solely for I-95 maintenance or improvements. I suppose you could accurately say the funding wouldn't go into VDOT's general budget per se, but insofar as VDOT maintains I-95 (outside of the future HO/T project), VDOT would be getting the toll money.

The I-95 toll revenue would be restricted in use to only on I-95 improvements and debt retirement, but federal funds would be a separate issue; as a "Corridor of the Future", an Interstate highway could possibly use a mix of toll revenue bond financing, state tax funds, and federal road use taxes, with the final funding package and toll rates subject to FHWA approval.

True, but I believe I read either in a news report or in a VDOT document that the terms of this particular proposal (tolling I-95 in Virginia) would require Virginia to forfeit further federal funding for that particular road. I suppose it's all subject to change anyway unless/until it actually happens.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 23, 2012, 01:58:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 23, 2012, 12:36:02 PM
True, but I believe I read either in a news report or in a VDOT document that the terms of this particular proposal (tolling I-95 in Virginia) would require Virginia to forfeit further federal funding for that particular road. I suppose it's all subject to change anyway unless/until it actually happens.

I would like to see a cite and link of such an article
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 23, 2012, 03:08:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2012, 01:58:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 23, 2012, 12:36:02 PM
True, but I believe I read either in a news report or in a VDOT document that the terms of this particular proposal (tolling I-95 in Virginia) would require Virginia to forfeit further federal funding for that particular road. I suppose it's all subject to change anyway unless/until it actually happens.

I would like to see a cite and link of such an article

The Washington Post isn't always reliable, but their transportation staff usually do an OK job. See this article. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-can-move-ahead-with-i-95-tolling-plan-feds-say/2011/09/19/gIQAaRELgK_story.html)

Partial excerpt (boldface mine):

QuoteTo win final federal approval of the I-95 tolling plan, the state must conduct an environmental review, outline improvements that will increase capacity, determine where tolls will be collected and defend that determination, and certify that toll revenue will replace all other federal funding that otherwise would have been used for maintenance or improvement of the tolled portions.


The Fairfax Times reported that the forfeiture of federal maintenance funds for that road is a condition of the tolling pilot program, which implies that it could be changed down the road: (http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20110920/NEWS/709209933/1117/1117/tolls-on-i-95-get-a-green-light&template=fairfaxTimes)

QuoteTo complete its approval of tolls on I-95, VDOT will need to specify short-term improvements the state will implement using toll money; explain how tolls will help add to road capacity; explain how maintenance issues will be addressed on the tolled portion of I-95 and detail where tolls will be collected and why these locations were chosen. Under the pilot program, Virginia cannot use interstate maintenance funds on the tolled portion of I-95 during the pilot.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 24, 2012, 08:05:10 AM
TOLLROADSnews interviews Virginia's Secretary of Transportation, Sean Connaughton: "No more large projects are possible without tolls" (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5900)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 24, 2012, 09:37:12 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 24, 2012, 08:05:10 AM
TOLLROADSnews interviews Virginia's Secretary of Transportation, Sean Connaughton: "No more large projects are possible without tolls" (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5900)

I'd like to see more data on the following paragraph because I wonder whether the second sentence is indeed accurate. I wouldn't be surprised if Virginia has indeed seen a more-rapid-than-typical decline in gas tax revenue over the past ten to fifteen years due to the explosion of hybrids in Northern Virginia (and maybe in the Tidewater area, but I haven't been down that way in a long time) due to the HOV exemptions. While it's true that hybrids have increased in popularity everywhere, many reports have strongly suggested that Northern Virginia in particular has seen an unusually high concentration of them due to the HOV exemption. I suppose, though, that statistically the hybrids probably still represent a drop in the bucket as to the overall gas tax.

QuoteUndermining the gasoline tax is a "dramatic increase in efficiency" of cars. Virginia he thinks is not unusual in seeing a quite rapid decline in the fuel tax yield. This year they had forecast a slight increase in gas tax revenue but they are seeing a decline of 1.5%.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 25, 2012, 11:14:33 AM
WTOP Radio: Express Lanes: A quick way to go broke? (http://www.wtop.com/41/2840091/Express-Lanes-Quick-way-to-go-broke)

QuoteDrivers are expected to have access to the Beltway Express Lanes between Springfield and Dulles Toll Road by the end of the year.

QuoteWhen the project opens, drivers will have to decide whether time saved is worth the cost.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 25, 2012, 12:38:54 PM
Two members of this forum have left comments on that WTOP article. I don't know why I bother. The level of public ignorance about the 495 Express Lanes project is really pathetic, although what's more pathetic is that so much of it is what in tort law is called "willful blindness"–people refuse to listen to anything rational that would educate them about the project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 25, 2012, 04:25:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 25, 2012, 12:38:54 PM
Two members of this forum have left comments on that WTOP article. I don't know why I bother. The level of public ignorance about the 495 Express Lanes project is really pathetic, although what's more pathetic is that so much of it is what in tort law is called "willful blindness"–people refuse to listen to anything rational that would educate them about the project.

Hoo, I strongly agree.  

There are an awful lot of people around this area (and not just in Virginia) that on the one hand agree with politicians that motor fuel taxes must not ever, ever be raised, and on the other hand will moan and groan and complain that tolls are "too high."  Those very same people also seem to think that they have an absolute entitlement to a congestion-free trip where ever and when ever they need to go.

A case in point includes the elected officials that slam the (private) owners of the Dulles Greenway for charging tolls that are "too high," and make repeated demands for an "audit" of the books.  Never mind that the Greenways's tolls are regulated by the State Corporation Commission.

Another case in point, on the other side of the Potomac River, are the craven claims by certain Maryland politicians that the Maryland Transportation Authority is setting the tolls on some of its crossings (in particular the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and the one toll point on the John F. Kennedy Highway) "too high," without any data to support same.

There's "no such thing as a free lunch."  And there's no such thing as a free highway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 26, 2012, 04:09:36 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 05, 2012, 06:25:04 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 03, 2012, 06:00:03 PM
In a prior post I mentioned the advance sign for I-66 with the exit tab on the wrong side. It's been fixed. Steve Titunik had someone send me an e-mail saying they would go have a look at it, but I didn't expect it to be fixed so soon.


There is still one on the outer loop just before I-66 that has the exit tab incorrect for the US 50 exit

Mapmikey

I finally wound up going to Tysons today and I got a picture of the sign you mention. Sent it to Steve Titunik at VDOT. They fixed the other one fairly promptly, so hopefully they'll fix this one too.

On my way out to Tysons I had to go to Falls Church off Shreve Road and from there I took Idylwood Road to Gallows to stop at the Dunn Loring post office. I noticed from the overpass that it appears that the Inner Loop Express Lanes through that area are starting to take their final configuration with the pylons and the like. I wasn't able to stop to get a picture due to traffic and I didn't have time to park the car and walk back, but I hope to do so within the next week or two. I'm really looking forward to seeing the final configuration.


Edited to add: While I was at the mall I went up to the top of the parking garage out back of where Woodies used to be and took some pictures. Here's the future Westpark Connector exit from the new Express Lanes. The long concrete overpass beyond that is the Metrorail line; you can see in the distance to the right where it swoops around to join the Dulles Access Road Extension in the median.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F6dfb0def.jpg&hash=a6f0c4dbb9cfa1fd9bfa9a51d83786dcb06e7e98)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 29, 2012, 06:47:13 PM
On an unrelated note, I-195 in Richmond now has mileposts (the variety containing a small route shield) that use the combined mileage of I-195 and VA 195. However, they're not implemented properly and cause even more confusion as to where I-195 ends and VA 195 begins; south/eastbound, there is an I-195 milepost after the Rosewood Ave exit, but a VA 195 milepost right after VA 146 merges in from the right. This milepost is actually before the BEGIN VA 195 shield located near the Downtown Expressway toll plaza. This is also the last milepost on the route, as state maintenance ends at that BEGIN sign (VA 195 is maintained by the Richmond Metropolitan Authority beyond that point).

I haven't driven the route west/northbound yet to see what the mileposts look like between the toll plaza and the I-195/VA 146 split, but there are several of them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 29, 2012, 09:41:50 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 29, 2012, 06:47:13 PM
On an unrelated note, I-195 in Richmond now has mileposts (the variety containing a small route shield) that use the combined mileage of I-195 and VA 195. However, they're not implemented properly and cause even more confusion as to where I-195 ends and VA 195 begins; south/eastbound, there is an I-195 milepost after the Rosewood Ave exit, but a VA 195 milepost right after VA 146 merges in from the right. This milepost is actually before the BEGIN VA 195 shield located near the Downtown Expressway toll plaza. This is also the last milepost on the route, as state maintenance ends at that BEGIN sign (VA 195 is maintained by the Richmond Metropolitan Authority beyond that point).

Wait until the signing project is complete before judging it ... the project is underway and about half complete.

Also, I-195 ends just west of the east wye of the delta freeway interchange.  An 0.9-mile section of the Downtown Expressway was funded and built by VDOT as Project 0088, to reduce the need for RMA to use toll revenue bonds, and that runs from the end of I-195 eastward.  Project 0088 is administered by VDOT and is VA-195, not I-195.  Project 0088 is very identifiable now as the concrete pavement that is being replaced on VA-195 and VA-146, and it will be overlaid with asphalt ... and that is a VDOT project.  RMA rehabbed and overlaid its concrete pavements about 10 years ago.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 29, 2012, 10:15:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2012, 09:41:50 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 29, 2012, 06:47:13 PM
On an unrelated note, I-195 in Richmond now has mileposts (the variety containing a small route shield) that use the combined mileage of I-195 and VA 195. However, they're not implemented properly and cause even more confusion as to where I-195 ends and VA 195 begins; south/eastbound, there is an I-195 milepost after the Rosewood Ave exit, but a VA 195 milepost right after VA 146 merges in from the right. This milepost is actually before the BEGIN VA 195 shield located near the Downtown Expressway toll plaza. This is also the last milepost on the route, as state maintenance ends at that BEGIN sign (VA 195 is maintained by the Richmond Metropolitan Authority beyond that point).

Wait until the signing project is complete before judging it ... the project is underway and about half complete.

Also, I-195 ends just west of the east wye of the delta freeway interchange.  An 0.9-mile section of the Downtown Expressway was funded and built by VDOT as Project 0088, to reduce the need for RMA to use toll revenue bonds, and that runs from the end of I-195 eastward.  Project 0088 is administered by VDOT and is VA-195, not I-195.  Project 0088 is very identifiable now as the concrete pavement that is being replaced on VA-195 and VA-146, and it will be overlaid with asphalt ... and that is a VDOT project.  RMA rehabbed and overlaid its concrete pavements about 10 years ago.



Explains the appearance of BEGIN and END shields on I-195, then. The VDOT page on the project only mentioned the pavement rehabilitation project, it didn't mention signage.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 29, 2012, 11:03:22 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 29, 2012, 10:15:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2012, 09:41:50 PM
I-195 ends just west of the east wye of the delta freeway interchange.  An 0.9-mile section of the Downtown Expressway was funded and built by VDOT as Project 0088, to reduce the need for RMA to use toll revenue bonds, and that runs from the end of I-195 eastward.  Project 0088 is administered by VDOT and is VA-195, not I-195.  Project 0088 is very identifiable now as the concrete pavement that is being replaced on VA-195 and VA-146, and it will be overlaid with asphalt ... and that is a VDOT project.  RMA rehabbed and overlaid its concrete pavements about 10 years ago.

Explains the appearance of BEGIN and END shields on I-195, then. The VDOT page on the project only mentioned the pavement rehabilitation project, it didn't mention signage.

Most likely those signs were posted to clearly delineate the boundaries between VDOT and RMA administration, for agency uses.  Shows who is responsible for mowing, plowing, etc.

The title notwithstanding, this project includes portions of both I-195 and VA-195.  The north leg of the delta interchange up to the eastermost local ramps is I-195.

I-195 Concrete Repairs
http://virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-195_concrete_repairs.asp

I suppose it would be easier to make the whole thing I-195, or perhaps I-695.  Since the City of Richmond has no state secondary roads, 695 in the city would not interfere with any pre-existing routes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 29, 2012, 11:24:53 PM
Well, there are already signs that delineate where RMA jurisdiction begins; RMA always posts "Begin/End RMA Expressway" signs in the appropriate locations. There are such signs near the Downtown Expressway toll plaza, at the northern end of VA 76 at I-195, on VA 76 at the Chesterfield County/City of Richmond line, and on VA 146. There is also a "Begin RMA Expressway" sign at the onramp from VA 150 to northbound VA 76.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 01, 2012, 02:08:24 PM
Had to go to Falls Church earlier today and I stopped to take some pictures from the Idylwood Road overpass above the Beltway. (That hill leading up to it is a lot steeper than it seems in a car!) There is also a new sign for the Express Lanes exit to I-66 on the Inner Loop between US-50 and US-29, and it isn't covered up yet, but I wasn't able to get a picture of that due to traffic. I assume it will be covered next time I go through there.

I understand that each of those white Botts dot—type mounds will eventually be topped with a pylon of the sort visible in this picture, which is looking north towards Tysons (sorry about the black obstruction on the sides; that's from the chain-link fence on the bridge):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F53e3f744.jpg&hash=3caab4bf66a8f0eba3c530d1cde364cf5cc2f77b)


Closer view of the same area:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fc08140be.jpg&hash=471dee5a724a7c4a61881390880c8a71b67b6bd4)


Looking south towards I-66 now. It looks to me like it's being set up so the cops have space to park just past the toll collection gantries:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Ff7407539.jpg&hash=e56918afe07b5ee9a17660a5bf50a740d7e4a402)


Close-up of the toll gantry with equipment installed. It's a bit jaggy because I didn't expect to have time to stop to take pictures and so didn't bring my real camera:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F4c809e5f.jpg&hash=011183e33b504ea23ecd5b483ed165509b96e8f2)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 03, 2012, 08:42:21 AM
WRC-TV (Channel 4, NBC in Washington, D.C.) is promoting a sweeps month special about VDOT's failure to maintain its overhead signs to air on its Thursday (3-May-2012) late night news broadcast at 11:00 P.M.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 03, 2012, 10:43:05 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 03, 2012, 08:42:21 AM
WRC-TV (Channel 4, NBC in Washington, D.C.) is promoting a sweeps month special about VDOT's failure to maintain its overhead signs to air on its Thursday (3-May-2012) late night news broadcast at 11:00 P.M.

Thanks for that info, I may set the DVR to record it. I normally watch their 11:00 news, but I have a feeling I may not make it that late tonight since it was after 1:00 by the time we got home from last night's Caps game and then I couldn't fall asleep. I'm feeling it this morning....
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 03, 2012, 11:43:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 03, 2012, 08:42:21 AM
WRC-TV (Channel 4, NBC in Washington, D.C.) is promoting a sweeps month special about VDOT's failure to maintain its overhead signs to air on its Thursday (3-May-2012) late night news broadcast at 11:00 P.M.

The report concentrated on structural problems with overhead signs and high-mast lighting.

More to come tomorrow night (Friday, 4-May-2012). 

Curiously, there was a campaign-style ad by the Virginia Republican Party featuring incumbent Gov. Bob McDonnell.  I say curiously since Virginia governors may not succeed themselves, and I have to wonder if the ad was designed to counteract the impact of this news story.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on May 04, 2012, 12:35:21 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 03, 2012, 11:43:04 PM
Curiously, there was a campaign-style ad by the Virginia Republican Party featuring incumbent Gov. Bob McDonnell.  I say curiously since Virginia governors may not succeed themselves, and I have to wonder if the ad was designed to counteract the impact of this news story.

Looked a lot like promoting McDonnell as a possible running mate to Mitt Romney.  Only a snippet about transportation issues.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 04, 2012, 07:56:15 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 03, 2012, 11:43:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 03, 2012, 08:42:21 AM
WRC-TV (Channel 4, NBC in Washington, D.C.) is promoting a sweeps month special about VDOT's failure to maintain its overhead signs to air on its Thursday (3-May-2012) late night news broadcast at 11:00 P.M.

The report concentrated on structural problems with overhead signs and high-mast lighting.

....

Less interesting than it sounded, then. I recorded it and will watch it later today....I was nodding off on the couch by 10:00 last night and turned in for good by 10:15 (tell you what, getting over nine hours of sleep feels great!), so thanks for letting us all know it would be airing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 04, 2012, 09:57:16 AM
Quote from: oscar on May 04, 2012, 12:35:21 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 03, 2012, 11:43:04 PM
Curiously, there was a campaign-style ad by the Virginia Republican Party featuring incumbent Gov. Bob McDonnell.  I say curiously since Virginia governors may not succeed themselves, and I have to wonder if the ad was designed to counteract the impact of this news story.

Looked a lot like promoting McDonnell as a possible running mate to Mitt Romney.  Only a snippet about transportation issues.

He's near the bottom of the list if at all ...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 04, 2012, 06:43:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 03, 2012, 11:43:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 03, 2012, 08:42:21 AM
WRC-TV (Channel 4, NBC in Washington, D.C.) is promoting a sweeps month special about VDOT's failure to maintain its overhead signs to air on its Thursday (3-May-2012) late night news broadcast at 11:00 P.M.

The report concentrated on structural problems with overhead signs and high-mast lighting.

More to come tomorrow night (Friday, 4-May-2012). 

I suppose this might explain why VDOT seems to be moving away from bridge-mounted overhead signs and replacing them with overhead gantries or simple signs on the side of the road...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on May 04, 2012, 10:10:39 PM
FYI you can now send comments about VDOT's proposed E-ZPass fee

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/e-zpass_info.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on May 12, 2012, 04:48:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 01, 2012, 02:08:24 PM
Had to go to Falls Church earlier today and I stopped to take some pictures from the Idylwood Road overpass above the Beltway. (That hill leading up to it is a lot steeper than it seems in a car!) There is also a new sign for the Express Lanes exit to I-66 on the Inner Loop between US-50 and US-29, and it isn't covered up yet, but I wasn't able to get a picture of that due to traffic. I assume it will be covered next time I go through there.

Here are pictures I took today of two signs for the I-495 express lanes, on westbound I-66 approaching I-495.  The first was taken from roadside, at exit 66 (VA 7/Leesburg Pike).  The second was taken just east of the first sign, from the shoulder of the bus-only ramp from the Dulles Access Road to the north side of the West Falls Church Metro station.  There are other signs for the I-495 express lanes, on I-66 both west and east of I-495 (one of those signs is in the background of the first photo below), but those are partially or fully covered.

(//www.alaskaroads.com/I-495-express-lanes-sign-at-I-66-w'bound-at-exit-66_DSC8907.jpg)

(//www.alaskaroads.com/I-495-express-lanes-sign-at-I-66-w'bound-after-exit-67_DSC8949.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on May 12, 2012, 05:45:40 PM
That '2 axle vehicles buses only' doesn't jibe with the phrase structure of the other panels. On first reading it sounds like they're saying that the only 2 axle vehicles allowed are buses.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 23, 2012, 04:13:10 PM
Went to Tysons for a deposition today and was surprised to see the I-66 exit sign isn't covered up yet. This gives a good sense of how the new exit signs will look essentially just like the regular ones except with the white "E-ZPass Express Exit [or Exits]" banner on top and the "Left Exit" tab without an exit number. Sorry the picture is so far away. I was going to try to snap a second one closer to the sign, but that white Cadillac started drifting over the solid line and the people ahead of me hit the brakes and I needed to shift.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fd0876ddb.jpg&hash=c6c9dd9ea80569db58e320808f148b487a14459b)


They are really moving very quickly on the Beltway lately. Lots of progress, lots of new signs. Best part, however, is that they are gradually repaving the existing roadway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2012, 12:27:14 AM
Just wanted to mention that VDOT/RMA has completed installing mile markers on VA 195/I-195. They are odd in that, due to the shared mileage of both routes, VA 195's mile markers appear to be backwards - they increase from east to west, instead of the other way around. I'm pretty sure this is due to VDOT treating the entire route as a north-south route internally, but traffic logs don't seem to indicate that.

VA 76 also has the new mile markers (with shields and all), though not all of them are yet installed. Its mileposts ARE backwards - mile 0.0 is at VA 76's northern terminus (attached to the twin END VA 76/BEGIN I-195 signs), and the mile markers increase from north to south and not the other way around.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on May 25, 2012, 09:19:41 AM
Interesting, thanks for the update. I would also point out that VDOT treats I-295 as an east-west route internally; traffic logs for the counties it traverses say "East I-295 is signed as South I-295", so its mileage is technically backwards as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2012, 11:42:28 PM
Quote from: Takumi on May 25, 2012, 09:19:41 AM
Interesting, thanks for the update. I would also point out that VDOT treats I-295 as an east-west route internally; traffic logs for the counties it traverses say "East I-295 is signed as South I-295", so its mileage is technically backwards as well.

I noticed that once and found that really strange. The east-west segment in Henrico and Hanover Counties was the first part of I-295 that was completed, and I wonder if it was signed as an east-west route at that point.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 26, 2012, 09:47:40 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 25, 2012, 11:42:28 PM
Quote from: Takumi on May 25, 2012, 09:19:41 AM
Interesting, thanks for the update. I would also point out that VDOT treats I-295 as an east-west route internally; traffic logs for the counties it traverses say "East I-295 is signed as South I-295", so its mileage is technically backwards as well.

I noticed that once and found that really strange. The east-west segment in Henrico and Hanover Counties was the first part of I-295 that was completed, and I wonder if it was signed as an east-west route at that point.

I don't recall that, but I do have the years that they were completed -- 1981 for the I-64 bypass section, and 1992 for the I-95 bypass section.

So the east-west I-64 bypass section was completed well before the north-south section.  And that ran between I-64 at Short Pump and US-60 at Seven Pines.

Environmental issues with regard to avoiding ACW battlefields in eastern Henrico was the reason for the delay in extending south from US-60.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 30, 2012, 10:07:14 AM
http://www2.tricities.com/news/2012/may/24/transportation-board-approves-location-i-77-i-91-o-ar-1940504/

Transportation Board approves location for I-77/I-81 overlap in SWVa.
Published: May 24, 2012

WYTHEVILLE, Va. -- The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) recently selected the location for the I-77/I-81 overlap in Wythe County choosing Candidate Build Alternative B, which adds one travel lane in each direction at the current location of the overlap.

"The board took a significant action to improve mobility in a heavily congested region by approving a location for the I-77/I-81 Overlap in Wythe County,"  said VDOT Bristol District Administrator Michael Russell, P.E. "This area is not only an important transportation link for Virginia but to North Carolina and West Virginia as well."

VDOT presented three alternatives during a public hearing in September 2011; Candidate Build A, separation of the two interstates; Candidate Build B, the addition of one travel lane in each direction and a no-build option.

The next steps in the process are to revise the environmental assessment based on the board's decision and public comment received during the September 2011 public hearing, then request a final decision on the environmental assessment from the Federal Highway Administration.

The cost estimate for Candidate Build Alternative B is $457 million and includes preliminary engineering, right of way and construction.  Currently, funding has not been identified for these phases.

..............

Beltway comment:  This project would include full semi-directional interchanges at each I-81/I-77 interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 01, 2012, 11:35:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 30, 2012, 10:07:14 AM
http://www2.tricities.com/news/2012/may/24/transportation-board-approves-location-i-77-i-91-o-ar-1940504/

Transportation Board approves location for I-77/I-81 overlap in SWVa.
Published: May 24, 2012

Ages ago, wasn't this the very last "gap" of I-81 in Virginia? 

I seem to recall that there was a (short) section of divided arterial highway here (or near here). 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 01, 2012, 11:58:37 AM
Yes. The overlap of I-81 and I-77 was finished much later than the rest of the highway in the area. I remember on family trips being forced off I-81 onto US 11 and US 52 northeast of Wytheville and the interstate didn't resume until past where I-77 and US 52 split to the south.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 01, 2012, 12:20:42 PM
The overlap of I-81 and I-77 was completed in 1987, the same year that the 4-lane upgrade of the West Virginia Turnpike was completed.

The single routed sections of I-77 were all completed in Virginia by 1979.

The overlap of I-81 and I-77 is 8.0 miles long, and part was completed in the late 1960s as I-81, but the middle 4.7 mile long section was completed in 1987.  The gap was served by a 4-lane divided highway US-11/US-52 with no traffic signals and seamless connections to adjacent I-81.

Why is it going to cost $450 million to add one lane each way to 8 miles of highway and upgrade 3 interchanges?  That seems exhorbitant.

BTW, separating the two Interstates was an interesting idea, but IMO it seems simpler and more logical to upgrade the existing overlap.  Why have two separate highways and rights-of-way when the existing right-of-way can suffice, with moderate added R/W acquisition?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on June 01, 2012, 07:17:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2012, 12:20:42 PM
The overlap of I-81 and I-77 was completed in 1987, the same year that the 4-lane upgrade of the West Virginia Turnpike was completed.

The single routed sections of I-77 were all completed in Virginia by 1979.

The overlap of I-81 and I-77 is 8.0 miles long, and part was completed in the late 1960s as I-81, but the middle 4.7 mile long section was completed in 1987.  The gap was served by a 4-lane divided highway US-11/US-52 with no traffic signals and seamless connections to adjacent I-81.

Why is it going to cost $450 million to add one lane each way to 8 miles of highway and upgrade 3 interchanges?  That seems exhorbitant.

BTW, separating the two Interstates was an interesting idea, but IMO it seems simpler and more logical to upgrade the existing overlap.  Why have two separate highways and rights-of-way when the existing right-of-way can suffice, with moderate added R/W acquisition?

Wait, does that mean that these signs were up as part of the gap??? Or am I misreading, and the gap started east of Wytheville?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fva%2Fus_11%2Fnto77.jpg&hash=77a5eebfb2f63dd90a2dd892d7dfb33f59b475ff)
large: www.alpsroads.net/roads/va/us_11/nto77c.jpg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 01, 2012, 09:56:40 PM

Quote from: Steve
Wait, does that mean that these signs were up as part of the gap??? Or am I misreading, and the gap started east of Wytheville?

large: www.alpsroads.net/roads/va/us_11/nto77c.jpg


This sign assembly (now sadly gone as I discovered last weekend) was on US 11 well within the town of Wytheville.  Originally there was an interchange at I-77/81 at US 11 east of Wytheville which shortly thereafter the gap began, although it was configured differently (narrower footprint) than it is today.

1968 Topo: http://ims.er.usgs.gov/gda_services/download?item_id=5302118&quad=Wytheville&state=VA&grid=7.5X7.5&series=Map GeoPDF
2011 Topo: http://ims.er.usgs.gov/gda_services/download?item_id=5258817&quad=Wytheville&state=VA&grid=7.5X7.5&series=TNM GeoPDF


Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on June 02, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
I drove by the Meadowville interchange again earlier tonight. Work is in progress on the Meadowville Parkway. The partially-finished north/west end, with Meadowville Road, will have a roundabout. Some pavement was there, but I couldn't see how far it extended. The south/east end, which was just a cleared right of way, looks like it'll be a Y intersection, with the south part of the Y right at the intersection of Bermuda Hundred Road (secondary route 697) and Enon Church Road (secondary 746).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 02, 2012, 09:57:38 PM
Quote from: Takumi on June 02, 2012, 09:07:27 PM
I drove by the Meadowville interchange again earlier tonight. Work is in progress on the Meadowville Parkway. The partially-finished north/west end, with Meadowville Road, will have a roundabout. Some pavement was there, but I couldn't see how far it extended. The south/east end, which was just a cleared right of way, looks like it'll be a Y intersection, with the south part of the Y right at the intersection of Bermuda Hundred Road (secondary route 697) and Enon Church Road (secondary 746).

They are definitely expanding the industrial park, now that the new I-295 interchange provides direct access.

The I-295/VA-10 interchange provided indirect access, but particularly where the county wants the park developed to in the next 10 to 20 years, the new Meadowville interchange will provide much better access to the bulk of the park.  It also has provisions for an ultimate design of a full cloverleaf with a 4-lane Meadowville Road crossing over I-295.

Meadowville Technology Park
http://www.meadowville.com/site_boundaries.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 04, 2012, 11:07:31 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 01, 2012, 09:56:40 PM

This sign assembly (now sadly gone as I discovered last weekend) was on US 11 well within the town of Wytheville.  Originally there was an interchange at I-77/81 at US 11 east of Wytheville which shortly thereafter the gap began, although it was configured differently (narrower footprint) than it is today.

Mapmikey (or others), I seem to recall that there was a large truck stop/gas station along the right side of the northbound lanes (in I-81 terms) of the "gap" near Wytheville, at least back in the 1970's. 

Anyone else recall that?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on June 07, 2012, 12:00:30 PM
Progress-Index: VDOT considers I-95 Toll Options http://www.progress-index.com/news/vdot-considers-i-95-toll-options-1.1325805
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 07, 2012, 12:36:39 PM
I have it on pretty good authority that Southern Virginia is against the toll plan.  My source was unable to give me further details.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 07, 2012, 02:46:43 PM
I have it on pretty good authority that pretty much everywhere and anywhere is against toll plans.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 07, 2012, 04:30:53 PM
I had to go to Old Town this afternoon and on my way back I took the Beltway so as to check out the new Inner Loop extension of the THRU lanes. Didn't get any pictures, too much traffic for that, but I wanted to recommend to any of you who might be using the Beltway in that area between now and around July 4 that you make an effort to avoid the Inner Loop's LOCAL carriageway if at all possible. The THRU lanes are in more or less their final configuration of two lanes continuing from the Wilson Bridge to just before the Eisenhower Connector exit. They were moving pretty well at 65 mph today.

The LOCAL lanes are the problem for now. That carriageway has been in a three-lane configuration from Telegraph Road west to the Eisenhower Connector because it was serving as the sole westbound carriageway there. The final configuration is to be a two-lane roadway (not counting exit and acceleration lanes, of course). In order to accomplish that, they've narrowed the LOCAL carriageway to a single lane from roughly the WMATA Yellow Line overpass to just before the Eisenhower Connector exit. It was at a noticeable standstill when I went through there this afternoon at about 15:00, meaning it's bound to be worse at peak hours.

You can reach Alexandria from the Inner Loop THRU lanes via the exit marked "Eisenhower Avenue" (the ramp splits off roughly in the middle of the US-1 interchange). The ramp puts you on Mill Road and intersects Eisenhower at the traffic light just east of the Hoffman Center area near the federal courthouse. You can reach the Inner Loop THRU lanes from Alexandria via the US-1 interchange–or you could go west on Eisenhower to the Eisenhower Connector and enter the Beltway west of the work zone.

The same process is scheduled to repeat itself in July on the Outer Loop.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 11, 2012, 05:26:35 PM
Dr. Gridlock in the Washington Post: Drivers protest VDOT plan to impose E-ZPass fees (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/post/drivers-protest-vdot-plan-to-impose-e-zpass-fees/2012/06/11/gJQAF41sUV_blog.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 11, 2012, 05:37:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 07, 2012, 02:46:43 PM
I have it on pretty good authority that pretty much everywhere and anywhere is against toll plans.

Quote from: froggie on June 07, 2012, 12:36:39 PM
I have it on pretty good authority that Southern Virginia is against the toll plan.  My source was unable to give me further details.

I believe that everyone wants:

(1) All roads with a functional class of freeway to always be free-flow;
(2) All roads to be free of all safety hazards (including immediate removal of truck tire treads and dead deer and other wildlife that have been struck in traffic);
(3) All roads and bridges and tunnels to have pavements that are smooth and free of potholes;
(4) All highway lighting and all highway signs to have lighting that works;
(5) All winter precipitation must be removed or treated immediately on all public roads;
(6) State and federal motor fuel taxes are to be not more than $0.05 per gallon; and
(7) Positively no tolls on any part of the highway system where they have to drive (though it's O.K. to toll other highway segments and it's O.K. to tax the guy over there behind that tree).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 12, 2012, 07:30:02 AM
^ I must not be part of "everyone" then.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 14, 2012, 08:11:34 PM
Next week at their workshop, the CTB will receive an update on tolling I-95 (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/june/pre/Presentation_Agenda_Item_12_I-95_CTB_June_-_final.pdf).  Within the brief are some more details on one of the tolling options being considered, and a general list of all the options:

Option A-1:  a single gantry tolling both directions
Option A-2:  2 gantries, one tolling northbound, the other tolling southbound
Option A-3:  2 gantries, each tolling both directions
Option B:  6 gantries, each tolling both directions at roughly 20 mile intervals
Option C:  a closed system tolling the ramps at every interchange
Option D:  a hybrid system consisting of a combination of mainline and ramp tolling (similar to the existing Richmond tollways)
Option E:  a closed system tolling in between each interchange instead of at the ramps.

The brief goes into more details on Option A-1.  It'd be a single gantry located between Exit 20 (Jarratt) and Exit 24 (SR 645).  This location was chosen because of the low level of local commuters/local trucks, and a high level of long-distance traffic...about half of the traffic on that strech continues on through (or is coming from) milemarker 100 (near Doswell/Kings Dominion).

To help discourage diversion, ramps to/from the south would also be tolled at Exits 17 and 20, and ramps to/from the north tolled at Exits 24 and 31.  The mainline car toll would be $4, with the ramp tolls being $2.  Truck tolls would be triple the car toll.  For vehicles to completely avoid the tolls, they'd have to divert off of I-95 for about 20 miles (between Exits 13 and 33).  It should be noted that about 12 of the 20 miles along parallel US 301 are only 2-lanes vice 4, and IIRC there are some bridge weight restrictions on US 301 as well.

Revenue projection under A-1 is $35-40 million/year.  This would be used for various improvement projects along the corridor.

Personal note:  if VDOT REALLY wanted to be nasty, they'd include tolling the ramps at Exit 12/13.  I bet the cops in Emporia would love taking a close look at the trucks exiting at US 58 to head over to US 301.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 14, 2012, 09:36:04 PM
Noticed today while driving around Chesterfield County that some right-of-way is being cleared along section of Old Hundred Road (SR 652/the tail end of VA 76) between Charter Colony Parkway and just past Brandermill Parkway. I hadn't previously heard about any project to widen the road, or that any progress had been made regarding any potential extension of Powhite Parkway (it's not likely to happen what with the development in Brandermill and Woodlake now).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 14, 2012, 10:39:19 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 14, 2012, 09:36:04 PM
Noticed today while driving around Chesterfield County that some right-of-way is being cleared along section of Old Hundred Road (SR 652/the tail end of VA 76) between Charter Colony Parkway and just past Brandermill Parkway. I hadn't previously heard about any project to widen the road, or that any progress had been made regarding any potential extension of Powhite Parkway (it's not likely to happen what with the development in Brandermill and Woodlake now).

That has been reported in the newspapers.  An $8 million project to widen one mile of Powhite to 4 lanes divided, extending from the western end of the 4-lane divided cross section.  Will extend west to Watermill Parkway.

"The county Transportation Department said construction started in April on widening the Powhite Parkway extension from Route 288 to Watermill Parkway to four lanes. The $8 million project, financed with revenue-sharing funds from the Virginia Department of Transportation, is expected to be finished in December."

http://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/news/2012-06-13/Front_Page/Roadwork_gears_up_in_anticipation_of_growth.html

Also of interest, the un-6-laned section of US-360 east of VA-288 --

"Meanwhile, engineering studies are under way for widening two stretches of Route 360. The section from Genito Road to Warbro Road, currently four lanes, would be expanded to six lanes at a cost of about $3.5 million. Scheduled to start construction next year, the project would be financed with funds from the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP), a combined state and federal program."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 14, 2012, 10:42:29 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 14, 2012, 08:11:34 PM
Next week at their workshop, the CTB will receive an update on tolling I-95 (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/june/pre/Presentation_Agenda_Item_12_I-95_CTB_June_-_final.pdf).  Within the brief are some more details on one of the tolling options being considered, and a general list of all the options:

Option A-1:  a single gantry tolling both directions
Option A-2:  2 gantries, one tolling northbound, the other tolling southbound
Option A-3:  2 gantries, each tolling both directions
Option B:  6 gantries, each tolling both directions at roughly 20 mile intervals
Option C:  a closed system tolling the ramps at every interchange
Option D:  a hybrid system consisting of a combination of mainline and ramp tolling (similar to the existing Richmond tollways)
Option E:  a closed system tolling in between each interchange instead of at the ramps.

The brief goes into more details on Option A-1.  It'd be a single gantry located between Exit 20 (Jarratt) and Exit 24 (SR 645).  This location was chosen because of the low level of local commuters/local trucks, and a high level of long-distance traffic...about half of the traffic on that strech continues on through (or is coming from) milemarker 100 (near Doswell/Kings Dominion).

To help discourage diversion, ramps to/from the south would also be tolled at Exits 17 and 20, and ramps to/from the north tolled at Exits 24 and 31.  The mainline car toll would be $4, with the ramp tolls being $2.  Truck tolls would be triple the car toll.  For vehicles to completely avoid the tolls, they'd have to divert off of I-95 for about 20 miles (between Exits 13 and 33).  It should be noted that about 12 of the 20 miles along parallel US 301 are only 2-lanes vice 4, and IIRC there are some bridge weight restrictions on US 301 as well.

That is an easy bypass, but could only handle a very small fraction of the almost 30,000 AADT that I-95 carries.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 14, 2012, 11:11:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 14, 2012, 10:39:19 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 14, 2012, 09:36:04 PM
Noticed today while driving around Chesterfield County that some right-of-way is being cleared along section of Old Hundred Road (SR 652/the tail end of VA 76) between Charter Colony Parkway and just past Brandermill Parkway. I hadn't previously heard about any project to widen the road, or that any progress had been made regarding any potential extension of Powhite Parkway (it's not likely to happen what with the development in Brandermill and Woodlake now).

That has been reported in the newspapers.  An $8 million project to widen one mile of Powhite to 4 lanes divided, extending from the western end of the 4-lane divided cross section.  Will extend west to Watermill Parkway.

"The county Transportation Department said construction started in April on widening the Powhite Parkway extension from Route 288 to Watermill Parkway to four lanes. The $8 million project, financed with revenue-sharing funds from the Virginia Department of Transportation, is expected to be finished in December."

http://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/news/2012-06-13/Front_Page/Roadwork_gears_up_in_anticipation_of_growth.html

Also of interest, the un-6-laned section of US-360 east of VA-288 --

"Meanwhile, engineering studies are under way for widening two stretches of Route 360. The section from Genito Road to Warbro Road, currently four lanes, would be expanded to six lanes at a cost of about $3.5 million. Scheduled to start construction next year, the project would be financed with funds from the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP), a combined state and federal program."

Somehow I missed that story, thanks for the link. As for US 360, that 6-laning is definitely needed. During the day, US 360 in central Chesterfield County is an utter nightmare thanks to suburban sprawl and gigantic planned neighborhoods near Swift Creek Reservoir. There are times when even 6 lanes don't seem like enough. The stretch near Brandermill and Woodlake is actually 8 lanes for about two miles or so and it's still badly congested at times.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 15, 2012, 12:16:48 PM
Washington Post: Loudoun-Prince William Highway is not the "˜Outer Beltway,' but it's a big, controversial road (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/loudoun-prince-william-highway-is-not-the-outer-beltway-but-its-a-big-controversial-road/2012/06/15/gJQA7kHLeV_blog.html)

QuoteOur elected representatives keep saying it's true, so we'll believe them: This is not an Outer Beltway. But the momentum is clearly ramping up to build a major north-south thoroughfare from Route 7 in Loudoun County down to I-95 in Prince William County, which officials say will better connect Dulles International Airport with I-66 and I-95 to increase its role as a cargo hub.

QuoteSmart growth groups say spending billions on a north-south road is a bad idea when the vast majority of traffic goes east-west. A north-south Loudoun-Prince William Highway would simply enrich the developers who've been waiting for that corridor to unfold, some longtime observers say, adding more sprawl and more cars which would mostly be heading to D.C. or Fairfax County, not to Manassas or Ashburn.

QuoteAnd Loudoun County's not wasting any time. Nine days after approving the route for the highway, the county filed eminent domain proceedings against two properties in its path.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on June 15, 2012, 06:55:20 PM
I'm all in favor of a new parkway, which I guess ties into VA 28. Extend that sucker to Solomon's Island and you'll get some REAL economic development.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2012, 11:47:06 AM
Quote from: Steve on June 15, 2012, 06:55:20 PM
I'm all in favor of a new parkway, which I guess ties into VA 28. Extend that sucker to Solomon's Island and you'll get some REAL economic development.

Not sure I get the idea behind extending this to Solomon's Island.  Were you being sarcastic?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on June 17, 2012, 01:05:07 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2012, 11:47:06 AM
Quote from: Steve on June 15, 2012, 06:55:20 PM
I'm all in favor of a new parkway, which I guess ties into VA 28. Extend that sucker to Solomon's Island and you'll get some REAL economic development.

Not sure I get the idea behind extending this to Solomon's Island.  Were you being sarcastic?

On the one hand, (: On the other hand, connecting it to the 2/4 corridor may actually do something.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 17, 2012, 08:29:32 AM
Quote from: Steve on June 17, 2012, 01:05:07 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2012, 11:47:06 AM
Quote from: Steve on June 15, 2012, 06:55:20 PM
I'm all in favor of a new parkway, which I guess ties into VA 28. Extend that sucker to Solomon's Island and you'll get some REAL economic development.

Not sure I get the idea behind extending this to Solomon's Island.  Were you being sarcastic?

On the one hand, (: On the other hand, connecting it to the 2/4 corridor may actually do something.

The original Outer Beltway plans did not enter or cross Calvert County, Maryland at all. 

Scott Kozel's Roads to the Future has (what I consider to be) an image of a reasonably accurate Outer Beltway map on his Roads to the Future site here (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Outer_Beltway_L.jpg).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 18, 2012, 04:02:42 PM
VDOT and Governor McDonnell announced recently new travel time signage going up around Hampton Roads showing travel times via differing routes to both the Virginia Beach Oceanfront and the Outer Banks.

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewRelease.cfm?id=1264

I wish they had these when I lived there. A local radio station posted a picture of one on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150927062693929&set=a.128305593928.100672.79816938928&type=1), and in the comments it appears they're all up. Anybody on here seen them?

Also, the majority of those comments make me lose what little faith I had left in humanity.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 18, 2012, 05:36:47 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 18, 2012, 04:02:42 PM
VDOT and Governor McDonnell announced recently new travel time signage going up around Hampton Roads showing travel times via differing routes to both the Virginia Beach Oceanfront and the Outer Banks.

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewRelease.cfm?id=1264

I wish they had these when I lived there. A local radio station posted a picture of one on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150927062693929&set=a.128305593928.100672.79816938928&type=1), and in the comments it appears they're all up. Anybody on here seen them?

Yes, in the D.C. area as well as in the Hampton Roads area. 

They are very helpful, but of course rely on the analysis of Smart Traffic Center personnel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 18, 2012, 09:24:29 PM
I talked to the VDOT Megaprojects office, and the word is that the I-495 Express Lanes will open in entirely on December 10, 2012.  That will include the HOV-to-HOV interchange between the Beltway and Shirley Highway (whose ramps will be untolled).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 21, 2012, 09:40:24 PM
http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2012/06/western_bypass.html

June 20, 2012
Western Bypass contract awarded
By Sean Tubbs 
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, June 20, 2012

RICHMOND – The Commonwealth Transportation Board has officially awarded a $135 million contract to the team of Skanska/Branch Highways to design and build the 6.2-mile [Charlottesville] Western Bypass of U.S. 29 in Albemarle County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 21, 2012, 11:30:25 PM
Where is this going to tie in on the north and south ends?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 22, 2012, 09:10:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 18, 2012, 09:24:29 PM
I talked to the VDOT Megaprojects office, and the word is that the I-495 Express Lanes will open in entirely on December 10, 2012.  That will include the HOV-to-HOV interchange between the Beltway and Shirley Highway (whose ramps will be untolled).

Much of the work is done - some sections look to be ready for traffic right now.  But  there's still plenty of work to be done in the interchanges at I-66, U.S. 29 (Lee Highway) [brand-new ramps from the northbound toll lanes and to the southbound toll lanes], Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road), Va. 620 (Braddock Road) and Va. 650 (Gallows Road). 

Order is my guess as to how much work is left, most to least.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 22, 2012, 09:36:25 AM
When I was through there last week I thought Gallows's new ramp appeared to need a lot more work than 29's. The one at Gallows didn't yet reach road level on the overpass, while the one at 29 did.

The point about the Shirley Highway HOV connections being untolled matches up with what they told me, but I wonder why tolling equipment has been installed on the gantries at the western end of said ramps if there is no toll there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 22, 2012, 10:22:17 AM
<<< The point about the Shirley Highway HOV connections being untolled matches up with what they told me, but I wonder why tolling equipment has been installed on the gantries at the western end of said ramps if there is no toll there.  >>>

That is what prompted my inquiry to the project manager, and he told me that it was for monitoring of passes, and to be in place for the future I-95 HOT Lanes project between I-495 and Garrisonville.  He did say no toll until then.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on June 22, 2012, 05:58:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 21, 2012, 11:30:25 PM
Where is this going to tie in on the north and south ends?

This was in a link in the article. It's probably an approximation, but the article shows a drawing of the proposed south end of the new bypass pretty much where this picture shows it. It's northeast-southwest.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cvillepedia.org%2Fmediawiki%2Fimages%2F20020219-SELC-bypass-map.jpg&hash=2302ea3ed38a9804d4b3bc6ec1f2c58baebeb512)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 23, 2012, 08:09:44 AM
The southern end of that bypass is to tie into the current bypass at the existing partial interchange for Leonard Sandridge Boulevard (formerly the North Grounds Connector Road).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 23, 2012, 02:25:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 23, 2012, 08:09:44 AM
The southern end of that bypass is to tie into the current bypass at the existing partial interchange for Leonard Sandridge Boulevard (formerly the North Grounds Connector Road).

Are they still going to build the direct ramps for US-29 through traffic between the existing and extended bypass?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 23, 2012, 05:30:10 PM
Quote from: Takumi on June 22, 2012, 05:58:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 21, 2012, 11:30:25 PM
Where is this going to tie in on the north and south ends?

This was in a link in the article. It's probably an approximation, but the article shows a drawing of the proposed south end of the new bypass pretty much where this picture shows it. It's northeast-southwest.

This was the project that the Piedmont Environmental Council sued the Federal Highway Administration and VDOT to stop some years ago, right?  And if memory serves, didn't the PEC get blown out of the water?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 23, 2012, 06:27:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 23, 2012, 05:30:10 PM
Quote from: Takumi on June 22, 2012, 05:58:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 21, 2012, 11:30:25 PM
Where is this going to tie in on the north and south ends?

This was in a link in the article. It's probably an approximation, but the article shows a drawing of the proposed south end of the new bypass pretty much where this picture shows it. It's northeast-southwest.

This was the project that the Piedmont Environmental Council sued the Federal Highway Administration and VDOT to stop some years ago, right?  And if memory serves, didn't the PEC get blown out of the water?

Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC).

And they did lose on their lawsuit, about 10 years ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 03, 2012, 01:27:19 PM
Huguenot Memorial Bridge Ribbon Cutting 06-29-2012
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/sets/72157630404604274/


Huguenot Bridge
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/collections/72157625993768163/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 05, 2012, 12:33:35 PM
I have not driven on the Outer Loop of the Beltway between Van Dorn Street (Exit 173) and the Wilson Bridge since the THRU/LOCAL split was moved west a week or two ago (I was out of town at the time). Yesterday I used the Inner Loop THRU lanes on the way back from Nationals Park (how did I get into the THRU lanes? Stopped at the bank in Old Town and then re-entered the highway via the ramps from US-1) and when I was looking in my mirrors just west of the Eisenhower Connector I noted that there's a new sign on the Outer Loop in advance of the split, a fairly small arrow-per-lane pull-through sign for the Outer Loop THRU lanes. It omits the word "THRU," but it does have what strikes me as a very useful addition–a black-on-yellow banner on the top of the sign reading "NO EXIT IN VIRGINIA." I obviously couldn't get a picture while driving the other way at 65 mph, but maybe I can try this weekend. The sign looks nonstandard in a number of ways, but it also looks like a temporary sign setup until all the work is finished (most notably, the LOCAL carriageway is currently a single lane while they reconfigure it following the THRU carriageway extension).

I've always been somewhat amused by the use of "LAST EXIT IN [STATE]" signs of the sort sometimes seen in New York and New Jersey, as they've often struck me as a bit pretentious. But "NO EXIT IN VIRGINIA" used in conjunction with what are essentially express lanes (using that term in a generic sense, not a technical sense) seems to me to be an excellent idea in this particular circumstance as a way of underscoring to people that they need to use the other lanes if they're headed for Alexandria. I don't know whether they've added anything new to emphasize that I-295 traffic should also use the LOCAL lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2012, 02:19:47 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 05, 2012, 12:33:35 PM
I have not driven on the Outer Loop of the Beltway between Van Dorn Street (Exit 173) and the Wilson Bridge since the THRU/LOCAL split was moved west a week or two ago (I was out of town at the time). Yesterday I used the Inner Loop THRU lanes on the way back from Nationals Park (how did I get into the THRU lanes? Stopped at the bank in Old Town and then re-entered the highway via the ramps from US-1) and when I was looking in my mirrors just west of the Eisenhower Connector I noted that there's a new sign on the Outer Loop in advance of the split, a fairly small arrow-per-lane pull-through sign for the Outer Loop THRU lanes. It omits the word "THRU," but it does have what strikes me as a very useful addition–a black-on-yellow banner on the top of the sign reading "NO EXIT IN VIRGINIA." I obviously couldn't get a picture while driving the other way at 65 mph, but maybe I can try this weekend. The sign looks nonstandard in a number of ways, but it also looks like a temporary sign setup until all the work is finished (most notably, the LOCAL carriageway is currently a single lane while they reconfigure it following the THRU carriageway extension).

The first signs read "95/495 keep left" and "All Exits Keep Right."  This may not be exact, but I think I am conveying the content correctly.  I don't like the way that these (apparently temporary) signs are worded.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 05, 2012, 12:33:35 PM
I've always been somewhat amused by the use of "LAST EXIT IN [STATE]" signs of the sort sometimes seen in New York and New Jersey, as they've often struck me as a bit pretentious. But "NO EXIT IN VIRGINIA" used in conjunction with what are essentially express lanes (using that term in a generic sense, not a technical sense) seems to me to be an excellent idea in this particular circumstance as a way of underscoring to people that they need to use the other lanes if they're headed for Alexandria. I don't know whether they've added anything new to emphasize that I-295 traffic should also use the LOCAL lanes.

The "NO EXIT IN VIRGINIA" sign for the THRU lanes is entirely appropriate, in my opinion.

There are (I believe) two supplemental panels informing motorists wanting to exit at Va. 241, U.S. 1 and I-295 to use the LOCAL roadway. 

The only exit from the Outer Loop THRU roadway is to "secret" I-295 south (Md. 210 (Indian Head Highway) south, with one exit to Md. 414 before I-295 ends at Md. 210).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 05, 2012, 02:46:40 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2012, 02:19:47 PM
The "NO EXIT IN VIRGINIA" sign for the THRU lanes is entirely appropriate, in my opinion.

....

I agree, and I was quite surprised to see it because Virginia traditionally does not use any banners of that sort. I didn't expect they'd put up this sort of sign there even though it seems like common-sense. Among other reasons why I thought they wouldn't do it is that the original sign renderings in the Wilson Bridge project information didn't include anything of this sort. I think this is an example where a banner of this sort is more important on the Virginia side than the Maryland side, simply because the Virginia portion of the highway has a much more important destination served (Alexandria) than the Maryland portion (I-295 and maybe National Harbor).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 08, 2012, 02:05:47 PM
I had the pleasure of taking the outer loop "local lane" this morning. A bit tight, although my journey wasn't as smooth as it should have been because some idiot decided to cut across the closed portion of the roadway from the express lanes to exit at Telegraph Rd.

Regarding the "LAST EXIT IN [state]" signs, in NJ a border crossing typically involves a toll bridge and an easy U-Turn likely isn't possible after passing that exit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on July 09, 2012, 11:05:03 PM
Henrico's North Gayton Road extension is coming along well.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/jul/08/tdmain01-north-gayton-extension-to-transform-short-ar-2041061/

The article says there's no defined opening date, but it looks like it should be open for the Richmond meet in October.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 10, 2012, 09:42:21 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 09, 2012, 11:05:03 PM
Henrico's North Gayton Road extension is coming along well.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/jul/08/tdmain01-north-gayton-extension-to-transform-short-ar-2041061/

The article says there's no defined opening date, but it looks like it should be open for the Richmond meet in October.

The segment between Bacova Drive and VA 271 seems to be mostly complete; it's fully paved but not yet painted. Both ends of this segment have traffic signals with signs attached; Bacova Drive and North Gayton Road has regular Henrico County intersection signs (with block numbers). North Gayton Road and VA 271 features hideous VDOT-installed Clearview signs. The first letter of each word on each sign is too large compared to the rest of the letters. I'll likely get pictures tomorrow.

Shady Grove Road is in the process of being upgraded from a 2-lane road to a 4-lane divided arterial (interestingly, the existing roadway is actually where the median will be). It will still turn onto itself at Twin Hickory Road, though I'm wondering if Henrico will rename this segment as part of North Gayton Road. It would make sense and eliminate this movement at Twin Hickory Road.

Henrico ultimately wants an interchange between the new connector and I-64. I have no earthly idea how this will happen (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=north+gayton+road,+glen+allen,+va&hl=en&ll=37.66276,-77.628794&spn=0.005045,0.011362&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.224889,93.076172&t=h&hnear=N+Gayton+Rd,+Short+Pump,+Henrico,+Virginia+23059&z=17) without destroying the relatively new apartment complex on the south side of I-64. It's also too close to the I-295 interchange and would be a weaving nightmare.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 10, 2012, 09:55:03 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 10, 2012, 09:42:21 PM

Henrico ultimately wants an interchange between the new connector and I-64. I have no earthly idea how this will happen (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=north+gayton+road,+glen+allen,+va&hl=en&ll=37.66276,-77.628794&spn=0.005045,0.011362&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.224889,93.076172&t=h&hnear=N+Gayton+Rd,+Short+Pump,+Henrico,+Virginia+23059&z=17) without destroying the relatively new apartment complex on the south side of I-64. It's also too close to the I-295 interchange and would be a weaving nightmare.

There is space for an urban ramp on that quadrant.  Else, a loop ramp could be built on the southwest quadrant, with a left turn from North Gayton Road.

It is close to a mile to the I-295 interchange, and there is ample room for weaving movements.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 10, 2012, 10:43:18 PM
I should also note that the VA 195 express toll lane project is approaching its final phases. The E-ZPass reader equipment has been installed over the new roadway, which is currently being constructed (the entrance and exit are still being built). The old toll plaza signage has been removed in both directions and replaced with new signs. It should be noted that traffic using the Meadow Street exit is now routed through the cash toll lanes.

Also, four years after I sent them an email about it, the City of Richmond finally has signs at all westbound entrances to VA 195. There have been signs at the eastbound entrances for some time (many original VA 195 signs remain standing), as well as at the westbound entrance from Canal Street near 8th Street. They all appear to be perfectly normal signs (i.e., not City of Richmond unisigns) with yellow TOLL tabs, which makes me think that the signs were actually sourced from a VDOT contractor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on July 10, 2012, 11:27:55 PM
I don't think I've ever seen a Richmond unisign with a VA 195 shield on it, just I-195. Every VA 195 posting I've ever seen has been a normal shield. My guess is the RMA contracts all the signing for it. (On another note, I need to find some of those old shields. I don't have any photos of them.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 11, 2012, 01:31:14 AM
Quote from: Takumi on July 10, 2012, 11:27:55 PM
I don't think I've ever seen a Richmond unisign with a VA 195 shield on it, just I-195. Every VA 195 posting I've ever seen has been a normal shield. My guess is the RMA contracts all the signing for it. (On another note, I need to find some of those old shields. I don't have any photos of them.)

Probably. The only one I know of that exists is on 8th Street, just south of Main Street. Most of the VA 195 postings in Richmond are older shields with state-name I-95 and I-64 shields.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 20, 2012, 12:49:33 AM
Do you agree with this from the Examiner?  Roads make Virginia less business-friendly (http://washingtonexaminer.com/roads-make-virginia-less-business-friendly/article/2502506)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 20, 2012, 06:22:13 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 20, 2012, 12:49:33 AM
Do you agree with this from the Examiner?  Roads make Virginia less business-friendly (http://washingtonexaminer.com/roads-make-virginia-less-business-friendly/article/2502506)

The annual business ranking of one news source changing from 1st to 3rd out of 50 states?  I wouldn't necessarily make any specific conclusion from that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 22, 2012, 06:09:51 PM
This continues the trend of county governments in some parts of Northern Virginia paying for improvements to the highway network (which is supposed to be the responsibility of the Commonwealth). 

WTOP Radio: Prince William Co. to widen part of Route 1 (http://www.wtop.com/164/2955529/Prince-William-Co-to-widen-part-of-Route-1)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 24, 2012, 10:08:57 PM
Some notes from my visit to the VA 195 open-road tolling project today:

- As previously stated, all westbound entrances to VA 195 are now signed. The Canal Street and Cumberland Street entrances previously weren't.

- The old Smart Tag-era overhead signs are now gone. There is a traffic split past the onramp from Canal Street, with E-ZPass traffic exiting to the left toward the open road tolling lanes, which are not yet open. For now these lanes lead to the eastbound toll plaza's reversible center tollgates.

- New Clearview signage has appeared directing traffic bound for Meadow Street to use the cash toll lanes. Unfortunately there is an erroneous one near Canal Street that has promoted Meadow Street to part of VA 161. The sign doesn't refer to the actual VA 161 exit, which can easily be reached without using the toll plaza. All other Meadow Street signs correctly have it unnumbered.

- The VA 161 exit has been reconfigured; as traffic from the toll plaza rejoins the mainline, the right lane is now an exit only lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 24, 2012, 11:34:14 PM
Richmond Times-Dispatch: Trucking group looks to block I-95 toll booths (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/jul/24/tdbiz01-trucking-group-looks-to-block-i-95-toll-bo-ar-2078337/)

QuoteA grass-roots campaign organized by the trucking industry is looking to derail a state proposal to put a toll plaza on Interstate 95 in rural Sussex County.

QuoteThe campaign, coordinated by the National Association of Truck Stop Operators, the American Trucking Association and the Virginia Trucking Association, includes a website and a Facebook page urging residents to voice their displeasure to Gov. Bob McDonnell. The group has created an online petition as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 25, 2012, 05:48:58 PM
WTOP Radio: Faster Beltway commute will come with varying tolls (http://www.wtop.com/654/2961211/Faster-Beltway-commute-will-come-with-varying-tolls)

QuoteBy the end of 2012, two new Express Lanes will be open on the Beltway between Springfield and just north of the Dulles Toll Road.

QuoteCarpools with three or more people can use the lanes, which promise a minimum speed around 45 miles per hour, for free.

QuoteCars with fewer than three people can use the lanes, but those vehicles will have to pay a variable toll that will rise and fall depending on how much traffic is in the lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 25, 2012, 06:18:32 PM
The item in the WTOP article I found interesting is the statement that drivers who use the lanes illegally (i.e., without an E-ZPass) will be assessed a $10 administrative charge on top of the toll.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 25, 2012, 07:33:37 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 25, 2012, 06:18:32 PM
The item in the WTOP article I found interesting is the statement that drivers who use the lanes illegally (i.e., without an E-ZPass) will be assessed a $10 administrative charge on top of the toll.

Smart of them to call it an administrative charge instead of a summons (and as a private entity, the owners of the toll lanes concession may not be legally able to issue a summons the way that police in Virginia do anyway - and since it will be issued to the owner of the vehicle in violation after-the-fact, they may not be legally able to call it a summons regardless).   But if the matter ends up in court, it should be easier to prove that the owner of a vehicle owes an administrative charge instead of a fine, since the burden of proof is presumably lower.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 26, 2012, 09:21:53 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 25, 2012, 07:33:37 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 25, 2012, 06:18:32 PM
The item in the WTOP article I found interesting is the statement that drivers who use the lanes illegally (i.e., without an E-ZPass) will be assessed a $10 administrative charge on top of the toll.

Smart of them to call it an administrative charge instead of a summons (and as a private entity, the owners of the toll lanes concession may not be legally able to issue a summons the way that police in Virginia do anyway - and since it will be issued to the owner of the vehicle in violation after-the-fact, they may not be legally able to call it a summons regardless).   But if the matter ends up in court, it should be easier to prove that the owner of a vehicle owes an administrative charge instead of a fine, since the burden of proof is presumably lower.

That's exactly why they do it. An "administrative charge" is usually a civil penalty and so is not subject to the various criminal-procedure requirements in place to protect the rights of the accused. A lot of states treat a lot of traffic offenses as "infractions" rather than as actual "crimes" for the same reason. In addition, I believe if it were to be a "summons" (and as you probably know, Virginia has that "Virginia Uniform Summons" form) it would be subject to service-of-process requirements.

With a red-light ticket in Virginia you can get out of the ticket by filing an affidavit (or un-notarized declaration under penalty of perjury) saying you were not driving the car at the time; you need not rat out the person who was driving. I have no idea whether the same is true as to tolls and "administrative fees" because I haven't bothered to look it up.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2012, 11:06:42 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2012, 09:21:53 AM
That's exactly why they do it. An "administrative charge" is usually a civil penalty and so is not subject to the various criminal-procedure requirements in place to protect the rights of the accused. A lot of states treat a lot of traffic offenses as "infractions" rather than as actual "crimes" for the same reason. In addition, I believe if it were to be a "summons" (and as you probably know, Virginia has that "Virginia Uniform Summons" form) it would be subject to service-of-process requirements.

All I know about Virginia Uniform Summonses is what police officers in Virginia have told me (as part of my job).  Fortunately, never been on the receiving end of one of them!

Maryland calls them "Uniform Traffic Citation," but is considering changing those citations to summonses for legal reasons that I no longer remember (and that change requires approval in the General Assembly).

I do know that when a Virginia state trooper or commercial vehicle enforcement officer issues an overweight ticket to a truck driver, the amount due is not a fine, but instead is an assessment of liquidated damages for driving overweight on the highways of the Commonwealth (also has a lower burden of proof in court).

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2012, 09:21:53 AM
With a red-light ticket in Virginia you can get out of the ticket by filing an affidavit (or un-notarized declaration under penalty of perjury) saying you were not driving the car at the time; you need not rat out the person who was driving. I have no idea whether the same is true as to tolls and "administrative fees" because I haven't bothered to look it up.

I don't think red light and  speed camera tickets in Maryland can be gotten out of that way - I think you have to appear in District Court and challenge it before a judge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 26, 2012, 11:24:15 AM
Virginia doesn't use the term "traffic citation" on the summons because they use the same form for things other than traffic violations.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2012, 02:28:57 PM
"Dr. Gridlock"  (Robert Thomson) of the Washington Post: Va.'s new I-66 HOV lane markings baffle some drivers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/new-hov-lane-markings-baffle-some-drivers-in-virginia/2012/07/27/gJQAoUBCGX_story.html)

QuoteI've gotten similar inquiries recently as drivers noticed new markings along I-66 near the Capital Beltway where the Virginia Department of Transportation has been repaving. The drivers welcomed the new asphalt but found the lane markings confusing.
QuoteThe new double white stripe is meant to improve the flow of traffic in the high-occupancy vehicle lane. A Transportation Department study a couple of years ago found that one reason for slow travel times is the weaving drivers do between the HOV lane and the regular lanes.
QuoteThe study, in which state police participated, recommended limiting the locations where drivers can move in and out of the HOV lanes in the hope that compliance would lead to better travel times. Drivers are seeing the results of that recommendation in these double lines, marking the areas where there should be no lane changes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 31, 2012, 02:15:45 PM
Governor McDonnell was on WTOP this morning and said that construction on the I-95 HO/T lane project is to begin next month (August 2012) (http://www.wtop.com/120/2970822/New-express-lanes-coming-to-Virginia) with the lanes opening in 2014. The reason for the shorter timetable compared to the Beltway project is that they don't have to rebuild every interchange along the way since the existing center carriageway is to be converted to become the new HO/T lanes. Construction at the southern end will add about 8 miles of reversible center carriageway from the current end of the HOV system down to Garrisonville Road (Exit 143–Route 610, the Aquia Harbour exit).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2012, 02:43:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2012, 02:15:45 PM
Governor McDonnell was on WTOP this morning and said that construction on the I-95 HO/T lane project is to begin next month (August 2012) (http://www.wtop.com/120/2970822/New-express-lanes-coming-to-Virginia) with the lanes opening in 2014. The reason for the shorter timetable compared to the Beltway project is that they don't have to rebuild every interchange along the way since the existing center carriageway is to be converted to become the new HO/T lanes. Construction at the southern end will add about 8 miles of reversible center carriageway from the current end of the HOV system down to Garrisonville Road (Exit 143–Route 610, the Aquia Harbour exit).

Just wish those lanes would be extended south much further, say, to someplace near Massaponax (Exit 126). When I-395 up to the Potomac River was included, I believe the plans were to extend to Va. 630 (Courthouse Road) at Exit 140 (Stafford), but Arlington County's opposition to HOV/Toll lanes in their jurisdiction killed that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 31, 2012, 05:57:47 PM
I guess I can kiss my free HOV lane usage goodbye after that project is over. Another tax paid for road going toll. I also don't see the point in only going to Exit 140. I recall seeing the actual plans going to Fredricksburg. Usually volume drops a bit on I-95 around Exit 126, this new project will just move the current bottleneck further south.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on July 31, 2012, 08:25:43 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 31, 2012, 05:57:47 PM
I guess I can kiss my free HOV lane usage goodbye after that project is over. Another tax paid for road going toll. I also don't see the point in only going to Exit 140. I recall seeing the actual plans going to Fredricksburg. Usually volume drops a bit on I-95 around Exit 126, this new project will just move the current bottleneck further south.
No, HOT lanes allow HOV users for free. They allow SOVs to pay a toll and enjoy the same privileges. The toll varies to keep the lane busy but moving at speed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 31, 2012, 08:35:01 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 31, 2012, 08:25:43 PM
No, HOT lanes allow HOV users for free. They allow SOVs to pay a toll and enjoy the same privileges. The toll varies to keep the lane busy but moving at speed.

Right now the lanes are free for SOVs to use during off peak hours and weekends. I take advantage of them when I'm driving through the area because they are quite a bit less congested than the standard lanes and the speed limit is 65mph their entire length.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on July 31, 2012, 09:22:35 PM
OK, misread. You do lose that privilege without paying, but if traffic's really not moving, enough people will pay anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 31, 2012, 09:51:38 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2012, 02:43:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2012, 02:15:45 PM
Governor McDonnell was on WTOP this morning and said that construction on the I-95 HO/T lane project is to begin next month (August 2012) (http://www.wtop.com/120/2970822/New-express-lanes-coming-to-Virginia) with the lanes opening in 2014. The reason for the shorter timetable compared to the Beltway project is that they don't have to rebuild every interchange along the way since the existing center carriageway is to be converted to become the new HO/T lanes. Construction at the southern end will add about 8 miles of reversible center carriageway from the current end of the HOV system down to Garrisonville Road (Exit 143–Route 610, the Aquia Harbour exit).

Just wish those lanes would be extended south much further, say, to someplace near Massaponax (Exit 126). When I-395 up to the Potomac River was included, I believe the plans were to extend to Va. 630 (Courthouse Road) at Exit 140 (Stafford), but Arlington County's opposition to HOV/Toll lanes in their jurisdiction killed that.

I was going to post the same thing. Unfortunately, insufficient right of way exists to extend them that far south; just south of VA 3 (exit 130) would probably have been better.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 31, 2012, 10:05:10 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 31, 2012, 08:35:01 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 31, 2012, 08:25:43 PM
No, HOT lanes allow HOV users for free. They allow SOVs to pay a toll and enjoy the same privileges. The toll varies to keep the lane busy but moving at speed.

Right now the lanes are free for SOVs to use during off peak hours and weekends. I take advantage of them when I'm driving through the area because they are quite a bit less congested than the standard lanes and the speed limit is 65mph their entire length.

After they are converted to HOT, will they still be free for SOVs to use during off peak hours and weekends?

Myself, for occasional usage, I will gladly spend a few dollars to bypass congestion in the general purpose lanes.


Post Merge: July 31, 2012, 11:01:28 PM

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 31, 2012, 09:51:38 PM

I was going to post the same thing. Unfortunately, insufficient right of way exists to extend them that far south; just south of VA 3 (exit 130) would probably have been better.

There is enough right-of-way, but there is a several mile section where the median is too narrow to put the reversible roadway in the median without relocating one of the existing roadways.

There is an overpass built recently, about a mile south of the Massaponax interchange, than has a center span opening that was designed to accomodate the reversible roadway.  Planning to date has the reversible roadway ending about a mile south of there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2012, 09:18:12 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 31, 2012, 10:05:10 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 31, 2012, 08:35:01 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 31, 2012, 08:25:43 PM
No, HOT lanes allow HOV users for free. They allow SOVs to pay a toll and enjoy the same privileges. The toll varies to keep the lane busy but moving at speed.

Right now the lanes are free for SOVs to use during off peak hours and weekends. I take advantage of them when I'm driving through the area because they are quite a bit less congested than the standard lanes and the speed limit is 65mph their entire length.

After they are converted to HOT, will they still be free for SOVs to use during off peak hours and weekends?

Myself, for occasional usage, I will gladly spend a few dollars to bypass congestion in the general purpose lanes.

....

No. The new project will operate as HO/T on a 24-7 basis. The project's northern end is to be the "Turkeycock" ramp on I-395 between Edsall Road and Duke Street; north of there, the center carriageway will operate the same way it does today under the same two-lane configuration. A new northbound exit ramp is to be constructed at Turkeycock to allow toll-paying traffic that doesn't satisfy the HOV-3 restriction to exit into the general-purpose lanes to the right. I saw a diagram of this plan and it led me to expect some level of congestion because traffic using that ramp will have to weave and criss-cross with traffic exiting from I-395 to Duke Street towards Landmark Mall.

In general I'm not sure what I think of this project and the reason is similar to what "NJRoadfan" says. I have no problem with the 495 Express Lanes that are soon to be completed on the Beltway because that project is creating four entirely new lanes while maintaining all the existing lanes (and improving the design of the I-66 interchange). It's fine to restrict brand-new lanes if what already existed is still available. The I-95 project doesn't do that. The I-95 HOV facility is currently open to all traffic except during rush hours and the period while the lanes are reversed, although trucks are prohibited at the southern end due to the requirement that they use the weigh station down there. Converting the existing facility to HO/T means it will be HO/T on a 24-7 basis (again, except for the time when the lanes are being reversed). I don't see the Beltway project increasing congestion at all, but I could definitely see the I-95 project increasing congestion in the mainline as drivers who now use the HOV facility to avoid the traffic in the mainline instead use the mainline to avoid the toll. For example, last Saturday I was driving back from Woodbridge and I saw from Route 123 that the mainline was slow, so I took the HOV lanes to the Franconia-Springfield Parkway exit, which is about a nine-mile drive. If I had to pay a toll, I doubt I'd do that unless the toll rate happened to be set on the low end, maybe something like 25¢ per mile. A dollar a mile, no thanks. I know enough other bypass routes to get me home in a reasonable amount of time, although I think traffic on the parallel roads like US-1 that are currently bail-out routes might increase as well.

I know they plan to restripe the center carriageway from Dumfries to Edsall Road to make it three lanes, but that's a relatively minor "improvement," if indeed it's an improvement at all. It means narrowing the shoulders and that's never a great thing. It seems to me that what's happening here is that roughly 20 miles of existing HOV carriageway that's open to everyone on a regular basis will now be taken away and turned into a privately-operated restricted roadway. I'm not sure I think that's appropriate.

(BTW, I should mention that I have no problem with the idea of the southern extension of the reversible lanes being operated on an HO/T basis. Like the Beltway lanes, that portion would represent new capacity that doesn't currently exist and I have no problem with restrictions being imposed on brand-new lanes. I certainly understand why Fluor and Transurban wouldn't want to operate an HO/T facility running just from Aquia to Dumfries, too. Not profitable enough since drivers could just stick it out in the local lanes as they do now and then enter the "free" HOV north of there. But I'm not sure that's a sufficient rationale to give them the existing HOV lanes.)

Regarding NJRoadfan's other point–the 65-mph speed limit in the center carriageway is an incentive to use those lanes in my view because it means you're not likely to get pulled over for doing 70 and if you do it's a minor offense with a lower fine compared to going 70 mph in a 55 zone.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 02, 2012, 03:55:30 PM
While driving to Chester today, I saw some newly-posted white rectangles on secondary routes. Hopefully Chesterfield County will start widespread use of them again, or even shields.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 02, 2012, 09:25:27 PM
Quote from: Takumi on August 02, 2012, 03:55:30 PM
While driving to Chester today, I saw some newly-posted white rectangles on secondary routes. Hopefully Chesterfield County will start widespread use of them again, or even shields.

That would be nice. There's errors everywhere (Robious Rd posted as VA 147 and not SR 711, Courthouse Rd south of Qualla Rd posted as SR 653 instead of SR 604 even near the courthouse).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2012, 10:40:04 AM
WTOP Radio: VDOT making changes to I-66 lanes (http://www.wtop.com/41/2978871/VDOT-making-changes-to-I-66-lanes)

QuoteWork crews have been have been putting double white stripes on the High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on I-66 at the Route 123 and Nutley Street interchanges.

QuoteThose double white lines mean motorists will have limited access into those lanes. The Virginia Department of Transportation says a recent study indicates weaving back and forth between the HOV lanes slows down traffic. Now drivers will only be able to move into the HOV lanes where there's a break in the white lines -- even when HOV restrictions are not applicable.

QuoteThere's also work being done on the shoulders of the highway between the Beltway and Route 50. A new high-friction surface coating is being laid down on the shoulders so they can be used as a traffic lane during rush hours.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2012, 07:25:11 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 31, 2012, 09:51:38 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2012, 02:43:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2012, 02:15:45 PM
Governor McDonnell was on WTOP this morning and said that construction on the I-95 HO/T lane project is to begin next month (August 2012) (http://www.wtop.com/120/2970822/New-express-lanes-coming-to-Virginia) with the lanes opening in 2014. The reason for the shorter timetable compared to the Beltway project is that they don't have to rebuild every interchange along the way since the existing center carriageway is to be converted to become the new HO/T lanes. Construction at the southern end will add about 8 miles of reversible center carriageway from the current end of the HOV system down to Garrisonville Road (Exit 143–Route 610, the Aquia Harbour exit).

Just wish those lanes would be extended south much further, say, to someplace near Massaponax (Exit 126). When I-395 up to the Potomac River was included, I believe the plans were to extend to Va. 630 (Courthouse Road) at Exit 140 (Stafford), but Arlington County's opposition to HOV/Toll lanes in their jurisdiction killed that.

I was going to post the same thing. Unfortunately, insufficient right of way exists to extend them that far south; just south of VA 3 (exit 130) would probably have been better.

Yeah, it is pretty narrow down there, isn't it?

Still, I think VDOT and its partners will be in for a tremendous bashing when the "express lane merge" (as the WTOP Radio traffic reporters say) backups are just moved south from Dumfries to Garrisonville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 05, 2012, 09:08:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2012, 07:25:11 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 31, 2012, 09:51:38 PM

I was going to post the same thing. Unfortunately, insufficient right of way exists to extend them that far south; just south of VA 3 (exit 130) would probably have been better.

Not true, there is plenty of right-of-way all the way, just a narrow median section where one of the general purpose roadways would have to be relocated.  Preliminary designs have already been completed for the extension to south of Massaponax.

Quote
Yeah, it is pretty narrow down there, isn't it?

Still, I think VDOT and its partners will be in for a tremendous bashing when the "express lane merge" (as the WTOP Radio traffic reporters say) backups are just moved south from Dumfries to Garrisonville.

I would say otherwise, that 8 more miles of reversible roadway will be a major benefit, bypassing 3 more interchanges (VA-619, Quantico, and Garrisonville).  Plus, northbound that southbound merge is not an issue.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2012, 09:27:29 PM
QuoteStill, I think VDOT and its partners will be in for a tremendous bashing when the "express lane merge" (as the WTOP Radio traffic reporters say) backups are just moved south from Dumfries to Garrisonville.

What's odd about that term? Those lanes have been called the express lanes since the 1970s and a number of signs retain that term. I know a lot of people newer to the area call them "the HOV lanes," but that's a newer term for it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 12:17:45 PM
Washington Post: I-95 Express Lanes construction begins this week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/post/i-95-express-lanes-construction-begins-this-week/2012/08/07/340edf58-e085-11e1-a421-8bf0f0e5aa11_blog.html)

QuoteA groundbreaking ceremony Tuesday morning marked the beginning of the end for the I-95 HOV lanes, long a mainstay of the D.C. region's commuting system.

QuoteBut scores of local government and state officials, including Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) who attended the ceremony at the Dale City rest area off the southbound lanes cheered the upcoming conversion to high-occupancy toll lanes as the way of the future for commuters.

QuoteThe 29 miles of HOT lanes on I-95 will connect to the 14 miles of HOT lanes on the Capital Beltway, scheduled to open late this year, creating a major new element in the regional highway system.

WTOP Radio: I-95 Express Lanes Project may have environmental impact (http://www.wtop.com/654/2984728/I-95-Express-Lanes-Project-may-have-environmental-impact)

QuoteBetter transportation projects meant to keep areas moving may not be worth it if they come with a high environmental price tag. Some see flaws with the planning.

QuoteAs work on the newly announced Interstate 95 Express Lanes Project begins, crews are removing about 100 acres of trees and shrubs to make room.

QuoteMost of the trees and shrubs will be torn away from the median of I-95 at the southern edge of the project, between Dumfries Road in Prince William County and Garrisonville Road in Stafford County. It's an area that runs about 9 miles long.

Quote"We found that the studies really didn't look at community and environmental impacts very much, or alternatives for the corridor," says Stewart Schwartz, head of the region's Coalition for Smarter Growth.

TOLLROADSnews: VA/I-95 Express Lanes toll concession signed + financial close = start next week (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6092)

Quote2012-08-01: Virginia DOT and 95 Express Lanes LLC (90% Transurban, 10% Fluor) signed a 'comprehensive agreement' and went to financial close July 31 on a $925m project to widen and lengthen central reversible lanes and manage traffic with dynamic tolling. There's a groundbreaking in a few days - August 7.

QuoteThe project in which the investors carry most of the traffic and revenue risk will upgrade the capacity and management of the major southwestern radial out of the Washington DC/Northern Virginia metro area.

QuoteIt was originally planned to start at the Potomac River bridges from DC near the Pentagon on the Shirley Highway (I-395) in Arlington County 10 miles southwest to the Springfield Interchange with the Capital Beltway (I-495). And then it would continue on I-95 29 miles to Stafford.

QuoteAfter several years of litigation against the project by Arlington County VDOT in 2007 cancelled it - a serious blow to mobility inside the Beltway. The project was restarted with only the I-95 portion outside the Beltway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 12:20:30 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Pocahontas official write-off makes news downunner - Transurban shakeup PERSONNEL (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6110)

Quote2012-08-08: Transurban's A$138m, $130m write-down of the feeble Pochahontas Parkway project made the national news in Australia with the government-owned Australian Broadcasting Commission television managing to show I-95 traffic as being on the Transurban pike - which is located on the other side of the James River east of Richmond

QuoteIf only!!!!

QuoteTraffic at hardly 15,000 a day on the Pocahontas Parkway is a tiny fraction of I-95 traffic. More to the point it is some 65% below forecast traffic as projected by Wilbur Smith.

QuoteThe project was a folly of the boom mentality of ten years ago and planned development projects on the east bank and around Richmond's small airport that failed to happen. The Parkway serves mainly cornfields and grass supporting the odd grazing horse.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 12:23:25 PM
Richmond Times-Dispatch: Opposition to I-95 toll plan continues to rise (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/aug/07/tdmet02-opposition-to-i-95-toll-plan-continues-to--ar-2112896/)

QuoteThe Ashland Town Council and the Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization have joined the growing chorus of opposition to tolls on Interstate 95.

QuoteThe Virginia Department of Transportation has proposed putting a toll plaza just north of Emporia, a little more than 20 miles from the North Carolina line. Passenger vehicles would pay $4 and large trucks $12 in each direction at the proposed plaza.

QuoteThe planning organization includes Chesterfield, Henrico, Hanover, Goochland, Charles City, New Kent and Powhatan counties, and Ashland and Richmond. It sent a letter, dated July 17, to Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean T. Connaughton.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 01:05:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 05, 2012, 09:27:29 PM
QuoteStill, I think VDOT and its partners will be in for a tremendous bashing when the "express lane merge" (as the WTOP Radio traffic reporters say) backups are just moved south from Dumfries to Garrisonville.

What's odd about that term? Those lanes have been called the express lanes since the 1970s and a number of signs retain that term. I know a lot of people newer to the area call them "the HOV lanes," but that's a newer term for it.

It was once the "I-95 Busway" (between the 14th  Street Bridge and Springfield), when I-395 was still signed as I-95. 

I recall signs put up by the Virginia Department of Highways (VDH - VDOT today) that made reference to "Pool Cars" instead of HOV-4 (later HOV-3).

Many of the signs today read "Restricted Lanes," and have for many years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 02:03:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 01:05:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 05, 2012, 09:27:29 PM
QuoteStill, I think VDOT and its partners will be in for a tremendous bashing when the "express lane merge" (as the WTOP Radio traffic reporters say) backups are just moved south from Dumfries to Garrisonville.

What's odd about that term? Those lanes have been called the express lanes since the 1970s and a number of signs retain that term. I know a lot of people newer to the area call them "the HOV lanes," but that's a newer term for it.

It was once the "I-95 Busway" (between the 14th  Street Bridge and Springfield), when I-395 was still signed as I-95. 

I recall signs put up by the Virginia Department of Highways (VDH - VDOT today) that made reference to "Pool Cars" instead of HOV-4 (later HOV-3).

Many of the signs today read "Restricted Lanes," and have for many years.

Yeah, I remember those old "Pool Cars" signs. Here's a picture of one. Note the spiffy separator line too. Everyone I've ever known has called it either the "express lanes" or the "HOV lanes." Don't know anyone who says "Restricted Lanes" regardless of the signs. The southbound ramp at Turkeycock was once marked "Express Lanes South" prior to the installation of the "Restricted Lanes" VMS units. There are still a number of signs that say "Express Lanes"–several of the southbound BGSs between Shirlington and Turkeycock have auxiliary signs reading "Express Lanes Only" and two small signs just after Turkeycock that tell Route 644 traffic to keep left and I-95 traffic to keep right have an "Express Lanes" banner on top.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2Ff7c13517.jpg&hash=1858acfd55cb3e00e5dad6034f1d3818905ed05f)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 09, 2012, 02:11:29 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 02:03:43 PMTurkeycock

(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRD2e9yQA4YZ6K4mdRvc_6tGhDCHtpI4omMVxHHFzi5cUY1TcNE)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 02:31:59 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 09, 2012, 02:11:29 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 02:03:43 PMTurkeycock

(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRD2e9yQA4YZ6K4mdRvc_6tGhDCHtpI4omMVxHHFzi5cUY1TcNE)

Pretty much. The ramps have that name because Turkeycock Run passes under I-395 there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 02:37:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 02:03:43 PM
Yeah, I remember those old "Pool Cars" signs. Here's a picture of one. Note the spiffy separator line too.

That was sometimes used in other signs (having nothing to do with HOV/Carpooling/transit lanes) in various places across Virginia.  A classy design touch.  Great image.

It includes a shot of one of bus 1006, one of the "Shirley Express" GMC "New Look" buses after they were re-painted in WMATA's 1970's Metrobus colors.  Unlike most of the other GMC buses in the WMATA fleet, these vehicles had some sort of Diesel engine emission controls (and a tailpipe on the left side of the bus next to the rear window).  Here's an image of one of those buses when it was brand-new in the original Shirley Express/AB&W livery:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thinkoutsidethecar.org%2Fnvtc%2Fphotos%2F10.jpg&hash=f67802e25281b3e0f6ed02148a8c3b743aa4e9ec)

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 02:03:43 PM
Everyone I've ever known has called it either the "express lanes" or the "HOV lanes." Don't know anyone who says "Restricted Lanes" regardless of the signs. The southbound ramp at Turkeycock was once marked "Express Lanes South" prior to the installation of the "Restricted Lanes" VMS units.

I remember that.

For those scoring at home, Turkeycock Run is a small stream that runs under I-395 (Shirley Highway) between Va. 648 (Edsall Road) and Va. 236 (Duke Street) at the point where VDH built ramps from the northbound conventional lanes (non-HOV) to the reversible HOV roadway (when operating  northbound) and ramps in both directions between the reversible HOV lanes (when operating southbound) to and from the conventional lanes.  To insider types and roadgeek types, this place is called "Turkeycock," even though there are no signs anywhere with that name.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 02:03:43 PM
There are still a number of signs that say "Express Lanes"–several of the southbound BGSs between Shirlington and Turkeycock have auxiliary signs reading "Express Lanes Only" and two small signs just after Turkeycock that tell Route 644 traffic to keep left and I-95 traffic to keep right have an "Express Lanes" banner on top.

Yes, though in recent times, VDOT seems to prefer "RESTRICTED LANES," at least along the I-95/I-395 corridor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 02:47:35 PM
I vaguely recall reading somewhere that back when they ran those "Shirley Express" buses, they used buses that had more powerful engines than most of their fleet, thus making them better-equipped to deal with the hills between Duke Street and Seminary Road and the much-less-steep southbound grade between Shirlington and Seminary Road. I don't recall the actual buses because at the time we lived near Fairfax Hospital and when we took the bus it was the line that went to the Ballston Metro stop (at that time the end of the Orange Line). But I rather like the idea of using more powerful buses on I-395. It is DAMN ANNOYING when you get stuck behind a bus driver who's doing 45 mph in the left lane of a road posted at 65 mph because his bus can't go any faster up the hill.


QuoteYes, though in recent times, VDOT seems to prefer "RESTRICTED LANES," at least along the I-95/I-395 corridor.

Of course. Can't disagree with that. But it doesn't mean that "Restricted Lanes" either is, or has to be, the "official" or "popular" name used by the public. Kind of reminds me of the time when one of my college roommates in Charlottesville was looking at the TV listings in the Washington Post and asked, "Do we get WRC here?" The rest of us were from the DC area, but it didn't occur to us that he meant the DC-area NBC affiliate because we all knew it as "Channel 4" (still do, for that matter).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 03:15:14 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 02:37:46 PM
For those scoring at home
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRD2e9yQA4YZ6K4mdRvc_6tGhDCHtpI4omMVxHHFzi5cUY1TcNE)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 03:26:31 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2012, 03:15:14 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 02:37:46 PM
For those scoring at home
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRD2e9yQA4YZ6K4mdRvc_6tGhDCHtpI4omMVxHHFzi5cUY1TcNE)

He said "for those scoring at home." Those guys will never score. Unless you meant with their right hands, of course, although Beavis's looks occupied with that soda.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 09, 2012, 05:50:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 02:47:35 PM
I vaguely recall reading somewhere that back when they ran those "Shirley Express" buses, they used buses that had more powerful engines than most of their fleet, thus making them better-equipped to deal with the hills between Duke Street and Seminary Road and the much-less-steep southbound grade between Shirlington and Seminary Road. I don't recall the actual buses because at the time we lived near Fairfax Hospital and when we took the bus it was the line that went to the Ballston Metro stop (at that time the end of the Orange Line). But I rather like the idea of using more powerful buses on I-395. It is DAMN ANNOYING when you get stuck behind a bus driver who's doing 45 mph in the left lane of a road posted at 65 mph because his bus can't go any faster up the hill.

Transit buses in those days (manufactured before 1980) were built for city traffic, generally not for use on high-speed highways; and were underpowered for high-speed traffic.  Much less power than that of an intercity bus of the era, such as those utilized by Greyhound and Trailways.

As express bus service proliferated in many places, the buses were powered to higher standards for decent highway performance.  I ride an express transit bus to and from work, and it performs fine on the freeway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 05:56:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 09, 2012, 05:50:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 02:47:35 PM
I vaguely recall reading somewhere that back when they ran those "Shirley Express" buses, they used buses that had more powerful engines than most of their fleet, thus making them better-equipped to deal with the hills between Duke Street and Seminary Road and the much-less-steep southbound grade between Shirlington and Seminary Road. I don't recall the actual buses because at the time we lived near Fairfax Hospital and when we took the bus it was the line that went to the Ballston Metro stop (at that time the end of the Orange Line). But I rather like the idea of using more powerful buses on I-395. It is DAMN ANNOYING when you get stuck behind a bus driver who's doing 45 mph in the left lane of a road posted at 65 mph because his bus can't go any faster up the hill.

Transit buses in those days (manufactured before 1980) were built for city traffic, generally not for use on high-speed highways; and were underpowered for high-speed traffic.

As express bus service proliferated in many places, the buses were powered to higher standards for decent highway performance.  I ride an express transit bus to and from work, and it performs fine on the freeway.

Well, that's kind of my point–it sure seems as though the Metrobuses that run on I-395 are not well-powered for highway performance. They crawl. Might just be the drivers, of course. The commuter buses that come from Prince William County don't seem to have the same problem going up the hills. That's why I phrased my prior comment about "it is DAMN ANNOYING when you get stuck" in the present tense!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 02:47:35 PM
I vaguely recall reading somewhere that back when they ran those "Shirley Express" buses, they used buses that had more powerful engines than most of their fleet, thus making them better-equipped to deal with the hills between Duke Street and Seminary Road and the much-less-steep southbound grade between Shirlington and Seminary Road. I don't recall the actual buses because at the time we lived near Fairfax Hospital and when we took the bus it was the line that went to the Ballston Metro stop (at that time the end of the Orange Line). But I rather like the idea of using more powerful buses on I-395. It is DAMN ANNOYING when you get stuck behind a bus driver who's doing 45 mph in the left lane of a road posted at 65 mph because his bus can't go any faster up the hill.

All of the Shirley Express buses were geared for freeway operation, and were generally capable of 70 MPH.  The "1000" series buses (like the one in your image above) had the same six cylinder engine that "regular" transit buses had, but were usually capable of keeping up with traffic because of the gearing (most transit buses had two-speed automatics, the Shirley Express buses had three or four forward speeds). The "1100" series buses were slightly newer, and had V8 Detroit Diesel engines, and were able to gobble up hills with great ease.  Probably the best buses ever to operate on the streets of metropolitan Washington.

After WMATA took over the four private D.C.-area transit bus companies in 1972 (including AB&W, which ran Shirley Express), they realized that the 1100's were great buses, and when they decided to make a huge bus procurement in 1973 or 1974, they wrote the specs to be essentially identical to the 1100-series buses (including the V8 engines in the 40-foot buses).  Unfortunately, that procurement was an unmitigated disaster, because the winning bidder was AM General, a subsidiary of American Motors Corporation (same people that built the Pacer and the Gremlin), and had never built a transit bus before winning the WMATA contract.  The interiors of the AMC buses were outfitted like the 1100's (and even had Detroit Diesel/GM engines and transmissions), but the buses had a tendency to catch fire, bodies leaked rainwater (might have been useful for extinguishing fires), the frames were weak (at least one bent in half after loading a "crush" load of passengers at the Pentagon bus station), the air conditioning usually was inoperable and the steering and front end were poorly designed, so the wheel did not "snap" back after a turn when the bus was rolling forward.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 02:47:35 PM
QuoteYes, though in recent times, VDOT seems to prefer "RESTRICTED LANES," at least along the I-95/I-395 corridor.

Of course. Can't disagree with that. But it doesn't mean that "Restricted Lanes" either is, or has to be, the "official" or "popular" name used by the public. Kind of reminds me of the time when one of my college roommates in Charlottesville was looking at the TV listings in the Washington Post and asked, "Do we get WRC here?" The rest of us were from the DC area, but it didn't occur to us that he meant the DC-area NBC affiliate because we all knew it as "Channel 4" (still do, for that matter).

Agreed.  Going to the University of Maryland at College Park (but never living on-campus), that was never an issue for me.

Getting back to "Restricted Lanes," I believe that is how VDOT signs the barrier-separated (and maybe concurrent-flow) HOV lanes along I-64 in Hampton Roads.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 07:37:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 09, 2012, 05:50:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 02:47:35 PM
I vaguely recall reading somewhere that back when they ran those "Shirley Express" buses, they used buses that had more powerful engines than most of their fleet, thus making them better-equipped to deal with the hills between Duke Street and Seminary Road and the much-less-steep southbound grade between Shirlington and Seminary Road. I don't recall the actual buses because at the time we lived near Fairfax Hospital and when we took the bus it was the line that went to the Ballston Metro stop (at that time the end of the Orange Line). But I rather like the idea of using more powerful buses on I-395. It is DAMN ANNOYING when you get stuck behind a bus driver who's doing 45 mph in the left lane of a road posted at 65 mph because his bus can't go any faster up the hill.

Transit buses in those days (manufactured before 1980) were built for city traffic, generally not for use on high-speed highways; and were underpowered for high-speed traffic.  Much less power than that of an intercity bus of the era, such as those utilized by Greyhound and Trailways.

Your description does not apply to the Shirley Express buses (built in the late 1960's or early 1970's), especially the 1100-series buses.  Even some of the poor-quality AMC buses purchased by WMATA in the 1973-1975 timeframe were capable of 65 or 70 MPH (if they didn't shake apart first).

Quote from: Beltway on August 09, 2012, 05:50:28 PM
As express bus service proliferated in many places, the buses were powered to higher standards for decent highway performance.  I ride an express transit bus to and from work, and it performs fine on the freeway.

Most of WMATA's bus fleet seems to be able to maintain 65 MPH today on freeway HOV lanes along I-95/I-395, Va. 267, I-270 and U.S. 50.

The over-the-road coaches used by PRTC (Prince William County, Va.) and the Maryland Transit Administration for express service are capable of 80 MPH (supposedly), but I understand that they have governors installed to prevent such speed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 07:40:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2012, 05:56:53 PM
Well, that's kind of my point–it sure seems as though the Metrobuses that run on I-395 are not well-powered for highway performance. They crawl. Might just be the drivers, of course. The commuter buses that come from Prince William County don't seem to have the same problem going up the hills. That's why I phrased my prior comment about "it is DAMN ANNOYING when you get stuck" in the present tense!

I have driven those lanes a fair amount, and I have not observed (speaking in general terms) that the buses had trouble maintaining the posted 65 MPH.  At least not the buses in WMATA's fleet now.

Some of the pre-WMATA GMC New Looks (especially the ones inherited from the old D.C. Transit System, Inc.), which were in revenue service until after 2000, when some were over 40 years old, could not maintain more than about 45 or 50 MPH. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 09, 2012, 09:26:47 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 07:37:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 09, 2012, 05:50:28 PM

Transit buses in those days (manufactured before 1980) were built for city traffic, generally not for use on high-speed highways; and were underpowered for high-speed traffic.  Much less power than that of an intercity bus of the era, such as those utilized by Greyhound and Trailways.

Your description does not apply to the Shirley Express buses (built in the late 1960's or early 1970's), especially the 1100-series buses.  Even some of the poor-quality AMC buses purchased by WMATA in the 1973-1975 timeframe were capable of 65 or 70 MPH (if they didn't shake apart first).

I wasn't disputing that there were higher-powered buses utilized on Shirley Highway after the busway opened in 1969.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 09, 2012, 09:41:54 PM
Tree clearing has begun in a couple spots north of Exit 150 for the HOV/Express Lane extension.

WTOP reported yesterday it amounted to 100 acres of clearing necessary.  They did not say if all trees in the entire median are coming down (in some spots it wouldn't be absolutely neccessary IMO). Additionally, most of the terrain is not anywhere near the same plane as either carraigeway of 95.

Depending on how they leave it at SR 610 when finished (looks like flyover to the right side of 95 SB), the bottleneck may be moving south 9 miles (which some days is less than a mile backup), but it will be better because more cars will have exited the mainline before then.

Additionally, the backups at Exit 150 and 148 may subside substantially because all the HOV traffic won't have just joined the mainline.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 10, 2012, 09:26:45 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2012, 07:30:01 PM
....

Getting back to "Restricted Lanes," I believe that is how VDOT signs the barrier-separated (and maybe concurrent-flow) HOV lanes along I-64 in Hampton Roads.

I believe that is correct based on pictures I've seen. I haven't been on that portion of I-64 in at least 20 years. Every time I've passed through that area in recent memory I've used I-664 or I've approached the area from the southwest coming up from North Carolina.

One benefit of the HO/T project might be that the signage might become a bit more standardized. I've long thought Virginia's HOV signage tends to be a bit of a mishmash of stuff thrown up at different times over the years without a great deal of consistency. I've noticed how the new signs for the I-66 interchange on the Beltway are a lot clearer than the old ones were, for example (although they omit the "No Trucks" banner for I-66 inside the Beltway). I assume to the extent signs are to be replaced as part of the I-95 HO/T project it will be the contractor hoisting the new ones (after VDOT approves the signs, of course), and since it's the same contractor that suggests there might be some moves towards consistency.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2012, 03:12:52 PM
Richmond Times-Dispatch: Tri-Cities area transportation officials oppose I-95 tolls (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/aug/11/tdmet02-tri-cities-area-transportation-officials-o-ar-2123652/)

QuoteThe state's proposal for tolls on Interstate 95 is "fatally flawed," Tri-Cities area transportation officials said, going on record opposing the highway toll plan.

QuotePutting tolls on I-95 traffic in Sussex County "would create significant inequality and disproportional cost ... for the low-income, minority population" living in the vicinity of the proposed toll facility, the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization told the Virginia Department of Transportation on Thursday. Rural Sussex's 10,000-person population is 53 percent African-American. The county is one of the state's poorest localities. According to the 2010 census, Sussex's per-capita income was $16,735, or about half of the state's per-capita income of $32,145.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 12, 2012, 09:25:58 AM
Even though someone was killed in their car on Va. 193 (Georgetown Pike) by a massive tree that came crashing down (not in the middle of a storm, either), I am confident  that some of the tree huggers will be howling about this.

WTOP Radio: VDOT to remove hazardous trees in Great Falls (http://www.wtop.com/120/2982905/VDOT-to-start-removing-hazardous-trees-tomorrow)

QuoteNearly 60 trees in the Great Falls area of Fairfax County will be removed because they pose a safety risk to motorists.

QuoteThe trees are located in the Virginia Department of Transportation right-of-way and were flagged for being dead or in decline with multiple defects.

QuoteAfter a driver died on July 17 when a 40-ton decayed oak tree fell on his car on Georgetown Pike, residents spoke up. They alerted the county and VDOT to other trees that might have been unsafe.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 12, 2012, 09:29:04 AM
Washington Post: At Fairfax County stables, consequences of BRAC hit home (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/at-fairfax-county-stables-consequences-of-brac-hit-home/2012/08/11/78cbe540-e2f7-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_story.html)

QuoteCindy Mitchell tried not to panic when she heard that a highway might be built on top of Woodlawn Stables, a business she has poured herself into for 20 years.

QuoteShe had heard the talk for years. Traffic-clogged Route 1 near Fort Belvoir needed to be widened because the Defense Department had added thousands of jobs to the military base in Fairfax County. This is just more talk, she thought. It won't happen.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 12, 2012, 09:32:09 AM
For Virginia commuters, new era begins with HOT lanes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/for-virginia-commuters-new-era-begins-with-hot-lanes/2012/08/10/8e4fac5c-e23f-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html)

QuoteDrivers on Interstate 95 in Northern Virginia will notice a change in the landscape this month. At first, they'll see trees taken down, but the trees aren't all that's about to disappear. Over the next 30 months, a man-made part of the commuting landscape also will vanish.

QuoteI-95's High Occupancy Vehicle lanes will be replaced by a system unfamiliar to the D.C. region. Virginia drivers will see these new high-occupancy toll lanes first on the Capital Beltway. Those will open by the end of this year. By the end of 2014, the 14 miles of HOT lanes on the Beltway will link with 29 miles of HOT lanes on I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 12, 2012, 04:31:58 PM
Washington Post op-ed:  Steven Pearlstein: And now, in local news . . . (http://www.washingtonpost.com/steven-pearlstein-and-now-in-local-news-/2012/08/10/10a940e4-e279-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_story.html)

The part that's relevant to the AAROADS audience is near the end of the piece, unfortunately.

QuoteAs a recent regular (reverse) commuter on Interstate-66, I have developed a newfound appreciation for the inconvenience and economic damage that the transportation nazis in Arlington have imposed on the rest of the region.

QuoteFor two decades these zealots have successfully blocked any highway construction in the county that might result in even one additional single-occupancy vehicle on the road. Even the investment of billions of dollars in the extension of Metro along the Dulles corridor has not shaken their self-righteous determination to impose their values and force every last one of us to move closer to where we work or abandon our single-occupancy vehicles in favor of buses, carpools and bicycles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Stephane Dumas on August 13, 2012, 10:41:33 AM
I wondered what kind of improvements then VADOT do at Leesburg between VA-9 and Business VA-7?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.1297924518585&lon=-77.5866079330444&zoom=14
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2012, 03:37:04 PM
Washington Post: Beltway HOT lanes tests of E-ZPass system, signs, sensors set for this week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/e-zpass-system-signs-sensors-to-be-tested-in-beltway-hot-lanes/2012/08/10/fc262d56-e013-11e1-a421-8bf0f0e5aa11_story.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2012, 03:41:02 PM
WTOP Radio: The cost of a speedy Beltway commute means tolls or carpooling (http://www.wtop.com/654/2991529/Speedy-commute-Tolls-or-carpooling)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 13, 2012, 04:29:02 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2012, 03:37:04 PM
Washington Post: Beltway HOT lanes tests of E-ZPass system, signs, sensors set for this week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/e-zpass-system-signs-sensors-to-be-tested-in-beltway-hot-lanes/2012/08/10/fc262d56-e013-11e1-a421-8bf0f0e5aa11_story.html)

I stumbled onto a sign test this afternoon on my way back from Falls Church. The pictures I took on I-66 weren't any good, but in this one at least you can make out the wording on the VMS. The toll rates would go where the gibberish characters are. Also, the toll rate for "I-395-95" doesn't refer to a toll for using the Beltway-to-HOV ramps themselves–it refers to using the 495 Express Lanes beyond Braddock, where drivers can move to the right into the regular lanes or continue to the HOV ramps (and, indeed, they may well have to move right if they're not eligible to use HOV on I-95).

If you click on the image it should enlarge a bit, but in case it's unclear, it says "GALLOWS [gibberish]/BRADDOCK [gibberish]/I-395-95 [gibberish]." I couldn't get a closer picture because the sign was switching between this stuff and a "495 EXPRESS LANES TESTING" message.

The renderings I'd seen had suggested they'd use slightly thicker text in caps and lowercase.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F18341fad.jpg&hash=8c17e09760fad08f0184976deb3fc723779ac084)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 13, 2012, 07:56:47 PM
The Beltway itself was also running VMS testing this afternoon.

In typical Northern Virginia fashion, traffic was backed up reading the VMS...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 13, 2012, 10:03:56 PM
Didn't see any of them turned on on the Beltway, but then on the Outer Loop from I-66 to Van Dorn there aren't any that would have been tested anyway. They weren't on when I went the other way earlier.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 16, 2012, 01:27:43 PM
Opposition to the proposed toll plaza on I-95 is getting more and more vocal.

http://www.progress-index.com/news/localities-oppose-interstate-95-toll-proposal-1.1359533
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 16, 2012, 08:22:29 PM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2012, 01:27:43 PM
Opposition to the proposed toll plaza on I-95 is getting more and more vocal.

http://www.progress-index.com/news/localities-oppose-interstate-95-toll-proposal-1.1359533

I wonder how many of those local governments stating opposition to the tolling of  I-95 are asking their Virginia state senators and delegates to support an increase in the  Commonwealth's per-gallon motor fuel tax rates?

And  it's amusing to me that the municipality of Dumfries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumfries,_Virginia) (Prince William County) is on record as opposing I-95 tolling. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 16, 2012, 09:44:58 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 16, 2012, 08:22:29 PM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2012, 01:27:43 PM
Opposition to the proposed toll plaza on I-95 is getting more and more vocal.

http://www.progress-index.com/news/localities-oppose-interstate-95-toll-proposal-1.1359533

I wonder how many of those local governments stating opposition to the tolling of  I-95 are asking their Virginia state senators and delegates to support an increase in the  Commonwealth's per-gallon motor fuel tax rates?

And  it's amusing to me that the municipality of Dumfries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumfries,_Virginia) (Prince William County) is on record as opposing I-95 tolling. 

Toll proposals require the ministry of an exorcist ..
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 22, 2012, 09:44:41 AM
Channel 4 has video of the 495 Express Lane test-drives in progress. (http://www.nbcwashington.com/video/#!/traffic/Beltway-Express-Lanes-Test-Drive/166969426) Doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, of course, but it's interesting to see the lanes finally in use. (As an aside, in my mind it kind of confirms the silliness of trying to line up to be the first person to use a new bridge or a new road or whatever, given that plenty of vehicles will have already driven there. I guess you could say "first member of the general public," but to me that's just not the same.)

I put the link in this thread rather than the HO/T thread because that one strikes me as more focused on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the I-95 HO/T project and not on construction progress.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2012, 10:23:24 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2012, 09:44:41 AM
I put the link in this thread rather than the HO/T thread because that one strikes me as more focused on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the I-95 HO/T project and not on construction progress.

Given that the Virginia General Assembly sees no reason to raise the Commonwealth's motor fuel tax rate at all, the natural result is that Northern Virginia and Hampton  Roads are going to see more and more highway projects that are supported by tolls.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on August 25, 2012, 03:53:58 PM
Battlefield Bypass around Manassas Battlefield...

http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2012/aug/25/battlefield-bypass-nearing-consensus-ar-2152501/

"Clark said the current plan is for the bypass to begin where Va. 234 ends at Interstate 66 and continue across U.S. 29 and on to Pageland Lane at the park's western border. The road would then continue to Catharpin, where it would cross four acres at the park's northwest border. The road would then run into Fairfax County to meet with the Tri-County Parkway....

"The goal of the Battlefield Bypass is to close 234 and 29 as soon as the road is completed."  
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mdcastle on August 25, 2012, 05:37:14 PM
Couple of questions for my upcoming trip:
In the Midwest the Super 8 / Days Inn type of motels seem to be a mix, and you can usually pick out the bad ones based on TripAdvisor and avoid them. But except for one in northern Richmond, *All* of these motels in Virginia, Maryland, east-central North Carolina seem to get really negative reviews. Do you need to bump up to a Holiday Inn class to get a decent room in the Mid-Atlantic?

It seems they offer a shuttle service for the  Bay Bridge? Is it really that bad? I've only been on one bridge that really scared me (The Fort Madison toll bridge) so I'm not overly sensative, But I still wonder what I'm getting into.

5 hours a realistic driving time from Richmond to Pocomoke City on a Sunday morning over the Bay Bridge? 7 hours from SwanQuarter NC to Richmond by way of Raleigh?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfilpus on August 25, 2012, 06:22:43 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on August 25, 2012, 05:37:14 PM
It seems they offer a shuttle service for the  Bay Bridge? Is it really that bad? I've only been on one bridge that really scared me (The Fort Madison toll bridge) so I'm not overly sensative, But I still wonder what I'm getting into.

5 hours a realistic driving time from Richmond to Pocomoke City on a Sunday morning over the Bay Bridge? 7 hours from SwanQuarter NC to Richmond by way of Raleigh?
The Bay Bridge is the US 50/301 bridge across the bay from Annapolis to Chester. I assume you mean the Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel.

The CBBT does provide an escort service which provides a driver to drive the customer's vehicle. This service is provided at very limited times and needs to be reserved in advance.

5 Hours is not a bad time for Richmond to Pocomoke City any day outside of rush hour. Sunday morning should be faster.

7 Hours from Swan Quarter to Raleigh to Richmond is about right. It depends on where you're going to in Raleigh and whether you hit rush hour in Raleigh.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on August 26, 2012, 12:00:09 AM
Quote from: Mdcastle on August 25, 2012, 05:37:14 PM
Couple of questions for my upcoming trip:
In the Midwest the Super 8 / Days Inn type of motels seem to be a mix, and you can usually pick out the bad ones based on TripAdvisor and avoid them. But except for one in northern Richmond, *All* of these motels in Virginia, Maryland, east-central North Carolina seem to get really negative reviews. Do you need to bump up to a Holiday Inn class to get a decent room in the Mid-Atlantic?
Pretty much. There are a lot of seedy places down that way along the coast (or even to some degree inland from there). Now, western Maryland is just fine, and I imagine the NoVa area is similarly OK. But that's about it. I've found some fairly cheap rates at decent hotels in good areas in the South, but there's no pattern. Sometimes you go to the exit with all the hotels, and sometimes the only good one is the next exit beyond that. Sometimes it's downtown off the Interstate completely.
Quote
It seems they offer a shuttle service for the  Bay Bridge? Is it really that bad? I've only been on one bridge that really scared me (The Fort Madison toll bridge) so I'm not overly sensative, But I still wonder what I'm getting into.
The Bay Bridge is indeed long and tall, but unless you have an extreme fear of bridges it's not scary to drive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on August 26, 2012, 09:52:11 AM
The MD Bay bridge, I've been across a dozen times.  I'm acrophobic, but the view of the bay from the high span is really gorgeous.  I remember one night riding back from Annapolis to St. Michaels and noting how beautiful the moonlight looked over the Bay.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 26, 2012, 11:09:09 PM
WTOP Radio: Battlefield bypass conversation resurfaces in Va. (http://www.wtop.com/164/3008708/Battlefield-bypass-conversation-resurfaces-in-Va)

QuoteAfter years of discussion, there may be an agreement soon about the Manassas battlefield bypass.

QuoteInsideNoVa is reporting the National Park Service and the Virginia Department of Transportation are close to a deal that would build the highway by 2035.

QuoteThe bypass, which would cost around $305 million, would be built across a western corner of Manassas National Battlefield Park, extending the four-lane Route 234 bypass for nine miles past where it now ends, at I-66 in Prince William County.

QuoteThe new part of the roadway would extend into Fairfax County and meet with the proposed Tri-County Parkway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mdcastle on August 28, 2012, 09:53:01 AM
I appreciate the advice. I wish I could drive the bridge eastbound but that's not in the cards, instead I'll be going westbound, from Pocomoke City to northern Richmond. Running the trip clockwise would have meant hitting the bridge in the weekday PM peak hours, and having to get from Ocracoke to Richmond in a single day.

Raleigh's of interest purely from a roadgeeking perspective. I've covered routes from Raleigh west to almost Knoxville, so I plan to just drive to the airport to "link up" with roads I've previously clinched, and then get out of town.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 28, 2012, 03:52:23 PM
I do my share of criticizing VDOT, but I have to say the people at the Virginia Megaprojects division are extremely responsive when you send them comments. I was driving on the Beltway this afternoon when I noticed an erroneous sign on the Outer Loop Exit 54A ramp (westbound Braddock Road). It listed Queensberry Avenue as "Queensberry Rd" and I noted it instantly because I remember riding on that road regularly as long ago as 1982 when I was eight years old and my pee-wee soccer team practiced at a school accessed via that street. Couldn't get a picture because of heavy traffic, but I sent in an e-mail comment to the Megaprojects people and one of them just responded to me, less than an hour after I sent the message.

Got to give credit where it's due.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2012, 07:40:22 AM
WTOP Radio: Fatal tractor-trailer crash snarls Va. traffic (http://www.wtop.com/120/3012545/Deadly-I-95-truck-accident-causes-gasoline-fire-snarls-traffic)

QuoteA tractor-trailer carrying 8,500 gallons of gasoline overturned near the ramp of the Fairfax County Parkway and Interstate 95 early Wednesday, killing the driver and sparking a fire that crossed the pavement and lit up the adjacent woods.

QuoteThe accident led to major traffic delays on northbound I-95. Deputy Chief Chuck Ryan, of the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department, says responders were called to the Newington area about 2:15 a.m. Wednesday and found the truck lying on its side, fully engulfed in flames.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2012, 07:42:44 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 28, 2012, 03:52:23 PM
I do my share of criticizing VDOT, but I have to say the people at the Virginia Megaprojects division are extremely responsive when you send them comments. I was driving on the Beltway this afternoon when I noticed an erroneous sign on the Outer Loop Exit 54A ramp (westbound Braddock Road). It listed Queensberry Avenue as "Queensberry Rd" and I noted it instantly because I remember riding on that road regularly as long ago as 1982 when I was eight years old and my pee-wee soccer team practiced at a school accessed via that street. Couldn't get a picture because of heavy traffic, but I sent in an e-mail comment to the Megaprojects people and one of them just responded to me, less than an hour after I sent the message.

Got to give credit where it's due.

Hoo, I agree that the Virginia Megaprojects folks are pretty helpful.  I've dealt with a member of their staff professionally as part of my job, and I have found them to be prompt and responsive, and at least the guy I deal with has a pretty good sense of humor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 29, 2012, 12:21:28 PM
There was also a crash on I-95 in this area. It happened this morning, so it didn't make today's paper.
http://ww.progress-index.com/news/dump-truck-driver-charged-in-morning-i-95-wreck-1.1365568

In the print version of today's issue was this article, discussing local projects that would be paid for by the I-95 tolls.
http://www.progress-index.com/news/va-proposes-new-projects-with-toll-money-1.1365336
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2012, 04:42:32 PM
Richmond Times-Dispatch: I-95 toll bid details proposed improvement projects (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/business/2012/aug/28/tdmet01-i-95-toll-application-details-proposed-hig-ar-2153768/)

QuoteRebuilding the interchange of Interstate 95, Interstate 85 and U.S. 460 in Petersburg would be one of the state's top priorities if Virginia gets federal approval to put tolls on I-95.

QuoteOther top priority projects for use of the first six years of toll money would be repaving 76 lane-miles of I-95 mostly south of Richmond, rebuilding four deficient bridges south of Richmond, and making safety improvements at I-95 and Interstate 64 in Richmond.

QuoteThe state detailed its plans for the initial use of I-95 toll revenue in its application, released Monday, to the Federal Highway Administration. The toll program requires federal approval.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2012, 04:44:31 PM
Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial: The Bell Tolls: Transportation (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2012/aug/29/tdopin01-transportation-ar-2154253/)

QuoteVirginia's political climate discourages common-sense approaches to transportation. The gasoline tax has not been raised since the 1980s; in constant dollars the levy does not buy as much as it once did. Conservatives believe in paying the state's bills – or at least they should. Hostility to big government ought not to translate into opposition to all government. Transportation defines a core service. It stakes a legitimate claim to public resources. The gasoline tax is a user's fee. Raise it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 03, 2012, 05:00:58 PM
Washington Post: Texting while driving law and Virginia legislature criticized by Fairfax judge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/texting-while-driving-law-and-virginia-legislature-criticized-by-fairfax-judge/2012/09/01/b80088e4-f1ff-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_story.html)

QuoteOne night in May 2011, Jason Gage, an Alexandria man driving on a road in the Dranesville community of Fairfax County, struck and killed a college student named Kyle Rowley.

QuoteAuthorities later determined that Gage had probably opened a text message about the time of the crash. They charged him with reckless driving.

QuoteBut when the case went to trial in a Fairfax County court last month, Judge Thomas E. Gallahue ordered the charge against Gage dropped, his texting notwithstanding.

QuoteThe reason: A 2009 Virginia law makes texting while driving a minor traffic infraction punishable by a maximum fine of $20, so texting alone could not be proof of reckless driving.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 03, 2012, 10:04:56 PM
Instead of charging him with reckless driving, why didn't they charge him with reckless homicide?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 04, 2012, 12:23:29 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 03, 2012, 10:04:56 PM
Instead of charging him with reckless driving, why didn't they charge him with reckless homicide?

That's a good question.

I suppose you would need to ask the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney for Fairfax County.

I think the judge (who ought to know the Code of Virginia well) was probably correct in pointing an accusing finger at the Virginia General Assembly. 

Texting and driving ought to be considered "reckless" driving, and not a secondary violation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 04, 2012, 12:29:24 AM
Dr. Gridlock of the Washington Post on Virginia E-ZPass, enforcement of E-ZPass Flex and more: Drivers question Virginia E-ZPass rules (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/drivers-question-virginia-e-zpass-rules/2012/08/31/e45c7db0-e158-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 04, 2012, 09:39:37 AM
Washington Post: Public hearings to be held on proposed Dulles Toll Road fare increases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/public-hearings-on-proposed-dulles-toll-road-fare-increases/2012/09/03/16c61622-f3a5-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html)

QuoteThe Dulles Toll Road is key to the financing for Metro's planned Silver Line, and that means rate increases on the toll road are going to be closely watched in coming years.

QuoteThe Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which operates the road and is building the line, is considering a proposal that would double the base rate to $4.50 by 2015.

QuoteOfficials have long warned motorists that toll increases were coming for the eight-lane, 14-mile roadway, which runs between the Capital Beltway and Dulles International Airport.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2012, 09:11:19 AM
WTOP Radio: Song calls Dulles Greenway tolls 'highway robbery' (VIDEO) (http://www.wtop.com/41/3021414/Song-calls-Dulles-Greenway-tolls-highway-robbery-VIDEO)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2012, 11:22:31 PM
[Profiles in political courage - NOT!]

TOLLROADSnews: VA asks Feds for OK to toll only one point on I-95, tolls only to top up tax-$s (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6172)

QuoteThe McDonnell administration in Virginia has drastically scaled back its plans for tolling I-95. In its recently filed application to the Feds, two toll points have been reduced to one. And the lone mainline toll point is located in the most lightly trafficked segment of I-95 in the state in a rural setting 22 miles north of the North Carolina border.

QuoteCOMMENT: You have to think the Feds will be wondering whether this plan from Virginia is a serious proposal, tolls play such a small role.

Since this is the last 'slot' in the Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program they'll have to be asking if this isn't a waste of a scarce slot.

Little Rhode Island's plans for tolling their segment of I-95 are way more serious than this proposal from Virginia. Connecticut and South Carolina too would make better use of the opportunity to toll I-95. And it bears no comparison with North Carolina's plans.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 06, 2012, 12:24:14 PM
WTOP Radio: Petition drive fights Dulles Toll Road hike (http://www.wtop.com/654/3024141/Petition-drive-fights-Dulles-Toll-Road-hike)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 06, 2012, 05:36:19 PM
Robert Thomson ("Dr. Gridlock") of the Washington Post: New ramps to Beltway should ease congestion for Route 267 drivers in Virginia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/post/new-ramps-to-beltway-should-ease-congestion-for-route-267-drivers-in-virginia/2012/09/06/dbed274a-f857-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_blog.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on September 07, 2012, 10:03:42 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 06, 2012, 05:36:19 PM
Robert Thomson ("Dr. Gridlock") of the Washington Post: New ramps to Beltway should ease congestion for Route 267 drivers in Virginia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/post/new-ramps-to-beltway-should-ease-congestion-for-route-267-drivers-in-virginia/2012/09/06/dbed274a-f857-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_blog.html)

Actually, I think it will make the wait to get onto I-495 a little worse for Route 267 drivers.  Instead of everyone merging into 1 lane at the same place, Route 267 drivers will merge into one lane earlier to allow airport traffic to come in and merge.  Since you are letting airport traffic into the front of the line, you are very seriously decreasing their delay, but that means you're probably increasing the delay for Toll Road users.  That said, the weave from the airport to I-495 was very dangerous, and it will be good to eliminate that. 

They are still keeping the slip ramp from the airport lanes to the toll road.  This to allow airport users access to the 495 express lanes (the direct ramps from the airport lanes will only go to the I-495 main lanes, any airport user wanting the Express lanes will need to cross over to the Toll Road proper).  Also, I suppose, to allow more direct access to Route 123, though that access could be accomplished without the slip ramp via I-495 south one exit. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 08, 2012, 12:39:27 PM
Driving out I-66 to Fair Oaks earlier today I got a good look at the new orange-red color they're using for the shoulder lane to help indicate that it's not a standard lane. I'd seen a small stretch of it last Friday on our way to Charlottesville, but due to heavy Friday afternoon traffic and our being in the left HOV lane, as well as the color only having been applied to a small segment between VA-123 and US-50, I didn't get a good look. By this weekend they've extended the orange color to the Beltway. It reverts to normal black in the areas that are allotted for traffic to enter and exit the highway.

For the most part people seemed to be obeying the shoulder lane restriction a bit better than usual, although you can see in the picture below there were still some violators. The vehicle in front of the silver vehicle seen in the picture below moved left out of the shoulder lane. The silver vehicle did not and the driver is probably kicking himself because barely a minute after I took this photo a cop came roaring down the shoulder lane and pulled the guy over. (On my way back about 45 minutes later the traffic on eastbound I-66 was considerably heavier and there were a lot more violators, including one guy who would race down the shoulder lane when traffic was slow, move over to the legal lanes when traffic was moving better, then move right back into the shoulder lane when it slowed again.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Ffe0d4099.jpg&hash=1be3a340f657164d295536dbd9093339c88cf286)


VDOT has also striped the HOV lane with double-white lines in the areas around the interchanges, or at least around Nutley Street and VA-123. They haven't put up any signs saying "Do Not Cross Double White Line." Compliance with the lines was extremely poor today. Last week during rush hour I didn't see anyone cross them, but the traffic was so heavy that there was no reason to try anyway. The picture below is on the westbound trip. On my way back eastbound I saw at least a dozen people switching back and forth across these lines, some multiple times.

The idea of having these seems logical enough because if you're an HOV, there's no reason to change lanes as you pass through the interchanges (especially Nutley with the very long barrier-separated C/D roadways). But I can also understand why some people might feel that when the HOV lane is functioning as a regular travel lane, there shouldn't be restrictions on where you can change in or out of that lane.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F2a379d69.jpg&hash=787b7c3f2ae12888039ac78e0f9095920db31cc9)


I thought about going over to the Dulles interchange to try to check out the new ramp but decided not to bother when I realized that getting a good look at it via legal means would require going all the way out to the airport, buying something somewhere, then driving all the way back (all so as to use the Access Road legally). I'm not THAT interested in it! Maybe I'll ask my brother to try to take a picture next week when he comes back from a business trip to Asia and the cab home takes him that way, if the cabbie knows about the new ramp that is.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on September 08, 2012, 12:54:53 PM
Agree with 1995hoo about the double white lines being silly when the left HOV lane functions as a normal travel lane. 

Officials have been trying to persuade people to not jump into the HOV lane outside of HOV hours, as that lane is a passing lane during those times (there was a big push in Seattle a couple of years ago I think to actually ticket HOVs who travel long distances in the HOV lane outside of HOV hours, since it is not an HOV lane then, it is a normal passing lane).  Having the double white line dilutes the argument that the left lane should be used for passing only, as once you get in, you can't legally get out for a mile or two later, not to mention if you come up behind someone slow in an interchange, you can't get into the passing lane legally.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 08, 2012, 01:36:48 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on September 08, 2012, 12:54:53 PM
Agree with 1995hoo about the double white lines being silly when the left HOV lane functions as a normal travel lane. 

Officials have been trying to persuade people to not jump into the HOV lane outside of HOV hours, as that lane is a passing lane during those times (there was a big push in Seattle a couple of years ago I think to actually ticket HOVs who travel long distances in the HOV lane outside of HOV hours, since it is not an HOV lane then, it is a normal passing lane).  Having the double white line dilutes the argument that the left lane should be used for passing only, as once you get in, you can't legally get out for a mile or two later, not to mention if you come up behind someone slow in an interchange, you can't get into the passing lane legally.

Most other concurrent-flow HOV lanes I have seen with solid stripes between the HOV lane and the non-HOV lanes are 24/7 HOV restricted (as they are in Los Angeles County, California and along U.S. 50 (John Hanson Highway) in Prince George's County, Maryland (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=bowie,+md&hl=en&ll=38.945025,-76.775379&spn=0.018658,0.038581&sll=39.04192,-77.147836&sspn=0.002346,0.004823&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Bowie,+Prince+George%27s,+Maryland&z=15&layer=c&cbll=38.944986,-76.775659&panoid=5rpKHaZnYj5b7emFU6kL5g&cbp=12,271.3,,0,15.22))). 

Only part-time HOV lane I have seen that has a solid stripe like this is southbound I-270 between Exit 4 (Montrose Road) and the point where I-270Y (I-270 Spur) splits off from I-270 (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=rockville,+md&hl=en&ll=39.042107,-77.147933&spn=0.002329,0.004823&hnear=Rockville,+Montgomery,+Maryland&gl=us&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.041921,-77.147838&panoid=fKg7BzjPvibekZzbhRrFAQ&cbp=12,179.62,,0,7.01)).

But - violators jumping in and out of the HOV lanes along I-66 (especially approaching I-495) kill the performance of the HOV lane to the point that there is little or no reason (as in savings of travel time) for car-poolers and bus patrons to use them, and I hope that the solid line might improve their performance.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 08, 2012, 01:46:54 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2012, 11:22:31 PM
[Profiles in political courage - NOT!]

TOLLROADSnews: VA asks Feds for OK to toll only one point on I-95, tolls only to top up tax-$s (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6172)

This should be interesting:

Allen opposes McDonnell's I-95 tolling proposal (http://www.wtop.com/41/3026821/Allen-opposes-McDonnells-I-95-tolling-proposal)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 08, 2012, 04:15:28 PM
I live and work in the general area of where the toll booth is planned to go and it's almost universally opposed from all sides of the political spectrum here. If there were toll booths every X miles, like one proposal showed, it would be one thing, but as is it's just stupid. It's on the least traveled section of I-95 in the state, and US 301 is literally right next to the interstate, so long-distance travelers can depart I-95 even before the ramp tolls begin and rejoin past them (on the north side, exit 33, which many trucks use anyway because of a notable truck stop located there, would be the first/last untolled exit, and on the south side it would be one of the exits near Emporia). The trade-off would be a somewhat slower commute, with US 301's speed limit of 55 for most of that section (35 through Stony Creek) compared to I-95's 70. There are also three stopping points on 301 there: a signal at VA 139/secondary route 631 in Jarratt, and stop signs at VA 40 near Stony Creek and secondary route 602 two miles north of there. The respective I-95 exits for those roads are 20, 31, and 33. Even as it is now, I prefer 301 that way anyway because of how little traffic currently uses it, but I would expect it to greatly increase should this toll proposal actually come to fruition just because the relative ease of shunpiking I-95 there. In addition, the tolls wouldn't actually make money for a few years because of the cost of implementing the setup. I'd just rather see a marginal increase in the gas tax than this because, as the second article states, it would affect everyone who buys gasoline in the state of Virginia as opposed to a select group.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on September 08, 2012, 06:51:52 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 08, 2012, 04:15:28 PM
I live and work in the general area of where the toll booth is planned to go and it's almost universally opposed from all sides of the political spectrum here. If there were toll booths every X miles, like one proposal showed, it would be one thing, but as is it's just stupid. It's on the least traveled section of I-95 in the state, and US 301 is literally right next to the interstate, so long-distance travelers can depart I-95 even before the ramp tolls begin and rejoin past them (on the north side, exit 33, which many trucks use anyway because of a notable truck stop located there, would be the first/last untolled exit, and on the south side it would be one of the exits near Emporia). The trade-off would be a somewhat slower commute, with US 301's speed limit of 55 for most of that section (35 through Stony Creek) compared to I-95's 70. There are also three stopping points on 301 there: a signal at VA 139/secondary route 631 in Jarratt, and stop signs at VA 40 near Stony Creek and secondary route 602 two miles north of there. The respective I-95 exits for those roads are 20, 31, and 33. Even as it is now, I prefer 301 that way anyway because of how little traffic currently uses it, but I would expect it to greatly increase should this toll proposal actually come to fruition just because the relative ease of shunpiking I-95 there. In addition, the tolls wouldn't actually make money for a few years because of the cost of implementing the setup. I'd just rather see a marginal increase in the gas tax than this because, as the second article states, it would affect everyone who buys gasoline in the state of Virginia as opposed to a select group.

If it were me driving, I'd probably go for a "half shunpike".  In otherwords, get off at the last exit before the mainline tolls, and pay a signifcantly lower ramp toll, and then get back on beyond the ramp tolls.  $4 is a bit much for that short stretch of road (they can quote all the per-mile crap they want using $4 and the entire length of I-95 in Virginia, but in real life, most people will consider the tolled segment to be the small section where tolls are actually collected), but $2 with only half the shunpiking would be more reasonable. 

I wonder how they plan to handle people who get off at an exit with ramp tolls but then get right back onto I-95...such as people stopping for gas/food?  Will they waive the ramp tolls if you go through the mainline toll, say, within an hour or something?  If not, I could see the businesses along the tolled interchanges being very upset, because drivers won't want to exit for fear of paying extra in tolls. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 08, 2012, 09:02:17 PM
I-95 in Sussex County VA carries over 32,000 AADT, and that will continue to grow in the future.  Only a very small fraction of that number could "shunpike" off onto 2-lane US-301, due to the capacity of US-301.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 08, 2012, 11:09:32 PM
TOLLROADSnews: VDOT selling E-ZPass through AAA, Wegmans, Giant (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6176)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 12, 2012, 11:12:55 AM
Congressman J. Randy Forbes, in whose district the proposed I-95 toll booth would be located, asks the FHWA to reject the proposal.

http://www.progress-index.com/news/forbes-urges-feds-to-reject-i-95-toll-proposal-1.1371127
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 12, 2012, 11:15:41 AM
Quote from: Takumi on September 12, 2012, 11:12:55 AM
Congressman J. Randy Forbes, in whose district the proposed I-95 toll booth would be located, asks the FHWA to reject the proposal.

http://www.progress-index.com/news/forbes-urges-feds-to-reject-i-95-toll-proposal-1.1371127

Is Rep. Forbes going to ask the Virginia General Assembly to increase the Commonwealth's per-gallon motor fuel tax rates?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 12, 2012, 12:50:26 PM
Admittedly, I don't know. His letter didn't mention an alternative, but, living in his district, I may contact his office to see if he indeed has one. A search of his challenger, Ella Ward, turned up no statements on the issue at all. The same goes for George Allen's opponent, Tim Kaine. The article said the FHWA is expected (by VDOT) to reply by the 21st of this month, so if the proposal is rejected I would imagine alternative funding ideas to surface after that point.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 12, 2012, 02:05:40 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 12, 2012, 12:50:26 PM
Admittedly, I don't know. His letter didn't mention an alternative, but, living in his district, I may contact his office to see if he indeed has one. A search of his challenger, Ella Ward, turned up no statements on the issue at all. The same goes for George Allen's opponent, Tim Kaine. The article said the FHWA is expected (by VDOT) to reply by the 21st of this month, so if the proposal is rejected I would imagine alternative funding ideas to surface after that point.

Too many politicians (in both parties) seem to regard motor fuel tax rates as a "Third Rail" of politics, and I don't like it.  Note that I don't care for politicians that want to increase the rate and divert the resulting increased revenue to toy train projects, which is what more than a few elected officials in Maryland want to do (and some in Virginia,too).

But even worse is the politician who states he is opposed to any increase in the motor fuel tax rate, and then asserts that the shortfall can be made up with tolls, but then opposes tolls, or comes up with watered-down tolling proposals like this one.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 16, 2012, 10:39:25 PM
VDOT wants to lower the speed limit on part of US 460 in Prince George County from 55 to 50.
http://www.progress-index.com/news/vdot-recommends-dropping-speed-limit-on-u-s-460-in-pg-county-1.1373711

The article doesn't mentioned when this would be implemented.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 17, 2012, 12:35:49 AM
Actually the article states at the end that it would probably be implemented by the end of October. 

My thought on the situation is this:  How is US 460 in Prince George County any less deadly than the same undivided road in Isle of Wight County?  Last I checked US 460 was basically 100% undivided from New Bohemia to Downtown Suffolk.  From looking at VDOT traffic estimates traffic along the corridor until Suffolk is fairly the same.  I just don't understand why only my county is making a huge deal about this just because the most deadly wrecks have been in my county when the whole corridor has the same safety issues.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 17, 2012, 07:48:48 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 17, 2012, 12:35:49 AM
Actually the article states at the end that it would probably be implemented by the end of October.
I see that now. Yesterday was a long day :ded:

Quote
My thought on the situation is this:  How is US 460 in Prince George County any less deadly than the same undivided road in Isle of Wight County?  Last I checked US 460 was basically 100% undivided from New Bohemia to Downtown Suffolk.  From looking at VDOT traffic estimates traffic along the corridor until Suffolk is fairly the same.  I just don't understand why only my county is making a huge deal about this just because the most deadly wrecks have been in my county when the whole corridor has the same safety issues.

I agree with that sentiment. VDOT should either be recommending to implement this on the entire stretch or just leave it alone. Once the bypass is finally built there would (theoretically) be less traffic on that stretch anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 18, 2012, 08:47:19 AM
Here is a Progress-Index article from April 2011 on the subject:

http://progress-index.com/news/report-cutting-u-s-460-speed-limit-wouldn-t-boost-safety-1.1132056 (http://progress-index.com/news/report-cutting-u-s-460-speed-limit-wouldn-t-boost-safety-1.1132056)

Here VDOT states that it would be better to add signs and police presence than lowering the speed limit(along with flashing yellow lights at the Enterprise Drive(SR 657) intersection(the entrance to the Food Lion Distribution Center).  From what I see lowering the speed limit is more just a "reaction" move than a move for safety.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 18, 2012, 09:13:08 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 18, 2012, 08:47:19 AM
From what I see lowering the speed limit is more just a "reaction" move than a move for safety.

Or perhaps a revenue enhancement feature?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 18, 2012, 09:20:47 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 18, 2012, 09:13:08 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 18, 2012, 08:47:19 AM
From what I see lowering the speed limit is more just a "reaction" move than a move for safety.

Or perhaps a revenue enhancement feature?

To its great credit, dollars paid in by persons found guilty of breaking most (state) traffic laws in the Commonwealth of Virginia go to the literacy fund, which buys school textbooks and library books, and obviously does not benefit law enforcement for issuing the summons.

Strangely, this does not apply if a driver is charged with breaking a local traffic law (being a "Dillon Rule" state, I cannot for the life of my understand how Virginia allows its political subdivisions to enact local traffic laws).  Maryland, which usually allows its local governments much more authority to enact laws than Virginia does, expressly forbids local governments from enacting local traffic ordinances (every ticket issued for a "moving" violation is for violating state law).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 20, 2012, 04:46:36 PM
Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock: New GW Parkway project to slow traffic through fall (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/post/new-gw-parkway-project-to-slow-traffic-through-fall/2012/09/18/a0ad0cba-0115-11e2-9367-4e1bafb958db_blog.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 20, 2012, 05:43:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 18, 2012, 09:13:08 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 18, 2012, 08:47:19 AM
From what I see lowering the speed limit is more just a "reaction" move than a move for safety.

Or perhaps a revenue enhancement feature?

How does lowering a speed limit necessarily cause a net increase in fines?  Or a net increase in tickets handed out, given that the infinitessimal percentage of tickets given out could just as easily decrease?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 20, 2012, 07:10:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2012, 05:43:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 18, 2012, 09:13:08 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 18, 2012, 08:47:19 AM
From what I see lowering the speed limit is more just a "reaction" move than a move for safety.

Or perhaps a revenue enhancement feature?

How does lowering a speed limit necessarily cause a net increase in fines?  Or a net increase in tickets handed out, given that the infinitessimal percentage of tickets given out could just as easily decrease?

People will still want to drive at the old limit. Or faster than the new even-lower artificially-set limit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 20, 2012, 09:06:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2012, 07:10:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2012, 05:43:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 18, 2012, 09:13:08 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 18, 2012, 08:47:19 AM
From what I see lowering the speed limit is more just a "reaction" move than a move for safety.

Or perhaps a revenue enhancement feature?

How does lowering a speed limit necessarily cause a net increase in fines?  Or a net increase in tickets handed out, given that the infinitessimal percentage of tickets given out could just as easily decrease?

People will still want to drive at the old limit. Or faster than the new even-lower artificially-set limit.

??? What "old limit" and "new even-lower artificially-set limit" are you referring to?


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 20, 2012, 09:32:07 PM
The one mentioned here. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.msg174155#msg174155)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 20, 2012, 10:20:00 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 20, 2012, 09:32:07 PM
The one mentioned here. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.msg174155#msg174155)

OK ... lowering a speed limit from 55 to 50 won't necessarily lead the police to issue more tickets than before, given that the infinitessimal percentage of tickets given out could just as easily decrease.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 21, 2012, 01:19:06 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Dulles Greenway traffic has stopped falling - and that's the first time since 2005 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6193)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2012, 08:00:07 AM
[This might also fit in the new Transit forum, but for now I am posting it here, because it is about Virginia]

WTOP Radio: Long-term plan envisions light rail, bus rapid transit (http://www.wtop.com/654/3053153/Long-term-plan-Rail-bus-rapid-transit)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 01:41:53 PM
WVIR-TV (NBC) Channel 29 - Charlottesville: VDOT Holds Meeting on Western Bypass Environmental Effects (http://www.nbc29.com/story/19661685/vdot-holds-meeting-on-western-bypass-environmental-effects)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 30, 2012, 09:19:11 AM
Hey, somewhere south of Petersburg along I-95, I saw a clearing along a railroad track that crossed underneath I-95. Is this part of some proposed local commuter railroad/rapid transit initiative, or is there some freight spur being planned there or what?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 30, 2012, 11:01:44 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 30, 2012, 09:19:11 AM
Hey, somewhere south of Petersburg along I-95, I saw a clearing along a railroad track that crossed underneath I-95. Is this part of some proposed local commuter railroad/rapid transit initiative, or is there some freight spur being planned there or what?

I saw nothing on the Web site of the Petersburg-Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (http://www.craterpdc.org/transportation/mpo.htm) which would lead me to believe that there is any commuter rail planned for that part of the world (as far as I know, there is no commuter rail service running (or planned) in the Commonwealth of Virginia south of Fredericksburg).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 30, 2012, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 30, 2012, 11:01:44 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 30, 2012, 09:19:11 AM
Hey, somewhere south of Petersburg along I-95, I saw a clearing along a railroad track that crossed underneath I-95. Is this part of some proposed local commuter railroad/rapid transit initiative, or is there some freight spur being planned there or what?

I saw nothing on the Web site of the Petersburg-Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (http://www.craterpdc.org/transportation/mpo.htm) which would lead me to believe that there is any commuter rail planned for that part of the world (as far as I know, there is no commuter rail service running (or planned) in the Commonwealth of Virginia south of Fredericksburg).

I'm not sure where that crossing is, but as someone who lives in central Virginia, I can assure that no commuter rail systems are proposed in the Richmond-Petersburg area.  Light rail has been talked about for Richmond, but no formal studies have been conducted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on October 02, 2012, 02:09:33 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 30, 2012, 09:19:11 AM
Hey, somewhere south of Petersburg along I-95, I saw a clearing along a railroad track that crossed underneath I-95. Is this part of some proposed local commuter railroad/rapid transit initiative, or is there some freight spur being planned there or what?
If the clearing is along one side of the tracks, it could be for high voltage power lines in that area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 02, 2012, 07:48:23 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 02, 2012, 02:09:33 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 30, 2012, 09:19:11 AM
Hey, somewhere south of Petersburg along I-95, I saw a clearing along a railroad track that crossed underneath I-95. Is this part of some proposed local commuter railroad/rapid transit initiative, or is there some freight spur being planned there or what?
If the clearing is along one side of the tracks, it could be for high voltage power lines in that area.

Though the demand for new high-voltage transmission capacity in the eastern part of the PJM Interconnection (http://www.pjm.com/) grid (which covers nearly all of Virginia) runs much more east-west, from coal-fired generation in West Virginia and the Ohio River valley to load centers roughly along I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 03, 2012, 12:08:02 AM
WTOP Radio: Federal court reviews use of toll money for Dulles rail (http://www.wtop.com/120/3062820/Court-could-decide-Dulles-toll-use)

QuoteA federal court could ultimately decide how much drivers pay to use the Dulles Toll Road.

QuoteA group called "No Toll Increase" - which has been circulating petitions opposing the use of toll road money to partially finance the Metro expansion to Dulles International Airport - has taken the issue to a federal appellate court.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 03, 2012, 12:33:57 PM
Well, just so some of you get the idea, these tracks are north of Wagner Road and south of US 460.

The clearing is on both sides of the tracks, but wider on the north side.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on October 03, 2012, 03:28:15 PM
There's a depot there on the east side of I-95. My best guess is that the clearing may be for extra track space if ever needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 03, 2012, 04:26:53 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on October 03, 2012, 12:33:57 PM
Well, just so some of you get the idea, these tracks are north of Wagner Road and south of US 460.

The clearing is on both sides of the tracks, but wider on the north side.

I am wondering if this could be part of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation's (DRPT) efforts to extend Amtrak service to Norfolk, Va.?  For as long as I can remember, the only Amtrak service to Hampton Roads has been to the Peninsula, in particular to Newport News.   There's been no train service on the south (east) side of the James River and the Hampton Roads.  See this page (http://drpt.virginia.gov/activities/norfolk.aspx) on the DRPT site for details.

My understanding is that trains headed south from Richmond (and then east) to Norfolk have to "make a left" at Petersburg (from CSX tracks onto NS tracks) to then (roughly) run parallel to U.S. 460 to ultimately reach downtown Norfolk.



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on October 03, 2012, 04:55:27 PM
Wagner Road is US 460...

This is almost certainly for Amtrak to Norfolk. The "Petersburg Collier Connection" is where the CSX A Line crosses the NS bypass around Petersburg, south of I-85 exit 65 (http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/studies/files/SHREngineering-Task1.pdf p. 15/42).
http://www.itoworld.com/map/15#fullscreen&lat=37.207&lon=-77.425&zoom=13
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on October 03, 2012, 05:21:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 03, 2012, 04:55:27 PM
Wagner Road is US 460...
To his credit, Petersburg did a terrible job with signage when 460 moved to Wagner and I-95, especially eastbound. Even some of the BGS's installed in the past year say mainline 460 is on County Drive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 04, 2012, 11:35:36 AM
Three recent Washington Post opinion pieces regarding highway and transit funding in Virginia:

A Letter to the Editor signed by the chairs of the Boards of Supervisors of three Northern Virginia counties: Where's the plan for Virginia's roads? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/wheres-the-plan-for-virginias-roads/2012/09/28/c12ef3a8-03ff-11e2-9132-f2750cd65f97_story.html)

Editorial: Transportation bottleneck in the Old Dominion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/transportation-bottleneck-in-the-old-dominion/2012/09/30/c7588632-09ad-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html)

And three Letters to the Editor responding to the above: Getting Virginia moving on transportation funds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/getting-virginia-moving-on-transportation-funds/2012/10/03/a90c1c80-0c9f-11e2-97a7-45c05ef136b2_story.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 07, 2012, 06:22:26 PM
Very sad.  Motor vehicles can be lethal.

Trooper killed directing fair traffic (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2012/oct/07/5/tdmain01-trooper-killed-directing-fair-traffic-ar-2263641/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2012, 08:25:06 AM
WTOP Radio: Survey asks Fairfax Co. residents how to fund roads (http://www.wtop.com/149/3071758/How-do-you-fund-road-maintenance)

I don't live in the County of Fairfax, but there are some participants here that do, and might want to answer this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 12, 2012, 01:00:42 AM
WTOP Radio: Plea date set for NC man charged in Va. bus crash (http://www.wtop.com/120/2442202/Plea-date-set-for-NC-man-charged-in-Va-bus-crash)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 12, 2012, 01:32:17 AM
TOLLROADSnews: Clash between Metro Washington authority and US Sectrans LaHood over tolls versus US $s for Dulles Rail (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6227)

QuoteA major clash has erupted between the Dulles Toll Road operator Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) and US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood. Writing on letterhead of the full board of directors of MWAA, one director Robert Clarke Brown accuses of LaHood of intervening illegally in the affairs of MWAA, vilifying it unfairly and distracting attention from the problems of financing $2.5 billion of the Dulles Rail construction with Toll Road debt.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 12, 2012, 10:46:55 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2012, 08:25:06 AM
WTOP Radio: Survey asks Fairfax Co. residents how to fund roads (http://www.wtop.com/149/3071758/How-do-you-fund-road-maintenance)

I don't live in the County of Fairfax, but there are some participants here that do, and might want to answer this.

Thanks for that link. It will not surprise you to hear that I provided them with some very lengthy answers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 12, 2012, 03:54:01 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 12, 2012, 10:46:55 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2012, 08:25:06 AM
WTOP Radio: Survey asks Fairfax Co. residents how to fund roads (http://www.wtop.com/149/3071758/How-do-you-fund-road-maintenance)

I don't live in the County of Fairfax, but there are some participants here that do, and might want to answer this.

Thanks for that link. It will not surprise you to hear that I provided them with some very lengthy answers.

Great!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2012, 07:41:29 AM
WTOP Radio: VDOT says more tolls may be coming (http://www.wtop.com/654/3079483/VDOT-Less-funding-means-more-tolls)

QuoteVirginia's 17.5-cents-a-gallon gas tax is a crucial source of transportation funding. But there's a problem with that says Virginia Department of Transportation's Greg Whirley, the commissioner of highways.

Quote"People are traveling more, but the revenue is trailing down. That's because cars are more fuel efficient," he says.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on October 16, 2012, 01:27:05 PM
Simple solution: Raise the gas tax!





Oh, wait, politics.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 17, 2012, 03:51:13 PM
It appears the CTB wants to change the criteria for turning a secondary road into a primary road.

I wonder if this is to make it easier because they -want- to make more primary routes...

The only mandatory criteria would be a primary route has to connect to an existing one...

This was on today's CTB workshop agenda
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/oct/pres/Presentation_Agenda_Item_6_SecToPrimaryCTBCriteria.pdf (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/oct/pres/Presentation_Agenda_Item_6_SecToPrimaryCTBCriteria.pdf)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on October 17, 2012, 05:34:55 PM
Old VA 44 immediately comes to mind with those criteria.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 17, 2012, 05:48:18 PM
Quote from: Takumi on October 17, 2012, 05:34:55 PM
Old VA 44 immediately comes to mind with those criteria.

Norfolk-Virginia Beach Expressway?  Or an older Va. 44?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on October 17, 2012, 05:56:45 PM
The one that preceded it. It's now secondary route 711 in Chesterfield and Powhatan Counties, but it was decommissioned long before northern Chesterfield's population boom.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 17, 2012, 07:04:08 PM
There's a number of former primary routes and heavily traveled secondary routes that come to mind. SR 711 in Chesterfield and Powhatan Counties (old VA 44), SR 610 in Stafford County (old VA 213), SR 620 in Fairfax County, SR 653 and SR 604 in Chesterfield County, etc.

It should be noted that under the proposed standards, while the only truly mandatory standard is that a route must connect to another primary route, it must also meet a majority of the other standards, which have been modified from the previous ones.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on October 17, 2012, 09:56:24 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 17, 2012, 07:04:08 PM
SR 653 and SR 604 in Chesterfield County
Agreed on 653, which would make a good extension of VA 147 down to US 360. The 604 section of Courthouse has somewhat less traffic, but trucks were recently banned from the section east of VA 288, so I see that unlikely to become primary.

Quote
It should be noted that under the proposed standards, while the only truly mandatory standard is that a route must connect to another primary route, it must also meet a majority of the other standards, which have been modified from the previous ones.
I wonder if they plan on changing any extant routes that don't meet the mandatory criterion. VA 321 and 322 could easily connect to other primaries, but a route like VA 345 would be in trouble if so.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 17, 2012, 11:09:53 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 17, 2012, 07:04:08 PM
There's a number of former primary routes and heavily traveled secondary routes that come to mind. SR 711 in Chesterfield and Powhatan Counties (old VA 44), SR 610 in Stafford County (old VA 213), SR 620 in Fairfax County, SR 653 and SR 604 in Chesterfield County, etc.

It should be noted that under the proposed standards, while the only truly mandatory standard is that a route must connect to another primary route, it must also meet a majority of the other standards, which have been modified from the previous ones.

610 in Stafford County and (most of) 620 in Fairfax County (but maybe not the western segment in Loudoun County) would clearly meet the "intersect primary system" requirement hands-down. 

Other candidates might  be 606 in western Fairfax and eastern Loudoun Counties; and 659 in Loudoun County (the extreme southern tip of 659 runs into Va. 234 in Prince William County).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 17, 2012, 11:11:43 PM
Quote from: Takumi on October 17, 2012, 05:56:45 PM
The one that preceded it. It's now secondary route 711 in Chesterfield and Powhatan Counties, but it was decommissioned long before northern Chesterfield's population boom.

Thanks.  I know Mapmikey has this documented on his excellent site (and I should have looked there before asking).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 18, 2012, 07:56:43 AM
Quote from: Takumi on October 17, 2012, 09:56:24 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 17, 2012, 07:04:08 PM
SR 653 and SR 604 in Chesterfield County
Agreed on 653, which would make a good extension of VA 147 down to US 360. The 604 section of Courthouse has somewhat less traffic, but trucks were recently banned from the section east of VA 288, so I see that unlikely to become primary.

According to VDOT's (http://virginiadot.org/info/resources/Traffic_2011/AADT_020_Chesterfield_2011.pdf) website, that part of SR 604 still has 18,000 AADT so VA 147 would still make sense down to VA 288.  SR 2099 could always be extended west of VA 10 if VA 147 ended at VA 288.

The one that has been on my mind is  SR 644 (http://virginiadot.org/info/resources/Traffic_2011/AADT_029_Fairfax_2011.pdf) in Fairfax County since the western end now connects to VA 286.  The very western end is the only part below 10,000 AADT though and the eastern end also has less traffic near SR 611.  However, SR 611 does have enough traffic between SR 644 and VA 241 to possibly allow for the extension to VA 241.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 18, 2012, 08:18:12 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 18, 2012, 07:56:43 AM
The one that has been on my mind is  SR 644 (http://virginiadot.org/info/resources/Traffic_2011/AADT_029_Fairfax_2011.pdf) in Fairfax County since the western end now connects to VA 286.  The very western end is the only part below 10,000 AADT though and the eastern end also has less traffic near SR 611.  However, SR 611 does have enough traffic between SR 644 and VA 241 to possibly allow for the extension to VA 241.

Va. 644 (Old Keene Mill Road) in Fairfax County would be a good choice to "promote" to the primary system, as would that segment of 611 (which is probably seeing some increased traffic between 286 and 644 because of Fort Belvoir North Area, f/k/a Engineer Proving Grounds now having a huge contingent of workers there).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on October 20, 2012, 08:56:24 PM
I drove down to Jarratt and back today (breaking in new tires) and heading down I saw an oddly-placed interstate shield with what appeared to be two banners, on the ramp from Exit 24 onto the northbound mainline. Upon turning around, I took US 301 to Sussex SR 645 (which is Exit 24), and got onto I-95 there. Indeed, on the onramp there was an I-95 shield with two banner that said "End" and "Alternate" in a shade of yellow like the MUTCD-required Toll banner. It's a standard I-95 shield, but this didn't seem like a regular installation, and I've never seen a posted alternate route for an interstate, so I think it's related to the toll booth proposal.

Edit: I saw two more state-name shields on 645, but one removed from the mainline (last one left there is southbound past exit 31) brings the 1980s state-name shield total to 5.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 21, 2012, 08:20:54 PM
This may be leftover from when I-95 was being repaved?  I can't recall how far south the paving project went

The ALT interstate posting is not prevalent in Virginia.  I think I've only seen it one other time, with I-81 in Christiansburg to Roanoke area.

North Carolina, however, uses this much more frequently and for several years as I-95 was rehabbed from Rocky Mount to Virginia there were all kinds of 95 ALT postings.


Washington DC has had normal looking (i.e. blue color) I-395 ALT shields although I don't know if they are still up.  Pretty sure these are NOT related to any construction.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on October 21, 2012, 08:36:44 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 21, 2012, 08:20:54 PM
Washington DC has had normal looking (i.e. blue color) I-395 ALT shields although I don't know if they are still up.  Pretty sure these are NOT related to any construction.
That's for hazmats around the tunnel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 21, 2012, 09:49:46 PM
Washington Post: Is Washington becoming a Tysons suburb? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/tysons-to-dc-hows-life-as-our-suburb/2012/10/19/9c7d7ec6-1976-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_story.html)

QuoteIs the District of Columbia, the capital of the United States and the free world, becoming a suburb of the economic powerhouse a few miles west?

QuoteWith the growth of Tysons Corner ... err ... Tysons, Fairfax County leaders seem to think so.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on October 21, 2012, 10:10:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 21, 2012, 08:20:54 PM
The ALT interstate posting is not prevalent in Virginia.  I think I've only seen it one other time, with I-81 in Christiansburg to Roanoke area.
It was, notably, the full word Alternate, which is itself rarely used in Virginia anymore. The picture I got of it was a bit blurry, even though I probably had all day to take it since exit 24 is home to absolutely nothing. I'll post it once I upload it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2012, 02:16:40 PM
From NVTA:  October 23rd Fairfax County Parkway Town Hall Meeting (http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Fairfax-County-Parkway-Town-Hall-Meeting---Tomorrow-Night.html?soid=1102207044440&aid=aVH1it--d0g)

QuoteThe Fairfax County Parkway is an original Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance priority and one of Northern Virginia's great transportation success stories.

QuoteIn fact it has been so successful that it is becoming increasingly choked by congestion, in large part because there are too many signalized intersections and too few grade-separated interchanges.

QuoteFairfax County Parkway Town Hall Meeting
7 p.m., October 23rd (Tuesday)
James W. Robinson Secondary School
5035 Sideburn Road, Fairfax
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 23, 2012, 03:31:00 PM
From the NVTA: Save the Planet. Expand the Highway Network (http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Save-the-Planet---Expand-the-Highway-Network.html?soid=1102207044440&aid=RQfVMwha2zI)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 23, 2012, 10:12:18 PM
This is relatively unimportant, but VA 161's northern end is now signed from US 1, five years after I emailed VDOT about it. :P
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 26, 2012, 12:35:52 PM
Washington Post: FBI investigating Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, according to sources (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/fbi-investigating-metropolitan-washington-airports-authority/2012/10/25/1ef3570e-1ed1-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_story.html)

TOLLROADSnews: Metro Washington authority subject of FBI probe as well as USDOT inquiry (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6249)

WTOP Radio: FBI issues subpoenas to airports board (http://www.wtop.com/654/3094667/FBI-issues-subpoenas-to-airports-board)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 26, 2012, 12:47:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 21, 2012, 08:20:54 PM
Washington DC has had normal looking (i.e. blue color) I-395 ALT shields although I don't know if they are still up.  Pretty sure these are NOT related to any construction.

Those can be found at (seemingly) random places around D.C. near I-395.  As best as I can tell, there is no rhyme or reason as to why they were installed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on October 26, 2012, 01:01:06 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 26, 2012, 12:47:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 21, 2012, 08:20:54 PM
Washington DC has had normal looking (i.e. blue color) I-395 ALT shields although I don't know if they are still up.  Pretty sure these are NOT related to any construction.

Those can be found at (seemingly) random places around D.C. near I-395.  As best as I can tell, there is no rhyme or reason as to why they were installed.

Mark them on a map and you may find a pattern.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on November 11, 2012, 06:22:48 PM
More debate on road funding.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/state-news/2012/nov/11/tdmet01-area-planning-district-commission-urges-la-ar-2352517/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2012, 02:40:11 PM
D.C. Examiner: Drivers with Northern Virginia car club receive summonses (http://washingtonexaminer.com/drivers-with-northern-virginia-car-club-receive-summonses/article/2513236)

QuoteAuthorities issued summonses to drivers with a Northern Virginia car club on Sunday after they were seen driving recklessly, The (Staunton, Va.) News Leader reported.

QuoteAbout 10:40 a.m. Sunday, a group of 15 to 20 sports cars were spotted in Augusta County. The group reportedly was speeding, cutting other drivers off and passing over double yellow lines while on a drive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2012, 02:48:27 PM
Quote from: Takumi on November 11, 2012, 06:22:48 PM
More debate on road funding.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/state-news/2012/nov/11/tdmet01-area-planning-district-commission-urges-la-ar-2352517/

They seem to have changed the URL for that article as part of a revamping of the T-D Web site:

Area planning district commission urges lawmakers to index gas tax (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/area-planning-district-commission-urges-lawmakers-to-index-gas-tax/article_17b375cc-ab91-55c2-ba71-c13d6a64d94d.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2012, 02:56:56 PM
Richmond Times Dispatch:  Va. State Police reduces aerial speed enforcement (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/ap/va-state-police-reduces-aerial-speed-enforcement/article_4034f04b-ddf6-5973-9fe6-ef3b30578bb5.html)

QuoteThe Virginia State Police has scaled back an aerial speed limit enforcement program due to the program's costs and other factors.

QuoteSince 2008, 87 tickets have resulted from troopers patrolling interstates in Cessna 182 airplanes. Troopers issued 5,117 tickets between 2000, when the General Assembly approved the program, and 2008.

QuoteState police spokeswoman Corinne Geller says the state police had to reduce expenses because of decreased federal funding, state budget cuts and a manpower shortage. Bad weather forced the cancellation of some missions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 15, 2012, 09:00:49 PM
Richmond Times Dispatch: Watkins transportation plan: Higher gas tax, lower income tax rates (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/richmond/watkins-transportation-plan-higher-gas-tax-lower-income-tax-rates/article_c45667aa-f788-502d-a6c3-4d8a7134b30e.html)

QuoteA Richmond-area legislator is proposing a combination of higher gasoline taxes, lower income tax rates for working Virginians and elimination of almost a dozen tax exemptions to help finance a state transportation program that's running out of money to operate.

QuoteSen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, briefed members of the Senate Finance Committee today about a transportation financing plan that he intends to roll out publicly tomorrow at a meeting of the Mayors and Chairs of Virginia's Urban Crescent in Henrico County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 21, 2012, 03:31:51 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Chesapeake VA closes on $303m borrowing for Dominion Boulevard toll upgrade (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6285)

QuoteThe City of Chesapeake closed this week on nearly $303m of borrowings to finance a major bridge replacement over the South Branch of the Elizabeth River designated as the Intra Coastal Waterway plus upgrade of nearly 4 miles of approach road on Dominion Boulevard US17. The City which has operated the tolled Chesapeake Expressway since 2001 is within a week or so of selecting of a construction firm for the Dominion Boulevard project from eleven bids received in response to a RFP in September.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2012, 07:42:26 PM
PilotOnline.Com: VDOT to hold public meetings on I-95 toll plan (http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2012/11/vdot-hold-public-meetings-i95-toll-plan)

QuoteVirginia transportation officials will hold three public meetings next month on the state's proposal to use toll revenue to improve Interstate 95.

QuoteThe Virginia Department of Transportation has scheduled meetings for Dec. 10 in Sussex, Dec. 12 in Chester and Dec. 17 in Fredericksburg to give the public an update on the proposal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2012, 10:30:17 PM
Peter Galuszka in the Washington Post: The dark side of Va.'s public-private road deals (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/post/the-dark-side-of-vas-public-private-road-deals/2012/11/28/9589db66-397c-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_blog.html)

QuoteSeventeen years ago, Virginia passed what was said to be one of most progressive pieces of legislation in the country. The Public-Private Transportation Act would help build road in the tax-averse state by shifting some of the cost and management to the private sector.

QuoteThe result has been 14 miles of adjusted-toll HOT lanes on Interstate 495 in Northern Virginia, proposed extensions to tunnels in Hampton Roads, superhighway connectors in the Richmond area and a planned $1.4 billion road linking Suffolk to Petersburg.

QuoteBut just how much oversight is there in such public-private partnerships? Hardly any, argues James J. Regimbal Jr., a transportation analyst in a new report published by the nonprofit Southern Environmental Law Center.

QuoteRegimbal paints a disturbing, if not scary, picture of how the Old Dominion operates something like a dictatorship when it comes to deciding to move forward on road projects involving public-private partnerships.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 29, 2012, 06:25:06 AM
The Southern Environmental Law Center is a radical environmentalist, anti-roads obstructionist group.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on November 29, 2012, 08:32:22 AM
In other words they're the good guys.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2012, 11:05:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 29, 2012, 06:25:06 AM
The Southern Environmental Law Center is a radical environmentalist, anti-roads obstructionist group.

And Bacon's Rebellion, even though I like some of the things it runs, has taken money from the Piedmont Environmental Council, at least in the past.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2012, 08:59:45 AM
Hey man, look at all the cop cars. Was that a garage door? What is this, some kinda police station? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/hey-man-look-at-all-the-police-cars-whoa-was-that-a-garage-door-what-is-this-some-kinda-police-station/2012/11/29/9cb2b0b8-3a6a-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_blog.html)

QuoteSomeone drove a car through a garage door in the rear of the Fairfax City police headquarters early Thursday, chugged through the sallyport and then plowed right through the other garage door, basically destroying them both. This put the car inside the gated police parking lot behind headquarters, Sgt. Joe Johnson said. But the driver was able to pull up to the gate, which automatically grants egress, and drive away.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2012, 11:53:21 AM
TOLLROADSnews: Floodgate at Midtown Tunnel Norfolk VA kept Sandy closure to less than half a day (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6297)

QuoteThe Midtown Tunnel In Norfolk VA has had a flood gate at its eastern portal since it opened in 1962. A tide 7 foot above average sea level - just 2 or 3 feet above a normal high tide - is enough to cause the approach roads to be inundated, so flooding is a regular concern. Bruce Wilkerson chief operating officer of Elizabeth River Crossings (ERC) says the Tunnel relies heavily on its floodgate which has been an indispensable component since the Tunnel opened.

QuoteWilkerson says the Midtown Tunnel has taken in water at its Norfolk portal requiring floodgate closures on many occasions in its 50 year life. Now there's more emphasis on getting the tunnel cleared of water and back in operation in several hours. In its early years closures were measured in days.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 01, 2012, 08:17:33 PM
Design unveiled for new I-95 Exit 140 for SR 630 Stafford C.H.
http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2012/11/30/new-stafford-courthouse-interchange-plans-unveiled/ (http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2012/11/30/new-stafford-courthouse-interchange-plans-unveiled/)

The article includes before and after visual rendition.

The updated interchange includes a new SR 630 routing that connects directly with the Stafford Hospital entrance at US 1 (this road already connects with SR 630 east of US 1).

The interchange will have a significantly larger footprint as EB and WB 630 are spread way out.  The commuter lot will be moved to the opposite side of 630 from where it is now and all the gas stations plus the McDonalds will be torn down.

Construction is anticipated for early 2016.

Mapmikey

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 01, 2012, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 01, 2012, 08:17:33 PM
Design unveiled for new I-95 Exit 140 for SR 630 Stafford C.H.
http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2012/11/30/new-stafford-courthouse-interchange-plans-unveiled/ (http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2012/11/30/new-stafford-courthouse-interchange-plans-unveiled/)

The article includes before and after visual rendition.

The updated interchange includes a new SR 630 routing that connects directly with the Stafford Hospital entrance at US 1 (this road already connects with SR 630 east of US 1).

The interchange will have a significantly larger footprint as EB and WB 630 are spread way out.  The commuter lot will be moved to the opposite side of 630 from where it is now and all the gas stations plus the McDonalds will be torn down.

Construction is anticipated for early 2016.

Huge improvement over what is there today (which I believe dates back to the construction of this section of I-95 in the 1960's). 

The article points out that this is the last remaining diamond interchange in Stafford County.

I realize that the extension of the HOV (Toll) lanes won't get as far as south as Stafford, but  I hope that if they were to be extended in the future, that the design takes that possibility into account.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 01, 2012, 10:44:43 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 01, 2012, 08:17:33 PM
Design unveiled for new I-95 Exit 140 for SR 630 Stafford C.H.
http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2012/11/30/new-stafford-courthouse-interchange-plans-unveiled/ (http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2012/11/30/new-stafford-courthouse-interchange-plans-unveiled/)

The article includes before and after visual rendition.

The updated interchange includes a new SR 630 routing that connects directly with the Stafford Hospital entrance at US 1 (this road already connects with SR 630 east of US 1).

The interchange will have a significantly larger footprint as EB and WB 630 are spread way out.  The commuter lot will be moved to the opposite side of 630 from where it is now and all the gas stations plus the McDonalds will be torn down.

Construction is anticipated for early 2016.

Mapmikey

$175 million for that???
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 01, 2012, 11:21:05 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 01, 2012, 09:39:41 PM
I realize that the extension of the HOV (Toll) lanes won't get as far as south as Stafford, but  I hope that if they were to be extended in the future, that the design takes that possibility into account.

Looks like it does in the rendering. The plan seems overkill though. I thought NJ had a monopoly on that style of interchange!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on December 01, 2012, 11:48:17 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 01, 2012, 11:21:05 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 01, 2012, 09:39:41 PM
I realize that the extension of the HOV (Toll) lanes won't get as far as south as Stafford, but  I hope that if they were to be extended in the future, that the design takes that possibility into account.

Looks like it does in the rendering. The plan seems overkill though. I thought NJ had a monopoly on that style of interchange!
I don't think NJ has anything that looks like this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 03, 2012, 12:54:42 AM
Washington Post editorial: Running on fumes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/running-on-fumes/2012/12/02/ac8a7326-3b33-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html)

QuoteTHE LAST TIME Virginia made a real effort to increase annual revenue for transportation, state lawmakers heeded the call of then-Gov. Gerald L. Baliles. "The cost is high, there's no question,"  said Mr. Baliles, a Democrat. "But be assured that the cost of failing to act will be far greater."

QuoteIn response, the General Assembly enacted a modest bump to the gasoline tax. That was 1986. Since then, the state has stood pat, watching passively as inflation and more fuel-efficient vehicles have shrunk the purchasing power of Virginia's per-gallon gas tax by more than half.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 03, 2012, 04:43:33 PM
I-81 in Virginia seems to have more than its "fair share" of "major" or "serious" wrecks and other incidents involving commercial vehicles. 

VDOT press release (hopefully out-dated by now): SOUTHBOUND LANES ON I-81 REMAIN CLOSED AT MILE MARKER 279 (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/staunton/2012/southbound_lanes_on_i-8162088.asp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 06, 2012, 12:40:26 PM
WTOP Radio: McDonnell: Virginia $500 million a year short on transportation funds (http://www.wtop.com/120/3145511/McDonnell-Virginia-500M-a-year-short-on-transportation-funds)

QuoteAnother year, another worry about the money needed to fix and construct roads in Virginia.

QuoteGov. Bob McDonnell says the state needs to find a way to raise at least $500 million each year between now and 2019 just to maintain current roads.

Quote"It's got to be at least sufficient to be able to deal with the maintenance deficit that we expect in 2018," says McDonnell.

QuoteAmong the proposals being kicked around the halls of the state capitol in Richmond are an inflation-based increase of the state's 17 cent gas tax, which hasn't been raised since 1986, a possible sales tax hike and more tolls.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 07, 2012, 02:02:36 PM
D.C. Examiner: Fairfax wants $1b from feds for transportation fixes (http://washingtonexaminer.com/fairfax-wants-1b-from-feds-for-transportation-fixes/article/2515290)

QuoteFairfax County wants more than $1 billion from the federal government to relieve traffic created by the Pentagon when it forced thousands of government employees to relocate to Fort Belvoir and the Mark Center without making necessary transportation improvements.

QuoteThe Pentagon shifted an additional 20,000 employees to the area as part of its base-closing effort, exacerbating already heavy congestion on local roads. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors now says at least 18 transportation projects are needed to decrease traffic flow and wants Uncle Sam to foot the bill.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 08, 2012, 06:28:25 PM
Quote$175 million for that???

That it was the "2nd least expensive" option (per the Free Lance-Star article) is disturbing.

Huge overkill, IMO.

BTW, per the project website (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/fredericksburg/route_630_courthouse_road_and_interstate_95_interchange_reconstruction.asp), you can submit comments on the I-95/SR 630 interchange project through this upcoming Monday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 08, 2012, 10:29:39 PM
While I cringe at nearly every price tag revealed for projects around Virginia, in defense of the Stafford Interchange project they are acquiring quite a bit of land which is not all that cheap anymore in this corridor.  Other aspects include also building a new road over to US 1; destroying and I would assume removing underground tanks, etc for multiple gas stations; the terrain around this interchange is also challenging...

I think the proposed interchange is more complicated than it needs to be.  630 does need to be multilaned and the off-ramp from 95 SB is way too short for the amount of traffic that now uses it.  Of course, the Stafford Airport interchange was way over-designed (though sensibly not fully built out yet) and SR 8900's junction with US 1 seems comically spacious...so maybe this is just how we roll around here...

Of course less than 10 years ago I believe there weren't even any stoplights at this interchange...


Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: abc2VE on December 09, 2012, 06:37:07 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 08, 2012, 10:29:39 PM

...Of course less than 10 years ago I believe there weren't even any stoplights at this interchange...


Mapmikey

I remember that quite well the distance listed below the stop ahead signs was a very specific number, about 630ft
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 09, 2012, 08:35:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 08, 2012, 10:29:39 PM
While I cringe at nearly every price tag revealed for projects around Virginia, in defense of the Stafford Interchange project they are acquiring quite a bit of land which is not all that cheap anymore in this corridor.  Other aspects include also building a new road over to US 1; destroying and I would assume removing underground tanks, etc for multiple gas stations; the terrain around this interchange is also challenging...

I think the proposed interchange is more complicated than it needs to be.  630 does need to be multilaned and the off-ramp from 95 SB is way too short for the amount of traffic that now uses it.  Of course, the Stafford Airport interchange was way over-designed (though sensibly not fully built out yet) and SR 8900's junction with US 1 seems comically spacious...so maybe this is just how we roll around here...

Of course less than 10 years ago I believe there weren't even any stoplights at this interchange...

I would assume that they are designing the interchange to accommodate future growth in Stafford County. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 10, 2012, 09:47:48 AM
D.C. Examiner: Some Va. license plates allow drivers to skip tolls (http://washingtonexaminer.com/some-va.-license-plates-allow-drivers-to-skip-tolls/article/2515379)

QuoteSome Virginia drivers are getting free rides on the state's toll roads, and it's costing the state as much as $100,000 a year.

QuoteThe problem, state officials said, is that some Virginia license plates can't be read by cameras at the state's toll booths.

QuoteAbout 2 percent of the 1.5 million license plates reviewed by the state in a recent study had a design or color combination that made it nearly impossible for toll booth cameras along the Dulles Toll Road and elsewhere to read the tags. That means a driver without an E-ZPass can sail through an automated toll collection lane without paying -- and never get a bill or fine in the mail.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 10, 2012, 11:23:20 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 09, 2012, 08:35:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 08, 2012, 10:29:39 PM
While I cringe at nearly every price tag revealed for projects around Virginia, in defense of the Stafford Interchange project they are acquiring quite a bit of land which is not all that cheap anymore in this corridor.  Other aspects include also building a new road over to US 1; destroying and I would assume removing underground tanks, etc for multiple gas stations; the terrain around this interchange is also challenging...

I think the proposed interchange is more complicated than it needs to be.  630 does need to be multilaned and the off-ramp from 95 SB is way too short for the amount of traffic that now uses it.  Of course, the Stafford Airport interchange was way over-designed (though sensibly not fully built out yet) and SR 8900's junction with US 1 seems comically spacious...so maybe this is just how we roll around here...

Of course less than 10 years ago I believe there weren't even any stoplights at this interchange...

I would assume that they are designing the interchange to accommodate future growth in Stafford County. 

Which is likely, given the current pace of growth in the county. The current interchange is a major bottleneck and is quite dangerous, and even after the signals were installed there's major backups. I've seen traffic backed up the onramp onto I-95. This design is probably still overkill, though, but SR 610 (the next exit north on I-95) has an even higher AADT than SR 630, and it's served by a simple cloverleaf without any significant backup issues.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 12, 2012, 07:21:24 AM
Washington Post editorial: Gov. McDonnell faces a challenge on gas taxes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gov-mcdonnell-faces-a-challenge-on-gas-taxes/2012/12/11/2cef6dce-43e4-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 12, 2012, 09:52:49 AM
Quote
D.C. Examiner: Some Va. license plates allow drivers to skip tolls (http://washingtonexaminer.com/some-va.-license-plates-allow-drivers-to-skip-tolls/article/2515379)

More on this from WTOP Radio: Study: Va. loses toll money from unreadable license plates (http://www.wtop.com/120/3152674/Worn-dirty-plates-dodge-Va-toll-cameras)

QuoteSome drivers are enjoying a free ride through automatic tolls in Virginia, but budget-conscious lawmakers in Richmond may be eager to close the gap.

QuoteA 76-page study on license plates, prepared by the Department of Motor Vehicles, was provided to legislators Monday.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 12, 2012, 09:55:18 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 10, 2012, 11:23:20 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 09, 2012, 08:35:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 08, 2012, 10:29:39 PM
While I cringe at nearly every price tag revealed for projects around Virginia, in defense of the Stafford Interchange project they are acquiring quite a bit of land which is not all that cheap anymore in this corridor.  Other aspects include also building a new road over to US 1; destroying and I would assume removing underground tanks, etc for multiple gas stations; the terrain around this interchange is also challenging...

I think the proposed interchange is more complicated than it needs to be.  630 does need to be multilaned and the off-ramp from 95 SB is way too short for the amount of traffic that now uses it.  Of course, the Stafford Airport interchange was way over-designed (though sensibly not fully built out yet) and SR 8900's junction with US 1 seems comically spacious...so maybe this is just how we roll around here...

Of course less than 10 years ago I believe there weren't even any stoplights at this interchange...

I would assume that they are designing the interchange to accommodate future growth in Stafford County. 

Which is likely, given the current pace of growth in the county. The current interchange is a major bottleneck and is quite dangerous, and even after the signals were installed there's major backups. I've seen traffic backed up the onramp onto I-95. This design is probably still overkill, though, but SR 610 (the next exit north on I-95) has an even higher AADT than SR 630, and it's served by a simple cloverleaf without any significant backup issues.

Similar situation can be found on I-66 westbound at Exit 40 (U.S. 15, Haymarket) in the afternoon peak commute period.  Traffic (especially traffic wanting to turn left (south) onto U.S. 15) queues up onto the shoulder of I-66.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 12, 2012, 10:13:55 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 12, 2012, 09:55:18 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 10, 2012, 11:23:20 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 09, 2012, 08:35:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 08, 2012, 10:29:39 PM
While I cringe at nearly every price tag revealed for projects around Virginia, in defense of the Stafford Interchange project they are acquiring quite a bit of land which is not all that cheap anymore in this corridor.  Other aspects include also building a new road over to US 1; destroying and I would assume removing underground tanks, etc for multiple gas stations; the terrain around this interchange is also challenging...

I think the proposed interchange is more complicated than it needs to be.  630 does need to be multilaned and the off-ramp from 95 SB is way too short for the amount of traffic that now uses it.  Of course, the Stafford Airport interchange was way over-designed (though sensibly not fully built out yet) and SR 8900's junction with US 1 seems comically spacious...so maybe this is just how we roll around here...

Of course less than 10 years ago I believe there weren't even any stoplights at this interchange...

I would assume that they are designing the interchange to accommodate future growth in Stafford County. 

Which is likely, given the current pace of growth in the county. The current interchange is a major bottleneck and is quite dangerous, and even after the signals were installed there's major backups. I've seen traffic backed up the onramp onto I-95. This design is probably still overkill, though, but SR 610 (the next exit north on I-95) has an even higher AADT than SR 630, and it's served by a simple cloverleaf without any significant backup issues.

Similar situation can be found on I-66 westbound at Exit 40 (U.S. 15, Haymarket) in the afternoon peak commute period.  Traffic (especially traffic wanting to turn left (south) onto U.S. 15) queues up onto the shoulder of I-66.

I'll be interested in seeing whether that improves at all when the Gainesville construction is finished in a few years. A lot of people have long used the Haymarket exit to bypass congestion and (more importantly, depending on the time of day) the railroad crossing in Gainesville. When the grade-separation there is finished I wonder if it might lure some people back to US-29 instead of using the Haymarket work-around. Of course, there are also long-term plans to widen I-66 out to Haymarket as well, but that wouldn't help much with the backups on the ramp.

I know there have been times when I've been heading for southbound 29 when I found the Haymarket ramp so backed up I went on to the next exit at Great Meadow, followed the road south to its end at US-17, and turned left to follow that down to Warrenton.

Passed Gainesville on I-66 last Saturday but couldn't tell how the project is progressing. There's certainly a massive mound of dirt in the middle of US-29, which I assume is intended to form the approaches for the overpass above the railroad tracks. The project rendering I saw showed US-29 passing over the tracks and then diving down to go under Linton Hall Road. Edited to add: Found a somewhat grainy rendering. (http://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/Gainesville_Renderings.pdf) It reminds me quite a bit of the Yorktowne Center intersection of Gallows Road and US-50, which was transformed into an interchange in the early- to mid-1980s. In particular the ramp configuration for southbound US-29 reminds me of that. We lived near Fairfax Hospital when the Gallows/50 construction began, so I remember it quite well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on December 12, 2012, 10:46:31 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 12, 2012, 09:52:49 AM
Quote
D.C. Examiner: Some Va. license plates allow drivers to skip tolls (http://washingtonexaminer.com/some-va.-license-plates-allow-drivers-to-skip-tolls/article/2515379)

More on this from WTOP Radio: Study: Va. loses toll money from unreadable license plates (http://www.wtop.com/120/3152674/Worn-dirty-plates-dodge-Va-toll-cameras)

QuoteSome drivers are enjoying a free ride through automatic tolls in Virginia, but budget-conscious lawmakers in Richmond may be eager to close the gap.

QuoteA 76-page study on license plates, prepared by the Department of Motor Vehicles, was provided to legislators Monday.

The Examiner article includes a sample of Virginia's fall colors plate as one of the harder-to-read ones.  It was nearly impossible to read when first issued, with the leaves in the background behind the letters and numbers, rather than just on the edges as they are now.

I recall that Virginia DMV in that instance recalled the plates and re-did them in the new design, rather than gradually reduce their numbers through attrition as is now being discussed for some current plate designs.  I'm not sure how hard DMV pushed back against drivers who realized how lucky they were and balked at turning in their unreadable plates.  Virginia at that time was still a long way from photo enforcement or "pay-by-plate" tolling, but other states and provinces had started using one or the other. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 15, 2012, 05:39:04 PM
WTOP Radio: Shoreline erosion is threatening Va scenic roadway (http://www.wtop.com/120/3158570/Shoreline-erosion-is-threatening-Va-scenic-roadway)

QuoteThe National Park Service is moving ahead with plans to address shoreline erosion along the York River.

QuoteA report outlining plans for a project to repair and stabilize a 4.2-mile stretch of the river describes the erosion as an imminent threat to the scenic Colonial Parkway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 16, 2012, 12:22:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2012, 10:13:55 AM
I'll be interested in seeing whether that improves at all when the Gainesville construction is finished in a few years. A lot of people have long used the Haymarket exit to bypass congestion and (more importantly, depending on the time of day) the railroad crossing in Gainesville. When the grade-separation there is finished I wonder if it might lure some people back to US-29 instead of using the Haymarket work-around. Of course, there are also long-term plans to widen I-66 out to Haymarket as well, but that wouldn't help much with the backups on the ramp.

Strangely, I have not been on that section of U.S. 29 (south of I-66) for a long time - I am going to need to take a look-see at that.

I do know it has been ugly for decades.  In the "I'm old enough" department, I can remember when I-66 had its interim western terminus at U.S. 29 south (only - no access to U.S. 29 northbound, which  was effectively a "U" turn anyway), and Gainesville was perhaps even more of a mess (traffic headed west to Front Royal, Strasburg and I-81 had to take Va. 55 most of the rest of the way (there was that long "orphaned" section of I-66 around Marshall (roughly Exits 23 to 28 today)). 

I spent a week in Gainesville as a high school junior (1975) at Camp Glenkirk (now gone) as a camp counselor on the shores of Lake Manassas in Prince William County (Montgomery County (Maryland) Public Schools rented it for its 6th grade outdoor education program), and remember the school bus getting stuck in traffic when we left on Friday.

I nearly always go out to U.S. 15 at Haymarket to avoid Gainesville, but you do run the risk of getting stuck at the NS grade crossing just south of the Sheetz on 15 if a long freight train comes through (that track from Manassas to Front Royal is remarkably busy for being a winding single-track affair).   

Do you remember that Haymarket was where Disney wanted to build its America theme park, but was thwarted by opposition from the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Sierra Club in 1995 (Disney gave up rather than fight)? I suppose the PEC was afraid too many members of the hoi polloi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoi_polloi) would show up too close to their estates.

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2012, 10:13:55 AM
I know there have been times when I've been heading for southbound 29 when I found the Haymarket ramp so backed up I went on to the next exit at Great Meadow, followed the road south to its end at US-17, and turned left to follow that down to Warrenton.

I have done that as well.  U.S. 17 moves fast between Warrenton and I-66, though I have seen both the Fauquier County Sheriff's Office and VSP doing speed limit enforcement there (presumably for that reason).

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2012, 10:13:55 AM
Passed Gainesville on I-66 last Saturday but couldn't tell how the project is progressing. There's certainly a massive mound of dirt in the middle of US-29, which I assume is intended to form the approaches for the overpass above the railroad tracks. The project rendering I saw showed US-29 passing over the tracks and then diving down to go under Linton Hall Road. Edited to add: Found a somewhat grainy rendering. (http://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/Gainesville_Renderings.pdf) It reminds me quite a bit of the Yorktowne Center intersection of Gallows Road and US-50, which was transformed into an interchange in the early- to mid-1980s. In particular the ramp configuration for southbound US-29 reminds me of that. We lived near Fairfax Hospital when the Gallows/50 construction began, so I remember it quite well.

It is revealing to me that the Gainesville project got funded in spite of VDOT's massive financial problems.  Thank you for sharing those images.  They are consistent with what I recall the reconstructed U.S. 29 looking like. 

If VDOT had unlimited amounts of money, it would upgrade all of U.S. 29, all the way from Danville to Gainesville, to a controlled-access Interstate-standard freeway. 

Of course, the membership of the PEC would collectively have a hemorrhage, even though it would really improve what is a dangerous and substandard segment of highway, especially between Warrenton and Gainesville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 16, 2012, 12:46:00 PM
I plan to go through Gainesville on Friday, traffic permitting, and if I can get any pictures of the progress I will post them, though not likely on Friday–we are going to try to go from DC to Charlotte via US-29/I-85 Friday afternoon, then on to Florida via I-77/I-26/I-95 on Saturday. I just want to take a route other than I-95 and I haven't been down US-29 beyond Charlottesville since July 1998 on my way home from the bar exam in Roanoke.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 16, 2012, 01:43:04 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 16, 2012, 12:46:00 PM
I plan to go through Gainesville on Friday, traffic permitting, and if I can get any pictures of the progress I will post them, though not likely on Friday–we are going to try to go from DC to Charlotte via US-29/I-85 Friday afternoon, then on to Florida via I-77/I-26/I-95 on Saturday. I just want to take a route other than I-95 and I haven't been down US-29 beyond Charlottesville since July 1998 on my way home from the bar exam in Roanoke.

It has been a while since I was down that way - but - U.S. 29 south of Charlottesville and I-64 is a very different road from what it is between Charlottesville and Gainesville.  Except through Lynchburg, U.S. 29 has VDOT-published AADT (2011) at or under 20,000 all the way  from Danville to I-64.   North of I-64, it is generally above 20,000 (for reasons unclear to me, it dips below 20,000 in parts of Greene and Madison Counties), and north of Opal, above 40,000 AADT (in my opinion, that's a lot for a rural four-lane arterial highway), and approaching Gainesville, 60,000 (!).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 17, 2012, 09:12:20 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 16, 2012, 01:43:04 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 16, 2012, 12:46:00 PM
I plan to go through Gainesville on Friday, traffic permitting, and if I can get any pictures of the progress I will post them, though not likely on Friday–we are going to try to go from DC to Charlotte via US-29/I-85 Friday afternoon, then on to Florida via I-77/I-26/I-95 on Saturday. I just want to take a route other than I-95 and I haven't been down US-29 beyond Charlottesville since July 1998 on my way home from the bar exam in Roanoke.

It has been a while since I was down that way - but - U.S. 29 south of Charlottesville and I-64 is a very different road from what it is between Charlottesville and Gainesville.  Except through Lynchburg, U.S. 29 has VDOT-published AADT (2011) at or under 20,000 all the way  from Danville to I-64.   North of I-64, it is generally above 20,000 (for reasons unclear to me, it dips below 20,000 in parts of Greene and Madison Counties), and north of Opal, above 40,000 AADT (in my opinion, that's a lot for a rural four-lane arterial highway), and approaching Gainesville, 60,000 (!).

Oh yes, I remember the portion between Charlottesville and US-501 near Lynchburg pretty well because in the mid-1990s I drove that way quite often–after I graduated from UVA I headed to law school at Duke and I often took 501 -> 29 on my way up to Charlottesville for visits. One time I went across to hit 29 in North Carolina so that I could clinch (though I had never heard of that term at the time) the entire Virginia portion. Of course, one major change since then is the new bypasses around Danville and (especially) Lynchburg/Madison Heights, the latter with a 70-mph speed limit (the only non-Interstate in Virginia with a 70-mph limit at present).

The light traffic counts are really one major reason for going that way. I-95 through the Carolinas can get frustrating with the left-lane hogs, and while I-85 is an option, I nixed that because (a) the worst stretch of I-95 is the one going down to Richmond and the traffic on the Friday before Christmas might be heavy and (b) I drove I-85 so often over the years I'm bored with that too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 17, 2012, 11:22:23 AM
AP via WTOP Radio: Southside Va not yielding for gov's I-95 toll idea (http://www.wtop.com/41/2392927/Southside-Va-not-yielding-for-govs-I-95-toll-idea)

QuoteSTONY CREEK, Va. - Would you pay $11 for a $3 hamburger?

QuoteFrank Jackson, the mayor of Stony Creek and its nearly 200 people, didn't think so.

QuoteBut if Gov. Bob McDonnell succeeds in imposing tolls on Interstate 95 near the North Carolina border and the highway's entry and exit ramps, that could happen, Jackson argues.

Quote"And it's just going to kill businesses like the Tastee Hut," he said.

QuoteThe Tastee Hut is unpretentious, throwback fast food _ a squat, white hut off an I-95 frontage road just north of Exit 31, midway between Richmond and the Carolina line. No dining room; customers either buy carry-out or use the picnic tables off to one side. Park in the gravel lot, walk to the window, order a cheeseburger or pulled-pork barbecue sandwich, add a Dr. Pepper, maybe an order of fries and you're set for another 250 miles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 17, 2012, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 17, 2012, 11:22:23 AM
AP via WTOP Radio: Southside Va not yielding for gov's I-95 toll idea (http://www.wtop.com/41/2392927/Southside-Va-not-yielding-for-govs-I-95-toll-idea)

QuoteSTONY CREEK, Va. - Would you pay $11 for a $3 hamburger?



Both the logic and the facts are incorrect at the Tastee Hut.

First off, according to http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/95/Toll/CIM_-_Presentation_20121210.pdf (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/95/Toll/CIM_-_Presentation_20121210.pdf).  There would only be a ramp toll getting off OR getting on but not both unless it is at different exits, one on each side of the toll booth (which would then eliminate $4 by avoiding the main booth).

So it is "$9" for the burger, not $11.  But of course, the cost of NO burger is $4, so the cost of the burger is actually $5.  Plus they could inform customers they could avoid the ramp toll to get back onto 95 NB by going up the frontage road to Exit 33.

This is not an attempt to advocate for or against the tolling plan.  Just that whatever discussion there is should be fact-based.

Also one would think (though I have no idea if it is in the plan), that the ramp toll could be waived if you have been through the main toll plaza in say the last half hour.  Or the main plaza would charge only $2 if you used a ramp toll within the last half-hour.  None of this would help cash-paying toll users though.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 18, 2012, 11:46:50 AM
TOLLROADSnews: North-South Corridor through Manassas a potential new 45 mile tollroad in northern Virginia (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6323)

QuoteVirginia planners have added a new 'North-South Corridor" to their master planning for northern Virginia. An area of strong economic growth and lacking any quality north-south highway within many miles on either side it looks like a natural for toll financing. The route extends some 45 miles, 72km from I-95 near Dumfries to I-66 near Manassas then skirting west of Washington Dulles International Airport it would cross the Dulles Greenway ending just beyond VA7 Leesburg Pike in Ashburn.

QuoteThe NS corridor runs about 30 miles, 50km distant from the Mall at the center of Washington DC, and it is about 20 miles, 32km west of the line of the Capital Beltway I-495. It is part of longterm VDOT plan called VTrans 2035.

QuoteUS15 runs about 4 miles, 7km to its west at the closest point.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 18, 2012, 12:09:09 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 17, 2012, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 17, 2012, 11:22:23 AM
AP via WTOP Radio: Southside Va not yielding for gov's I-95 toll idea (http://www.wtop.com/41/2392927/Southside-Va-not-yielding-for-govs-I-95-toll-idea)

QuoteSTONY CREEK, Va. - Would you pay $11 for a $3 hamburger?



Both the logic and the facts are incorrect at the Tastee Hut.

First off, according to http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/95/Toll/CIM_-_Presentation_20121210.pdf (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/95/Toll/CIM_-_Presentation_20121210.pdf).  There would only be a ramp toll getting off OR getting on but not both unless it is at different exits, one on each side of the toll booth (which would then eliminate $4 by avoiding the main booth).

Thank you for your FAct-based comment!  I read a VDOT presentation several months ago about I-95 tolling, but nothing as recent as what you have posted above.

Have you considered contacting the AP reporter credited by WTOP with writing this?

Quote from: Mapmikey on December 17, 2012, 01:13:18 PM
So it is "$9" for the burger, not $11.  But of course, the cost of NO burger is $4, so the cost of the burger is actually $5.  Plus they could inform customers they could avoid the ramp toll to get back onto 95 NB by going up the frontage road to Exit 33.

This is not an attempt to advocate for or against the tolling plan.  Just that whatever discussion there is should be fact-based.

Absolutely correct.

Quote from: Mapmikey on December 17, 2012, 01:13:18 PM
Also one would think (though I have no idea if it is in the plan), that the ramp toll could be waived if you have been through the main toll plaza in say the last half hour.  Or the main plaza would charge only $2 if you used a ramp toll within the last half-hour.  None of this would help cash-paying toll users though.

I have no problem with tolls per-se, especially on new highway capacity, like the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes or Maryland's ICC and the new I-95 ETLs. 

But I really dislike this plan - and not because I am a relatively frequent user of I-95 in Virginia, but  because there is still going to be shunpiking here.  If we could turn back the clock, I would much rather have had the tolls retained on the  Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike, with the toll barriers upgraded to allow for open-road E-ZPass tolling, and, in a perfect world, a toll barrier on I-295, probably on the north side of the Varina-Enon Bridge.

This plan reminds me of the tolling that Maryland has on the JFK Highway. The one-way tolls collected at that one point are supposed to support maintenance and improvements over a very long segment of road.  At least Maryland has the Susquehanna River, and the adjacent (tolled) U.S. 40 Hatem Bridge, which is something of a deterrent to shunpiking by northbound trucks.

I would much rather see toll collection over a much longer section of I-95 (probably including toll collection between Richmond and Fredericksburg).

Consider that the last plan I saw for tolls on I-95 in North Carolina envisioned tolls along its entire length, from Rowlands (near South of the Border) all the way to Gaston.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 25, 2012, 07:22:50 PM
Some of you are familiar with how there are a number of "uni-signs" in the Richmond District (a uni-sign being single-sheet reassurance shields or trailblazer shields as opposed to stand-alone shield).  While traveling this weekend, I saw at least two uni-signs in the Staunton District...both on VA 257.  Isolated incident?  Precursor to expanded use?  I didn't see any others in the area, but it's possible there are more.  Both of the signs I saw are new...less than a year old (they didn't exist last time I was on VA 257).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 25, 2012, 07:52:16 PM
Definitely not isolated, though not widespread.  District 8 started doing this 3+ years ago (first sets I noticed were in Highland Co for US 220 and US 250 in Jan 2010).  I know I've seen a few more but am drawing a blank on where they were...

Here is one - http://maps.google.com/maps?q=monterey,+va&hl=en&ll=38.326306,-79.437847&spn=0.016766,0.038581&sll=38.003385,-79.420925&sspn=4.310678,9.876709&t=h&hnear=Monterey,+Highland,+Virginia&z=15&layer=c&cbll=38.326303,-79.437653&panoid=e21jeUGSE2PkSun7ZI89bg&cbp=12,0,,0,0 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=monterey,+va&hl=en&ll=38.326306,-79.437847&spn=0.016766,0.038581&sll=38.003385,-79.420925&sspn=4.310678,9.876709&t=h&hnear=Monterey,+Highland,+Virginia&z=15&layer=c&cbll=38.326303,-79.437653&panoid=e21jeUGSE2PkSun7ZI89bg&cbp=12,0,,0,0)

I've also seen at least one of these in District 7 - the old US 29 cutouts on the Madison bypass were replaced with a unisign set.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2012, 08:20:59 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 25, 2012, 07:22:50 PM
Some of you are familiar with how there are a number of "uni-signs" in the Richmond District (a uni-sign being single-sheet reassurance shields or trailblazer shields as opposed to stand-alone shield).  While traveling this weekend, I saw at least two uni-signs in the Staunton District...both on VA 257.  Isolated incident?  Precursor to expanded use?  I didn't see any others in the area, but it's possible there are more.  Both of the signs I saw are new...less than a year old (they didn't exist last time I was on VA 257).

Never seen them on VDOT-maintained roads in the Northern Virginia District. 

I think I have seen them a few times within the corporate limits of the  City of  Alexandria.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 25, 2012, 11:45:23 PM
WAVY Channel 10: VDOT to hold public hearings on HRBT (http://www.wavy.com/dpp/traffic/vdot-to-hold-public-hearings-on-hrbt)

QuoteThe Virginia Department of Transportation will hold two public hearings to talk about alternatives for the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel.

QuoteAccording to VDOT, the hearings will take place on Jan. 23 and Jan. 24 in Norfolk and Hampton, respectively. VDOT and the Federal Highway Administration is preparing an environmental impact study in conjunction with the four possible alternatives.

VDOT Web site: Interstate 64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Study (Corridor from I-664 in Hampton to I-564 in Norfolk) (http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/projects/hamptonroads/i-64_hrbt_study.asp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 27, 2012, 12:26:23 PM
VDOT Web site: GOV. MCDONNELL ANNOUNCES VDOT, NAVY AGREE TO BUILD I-564 INTERMODAL CONNECTOR - Project will improve traffic flow to Naval Station Norfolk, Port of Virginia (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2012/gov._mcdonnell_announces_vdot62527.asp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on December 27, 2012, 09:09:28 PM
I've seen the new unisigns as well in several places, all in the Staunton district. One on US-11 approaching one of the SR's that connects to I-81 (it was Tom's Brook or somewhere near there) and one on VA-55 approaching VA-79.

I've not seen them on any new signage in the Northern Virginia district, though an odd practice has developed in Northern VA using one shield (instead of two) approaching a route with both directional banners above and both arrows below, esp. along VA-286 and numerous other places (VA-234). Are both the unisigns and this use of single shields cost cutting measures?

-Dan
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 27, 2012, 11:07:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 27, 2012, 12:26:23 PM
VDOT Web site: GOV. MCDONNELL ANNOUNCES VDOT, NAVY AGREE TO BUILD I-564 INTERMODAL CONNECTOR - Project will improve traffic flow to Naval Station Norfolk, Port of Virginia (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2012/gov._mcdonnell_announces_vdot62527.asp)

This would be the proposal to realign I-564 to allow the Third Crossing to eventually be built, right?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 27, 2012, 11:14:42 PM
Quote from: dfnva on December 27, 2012, 09:09:28 PM
I've seen the new unisigns as well in several places, all in the Staunton district. One on US-11 approaching one of the SR's that connects to I-81 (it was Tom's Brook or somewhere near there) and one on VA-55 approaching VA-79.

I've not seen them on any new signage in the Northern Virginia district, though an odd practice has developed in Northern VA using one shield (instead of two) approaching a route with both directional banners above and both arrows below, esp. along VA-286 and numerous other places (VA-234). Are both the unisigns and this use of single shields cost cutting measures?

For as long as I can remember (going back to when (what is now) the Northern Virginia District was part of the Culpeper (!) District prior to about 1984), the "standard" practice has been two shields under each directional banner one shield under each directional banner, even on secondary system routes. 

I would assume that the use of one shield is to cut costs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 27, 2012, 11:27:43 PM
3 dead in crash at Springfield interchange (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/3-dead-in-crash-at-springfield-interchange/2012/12/27/a212c23a-5092-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html)

QuoteThree people died Thursday night at the Springfield interchange when a pickup truck slammed into the back of a 18-wheel tractor-trailer that was stuck in traffic on a flyover ramp, Virginia State Police said.

QuoteThe pickup truck was traveling on the westbound ramp from Interstate 495 to enter southbound I-95 when it rear-ended the tractor-trailer at about 7 p.m., said Corinne Geller, a police spokeswoman. All three people in the pickup truck, whom officials did not immediately identify, died at the scene, Geller said.

[The above is the long, long, long and high flyover ramp that carries I-95 south from the Capital Beltway south in the direction of Richmond.]
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 28, 2012, 04:19:39 PM
DelmarvaNow.com: Bridge officials eye $1 billion new tunnel - Say proactive long-term planning is key to maintaining traffic flow (http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20121226/ESN01/312260031)

QuoteKIPTOPEKE – The key to continued success for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel is proactive long-term planning, bridge-tunnel officials say.

QuoteThat includes planning to construct parallel tunnels at the two channels that allow ships to pass through on their way to Hampton Roads or Baltimore ports. The projected cost for the first tunnel, slated to be built in less than a decade, is nearly $1 billion.

Quote"We are not subsidized by any entity,"  Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District Executive Director Jeff Holland said, likening maintaining the facility to maintaining an oil rig "out in the depths of the oceanic environment."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 01, 2013, 06:30:29 PM
QuoteThis would be the proposal to realign I-564 to allow the Third Crossing to eventually be built, right?

I think it's called that because it connects to I-564, but it's not an actual I-564 realignment.  VDOT internal docs (and even some public docs over the past 10 years) have referenced it as part of VA 510.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2013, 07:39:48 PM
Virginia officer killed in accident had green light, police say (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/virginia-officer-killed-in-accident-had-green-light-police-say/2013/01/01/281f9bae-5459-11e2-a613-ec8d394535c6_blog.html)

QuoteA Prince William County motorcycle officer who was killed in an accident Saturday afternoon was driving through a green light with his lights and siren on when his cycle was hit by a minivan, authorities said in an update released on Tuesday.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on January 02, 2013, 01:23:57 PM
Drove through Emporia twice over the holidays. The consistent 70 mph speed limit is a nice change. Also noted no police activity on either pass through. I stayed at 70 just to be safe, but noted that many others were at 75 or so. Is the speed trap in Emporia moot now with the 70 mph speed limits?

Also noted several yellow trailers (and one sign/banner attached to a water tower) touting the opposition to toll I-95 in southern Virginia.

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-095_va_toll_free.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-095_va_toll_free.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 05, 2013, 10:46:28 AM
Quote from: Alex on January 02, 2013, 01:23:57 PM
Drove through Emporia twice over the holidays. The consistent 70 mph speed limit is a nice change. Also noted no police activity on either pass through. I stayed at 70 just to be safe, but noted that many others were at 75 or so. Is the speed trap in Emporia moot now with the 70 mph speed limits?

I would assume the answer is no, since the Virginia statutory provision that defines reckless driving as speeds greater than or equal to 80 MPH are still in effect, and I presume that the Emporia cops are still glad to issue tickets for that.

Quote from: Alex on January 02, 2013, 01:23:57 PM
Also noted several yellow trailers (and one sign/banner attached to a water tower) touting the opposition to toll I-95 in southern Virginia.

The McDonnell Administration's proposal to only toll I-95 south of Petersburg is a joke.  It  does not raise much revenue when compared to the funding needs for Virginia highways.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 05, 2013, 10:48:37 AM
Washington Post: McDonnell seeks elusive fix for Virginia roads (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/mcdonnell-seeks-elusive-fix-for-virginia-roads/2013/01/04/7c6e06cc-55cc-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html)

QuoteGov. Robert F. McDonnell is heading into his final year in office hoping to cement his legacy as a problem solver by taking on one of the most persistent dilemmas in the state: finding a fix for roads.

QuoteMcDonnell (R) is expected to unveil a proposal next week to pump at least $500 million a year into the commonwealth's transportation coffers by 2018. Without that infusion, a state with one of the nation's largest and most congested transportation systems will be out of road funds by 2017.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 08, 2013, 09:50:36 AM
Washington Post: McDonnell to unveil road funding plan that calls for at least $500 million annual spending (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/mcdonnell-to-unveil-road-funding-plan-that-calls-for-at-least-500m-annual-spending/2013/01/08/00e10430-598e-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_story.html)

QuoteRICHMOND – Gov. Robert F. McDonnell will unveil a plan Tuesday to pump at least $500 million a year into the state's quickly draining transportation coffers.

QuoteSo far, the Republican governor has revealed where about half of that money would come from: the state's general fund.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 09, 2013, 10:07:17 AM
Quote from: Alex on January 02, 2013, 01:23:57 PM
Drove through Emporia twice over the holidays. The consistent 70 mph speed limit is a nice change. Also noted no police activity on either pass through. I stayed at 70 just to be safe, but noted that many others were at 75 or so. Is the speed trap in Emporia moot now with the 70 mph speed limits?

Also noted several yellow trailers (and one sign/banner attached to a water tower) touting the opposition to toll I-95 in southern Virginia.

(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-095_va_toll_free.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-095_va_toll_free.jpg)


You just passed Emporia on a good day.  Was on that stretch at least once a month in 2012 and I'd say at least 75% of the time there were at least three patrol cars counted from Emporia to Petersburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 10:12:24 AM
Here is the Governor's press release on the new highway funding proposal that scraps the gas tax. (http://www.governor.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=1588)

One of the reports I saw said the increased sales tax would now apply to gas purchases as well, but the press release doesn't mention that. (I assume that means it would work like certain Canadian provinces' taxes where you pay tax on the federal tax as well–that is, the price per gallon of gas includes the federal gas tax and the Virginia sales tax would be calculated on that price per gallon.)

I find the idea interesting and worthy of serious discussion, but naturally most of the public commentary so far is uneducated emotional drivel, similar to the uninformed screeds we saw with the HO/T projects in Northern Virginia.

I was trying to figure out how the pricing might work out under this scenario to see whether Virginia might in fact wind up getting out-of-staters to come over to buy gas. My initial reaction was "probably not, if they charge sales tax on gas." Suppose a gallon of gas currently costs $3.599 per gallon ($53.985 for a 15-gallon fillup.) Subtract the 17.5¢ Virginia gas tax and it's now $3.424 per gallon ($51.36 for a 15-gallon fillup). If sales tax were then charged on the gas purchase, the tax on the 15-gallon fillup would be $2.979, making the cost of the fillup $54.33888, which would almost certainly be rounded to $54.39. Of course, you might get out-of-staters who don't realize the sales tax component is there and who therefore think the gas is a lot cheaper in Virginia.

That's assuming the sales tax is actually charged on gas purchases, and as I say that aspect isn't entirely clear to me. I suppose another possible scenario is that the price of gas might wind up not dropping at all if the gas station owners just leave the price as it is and pocket the 17.5¢ a gallon themselves as profit. Of course, if that happens, it means all those gas station owners wind up paying more in corporate income tax.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 10:21:44 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on January 09, 2013, 10:07:17 AM
You just passed Emporia on a good day.  Was on that stretch at least once a month in 2012 and I'd say at least 75% of the time there were at least three patrol cars counted from Emporia to Petersburg.

I think the biggest change with a 70-mph speed limit is that it most likely makes the cops more likely to focus on the people exceeding 80 mph, given that many out-of-staters don't realize that 81 mph in a 70-mph zone is grounds for a reckless driving ticket in Virginia. That is, it's that much easier to tag someone with the more serious ticket, so in many cases it may be easier to get away with speeds between 70 and 80 mph. No guarantee of that, of course.

The "81 in a 70 equals reckless" is one reason I objected to those so-called "abusive driver fees" that were briefly in place a few years ago. Some people argue, "Well, don't speed and you won't have any problem. If you speed, you can't complain." But does any reasonable person REALLY believe that a lousy 11 mph over the speed limit should be grounds for a $3,000 fine??? I sure don't, absent extenuating circumstances like weather or driving at night without headlights or some such. (The 70-mph speed limit applied only on I-85 during the time when the "abusive driver fees" were in effect.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 09, 2013, 10:50:13 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 10:12:24 AM
Here is the Governor's press release on the new highway funding proposal that scraps the gas tax. (http://www.governor.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=1588)

One of the reports I saw said the increased sales tax would now apply to gas purchases as well, but the press release doesn't mention that. (I assume that means it would work like certain Canadian provinces' taxes where you pay tax on the federal tax as well–that is, the price per gallon of gas includes the federal gas tax and the Virginia sales tax would be calculated on that price per gallon.)

I find the idea interesting and worthy of serious discussion, but naturally most of the public commentary so far is uneducated emotional drivel, similar to the uninformed screeds we saw with the HO/T projects in Northern Virginia.

I was trying to figure out how the pricing might work out under this scenario to see whether Virginia might in fact wind up getting out-of-staters to come over to buy gas. My initial reaction was "probably not, if they charge sales tax on gas." Suppose a gallon of gas currently costs $3.599 per gallon ($53.985 for a 15-gallon fillup.) Subtract the 17.5¢ Virginia gas tax and it's now $3.424 per gallon ($51.36 for a 15-gallon fillup). If sales tax were then charged on the gas purchase, the tax on the 15-gallon fillup would be $2.979, making the cost of the fillup $54.33888, which would almost certainly be rounded to $54.39. Of course, you might get out-of-staters who don't realize the sales tax component is there and who therefore think the gas is a lot cheaper in Virginia.

That's assuming the sales tax is actually charged on gas purchases, and as I say that aspect isn't entirely clear to me. I suppose another possible scenario is that the price of gas might wind up not dropping at all if the gas station owners just leave the price as it is and pocket the 17.5¢ a gallon themselves as profit. Of course, if that happens, it means all those gas station owners wind up paying more in corporate income tax.

Sales Tax would not be added to gasoline purchases.  That is per the governor's spokesman, Tucker Martin.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 10:58:46 AM
Thanks, I responded to you in the other thread.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 10, 2013, 11:09:07 AM
QuoteYou just passed Emporia on a good day.  Was on that stretch at least once a month in 2012 and I'd say at least 75% of the time there were at least three patrol cars counted from Emporia to Petersburg.

They occasionally camp out on 58 as well.  Perhaps that's where they were when Alex drove through.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 11, 2013, 10:08:46 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Richmond VA Tolls appoint Angela L Gray new CEO (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6352)

QuoteThe Richmond Metropolitan Authority (RMA) which runs tollroads in the Virginia capital has selected a new chief executive - Angela L Gray. She replaces Mike Berry who retired late last year after 26 years.

QuoteMs Gray who like Berry will have the title General Manager comes from a job as budget officer at the Washington DC Department of Transportation. Before that she had local government jobs in North Adams MA and Belton TX.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 01:06:25 AM
Washington Post: Planning officials see buses at center of transit network serving Tysons Corner (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/planning-officials-see-buses-at-center-of-transit-network-serving-tysons-corner/2013/01/12/94749d5c-4ba5-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html)

QuoteWith Metro's arrival in Tysons Corner less than a year away, mass transit is the talk of Northern Virginia planning and transportation experts. The chatter, though, is about more than trains.

QuoteLight rail, high-speed bus lanes and even driverless vehicles are among the ideas being bandied about for the urban center Tysons is seen becoming. They are a testament to the vision for an area long defined by shopping malls and congested boulevards, and some of the futuristic ideas might actually become reality.

QuoteFor now, though, Fairfax County planners trying to cultivate a culture of public transportation are pushing a more traditional mode of transit: buses.

QuoteFairfax plans to revamp bus service in Tysons, adding connections from other parts of the county and a new Circulator bus system, to coincide with this year's projected Metro Silver Line opening. County officials see better and more bus options, alongside the rail service, as a first step toward acclimating residents to more use of public transit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 17, 2013, 08:24:16 PM
WWBT NBC12: Delegate says I-95 tolls threaten "survival" of Southside Virginia (http://www.nbc12.com/story/20614449/delegate-says-i-95-tolls-threaten-survival-of-southside-virginia)

QuoteHolding a sign reading "no tolls" in bold red letters, Del. Roslyn Tyler (D-Sussex) introduced a bill to the public Thursday that would stop tolls on interstates without General Assembly approval.

Quote"My bill will allow the General Assembly to vote on tolls, and broaden the conversation," said Tyler at a news conference Thursday. "We need to have a voice for tolls that could be devastating."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: abc2VE on January 18, 2013, 11:56:02 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 17, 2013, 08:24:16 PM
WWBT NBC12: Delegate says I-95 tolls threaten "survival" of Southside Virginia (http://www.nbc12.com/story/20614449/delegate-says-i-95-tolls-threaten-survival-of-southside-virginia)

QuoteHolding a sign reading "no tolls" in bold red letters, Del. Roslyn Tyler (D-Sussex) introduced a bill to the public Thursday that would stop tolls on interstates without General Assembly approval.

Quote"My bill will allow the General Assembly to vote on tolls, and broaden the conversation," said Tyler at a news conference Thursday. "We need to have a voice for tolls that could be devastating."

I saw that same story last night and thought to myself that it was very misleading. They leave out the fact that toll operations on an Interstate is approved only through the FHWA first and then make it seem like the GA does not already have final say for toll operations putting blame more or less on the governor instead of the state transportation committee. Then the story mentions or implies that toll revenue would go toward nova which isn't true execpt for I-95
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 21, 2013, 11:50:55 PM
Washington Post op-ed by Gov. Robert F. McDonnell: A long-term answer to Virginia's transportation funding needs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-long-term-answer-to-virginias-transportation-funding-needs/2013/01/18/5a36356e-6005-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html)

QuoteVirginia needs a workable, long-term solution to its transportation challenges. That is why this month I announced the " Virginia's Road to the Future "  funding and reform package to invest more than $3.1 billion in the state's transportation network over the next five years. This plan will restructure Virginia's archaic transportation funding sources and create a system that will grow with economic activity. It will also address the long-term deficiencies of the gas tax by making Virginia the first state in the nation to eliminate it.

QuoteAccording to the state Department of Transportation, Virginia needs $500 million a year in new revenue by 2019 to eliminate the unsustainable practice of borrowing money meant for new projects to fund the maintenance of existing highways. This plan will provide it. It will also generate $1.8 billion in new funding for road construction needed to help grow Virginia's economy. It does all of this without raising taxes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2013, 09:00:25 PM
Quote from: abc2VE on January 18, 2013, 11:56:02 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 17, 2013, 08:24:16 PM
WWBT NBC12: Delegate says I-95 tolls threaten "survival" of Southside Virginia (http://www.nbc12.com/story/20614449/delegate-says-i-95-tolls-threaten-survival-of-southside-virginia)

QuoteHolding a sign reading "no tolls" in bold red letters, Del. Roslyn Tyler (D-Sussex) introduced a bill to the public Thursday that would stop tolls on interstates without General Assembly approval.

Quote"My bill will allow the General Assembly to vote on tolls, and broaden the conversation," said Tyler at a news conference Thursday. "We need to have a voice for tolls that could be devastating."

I saw that same story last night and thought to myself that it was very misleading. They leave out the fact that toll operations on an Interstate is approved only through the FHWA first and then make it seem like the GA does not already have final say for toll operations putting blame more or less on the governor instead of the state transportation committee. Then the story mentions or implies that toll revenue would go toward nova which isn't true execpt for I-95

NoVa is in a sense getting hit with tolls on the new I-495 HOV/Toll lanes, and on soon-to-be-converted I-95 HOV/Toll lanes in Fairfax, Prince William and Stafford Counties.  And then there are the massive toll increases on Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road) to fund most of the Dulles Rail project.

Politically, I think it would be difficult to put tolls on the adjacent "free" lanes of I-95 in NoVa, though it was a big mistake not to impose tolls on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge when it was rebuilt.  The governors of both Maryland and Virginia at the  time (Glendening and Gilmore, respectively) get a large dose of the blame for that.

Having said all of the above, I think it is wrong and unfair to people living between Emporia and Petersburg to have to pay a toll, when there are no tolls around Richmond-Petersburg (yes, I imply that the tolls on the old Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike should be revived, in addition to new tolls on I-295) and new tolls on I-95 between Richmond and Fredericksburg (especially between Carmel Church/Ruther Glen and Richmond).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2013, 09:03:19 PM
Virginia I-95 deadly bus crash driver sentenced to 6 years (http://www2.wsls.com/news/2013/jan/23/virginia-i-95-deadly-bus-crash-driver-sentenced-6-ar-2485057/)

QuoteThe driver of a bus that crashed in Virginia, killing four passengers, has been ordered to serve six years in prison

QuoteProsecutor Tony Spencer says Kin Yiu Cheung was sentenced Wednesday in Bowling Green to 40 years with 34 years of his sentence suspended.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2013, 09:21:55 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 10:21:44 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on January 09, 2013, 10:07:17 AM
You just passed Emporia on a good day.  Was on that stretch at least once a month in 2012 and I'd say at least 75% of the time there were at least three patrol cars counted from Emporia to Petersburg.

I think the biggest change with a 70-mph speed limit is that it most likely makes the cops more likely to focus on the people exceeding 80 mph, given that many out-of-staters don't realize that 81 mph in a 70-mph zone is grounds for a reckless driving ticket in Virginia. That is, it's that much easier to tag someone with the more serious ticket, so in many cases it may be easier to get away with speeds between 70 and 80 mph. No guarantee of that, of course.

I think your reasoning is sound.  The daughter of a colleague of mine got banged with a reckless driving ticket on I-85 between South Hill and Petersburg (where I believe the posted limit has been 70 for a while now). She was driving between 80 and 90 MPH.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 09, 2013, 10:21:44 AM
The "81 in a 70 equals reckless" is one reason I objected to those so-called "abusive driver fees" that were briefly in place a few years ago. Some people argue, "Well, don't speed and you won't have any problem. If you speed, you can't complain." But does any reasonable person REALLY believe that a lousy 11 mph over the speed limit should be grounds for a $3,000 fine??? I sure don't, absent extenuating circumstances like weather or driving at night without headlights or some such. (The 70-mph speed limit applied only on I-85 during the time when the "abusive driver fees" were in effect.)

Is 81 MPH "reckless driving" on a relatively lightly-driven freeway like most of I-85 in Virginia?  I don't think so, at least not if the pavement is dry and visibility is good.  If I recall correctly, there is language in  the Code of Virginia that says that doing above 80 is prima facie evidence of reckless driving.  On many roads that is probably correct.  On a modern Interstate highway? Not always!

On the flipside, I do believe that the reckless driving  provisions in Virginia's laws keep many so-called "crotch rocket" motorcycle riders doing their insane riding (and sometimes dying) on the Maryland side of the river (Maryland has reckless driving provisions in its Transportation Article, but the burden of proof on the State is higher). Note that there is no mention of speed (I believe there was formerly a provision defining exceeding the posted limit by 30 MPH or more as reckless driving).

QuoteTRANSPORTATION 
TITLE 21.  VEHICLE LAWS -- RULES OF THE ROAD 
SUBTITLE 9.  RECKLESS, NEGLIGENT, OR IMPAIRED DRIVING; FLEEING OR ELUDING POLICE

Md. TRANSPORTATION Code Ann. § 21-901.1  (2012)

§ 21-901.1. Reckless and negligent driving


   (a) Reckless driving. -- A person is guilty of reckless driving if he drives a motor vehicle:

   (1) In wanton or willful disregard for the safety of persons or property; or

   (2) In a manner that indicates a wanton or willful disregard for the safety of persons or property.

(b) Negligent driving. -- A person is guilty of negligent driving if he drives a motor vehicle in a careless or imprudent manner that endangers any property or the life or person of any individual.

HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 66 1/2, § 11-901; 1977, ch. 14, § 2; 2000, ch. 315.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 24, 2013, 10:52:01 PM
Va. Code 46.2-862 defines reckless driving based on speed as follows:

QuoteA person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of twenty miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit or (ii) in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.

So it's more than merely prima facie. I have seen people who weren't charged with reckless at speeds in excess of 90 mph in Virginia, but that's the exception and not the norm.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 25, 2013, 09:42:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 24, 2013, 10:52:01 PM
Va. Code 46.2-862 defines reckless driving based on speed as follows:

QuoteA person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of twenty miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit or (ii) in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.

So it's more than merely prima facie. I have seen people who weren't charged with reckless at speeds in excess of 90 mph in Virginia, but that's the exception and not the norm.

I believe police officers have discretion in enforcing the law.  sometimes they issue the ticket up to the severity of the infraction, other times they let you go with a lesser ticket, a written warning, or a verbal warning.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 25, 2013, 10:27:34 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 25, 2013, 09:42:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 24, 2013, 10:52:01 PM
Va. Code 46.2-862 defines reckless driving based on speed as follows:

QuoteA person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of twenty miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit or (ii) in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.

So it's more than merely prima facie. I have seen people who weren't charged with reckless at speeds in excess of 90 mph in Virginia, but that's the exception and not the norm.

I believe police officers have discretion in enforcing the law.  sometimes they issue the ticket up to the severity of the infraction, other times they let you go with a lesser ticket, a written warning, or a verbal warning.

Correct, they do. The instance I observed was one where I was in court for another matter and they called a case involving a guy who got a simple speeding ticket for going 98 in a 55 zone (I-66 west of Fair Oaks Mall....may not mean much to you since you're not from around here....it's a road that was upgraded in the 1990s and is now four lanes per side, wide, smooth, good shoulders, you could land a smaller airplane on it). The judge asked the cop why he didn't write a reckless ticket and the cop replied that it was night, the moon was full and bright, the weather was dry, there was almost nobody on the road, and the defendant was driving a brand-new Corvette with temporary plates, so the cop felt that he was not posing an unreasonable danger to himself or to anyone else and that he gave in to the temptation to see what the new car could do. The judge accepted it, didn't rag on the cop for not writing the "bigger" ticket. I kind of respected that cop for showing some reasonable thought.

But anyway, my point in my reply to cpzilliacus was more that if the statute said speeding over 80 mph were prima facie reckless driving, it would be a situation of what we call a "rebuttable presumption"–the conduct is presumed to be reckless driving and the motorist would have the burden of proving that even if he were exceeding 80 mph, it did not rise to the level of reckless driving because he was not endangering himself or anyone else or anyone's property (the so-called "general rule" for reckless driving under another Virginia statute–it's not quite worded the way I just put it, but that's the general principle). The statute doesn't allow that kind of defense–it says that speed in excess of 80 mph is reckless driving, assuming of course that the officer charges you with a violation of that particular statute. That means that you can't argue that even though your speed was over 80 you shouldn't be convicted of reckless based on not endangering anyone.

As I said before, I think it's a bit of a "gotcha" law now that we have more widespread 70-mph speed limits, simply because most people would not view 11 mph over the limit as inherently reckless. It was more of an issue a few years ago when there was a short-lived law tagging Virginia residents (NOT out-of-staters) with so-called "abusive driver fees" for certain tickets. I know there are people who say "the law is the law" and "if you don't want to pay the penalty, don't speed." Fair enough. But does any rational person (meaning you set aside the most hyper anti-car types) really believe that going 81 mph in a 70-mph zone should be grounds for a $3000 penalty on top of the ticket, again assuming there are no aggravating circumstances like heavy traffic or bad weather?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 25, 2013, 10:33:41 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2013, 10:27:34 AM

Correct, they do. The instance I observed was one where I was in court for another matter and they called a case involving a guy who got a simple speeding ticket for going 98 in a 55 zone (I-66 west of Fair Oaks Mall....may not mean much to you since you're not from around here....it's a road that was upgraded in the 1990s and is now four lanes per side, wide, smooth, good shoulders, you could land a smaller airplane on it). The judge asked the cop why he didn't write a reckless ticket and the cop replied that it was night, the moon was full and bright, the weather was dry, there was almost nobody on the road, and the defendant was driving a brand-new Corvette with temporary plates, so the cop felt that he was not posing an unreasonable danger to himself or to anyone else and that he gave in to the temptation to see what the new car could do. The judge accepted it, didn't rag on the cop for not writing the "bigger" ticket. I kind of respected that cop for showing some reasonable thought.

now I'm wondering why the case ended up in court.  if I got busted for a 98 in a 55 and the cop gave me me a lenient ticket when he could've given me a reckless driving instead... I'd happily mail in the fine and take the insurance hit!!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2013, 11:05:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 24, 2013, 10:52:01 PM
Va. Code 46.2-862 defines reckless driving based on speed as follows:

QuoteA person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of twenty miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit or (ii) in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.

So it's more than merely prima facie. I have seen people who weren't charged with reckless at speeds in excess of 90 mph in Virginia, but that's the exception and not the norm.

You  are correct, but I disagree with the law as passed by the Virginia General Assembly.  There are plenty of  times  when 80 MPH is reckless driving, but not always.

I have to wonder how many people that get charged with reckless driving were doing nothing more than driving driving 80 MPH.  I get the impression that some cops know the difference, but that others automatically write the reckless driving charge if the clock a vehicle at or above 80.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2013, 11:21:38 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2013, 10:27:34 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 25, 2013, 09:42:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 24, 2013, 10:52:01 PM
Va. Code 46.2-862 defines reckless driving based on speed as follows:

QuoteA person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of twenty miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit or (ii) in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.

So it's more than merely prima facie. I have seen people who weren't charged with reckless at speeds in excess of 90 mph in Virginia, but that's the exception and not the norm.

I believe police officers have discretion in enforcing the law.  sometimes they issue the ticket up to the severity of the infraction, other times they let you go with a lesser ticket, a written warning, or a verbal warning.

Correct, they do. The instance I observed was one where I was in court for another matter and they called a case involving a guy who got a simple speeding ticket for going 98 in a 55 zone (I-66 west of Fair Oaks Mall....may not mean much to you since you're not from around here....it's a road that was upgraded in the 1990s and is now four lanes per side, wide, smooth, good shoulders, you could land a smaller airplane on it). The judge asked the cop why he didn't write a reckless ticket and the cop replied that it was night, the moon was full and bright, the weather was dry, there was almost nobody on the road, and the defendant was driving a brand-new Corvette with temporary plates, so the cop felt that he was not posing an unreasonable danger to himself or to anyone else and that he gave in to the temptation to see what the new car could do. The judge accepted it, didn't rag on the cop for not writing the "bigger" ticket. I kind of respected that cop for showing some reasonable thought.

That part of I-66 (now from U.S. 29 at Gainesville to U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks) is quite safe at 100 MPH  when traffic is light (as long as they don't try to exit at some of the sharp ramps at the interchanges, which were not especially upgraded when I-66 was reconstructed).  I don't think people should drive that fast, but doing so in the middle of the night when the pavement is dry is not especially dangerous.

The cop (and the judge) showed professionalism and integrity in that case.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2013, 10:27:34 AM
But anyway, my point in my reply to cpzilliacus was more that if the statute said speeding over 80 mph were prima facie reckless driving, it would be a situation of what we call a "rebuttable presumption"–the conduct is presumed to be reckless driving and the motorist would have the burden of proving that even if he were exceeding 80 mph, it did not rise to the level of reckless driving because he was not endangering himself or anyone else or anyone's property (the so-called "general rule" for reckless driving under another Virginia statute–it's not quite worded the way I just put it, but that's the general principle). The statute doesn't allow that kind of defense–it says that speed in excess of 80 mph is reckless driving, assuming of course that the officer charges you with a violation of that particular statute. That means that you can't argue that even though your speed was over 80 you shouldn't be convicted of reckless based on not endangering anyone.

As I said before, I think it's a bit of a "gotcha" law now that we have more widespread 70-mph speed limits, simply because most people would not view 11 mph over the limit as inherently reckless. It was more of an issue a few years ago when there was a short-lived law tagging Virginia residents (NOT out-of-staters) with so-called "abusive driver fees" for certain tickets. I know there are people who say "the law is the law" and "if you don't want to pay the penalty, don't speed." Fair enough. But does any rational person (meaning you set aside the most hyper anti-car types) really believe that going 81 mph in a 70-mph zone should be grounds for a $3000 penalty on top of the ticket, again assuming there are no aggravating circumstances like heavy traffic or bad weather?

I agree with all of the above.  And the other thing that annoys me about Virginia reckless driving charges is this - I  know several people who have gotten charged with violating one of those reckless driving provisions in the Code of Virginia (I recall seeing that there are a few more hits beyond 46.2-862), including the mother of a team-mate of my stepson who was (very properly) cited for reckless driving for doing 70+ on an arterial highway in  Fairfax County (might have been 7 or 123), yet every one of them got the reckless driving charged reduced to something much less serious by retaining an attorney to represent them and then doing a plea agreement with the Commonwealth's Attorney.  I am not knocking members of the Virginia Bar for representing their clients well (that's what they are supposed to do), but in the case of the team-mate's mother, she deserved that charge, and deserved to be convicted (she has had several reasonably serious traffic charges in Maryland, so her speeding in Fairfax County was not an isolated event).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 25, 2013, 11:37:24 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2013, 11:05:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 24, 2013, 10:52:01 PM
Va. Code 46.2-862 defines reckless driving based on speed as follows:

QuoteA person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of twenty miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit or (ii) in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.

So it's more than merely prima facie. I have seen people who weren't charged with reckless at speeds in excess of 90 mph in Virginia, but that's the exception and not the norm.

You  are correct, but I disagree with the law as passed by the Virginia General Assembly.  There are plenty of  times  when 80 MPH is reckless driving, but not always.

I have to wonder how many people that get charged with reckless driving were doing nothing more than driving driving 80 MPH.  I get the impression that some cops know the difference, but that others automatically write the reckless driving charge if the clock a vehicle at or above 80.

Sure, I don't dispute anything you say here. I had just been responding to your earlier query about whether the statute made speeds greater than 80 mph prima facie reckless. I noted that it does not do that. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the existing law is a separate question from what the law is.




Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 25, 2013, 10:33:41 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2013, 10:27:34 AM

Correct, they do. The instance I observed was one where I was in court for another matter and they called a case involving a guy who got a simple speeding ticket for going 98 in a 55 zone (I-66 west of Fair Oaks Mall....may not mean much to you since you're not from around here....it's a road that was upgraded in the 1990s and is now four lanes per side, wide, smooth, good shoulders, you could land a smaller airplane on it). The judge asked the cop why he didn't write a reckless ticket and the cop replied that it was night, the moon was full and bright, the weather was dry, there was almost nobody on the road, and the defendant was driving a brand-new Corvette with temporary plates, so the cop felt that he was not posing an unreasonable danger to himself or to anyone else and that he gave in to the temptation to see what the new car could do. The judge accepted it, didn't rag on the cop for not writing the "bigger" ticket. I kind of respected that cop for showing some reasonable thought.

now I'm wondering why the case ended up in court.  if I got busted for a 98 in a 55 and the cop gave me me a lenient ticket when he could've given me a reckless driving instead... I'd happily mail in the fine and take the insurance hit!!

I don't know, but the defendant didn't appear, so I'm guessing he was just a dumbass.




Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2013, 11:21:38 AM.... I am not knocking members of the Virginia Bar for representing their clients well (that's what they are supposed to do) ....

We appreciate the kind thought!  :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 25, 2013, 04:09:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 25, 2013, 10:27:34 AM
Fair enough. But does any rational person (meaning you set aside the most hyper anti-car types) really believe that going 81 mph in a 70-mph zone should be grounds for a $3000 penalty on top of the ticket, again assuming there are no aggravating circumstances like heavy traffic or bad weather?

The bigger problem in my eyes are the criminal misdemeanor charges. Putting driving 11mph over the limit in the same league as drunk driving (a much more serious offense) and giving people a criminal history for something viewed as minor and routine in other states is flat out ridiculous. In NJ, 11mph over the limit is a 2 point offense and a $95 fine ($160 in 65mph zones or designated safe corridors). Doing 80mph with a max limit of 65mph in NJ is 4 points and a $180 fine. Most states are like this, but not silly Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on January 25, 2013, 05:01:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2013, 11:21:38 AM
And the other thing that annoys me about Virginia reckless driving charges is this - I  know several people who have gotten charged with violating one of those reckless driving provisions in the Code of Virginia (I recall seeing that there are a few more hits beyond 46.2-862), including the mother of a team-mate of my stepson who was (very properly) cited for reckless driving for doing 70+ on an arterial highway in  Fairfax County (might have been 7 or 123), yet every one of them got the reckless driving charged reduced to something much less serious by retaining an attorney to represent them and then doing a plea agreement with the Commonwealth's Attorney.  I am not knocking members of the Virginia Bar for representing their clients well (that's what they are supposed to do), but in the case of the team-mate's mother, she deserved that charge, and deserved to be convicted (she has had several reasonably serious traffic charges in Maryland, so her speeding in Fairfax County was not an isolated event).

One of the quirks of Virginia law is that you can be convicted of the lesser charge of "improper driving" only if you're charged initially with reckless driving (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-869).  Some of the "reckless" tickets may've been issued in anticipation of the charge being later reduced to "improper", which is what would've been charged at the outset had that been an option. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2013, 05:26:16 PM
Quote from: oscar on January 25, 2013, 05:01:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2013, 11:21:38 AM
And the other thing that annoys me about Virginia reckless driving charges is this - I  know several people who have gotten charged with violating one of those reckless driving provisions in the Code of Virginia (I recall seeing that there are a few more hits beyond 46.2-862), including the mother of a team-mate of my stepson who was (very properly) cited for reckless driving for doing 70+ on an arterial highway in  Fairfax County (might have been 7 or 123), yet every one of them got the reckless driving charged reduced to something much less serious by retaining an attorney to represent them and then doing a plea agreement with the Commonwealth's Attorney.  I am not knocking members of the Virginia Bar for representing their clients well (that's what they are supposed to do), but in the case of the team-mate's mother, she deserved that charge, and deserved to be convicted (she has had several reasonably serious traffic charges in Maryland, so her speeding in Fairfax County was not an isolated event).

One of the quirks of Virginia law is that you can be convicted of the lesser charge of "improper driving" only if you're charged initially with reckless driving (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-869).  Some of the "reckless" tickets may've been issued in anticipation of the charge being later reduced to "improper", which is what would've been charged at the outset had that been an option.

Apparently members of the Virginia Bar that defend clients charged with reckless driving also sometimes have gotten the charge reduced to "improper equipment" (I am not sure what that that is - defective speedometer maybe?).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 25, 2013, 06:17:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2013, 05:26:16 PM
Apparently members of the Virginia Bar that defend clients charged with reckless driving also sometimes have gotten the charge reduced to "improper equipment" (I am not sure what that that is - defective speedometer maybe?).

Equipment violations are a common plea down charge, and don't have any points associated with them since they are non-moving violations. They usually do that in exchange for a big fat fine, because after all, its about making money and not roadway safety.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 28, 2013, 10:10:19 AM
The Virginian-Pilot followed a VDOT Safety Service Patrol guy on his rounds on the (snow-covered) Hampton Roads freeway network and put the resulting video (just over 2 minutes long) on YouTube. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8VR2sEHqb0&sns=em (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8VR2sEHqb0&sns=em)

I have to wonder if some of the drivers featured in the video know that they have 4-wheel drive and how to engage same.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 28, 2013, 10:12:45 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 25, 2013, 06:17:04 PM
Equipment violations are a common plea down charge, and don't have any points associated with them since they are non-moving violations. They usually do that in exchange for a big fat fine, because after all, its about making money and not roadway safety.

In Maryland, an equipment violation results in a so-called Safety Equipment Repair Order (SERO), which does not carry any fine.  The owner of the vehicle is required to get the defective equipment repaired and then take the vehicle to a certified Maryland vehicle inspector (or a state police barrack) and get a sign-off that the repairs have been completed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bsmart on January 31, 2013, 08:21:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 28, 2013, 10:12:45 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 25, 2013, 06:17:04 PM
Equipment violations are a common plea down charge, and don't have any points associated with them since they are non-moving violations. They usually do that in exchange for a big fat fine, because after all, its about making money and not roadway safety.

In Maryland, an equipment violation results in a so-called Safety Equipment Repair Order (SERO), which does not carry any fine.  The owner of the vehicle is required to get the defective equipment repaired and then take the vehicle to a certified Maryland vehicle inspector (or a state police barrack) and get a sign-off that the repairs have been completed.

Actually you don't have to go to a Barracks. I recently got one for a burnt out headlight and after fixing it just caught up with one of our town deputies when he was at a local gas station . He looked at the light, had me flash the high beam and signed it off.  Then I just had to mail it in.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 31, 2013, 08:50:52 PM
Quote from: bsmart on January 31, 2013, 08:21:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 28, 2013, 10:12:45 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 25, 2013, 06:17:04 PM
Equipment violations are a common plea down charge, and don't have any points associated with them since they are non-moving violations. They usually do that in exchange for a big fat fine, because after all, its about making money and not roadway safety.

In Maryland, an equipment violation results in a so-called Safety Equipment Repair Order (SERO), which does not carry any fine.  The owner of the vehicle is required to get the defective equipment repaired and then take the vehicle to a certified Maryland vehicle inspector (or a state police barrack) and get a sign-off that the repairs have been completed.

Actually you don't have to go to a Barracks. I recently got one for a burnt out headlight and after fixing it just caught up with one of our town deputies when he was at a local gas station . He looked at the light, had me flash the high beam and signed it off.  Then I just had to mail it in.

Not all county/municipal cops will sign-off on those SEROs. 

Another good alternative (if there's one in your county) is a truck weigh/inspection station. 

If you ask someone there nicely, they will usually check things out and give you a sign-off.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 04, 2013, 02:38:39 PM
Anyone else noticed the annoying inability of certain online mapping programs (in particular, Mapquest) to distinguish between Virginia's primary  system of highways and the secondary system?  Mapquest labels them all as primary system, as does the Verizon Wireless GPS software.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 04, 2013, 04:11:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 04, 2013, 02:38:39 PM
Anyone else noticed the annoying inability of certain online mapping programs (in particular, Mapquest) to distinguish between Virginia's primary  system of highways and the secondary system?  Mapquest labels them all as primary system, as does the Verizon Wireless GPS software.

Google has been struggling with it for awhile. They were labeling NC's SSRs as county routes for a period of time. I have also noticed that they have been labeling some county routes in NJ as state routes as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 05, 2013, 12:36:15 PM
The Washington Post reports the House of Delegates PASSED the Governor's transportation funding plan with a modification–they eliminated the $100 "alternative-fuel vehicle" fee (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/virginia-house-passes-governors-transportation-funding-bill/2013/02/05/9add9682-6fb1-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html).

It still has to pass the Senate. Today is the "crossover" deadline by which each chamber had to finish work on its own bills before sending them to the other chamber or dropping them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2013, 06:42:02 PM
Channel 12 (WWBT, NBC): VDOT steps up highway sign safety inspections (http://www.nbc12.com/story/20974006/12-investigates-vdot-steps-up-highway-sign-safety-inspections)

QuoteRICHMOND, VA (WWBT) -Last year, two of the giant, green overhead signs you see up and down the interstate collapsed into oncoming traffic - leading NBC12 to ask VDOT: are Virginia's highways safe? (http://www.nbc12.com/story/19037222/12-investigates-vdot-road-sign-inspections)

QuoteA 2,000 pound sign and pole crashed down onto I-95 in Prince George on January 17, 2012. Less than a month later, it happens again - this time on I-66 in northern Virginia. A 30-foot high sign topples onto the road, striking a pick-up truck.

QuoteIn both cases, VDOT was lucky no one was hurt. On both days, there was high wind.

QuoteIn both signs, the anchor bolts failed.

QuoteThe base is probably the most critical part of the sign, and the anchor bolts that go deep into the ground hold the sign in place.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 09, 2013, 09:33:00 PM
PilotOnline.COM (Virginian-Pilot): Quality of pothole-repair work questioned  (http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2013/02/quality-potholerepair-work-questioned)

QuoteNORFOLK

In 2008, the state agreed to pay $32 million to a private company over five years to maintain the interstates in South Hampton Roads, a job that included routine pothole repair.

QuoteThe contract said those fixes should work like this: Damage equal to or bigger than a certain size - 6 inches by 6 inches by 1 1/2 inches deep - must be patched immediately upon notice. Everything else must be fixed within two days. A report detailing how everything is done on time is due monthly to the Virginia Department of Transportation.

QuoteBut something isn't working, say local representatives on the Commonwealth Transportation Board, a body appointed by the governor that allocates highway funding and establishes policy.

QuoteTheir evidence: Just look at the roads.

Quote"It's unacceptable and it's dangerous," board member Shep Miller said. He said he has blown three tires on local interstates since October, including two in January before a stretch of freezing weather made the situation even worse.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 12, 2013, 09:27:47 PM
PilotOnline.COM (Virginian-Pilot): Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel to get commuter deal (http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2013/02/chesapeake-bay-bridgetunnel-get-commuter-deal)

QuoteCommuters who use the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel at least 30 times every 30 days will be eligible for $5 trips each way beginning in early 2014.

QuoteThe commission that oversees the 18-mile span between the Eastern Shore and Virginia Beach approved the discount today by an 7-3 vote, said Jeff Holland, executive director of the bridge-tunnel district. Currently, commuters must pay $12 one-way and can get a $5 trip back if they save their receipt and return within 24 hours.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2013, 01:23:27 AM
D.C. Examiner:  Fairfax supervisors argue over parkway's future: Widening or mass transit? (http://washingtonexaminer.com/fairfax-supervisors-argue-over-parkways-future-widening-or-mass-transit/article/2521361)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2013, 06:55:48 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 09, 2013, 09:33:00 PM
PilotOnline.COM (Virginian-Pilot): Quality of pothole-repair work questioned  (http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2013/02/quality-potholerepair-work-questioned)

QuoteThe contract said those fixes should work like this: Damage equal to or bigger than a certain size - 6 inches by 6 inches by 1 1/2 inches deep - must be patched immediately upon notice. Everything else must be fixed within two days. A report detailing how everything is done on time is due monthly to the Virginia Department of Transportation.

QuoteTheir evidence: Just look at the roads.

Quote"It's unacceptable and it's dangerous," board member Shep Miller said. He said he has blown three tires on local interstates since October, including two in January before a stretch of freezing weather made the situation even worse.

More from WVEC (Channel 13, ABC): Drivers wanting refunds for pothole damage may be out of luck (http://www.wvec.com/news/local/Drivers-wanting-refund-for-damage-caused-by-potholes-may-be-out-of-luck-190911261.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2013, 07:01:05 PM
PilotOnline.COM (Virginian-Pilot): Portsmouth council set to give $50,000 to tolls lawsuit (http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/portsmouth-council-set-give-50000-tolls-lawsuit)

QuoteThe City Council is moving toward making a $50,000 donation of public money to help fund a lawsuit that seeks to defeat the Midtown and Downtown tunnel toll project.

QuoteCouncil members directed staff Tuesday night to bring them a resolution by their next meeting authorizing the expenditure. The action would buck the advice of former City Attorney Tim Oksman, who had warned council members last spring and again in the fall against contributing to the lawsuit, saying the city would face retribution from legislators aligned with Gov. Bob McDonnell in the form of reduced state funding.

QuoteOksman left the city in December, however, after council members requested and accepted his resignation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2013, 06:47:24 PM
WTOP Radio: Traffic flow on I-66 at failing levels during rush hour (http://www.wtop.com/654/3226540/I-66-traffic-Epic-fail-congestion-to-double)

QuoteTraffic flow on key stretches of Interstate 66 is at failing levels during rush hour.

QuoteA new study finds the amount of time that I-66 is jammed could double to ten hours a day in each direction within 30 years.

Quote"The existing roadways are over capacity now," says Angel Deem, VDOT environmental project manager. "Through our analysis when we just ran the traffic model to say 'okay, if you were to add traditional highway lanes, how many would be needed?' and it comes out to nine additional lanes in each direction, which of course is not sensible."

QuoteThe Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement on multimodal options in the I-66 corridor from the Beltway to Haymarket finds that a "no-build" situation, which would leave things as-is, is simply not a viable option, either as more people move to the outer suburbs and commute or as people travel to places like Tysons Corner and the District.

QuoteAmong the problems identified beyond a lack of multimodal options is how hard it is to predict how long a trip will take.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 16, 2013, 01:55:13 AM
They're just now discovering that? I could've told them that in 1990 and I was only six years old then.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 16, 2013, 01:44:58 PM
That study reminds me of the one that found that men get horny when we see hot chicks. They needed to pay someone to tell them that?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 19, 2013, 01:55:51 AM
Washington Post:  Transportation conferees take up new plan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/transportation-conferees-take-up-new-plan/2013/02/18/6642b530-7a2c-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html)

QuoteRICHMOND – House and Senate negotiators considered an entirely new transportation funding plan Monday, as they met for a second day of haggling over what could be the most important legislation of the General Assembly session.

QuoteThe 10-member conference committee is trying to reconcile House and Senate bills aimed at establishing a sustainable funding source for one of the nation's largest and most congested road systems – one on track to run out of construction funds by 2017.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2013, 11:01:18 PM
Washington Post editorial: A transportation funding breakthrough in Va. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-transportation-funding-breakthrough-in-va/2013/02/20/3f5d8674-7bae-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html)

QuoteIT MAY STILL BE a work in progress, but the compromise transportation funding plan taking shape in Richmond has the look of a workable deal – and possibly a historic one – precisely because it challenges orthodoxies held dear by each party. To become law, it will still need an all-out push from Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R), with help from Senate Democrats.

QuoteHammered out in negotiations by 10 lawmakers – five Republicans and five Democrats – the proposal would raise some $3.5 billion for statewide roads and rails over five years and $880 million annually thereafter. Northern Virginia, where a sclerotic transportation network threatens to choke the state's most dynamic regional economy, would get hundreds of millions more, including $300 million to complete Metro's Silver Line extension to Dulles International Airport.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 23, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Error #1:  there were only 2 Democrats on the conference committee, not 5.

Second, it should be noted that the conference agreement (approved by the House, to be voted on by the Senate today) would prohibit tolling of existing I-95 lanes south of Fredericksburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 23, 2013, 05:10:33 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 23, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Error #1:  there were only 2 Democrats on the conference committee, not 5.

Second, it should be noted that the conference agreement (approved by the House, to be voted on by the Senate today) would prohibit tolling of existing I-95 lanes south of Fredericksburg.

The article I saw in the Times-Dispatch said it prohibits VDOT from tolling unless specifically authorized by the General Assembly (in essence, they'll need a future law authorizing the specific tolls in question).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2013, 11:40:49 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 23, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Error #1:  there were only 2 Democrats on the conference committee, not 5.

Second, it should be noted that the conference agreement (approved by the House, to be voted on by the Senate today) would prohibit tolling of existing I-95 lanes south of Fredericksburg.

Wonder if there is an exception for PPTA projects to impose tolls?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 24, 2013, 08:45:35 AM
Richmond Times-Dispatch:  Assembly passes landmark transportation package - "˜Historic day' in Va., governor says as session concludes (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/assembly-passes-landmark-transportation-package/article_2c90df49-b6f3-5448-8d87-44272c369da2.html)

Washington Post: Virginia lawmakers approve sweeping transportation plan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/va-lawmakers-approve-landmark-transportation-plan/2013/02/23/712969d8-7de4-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html)

I believe this is the final, marked-up bill that passed in Richmond:  HOUSE BILL NO. 2313 (http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+ful+HB2313H4)

Statement of Governor Bob McDonnell on General Assembly Passage of Historic Transportation Legislation (http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewRelease.cfm?id=1693)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 25, 2013, 02:51:01 PM
VDOT press release: EXPECT MAJOR DELAYS ON I-95 THIS WEEKEND FOR OVERBROOK ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - Traffic to one lane in each direction 8 p.m. Friday through 6 a.m. Monday (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2013/expect_major_delays_on63823.asp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 25, 2013, 07:06:35 PM
QuoteWonder if there is an exception for PPTA projects to impose tolls?

Only if it were completely privately funded.  The transportation bill prohibits any state funds from being used.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 25, 2013, 09:12:42 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 25, 2013, 07:06:35 PM
QuoteWonder if there is an exception for PPTA projects to impose tolls?

Only if it were completely privately funded.  The transportation bill prohibits any state funds from being used.


There are a lot of people in Virginia that are not pleased about the private involvement in these PPTA projects. 

Are they angry enough and are there enough of them to make a difference in the Virginia elections later this year? I don't know.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2013, 04:13:01 PM
Washington Post: Virginia to begin work on new I-66 traffic management system (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2013/02/26/virginia-to-begin-work-on-new-i-66-traffic-management-system/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 02, 2013, 10:04:41 PM
Washington Post editorial: Legislators who seem to like being stuck in traffic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/legislators-who-seem-to-like-being-stuck-in-traffic/2013/03/02/4e90ecd6-81f2-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html)

QuoteVIRGINIA'S LEGISLATURE has enacted the most important transportation funding bill in 27 years, a measure bringing billions to fix Northern Virginia's crumbling roads and horrible traffic. Amazingly, 12 of 40 Northern Virginia lawmakers – nine Republicans and three Democrats – voted against it, thumbing their noses at the first politically feasible solution to rush-hour misery. Here are their names:

In the Senate: Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun); Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria); J. Chapman "Chap"  Petersen (D-Fairfax); and Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Fauquier).

In the House of Delegates: Richard L. Anderson (R-Prince William); Mark L. Cole (R-Spotsylvania); Barbara J. Comstock (R-Fairfax); Timothy D. Hugo (R-Fairfax); L. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Prince William); Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William); Jackson H. Miller (R-Manassas); David I. Ramadan (R-Loudoun); and Scott A. Surovell (D-Mount Vernon).

QuoteIn thrall to anti-tax orthodoxy, many Republicans barely bothered to explain their no votes. Most clung to the fantasy that Virginia could cannibalize money for roads from other services, like education. But as Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, a Republican, conceded, the state's budget is already lean, and Democrats would not go along with robbing schools to pay for roads.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 03, 2013, 10:03:54 AM
They got Surovell's opposition all wrong in that editorial.  He clearly explained his "no" vote at his Town Hall meeting a few weeks ago...it had little to do with the dollar figures and everything to do with what he says is needed VDOT and CTB reform.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2013, 03:22:33 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 03, 2013, 10:03:54 AM
They got Surovell's opposition all wrong in that editorial.  He clearly explained his "no" vote at his Town Hall meeting a few weeks ago...it had little to do with the dollar figures and everything to do with what he says is needed VDOT and CTB reform.

Though as others have said, politics is about the "C" word - compromise.  There are many things I don't like about that compromise (and as you know, I don't live in Virginia), but it results in a modest increase in state transportation funding, and that is a good thing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 03, 2013, 05:36:12 PM
It looks as though there are going to be some lawsuits filed (by the usual suspects) seeking to have the transportation bill (or law, I guess, as by then it'd be signed) declared unconstitutional under the state constitution. I'm not privy to the details, but I understand some of the objections center around a constitutional provision requiring the General Assembly to enact the same tax rates statewide when imposing taxes. I have not bothered to do the legal research to look up the provision at issue, much less whether I'd think it might apply in this case. I do know that one of the attorneys who is likely to be involved, a guy down in the Richmond area, is a brilliant attorney who knows Virginia constitutional law inside and out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2013, 07:53:41 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2013, 05:36:12 PM
It looks as though there are going to be some lawsuits filed (by the usual suspects) seeking to have the transportation bill (or law, I guess, as by then it'd be signed) declared unconstitutional under the state constitution. I'm not privy to the details, but I understand some of the objections center around a constitutional provision requiring the General Assembly to enact the same tax rates statewide when imposing taxes. I have not bothered to do the legal research to look up the provision at issue, much less whether I'd think it might apply in this case. I do know that one of the attorneys who is likely to be involved, a guy down in the Richmond area, is a brilliant attorney who knows Virginia constitutional law inside and out.

I am not a member of the Virginia Bar (or any other Bar), but I don't think that objection is going to work, because the Commonwealth has been doing something similar for many years.  I recall reading someplace that laws enacted by the Virginia General Assembly are given great deference by the Virginia courts (perhaps more than in some other states), and are presumed to be constitutional.

I do know that § 58.1-1720 (http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+58.1-1720) of the Code of Virginia allows the collection of an "extra" motor fuel tax in the cities and counties that are in the Northern Virginia Transportation District (all of that revenue goes to fund part of the Virginia share of the WMATA operating deficits). The online Code of Virginia says that this section is repealed effective 1 July 2013, but I presume that's because it has been put in some new section of the laws as part of the new transportation funding bill.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 03, 2013, 08:59:35 PM
This year's funding bill didn't affect it.  It was basically a housekeeping bill (http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+ful+CHAP0225) enacted last year.  Effective this July, old Sections 58.1-1718.1 thru 58.1-1724.4 of the Virginia Code are replaced by Sections 58.1-2291 thru 58.1-2299.20.  Section 58.1-1720 has basically been replaced by Section 58.1-2295 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+58.1-2295).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2013, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 03, 2013, 08:59:35 PM
This year's funding bill didn't affect it.  It was basically a housekeeping bill (http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+ful+CHAP0225) enacted last year.  Effective this July, old Sections 58.1-1718.1 thru 58.1-1724.4 of the Virginia Code are replaced by Sections 58.1-2291 thru 58.1-2299.20.  Section 58.1-1720 has basically been replaced by Section 58.1-2295 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+58.1-2295).

Wow!  I am impressed!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 03, 2013, 09:48:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2013, 07:53:41 PM
I am not a member of the Virginia Bar (or any other Bar), but I don't think that objection is going to work, because the Commonwealth has been doing something similar for many years.  I recall reading someplace that laws enacted by the Virginia General Assembly are given great deference by the Virginia courts (perhaps more than in some other states), and are presumed to be constitutional.

....

That presumption does exist but isn't all that big a deal if indeed a law violates the Virginia constitution. A few years back our Supreme Court threw out the law in which the General Assembly purported to allow the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority to decide whether to impose certain regional taxes, for example. (The General Assembly can't delegate that power to an unelected body.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2013, 12:23:05 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2013, 09:48:07 PM
That presumption does exist but isn't all that big a deal if indeed a law violates the Virginia constitution. A few years back our Supreme Court threw out the law in which the General Assembly purported to allow the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority to decide whether to impose certain regional taxes, for example. (The General Assembly can't delegate that power to an unelected body.)

Yeah, I recall that law and the ruling that nullified it. That was after the attempt to have bad drivers fund Virginia's transportation system with those "abusive driver fees."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 04, 2013, 09:32:49 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2013, 12:23:05 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2013, 09:48:07 PM
That presumption does exist but isn't all that big a deal if indeed a law violates the Virginia constitution. A few years back our Supreme Court threw out the law in which the General Assembly purported to allow the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority to decide whether to impose certain regional taxes, for example. (The General Assembly can't delegate that power to an unelected body.)

Yeah, I recall that law and the ruling that nullified it. That was after the attempt to have bad drivers fund Virginia's transportation system with those "abusive driver fees."

I think it was around the same time. The Supreme Court ruling on the NVTA came about a week before the General Assembly repealed those "fees."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2013, 09:57:27 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 04, 2013, 09:32:49 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2013, 12:23:05 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2013, 09:48:07 PM
That presumption does exist but isn't all that big a deal if indeed a law violates the Virginia constitution. A few years back our Supreme Court threw out the law in which the General Assembly purported to allow the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority to decide whether to impose certain regional taxes, for example. (The General Assembly can't delegate that power to an unelected body.)

Yeah, I recall that law and the ruling that nullified it. That was after the attempt to have bad drivers fund Virginia's transportation system with those "abusive driver fees."

I think it was around the same time. The Supreme Court ruling on the NVTA came about a week before the General Assembly repealed those "fees."

Sounds about right.

What I don't understand about transportation funding in general and highway funding in particular in the Commonwealth of Virginia is that Northern Virginia (and Hampton Roads, too) have needs that are very expensive as compared to much of the rest of the state (Hampton Roads has lots of water to cross over or under, and NoVa has a very expensive Metrorail system, in addition to a frequently inadequate highway network).  And the Senators and Delegates from OthVa  (the other parts of the state) know full well that NoVa pays a disproportionate share of state income taxes to Richmond, and gets (relatively) little in return - but the idea that (in particular) Northern Virginia might (might) get back more than it sends down I-95 in the  form of highway user revenues is absolutely repellant to many members of the General Assembly from OthVa. 

Then there are the doctrinaire senators and delegates from NoVa that repeatedly vote their opposition to more highway funding, even though the private sector (with three prominent exceptions) has not shown much  interest in building capacity in NoVa.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 05, 2013, 10:02:25 PM
Washington Post: Va. transportation officials draw ire at town hall on Pr. William's Bi-County Parkway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/va-transportation-officials-draw-ire-at-town-hall-on-pr-williams-bi-county-parkway/2013/03/05/ec2975f4-85ca-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_blog.html)

QuoteState transportation officials methodically laid out their plans Monday for a proposed four-lane parkway through western Prince William County during a packed and often tense town hall meeting.

QuoteFew of the 300 or so residents who attended, however, were likely to have left the forum at Bull Run Middle School in Gainesville satisfied, as the prospect of a Bi-County Parkway connecting I-66 in Prince William to Route 50 in Loudoun County appears increasingly likely.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 07, 2013, 09:51:15 AM
Washington Post: Deal is near to shift traffic out of Manassas battlefield park (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/manassas-battlefield-deal-is-close-to-shift-traffic-out-of-va-park/2013/03/06/77146392-869b-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html)

QuoteThe National Park Service and Virginia authorities are close to signing a major Civil War battlefield preservation deal that eventually would close two congested roads that slice through the twice-hallowed ground at Manassas.

QuoteThe agreement, which could be signed by the summer, would provide for routes 234 and 29 to be shut down inside Manassas National Battlefield Park. That would happen once new highways are built along the western and northern edges of the battlefield and serve as bypasses.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 07, 2013, 09:42:29 PM
Many original I-195 and VA 195 shields in the City of Richmond are now gone as the city works to improve its horrendous signage. Collateral damage, I suppose...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 07, 2013, 10:36:45 PM
The ones that we saw downtown during the meet? What about the overhead?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 08, 2013, 12:15:04 AM
Quote from: Takumi on March 07, 2013, 10:36:45 PM
The ones that we saw downtown during the meet? What about the overhead?

Most of the ones we saw downtown have been replaced. The overheads (i.e. the VA 195 one we saw and the ones on the southbound Manchester Bridge we didn't) are still there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 12, 2013, 05:34:40 PM
Richmond Times-Dispatch:  RMA head to pitch restructuring proposal - Brown wants assembly nod for same number of seats for counties, city (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/rma-head-to-pitch-restructuring-proposal/article_e5cffd10-a170-5db5-9e6b-04f1fc7d04f6.html)

QuoteThe chairman of the Richmond Metropolitan Authority will pitch a proposal today to restructure the regional entity to carry out transportation initiatives and other major capital projects in the metropolitan area.

QuoteCarlos M. Brown, a Dominion Resources Inc. lawyer who became chairman of the RMA Board of Directors in June, said he will propose a three-phase process he hopes will result in legislation next year to equalize board representation among Richmond and the counties of Chesterfield and Henrico.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 13, 2013, 06:17:01 AM
Washington Post editorial: Tinkering could kill Virginia's transportation bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tinkering-could-kill-virginias-transportation-funding-bill/2013/03/12/d8378ca4-8a8c-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html)

QuoteLAST MONTH Virginia lawmakers enacted the most important state transportation-funding bill in 27 years. Since then irate conservatives have been pounding on Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, a Republican who generally supports the measure, to water it down by amending it. Opponents have taken particular aim at a provision that would raise as much as $500 million annually for road and rail projects in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, the state's most congested regions, on top of $880 million in new statewide funding by 2018.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 21, 2013, 05:18:51 PM
Richmond Times-Dispatch: State roads poised for $4B - Money would become available if governor signs legislation on his desk (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/state-roads-poised-for-b/article_5d802920-9417-5568-b523-b5b16445e6d0.html)

QuoteFor the first time in four years, Virginia's six-year plan for road construction will mean something.

QuoteThe state would receive an additional $4 billion for its six-year plan – and possibly more, depending on the fate of legislation in Congress to tax Internet sales – under legislation awaiting the signature of Gov. Bob McDonnell that would raise state tax revenues for transportation for the first time in 27 years.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 22, 2013, 10:39:34 AM
WTOP Radio: Express Lanes construction to bring more detours in Va. (http://www.wtop.com/41/3259383/Express-Lanes-construction-to-bring-more-detours-in-Va)

QuoteWASHINGTON - More detours and shutdowns are planned as part of the Interstate 95 Express Lanes project, and drivers should be prepared for their commutes to get worse before they get better.

QuoteStarting March 27, the Telegraph Road bridge over I-95 near Quantico will be closed. It will be removed so a new one can be built to accommodate the new Express lanes over the next nine months, if the weather cooperates.

QuoteThere will be detours to Russel Road.

QuoteThe demolition at times will shut down some lanes on both northbound and southbound I-95 in the overnight hours.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 22, 2013, 11:53:37 AM
I went to Old Town this morning and I was happy to note that the construction on the (other) Telegraph Road's bridge over the railroad and Metrorail tracks appears to be finished! The overpass is much nicer now. Didn't get any pictures, though, because right as I was about to snap one the guy in front of me swerved....guess he realized he was in the wrong lane. The completion of that overpass is a milestone, as it was the final step of the Wilson Bridge project.

I suppose that guy swerving is better than what happened a little later, though. I was on US-1 (Henry Street) when suddenly an SUV with New York plates came around the corner from King Street headed straight for me. Why is this a problem? Because Henry Street is a one-way street headed south. (The guy appeared to realize his mistake quickly, as he cut a u-ie almost immediately after passing me.....good thing the traffic behind me was stopped at a red light about a block away!)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 25, 2013, 05:15:02 PM
Richmond Times-Dispatch [Op-Ed]: RMA can be the route forward (http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/columnists-blogs/tom-silvestri/rma-can-be-the-route-forward/article_96f9c54d-5ac6-59f1-b230-b3e321e2d6a6.html)

QuoteThe latest discord among Richmond's biggest municipalities involves an organization that few people really know anything about.

QuoteIf you live in the Richmond Region, quiz your neighbors about the Richmond Metropolitan Authority and what it does.

QuoteDon't feel bad if you get blank stares or requests to phone a friend. Some of the allegedly most-informed Richmonders don't know either.

QuoteBut ignorance is dangerous when it contributes to preventing a region from accomplishing big-results projects and improve-tomorrow initiatives that anticipate changing trends, such as population shifts and new quality-of-life needs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 29, 2013, 01:37:12 PM
IMO, this is proof that even something odious like the City of Hopewell's revenue-raising operation on I-295 sometimes can yield positive benefits to society in spite of itself.

Richmond Times-Dispatch: N.J. man convicted of driving 95 mph with six unrestrained kids while high on heroin (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/n-j-man-convicted-of-driving-mph-with-six-unrestrained/article_640b0652-6ada-51ab-bc05-d39b65e63a16.html)

QuoteWhen Hopewell sheriff's Deputy Sean Godwin stopped Isaiah Hall last spring for speeding 95 mph on Interstate 295, he was surprised to see six children and another adult packed inside Hall's van – none of them wearing safety belts or restrained in child seats.

QuoteThe youngsters, as it turned out, were Hall's grandchildren, ages 4, 6, 9, 12, 13 and 15. The family, which included Hall's adult daughter, was returning to East Orange, N.J., after attending a funeral in North Carolina.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on March 31, 2013, 12:31:04 PM
Here is an old map of the Richmond- Fredericksburg area before I-95 was built.  What is interesting is that VA 207 was used as a principal through route to US 1 from US 301 for Richmond instead of US 301 itself.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8605817529/in/photostream
Also, US 17 ended in Fredericksburg as north of there to Winchester was VA 17.
I thought that it would be interesting.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on March 31, 2013, 12:33:50 PM
207 is still the through route...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 31, 2013, 03:29:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2013, 12:31:04 PM
Here is an old map of the Richmond- Fredericksburg area before I-95 was built.  What is interesting is that VA 207 was used as a principal through route to US 1 from US 301 for Richmond instead of US 301 itself.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8605817529/in/photostream
Also, US 17 ended in Fredericksburg as north of there to Winchester was VA 17.
I thought that it would be interesting.

Does that map have a Norfolk-Portsmouth inset and if so, does it show a VA 150 running from Portsmouth to Norfolk via the Midtown Tunnel?  This routing was on the books from 2/61-6/62 but I have never seen a map show it.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on March 31, 2013, 03:59:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 31, 2013, 12:33:50 PM
207 is still the through route...
Yeah, that is why its amazing that 207 was a through route then .  Now with I-95 its understandable, but US 301 is the most direct route considering it also is the same as US 1.  With I-95 and VA 207 together its is shorter time wise than US 301 via Hanover.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 31, 2013, 06:46:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2013, 12:31:04 PM
Here is an old map of the Richmond- Fredericksburg area before I-95 was built.  What is interesting is that VA 207 was used as a principal through route to US 1 from US 301 for Richmond instead of US 301 itself.

Effectively it still is. 

U.S. 301 between Bowling Green and  I-295 is mostly a two-lane arterial, though I have never found it to be congested.

But it has more of a "close to nature" feel than 207, and it always has.   
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 31, 2013, 07:22:28 PM
Robert Thomson (Dr. Gridlock) in the Washington Post: I-66 study shows difficult road ahead for Northern Virginia commuters (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/i-66-study-shows-difficult-road-ahead-for-northern-virginia-commuters/2013/03/30/c5feaec0-933b-11e2-8ea1-956c94b6b5b9_story.html)

QuoteHow do commuters have the courage to get out of bed when they face a drive through the Interstate 66 corridor?

QuoteThe national study showing that the D.C. region has the worst congestion in the nation merely supplies bragging rights. It doesn't pinpoint troubles on any particular route. But a new study for a Virginia transportation program provides a pavement-level view of the misery along the 25 miles of highway between Route 15 in Prince William County and the Capital Beltway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 02, 2013, 04:36:59 PM
Richmond Times-Dispatch: 5 killed in head-on collision on I-85 in Brunswick (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/killed-in-head-on-collision-on-i--in-brunswick/article_04288e98-9b82-11e2-9f5e-0019bb30f31a.html)

QuoteFive people were killed this morning when a wrong-way pickup truck collided head-on with a car on Interstate 85,  destroying both vehicles to such an extent that authorities closed the southbound lanes for an extended period to sort through the wreckage.

QuoteVirginia State Police Sgt. Michelle Anaya said all five people were declared dead at the scene of the crash, which occurred shortly before dawn in I-85's southbound lanes at mile marker 26 in Brunswick County, just southwest of Alberta.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 09, 2013, 04:31:53 PM
Just found this. I-95 (now I-395) under reconstruction in the early 1970s. Wow! Love the buses in the middle there.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F395_zps68e9ef33.jpg&hash=487aa2fde413e990d3d88c797fa468f096c43ff4)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2013, 04:36:53 PM
a dirt construction detour of a paved road.  you see those more and more rarely these days.  my only encounters with such things in the US have been US-14 in Wyoming in 2006 (well done, a pilot car led everyone through a ~6 mile segment, and the dirt was well-graded) and US-18 in South Dakota in 2011 (disastrously bad).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 09, 2013, 06:06:09 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2013, 04:36:53 PM
a dirt construction detour of a paved road.  you see those more and more rarely these days.  my only encounters with such things in the US have been US-14 in Wyoming in 2006 (well done, a pilot car led everyone through a ~6 mile segment, and the dirt was well-graded) and US-18 in South Dakota in 2011 (disastrously bad).

That's what we now call I-395 (Henry G. Shirley Memorial Highway), along with the earliest days of the busway, which  morphed into the  HOV lanes in the mid-1970's, and is still one of the best facilities of its kind in the United States.

I believe it may have been better "paved" than what the image implies.  I seem to recall that the Virginia Department of Highways (VDH), predecessor agency to VDOT, had to provide an "all-weather" surface (stone chips and tar with some patches of asphalt) for the buses to drive on, primitive though it may have been.

This is approaching Va. 120 (South Glebe Road), and I believe the camera is looking northbound.  The creek in the foreground is Four Mile Run, and the overpass in the distance is to South Arlington Ridge Road.

If you look through the crane in to the left of the image, that apartment building still stands there today.

GSV of the same view (but Google does not use as good of a camera) here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=shirlington+circle,+arlington+county,+va&hl=en&ll=38.841544,-77.083742&spn=0.002352,0.004823&safe=off&hnear=S+Shirlington+Rd,+Arlington,+Virginia&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.841544,-77.083742&panoid=EoHYrOWDjpfbNJwqzvzqbg&cbp=12,46.42,,0,2.7).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 09, 2013, 06:09:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 09, 2013, 04:31:53 PM
Just found this. I-95 (now I-395) under reconstruction in the early 1970s. Wow! Love the buses in the middle there.

All three buses belong to AB&W Transit (Alexandria, Barcroft and Washington, known within the company as "anything's better than walking"), far and away the best  public transit operator the Washington area has ever known.

The two closer to the cameras are early 1960's GM New Look buses, the one in the distance is a (roughly) pre-1958 GM Old Look bus.  All were incredibly rugged and reliable (WMATA still owns several New Looks and at least one Old Look in its heritage fleet).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on April 09, 2013, 11:24:36 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 09, 2013, 04:36:53 PM
a dirt construction detour of a paved road.  you see those more and more rarely these days.  my only encounters with such things in the US have been US-14 in Wyoming in 2006 (well done, a pilot car led everyone through a ~6 mile segment, and the dirt was well-graded) and US-18 in South Dakota in 2011 (disastrously bad).
Maine has done that from time to time, and I've come across that at least in Vermont. I know there are other instances, but cannot place them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 10, 2013, 03:46:24 PM
QuoteMaine has done that from time to time, and I've come across that at least in Vermont.

US 2 reconstruction through Danville, VT had a dirt surface for a year or two.  Project still is underway, but they finally put a base wearing course down last year.

In my admittedly-limited experience, the western states will often do it as they often lack alternative routes that could be used for detours.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 10, 2013, 05:45:03 PM
While I'm in the "old pictures" department, I found this ad online. I remember when these ran in the months prior to the Dulles Toll Road opening. The Reston Association wanted the road called the "Reston Expressway" and they decided just to run ads using the name as though it were already named that. Obviously, it never gained any traction (and Loudoun County objected to the idea because the road crossed the county line). I remember in the months after the road opened they had another ad campaign referring to "Reston, D.C."

Notice the Washington Monument's shadow in the right side.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_vN46g4NVjSQ%2FSM6WAR16QgI%2FAAAAAAAAAXY%2FOTnr5hef3hU%2Fs1600%2Fpca_573_02_11v.jpg&hash=1c94ec1ce6521266ebe2c913c9eddd394149dc0e)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on April 10, 2013, 10:23:10 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 08, 2013, 12:15:04 AM
Most of the ones we saw downtown have been replaced. The overheads (i.e. the VA 195 one we saw and the ones on the southbound Manchester Bridge we didn't) are still there.
All the ones I have photographed were still there today, as was the assembly on Byrd east of Belvidere. Some newer-looking VDOT standsrd ones were on side streets and the last eastbound exit. Interestingly, I found two separate assemblies of newer shields where the TO banner over the I-195 shield was starting to fall off. Other than the cutout and no less than four US 33 shields on VA 33 eastbound alone, I saw no noteworthy signage.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: maplestar on April 15, 2013, 08:19:47 AM
VA 164 in Portsmouth and Suffolk got some well-needed increased speed limit signs within the last week. All speeds increased 5 mph. Most of it is now at 60mph, the West Norfolk Bridge at 50mph, and slowing to 40mph while headed towards downtown Portsmouth. I feel a little safer driving on it, because before the change, my personal tolerance for speeding ticket risk was lower than traffic often wished to travel. This should make it easier to travel the prevailing speeds without much risk of a fine.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: maplestar on April 15, 2013, 08:22:09 AM
Quote from: maplestar on April 15, 2013, 08:19:47 AM
and slowing to 40mph while headed towards downtown Portsmouth.

Oops...this sign did change, but it's after 164 ends. It's on the MLK Fwy (US 58) in Portsmouth.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 15, 2013, 03:13:51 PM
Had to have been recent.  164 was still 55 MPH west of West Norfolk two weeks ago.  Midtown Tunnel still posted 35 MPH?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: maplestar on April 16, 2013, 04:54:02 AM
Quote from: froggie on April 15, 2013, 03:13:51 PM
Had to have been recent.  164 was still 55 MPH west of West Norfolk two weeks ago.  Midtown Tunnel still posted 35 MPH?

Yes, very recent. I think when I drove it on Sunday the 7th, they were still the old limit. Two days later most signs had changed. The 35 changed to 40 on 58 a day or two later. I haven't been through the Midtown in ages, so don't know if there's been any change there or not.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 18, 2013, 05:15:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 28, 2012, 04:19:39 PM
DelmarvaNow.com: Bridge officials eye $1 billion new tunnel - Say proactive long-term planning is key to maintaining traffic flow (http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20121226/ESN01/312260031)

DelmarvaNow.com: Bridge board hears traffic study - Twinning of two tunnels is still under discussion (http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20130418/ESN/304180049/Bridge-board-hears-traffic-study)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 18, 2013, 10:28:12 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Possible congestion tolls on Hampton Roads VA bridge-tunnels as interim measure pending new crossing in 2020s (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6516)

QuoteHampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) officials are putting out the idea of congestion tolls on the I-64 Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel (HRBT) and the I-664 Monitor Merrimack Bridge Tunnel (MMBT) to manage traffic. Chairman of the HRTPO Molly Ward and chief executive Dwight Farmer included the idea in a presentation to the state transportation board this week in a powerpoint slide (reproduced nearby.)

QuoteFarmer tells us it's not a formal proposal just a concept at this point for consideration. As they're putting the proposal they'd do a pure congestion toll.

QuoteNo congestion would mean no toll was levied. But using dynamic pricing they'd price travel on the facilities as traffic densities began to approach levels threatening a breakdown in traffic flow. And of course as congestion eased the toll would drop away to zero again.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 18, 2013, 11:31:51 PM
I don't think a congestion-based toll on the HRBT would be a good idea, because there's no real alternate route when it is congested. Say you're going to Virginia Beach or to someplace like NS Norfolk or ODU in the northern part of Norfolk, it can add 30 minutes or more on to your trip to take the Monitor-Merrimac and 164 or 264 instead of the HRBT. It's not like there are an abundance of alternate routes, or even any back roads one can take as an alternate, so congestion charging would probably not significantly reduce congestion, it would just add an additional economic burden onto area residents and businesses.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 19, 2013, 02:56:27 PM
I disagree...it would reduce congestion to a degree.  First thing to note:  per Census figures, only 20% of all trips are work-related.  Second, especially in the afternoon/evening, a large number of trips are discretionary trips, meaning they don't HAVE to be made.  What a toll would do is either reduce/drop these discretionary trips (admittedly the potential for the "economic burden on area businesses), or push them to non-peak periods when congestion is less of a factor.

It should also be noted that most of the area's major river crossings were tolled at one point, including HRBT, the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels, the JRB, and also the US 17 bridges in Suffolk.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 19, 2013, 09:28:36 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 18, 2013, 11:31:51 PM
I don't think a congestion-based toll on the HRBT would be a good idea, because there's no real alternate route when it is congested. Say you're going to Virginia Beach or to someplace like NS Norfolk or ODU in the northern part of Norfolk, it can add 30 minutes or more on to your trip to take the Monitor-Merrimac and 164 or 264 instead of the HRBT. It's not like there are an abundance of alternate routes, or even any back roads one can take as an alternate, so congestion charging would probably not significantly reduce congestion, it would just add an additional economic burden onto area residents and businesses.

Pump, I respectfully  disagree. 

Pricing of (scarce) highway capacity is (in my opinion) a good idea, and where it has been tried, it has worked.

That there are only three crossings of Hampton Roads does not make the idea less valid - especially if the revenue will be used to benefit drivers wanting to cross by building more capacity.

Post Merge: April 20, 2013, 01:32:55 AM

Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2013, 02:56:27 PM
I disagree...it would reduce congestion to a degree.  First thing to note:  per Census figures, only 20% of all trips are work-related.  Second, especially in the afternoon/evening, a large number of trips are discretionary trips, meaning they don't HAVE to be made.  What a toll would do is either reduce/drop these discretionary trips (admittedly the potential for the "economic burden on area businesses), or push them to non-peak periods when congestion is less of a factor.

It should also be noted that most of the area's major river crossings were tolled at one point, including HRBT, the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels, the JRB, and also the US 17 bridges in Suffolk.

Adam, you have just justified pricing of the Hampton Roads crossings in a very few words. 

Even if a much larger percentage of the trips were work-related ("home-based work trip" and "non-home-based work trips" in transportation planner-speak), the idea of pricing these crossings still has (in my opinion) great merit. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 20, 2013, 11:40:40 AM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2013, 02:56:27 PM
I disagree...it would reduce congestion to a degree.  First thing to note:  per Census figures, only 20% of all trips are work-related.  Second, especially in the afternoon/evening, a large number of trips are discretionary trips, meaning they don't HAVE to be made.  What a toll would do is either reduce/drop these discretionary trips (admittedly the potential for the "economic burden on area businesses), or push them to non-peak periods when congestion is less of a factor.

It should also be noted that most of the area's major river crossings were tolled at one point, including HRBT, the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels, the JRB, and also the US 17 bridges in Suffolk.

Just because a trip is not work-related doesn't mean it doesn't have to be made. I know people who commute from Hampton to school at ODU, for one. And it's not uncommon to have to cross the river for shopping (which is necessary if what you need can only be had on one side or the other), sports/other activities (I fenced through middle and high school, and the only fencing club in Hampton Roads was on the southside), transportation (until one Norfolk round-trip was added, all Amtrak trains only served Newport News, while Greyhound has a big depot in Norfolk, and the Norfolk and Newport News airports have different flights), medical (say you need to regularly see a specialist who is on one side of the river), or other reasons like having close family (i.e. parents, significant other) you visit regularly on the other side of the river. I'd hardly consider these discretionary. Even things like entertainment are hardly unnecessary. Do you really expect people on the Peninsula to suddenly decide "oh, I guess we can't ever go see a concert anymore since all the major venues are on the Southside"? No. They're just going to moan and gripe and pay the toll. Just because social trips don't HAVE to be made doesn't mean they won't. The biggest decrease I could see based on people actually being unwilling to pay a toll is maybe 5-10% of trips, which would leave the HRBT still terribly congested, and would certainly reflect in lost economic opportunity. In this struggling economy we should be trying to get people to spend as much money as possible at regional businesses, rather than discourage people from going out.

It should be noted though that I only oppose a congestion-based toll, rather than a toll just imposed to pay off construction. I think reinstating the tolls on the HRBT would be a viable way to pay for expansion of the HRBT, so long as they are modest (i.e. no $12 tolls like on the CBBT), only in place on the HRBT (no tolling the Monitor-Merrimac to pay for the HRBT) and a flat rate no matter how congested the road is. Congestion tolling should only be used on facilities like HOT lanes, or roads with alternate routes (i.e. an urban freeway), where if you refuse to pay no matter how congested the alternate route is, you're free to do so.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 19, 2013, 09:28:36 PMThat there are only three crossings of Hampton Roads does not make the idea less valid - especially if the revenue will be used to benefit drivers wanting to cross by building more capacity.

Like I said above, tolls are a good way of paying for construction. I would welcome tolls on the HRBT to pay for expansion of it. But it is neither fair nor reasonable to penalize people for wanting to cross the river at a time other than 3 in the morning (which is probably the only time the HRBT is ever not congested - and that's not a given. I've been stuck in some nasty HRBT traffic at 3 am before).

People cannot choose to make their "discretionary" trips at different times in most cases. If you're going from the Peninsula to the Southside to go to the theater, or to go to a sporting event, or to go to school, or for the nightlife, you have to go at the time these are scheduled, not some random time because there's less traffic.
It is not reasonable to expect people to try and reschedule their entire lives around trying to use a tunnel when it is less congested, which is what this proposal and your arguments basically amount to.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 01, 2013, 11:45:44 AM
WTOP Radio: 2 days, 2 motorcycle-tractor-trailer crashes (http://www.wtop.com/654/3306293/Another-motorcycle-tractor-trailer-crash)

QuoteFor the second day in a row, northbound Interstate 95 had to be shut down for a crash involving a motorcycle and a tractor-trailer.

QuoteAuthorities closed northbound I-95 at mile marker 147, just before the Quantico/Russell Road exit around 5:45 a.m. Wednesday. The highway in Stafford County reopened after a medical helicopter landed at the scene.

QuoteOne person sustained life-threatening injuries, according to the Virginia State Police.

QuoteThe crash involved a motorcycle, a tractor-trailer and several vehicles. The tractor trailer remained on the scene after the crash, TV footage shows.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 02, 2013, 12:45:57 PM
QuoteDoes this put other PPTA toll road projects across Virginia at legal risk? I don't know.  This is not at the statewide appellate court level, so I suppose we will might find out, depending on if the Virginia appeals courts decide to hear this case.

HamptonRoads.Com: Judge: Midtown Tunnel toll deal is unconstitutional (http://hamptonroads.com/2013/05/judge-midtown-tunnel-toll-deal-unconstitutional)

TOLLROADSnews: Circuit Court judge in Portsmouth declares P3s in Virginia unconstitutional - nixes tolls at the Portsmouth-Norfolk tunnels (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6533)

QuoteA judge in Portsmouth Circuit Court in Plymouth VA, James Cales, ruling Wednesday against tolls on the Norfolk-Portsmouth tunnels under the Elizabeth River declared that the state's Public Private Transportation Act of 1995 involves an unconstitutional delegation of power to the executive branch. Judge Cales hasn't yet released a text of his ruling which was delivered orally yesterday.

QuotePatrick McSweeney the winning attorney tells us that it spells trouble for all public private partnerships in the state, and also for the Dulles Toll Road. The transfer of the Dulles Toll Road from the state to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority - a four jurisdiction US, DC, VA, MD agency - he says was done without constitutionally required approval by the legislature.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 02, 2013, 01:59:15 PM
I know the fellow who represents the plaintiffs in that case (Pat McSweeney), although I haven't asked him about this case. I don't always agree with his clients' positions, but he's an absolutely brilliant fellow who knows Virginia law, especially constitutional law, inside and out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 02, 2013, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 02, 2013, 01:59:15 PM
I know the fellow who represents the plaintiffs in that case (Pat McSweeney), although I haven't asked him about this case. I don't always agree with his clients' positions, but he's an absolutely brilliant fellow who knows Virginia law, especially constitutional law, inside and out.


I have many times disagreed with positions taken by Mr. McSweeny and his clients, but still, you are spot-on - he's a very bright fellow, who seems to win more than he loses, at least in cases that attract attention.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 02, 2013, 02:05:05 PM
First homicide in the City of Fairfax in about five years, and it's apparently the result of a road rage incident.

Washington Post: First homicide in City of Fairfax since 2008 is linked to road rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/first-homicide-in-city-of-fairfax-since-2008/2013/05/01/91ebd77a-b26c-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19_story.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 07, 2013, 12:03:10 PM
Found this picture online earlier today:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F154767_10151213509324895_1283108197_n_zps8a42217e.jpg&hash=272fd4b012f0f90e172e0b79c0de53e46bf35082)


I don't know which direction the camera was pointing, so rather than link a Street View image today, I'll just link the satellite view for anyone unfamiliar with that area nowadays who might be interested. The intersection in question is at the interchange right in the center of the image where it says "Tysons Corner": http://goo.gl/maps/OQJdP
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 07, 2013, 12:43:47 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 07, 2013, 12:03:10 PM
I don't know which direction the camera was pointing, so rather than link a Street View image today, I'll just link the satellite view for anyone unfamiliar with that area nowadays who might be interested. The intersection in question is at the interchange right in the center of the image where it says "Tysons Corner": http://goo.gl/maps/OQJdP

Pretty sure the camera is looking east along Va. 7 (Leesburg Pike) in the direction of Va. 123 (Chain Bridge Road).

Note that 1964 was just about the time that the Capital Beltway was completed (the entire highway was opened to traffic in August of that year).  Along with the recently completed Dulles Access Road, and Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road, not to be completed until the early 1980's), it was to make Tysons Corner a very freeway-accessible place.

Also, check out the traffic signal actuator and vehicle detector mounted on the utility pole over the eastbound side of  Va. 7.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 07, 2013, 04:18:52 PM
This came from fairfaxunderground.com and I've seen it published in a Nat'l Geographic in the last 20 years.

Based on the destination signs, this is 1940s or earlier.  I *think* that is a VA 7 shield but could be a VA 9 (VA 123's predecessor)...

(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYjMVJbPNP1TrMgmEEjligrmfnZfJ-Cao19veMjZ7LFFUmBLivvg)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 07, 2013, 04:19:54 PM
do you have a larger version of that photo?  I can't tell there is a shield in there at all.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 07, 2013, 04:25:05 PM
I'll second that–I can't see a shield anywhere.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 07, 2013, 05:05:48 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 07, 2013, 04:18:52 PM
This came from fairfaxunderground.com and I've seen it published in a Nat'l Geographic in the last 20 years.

Based on the destination signs, this is 1940s or earlier.  I *think* that is a VA 7 shield but could be a VA 9 (VA 123's predecessor)...

I downloaded it and resized and sharpened it with Photoshop, and it sure looks to me like a Va. 7 shield (just left of the utility pole in front of the store with the Coke sign), though I am not 100% certain (the location of the buildings would be consistent with the images in the 1964 image above). 

Hoo, at the very right edge is a STOP sign (mounted on a white-and-black pole, once ubiquitous across Virginia).

I have seen this image well before it ran in the Geographic - I saw a copy on the wall of the offices of the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority back in the 1980's, but I don't recall if that was a Va. 7 shield.

Was not aware that Va. 123 was once Va. 9 (and I never understood why a low number like 9 was assigned to a corner of Loudoun County).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 07, 2013, 05:08:38 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 02, 2013, 02:05:05 PM
First homicide in the City of Fairfax in about five years, and it's apparently the result of a road rage incident.

Washington Post: First homicide in City of Fairfax since 2008 is linked to road rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/first-homicide-in-city-of-fairfax-since-2008/2013/05/01/91ebd77a-b26c-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19_story.html)

QuoteCena, 57, director of religious education at St. Leo the Great Catholic Church in Fairfax, was arrested two days after the April 16 incident

gosh, wasn't there something in those commandments on the topic of killing?  looks like someone Peter Principled his way to the directorship.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on May 07, 2013, 10:08:47 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 07, 2013, 05:05:48 PM
Was not aware that Va. 123 was once Va. 9 (and I never understood why a low number like 9 was assigned to a corner of Loudoun County).
The current VA 9 was changed to match the older WV 9 in 1940, as were lots of other routes at Virginia's borders. Before 1940 it was VA 238.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on May 08, 2013, 12:14:09 AM
Ah, know that location well...my office is right at that intersection of Routes 7 and 123.  Looks quite different now!

I find it interesting that the neighborhood was actually uniquely identified as Tysons Corner in the 1960's, before any of the development that gives Tysons Corner its current identity existed...indeed, the neighborhood looks like nothing more than a gas station and a few houses.  Tysons Corner still suffers from a little bit of an identity crisis, seeing as parts of it are served by 3 different post offices (Falls Church, McLean, Vienna). 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 08, 2013, 06:32:20 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on May 08, 2013, 12:14:09 AM
Ah, know that location well...my office is right at that intersection of Routes 7 and 123.  Looks quite different now!

Yep.  The really big changes started in the late 1970's, after Tysons Corner was well-established as a retail center.  Then came the jobs.

Quote from: mtantillo on May 08, 2013, 12:14:09 AM
I find it interesting that the neighborhood was actually uniquely identified as Tysons Corner in the 1960's, before any of the development that gives Tysons Corner its current identity existed...indeed, the neighborhood looks like nothing more than a gas station and a few houses.  Tysons Corner still suffers from a little bit of an identity crisis, seeing as parts of it are served by 3 different post offices (Falls Church, McLean, Vienna).

The case could probably be made that Tysons Corner would be better-served if the entire area were to be incorporated into a town (it would instantly be one of the most employment-rich municipalities in the United States).   I don't think Fairfax County would ever agree to allow Tysons to become a city (given the property tax base that's present there)., but its elected officials might go along with a town (obviously that's all pure speculation on my part).

It will be interesting to see how it evolves with the four new Metrorail stations in operation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 08, 2013, 06:37:42 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 07, 2013, 05:08:38 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 02, 2013, 02:05:05 PM
First homicide in the City of Fairfax in about five years, and it's apparently the result of a road rage incident.

Washington Post: First homicide in City of Fairfax since 2008 is linked to road rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/first-homicide-in-city-of-fairfax-since-2008/2013/05/01/91ebd77a-b26c-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19_story.html)

QuoteCena, 57, director of religious education at St. Leo the Great Catholic Church in Fairfax, was arrested two days after the April 16 incident

gosh, wasn't there something in those commandments on the topic of killing?  looks like someone Peter Principled his way to the directorship.

Sage observation.  Not the first time that someone associated with a large religious institution has been charged with breaking one of the Ten Commandments.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 08, 2013, 06:50:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 07, 2013, 05:05:48 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 07, 2013, 04:18:52 PM
This came from fairfaxunderground.com and I've seen it published in a Nat'l Geographic in the last 20 years.

Based on the destination signs, this is 1940s or earlier.  I *think* that is a VA 7 shield but could be a VA 9 (VA 123's predecessor)...

I downloaded it and resized and sharpened it with Photoshop, and it sure looks to me like a Va. 7 shield (just left of the utility pole in front of the store with the Coke sign), though I am not 100% certain (the location of the buildings would be consistent with the images in the 1964 image above). 

Hoo, at the very right edge is a STOP sign (mounted on a white-and-black pole, once ubiquitous across Virginia).

I have seen this image well before it ran in the Geographic - I saw a copy on the wall of the offices of the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority back in the 1980's, but I don't recall if that was a Va. 7 shield.

Was not aware that Va. 123 was once Va. 9 (and I never understood why a low number like 9 was assigned to a corner of Loudoun County).

To see a larger version, go to google images and search "tysons corner old photos".  The picture is on the first row and when clicked shows up larger than it did on here.

Both VA 120 and VA 123 were VA 9 from 1933-40, forming a large loop from Woodbridge to what is now Crystal City.

For homework I'm assigning everybody to read and memorize the route history section of www.vahighways.com :)

Incidentally, the earliest CTB mention of "Tyson s Corner" is 1923 and the first State Official to identify Tysons Cor. was 1932.

Mapmikey

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 08, 2013, 07:17:38 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 08, 2013, 06:50:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 07, 2013, 05:05:48 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 07, 2013, 04:18:52 PM
This came from fairfaxunderground.com and I've seen it published in a Nat'l Geographic in the last 20 years.

Based on the destination signs, this is 1940s or earlier.  I *think* that is a VA 7 shield but could be a VA 9 (VA 123's predecessor)...

I downloaded it and resized and sharpened it with Photoshop, and it sure looks to me like a Va. 7 shield (just left of the utility pole in front of the store with the Coke sign), though I am not 100% certain (the location of the buildings would be consistent with the images in the 1964 image above). 

Hoo, at the very right edge is a STOP sign (mounted on a white-and-black pole, once ubiquitous across Virginia).

I have seen this image well before it ran in the Geographic - I saw a copy on the wall of the offices of the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority back in the 1980's, but I don't recall if that was a Va. 7 shield.

Was not aware that Va. 123 was once Va. 9 (and I never understood why a low number like 9 was assigned to a corner of Loudoun County).

To see a larger version, go to google images and search "tysons corner old photos".  The picture is on the first row and when clicked shows up larger than it did on here.

Thanks.  The Va. 7 shield is very clear in the image in the thread on Fairfax Underground (http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/1009677.html) site.

Quote from: Mapmikey on May 08, 2013, 06:50:27 AM
Both VA 120 and VA 123 were VA 9 from 1933-40, forming a large loop from Woodbridge to what is now Crystal City.

For homework I'm assigning everybody to read and memorize the route history section of www.vahighways.com :)

Actually, as a Marylander who has spent a lot of time in the Commonwealth for varied reasons, I very much appreciate the work that you and Adam (Froggie) have on those pages.

You even have an entry (http://www.vahighways.com/placenames/local/d-f.htm) for my absolute favorite place name in the entire Commonwealth of Virginia - Disputanta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputanta,_Virginia).

Quote from: Mapmikey on May 08, 2013, 06:50:27 AM
Incidentally, the earliest CTB mention of "Tyson s Corner" is 1923 and the first State Official to identify Tysons Cor. was 1932.

Mapmikey

Cool.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2013, 09:18:49 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 07, 2013, 04:18:52 PM
Based on the destination signs, this is 1940s or earlier.  I *think* that is a VA 7 shield but could be a VA 9 (VA 123's predecessor)...

I found the larger photo, and I still cannot make out the destination signs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 08, 2013, 09:32:35 AM
Here is another pic I'd never seen before from that same fairfax underground site:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vpis.org%2Fbuildingphotos%2Fimages%2FFallsChurchBank.jpg&hash=a2a4ff60498ba05c6b7c9a128cef2e4e7667f935)

This is US 29-211 heading west at VA 7.  Check out the 29-211 sign with no shield at all.  I have seen a different photo on the state library of virginia site that has a JUNCTION with 29 211 horizontally underneath, also with no shields.

To see larger version, google images search "old falls church bank" and it is the first photo.

In the Tyson's Corner pic, I'd assume the destinations on the four signs you'd be facing are Falls Church (left), Alexandria (left), Vienna (straight), and Leesburg (right).  Not sure when they stopped using this style of destination signs but I believe it was the 1940s.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 08, 2013, 09:38:19 AM
Be careful if you view Fairfax Underground on a computer belonging to your employer. There's more than a little bit of stuff some people might find highly offensive (mostly racial comments).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2013, 09:55:35 AM
never seen anything like that "29/211" sign.  I've always wondered what Virginia used between the embossed cutouts with the state name, and the cutouts with just the border embossed, and only a number inside.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 08, 2013, 10:20:06 AM
I think that style may have been a Falls Church-only thing.  The only other time I saw a sign like that was in the City of Covington which is presumably still there:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Foldsigns%2Fold60-220.jpg&hash=35a37130780977a78e9666b018ae2702785fdb85)

I have seen a 1960 Richmond pic that shows cutout progressions plus white border signs in one assembly with no shieldless shapes in between:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_virginia/3595196081/sizes/o/in/set-72157607704129043/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_virginia/3595196081/sizes/o/in/set-72157607704129043/)

Mapmikey

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2013, 10:34:11 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 08, 2013, 10:20:06 AM
I have seen a 1960 Richmond pic that shows cutout progressions plus white border signs in one assembly with no shieldless shapes in between:


those white border signs look like they may be 24".  tough to tell.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Doctor Whom on May 08, 2013, 11:43:42 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on May 08, 2013, 12:14:09 AMI find it interesting that the neighborhood was actually uniquely identified as Tysons Corner in the 1960's, before any of the development that gives Tysons Corner its current identity existed...indeed, the neighborhood looks like nothing more than a gas station and a few houses.  Tysons Corner still suffers from a little bit of an identity crisis, seeing as parts of it are served by 3 different post offices (Falls Church, McLean, Vienna).
The right people complained, and now the USPS recognizes "Tysons Corner VA" as a valid city name in ZIP codes 22102 (McLean) and 22182 (Vienna).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 08, 2013, 11:54:13 AM
Another good pic:

search "bye bye navy annex" in google images...it's the first picture

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 08, 2013, 12:13:19 PM
You may want to do a hard refresh (Ctrl-F5) because that picture isn't loading. I made the same mistake with a photo from that site a while back. Importing the URL into Photobucket won't work either. If I want to re-post something from there, I download it and then upload it to my Photobucket account.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2013, 12:39:34 PM
that is the largest YIELD sign I've ever seen - yellow or otherwise
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 08, 2013, 12:48:05 PM
Great picture. Thanks for the update on which one it was. The I-95 NORTH LGS in the distance looks like it might have been button copy, though it could just be graininess in the scan.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2013, 12:55:50 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 08, 2013, 12:48:05 PM
Great picture. Thanks for the update on which one it was. The I-95 NORTH LGS in the distance looks like it might have been button copy, though it could just be graininess in the scan.

I would be quite surprised.  from what I know, Virginia has never used button copy.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 08, 2013, 12:59:02 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2013, 12:55:50 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 08, 2013, 12:48:05 PM
Great picture. Thanks for the update on which one it was. The I-95 NORTH LGS in the distance looks like it might have been button copy, though it could just be graininess in the scan.

I would be quite surprised.  from what I know, Virginia has never used button copy.

I didn't think so either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2013, 01:00:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 08, 2013, 12:59:02 PM

I didn't think so either.

I've also never seen any mention of button copy in Mississippi and Delaware - and Louisiana only seems to have used it on projects under the control of the city of New Orleans.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 08, 2013, 03:58:47 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2013, 12:55:50 PM

I would be quite surprised.  from what I know, Virginia has never used button copy.

VA 76 between James River Bridge and VA 146 had some button copy BGSs until relatively recently but being inside the City of Richmond may not have been VDOT-related.

I agree that graininess is what is shown on the I-95 sign, but it might be Virginia's own version of individually mounted letters like they used to do on BGSs.

The white shield sign with no 'TO' is VA 27 and I assume one of the other ones is VA 244.  Is the third US 50?

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2013, 04:29:30 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 08, 2013, 03:58:47 PM

VA 76 between James River Bridge and VA 146 had some button copy BGSs until relatively recently but being inside the City of Richmond may not have been VDOT-related.

got any photos?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 08, 2013, 09:19:58 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2013, 04:29:30 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 08, 2013, 03:58:47 PM

VA 76 between James River Bridge and VA 146 had some button copy BGSs until relatively recently but being inside the City of Richmond may not have been VDOT-related.

got any photos?


The signs have been gone since 2005 or 2006. They were there the first time I ever passed through the area in 2004, but as I wasn't yet taking road photos I got no pictures of them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 09, 2013, 06:48:32 AM
I hadn't started taking pictures yet while they were around, either.

Perhaps Froggie has some, as he started taking pictures sooner than me...

I have also struck out on Google Images under several different search terms.  I even tried freewayjim youtube videos but it looks like he never drove the Powhite in that area...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 09, 2013, 12:45:42 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 08, 2013, 03:58:47 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2013, 12:55:50 PM

I would be quite surprised.  from what I know, Virginia has never used button copy.

VA 76 between James River Bridge and VA 146 had some button copy BGSs until relatively recently but being inside the City of Richmond may not have been VDOT-related.

Isn't that part of Va. 76 owned by the RMA (and not VDOT)?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 09, 2013, 02:17:06 PM
I might but I'd have to look and probably won't be able to do anything with them until I'm back from deployment.  I might also have missed them as I didn't get my digital camera until 2003, had deployments in 2003 and 2005, and departed Virginia right after the 2005 deployment.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 09, 2013, 09:54:01 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 09, 2013, 12:45:42 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 08, 2013, 03:58:47 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 08, 2013, 12:55:50 PM

I would be quite surprised.  from what I know, Virginia has never used button copy.

VA 76 between James River Bridge and VA 146 had some button copy BGSs until relatively recently but being inside the City of Richmond may not have been VDOT-related.

Isn't that part of Va. 76 owned by the RMA (and not VDOT)?

It is. The RMA contracts out signage on VA 76 between VA 150 and on VA 146 (as well as VA 195).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on May 13, 2013, 10:33:10 PM
Keeping in the old photos theme, I happened on these old pictures around the Landmark Mall area in Alexandria, VA....

Presumably Early 1960s --- VA-236/Duke St and (pre VA-401) Van Dorn St while the original Landmark Center outdoor mall was under construction (the enclosed mall there today was built in 1990). I dig those 4-way signal clusters.
http://novahistory.ctevans.net/archive/files/d8c585c4d551434a0b3cbd6970acbc4e.jpg

Same intersection some years later. Newer, yet still old-school, 12-8-8 signals at the intersection of VA-236/Duke St and Van Dorn St. When was this interchange grade-separated??
http://novahistory.ctevans.net/archive/files/2ac43a186cebed0553851cb20789cc77.jpg

Construction of ramps at I-395 and VA-236/Duke St (Exit 3). Check out the bridge pillars for the VA-236 East to I-395 North ramp!
http://novahistory.ctevans.net/archive/files/66cd748af932c30235298f2b2f30404f.jpg

Off-topic, but if you ever wondered what pre-mall era Landmark Center looked like, there is a treasure trove of pictures on this site. Now Landmark is a dead mall, ironically, planned to be turned back into an outdoor mall.

-Dan
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 15, 2013, 06:09:06 PM
Richmond Times-Dispatch: State to spend $1 billion for local transportation projects (http://www.timesdispatch.com/business/transportation/article_0baee1bc-efff-556b-ba2d-25037642ec77.html)

QuoteThe Richmond region will receive nearly $1 billion for highway and rail improvements over the next six years under the state's new transportation funding package.

QuoteThe district will receive $774 million for highway work and more than $148 for major rail projects.

QuoteThe funding includes $62 million for improvements to the heavily-traveled Interstate 64-Interstate 95 overlap area in Richmond, and nearly $80 million to improve railroad movements in the Richmond-Petersburg area and Washington. There's also money for the Lewistown Road bridge replacement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 17, 2013, 10:41:48 AM
WTOP Radio: I-95 southbound closed for hazmat spill in Va (http://www.wtop.com/120/3325465/S-I-95-closed-in-Stafford-Co)

QuoteFREDERICKSBURG, Va. - A crash involving two tractor-trailers -- one hauling hazardous materials -- has closed the southbound lanes of Interstate 95 south of Exit 133/Falmouth in Stafford County.

QuoteVirginia Department of Transportation spokeswoman Kelly Hannon tells WTOP the closure may last until around 11 a.m. -- possibly later.

QuoteVirginia State Police say the closure will be until approximately noon.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 17, 2013, 10:54:46 AM
National Journal: Why You Won't Own Your Road - Cash-strapped states such as Virginia are turning to the private sector to help finance large infrastructure projects. But it may just be a way of forcing drivers to pay more in the long run. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/why-you-won-t-own-your-road-20130516)

QuoteRICHMOND, Va.–Dusty Holcombe had to look up his new boss on Google when he learned in 2011 that he would be transferred to a small government office with the sole mission of making deals with the private sector. Holcombe, a 13-year veteran of the Virginia Transportation Department, had never heard of Tony Kinn, the man tapped to head the commonwealth's newly minted Office of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 17, 2013, 11:25:42 PM
Washington Post editorial: On Virginia's roads, full speed ahead (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-virginias-roads-full-speed-ahead/2013/05/17/4e2a173e-be6c-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html)

QuoteGOV. ROBERT F. MCDONNELL (R) said it best when he signed his name the other day to Virginia's landmark transportation bill, a $6 billion leviathan that fixed a funding shortfall a quarter century in the making. "The only bad thing from this bill,"  the governor said at a ceremony in Richmond, "is people will be complaining about construction rather than congestion."

QuoteMr. McDonnell campaigned four years ago on the premise that he could tackle the state's drastic transportation funding shortfall without resorting to tax increases. That was a fiction designed to appeal to his Republican base and financially pinched voters reeling from the recession.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 18, 2013, 11:38:43 PM
WTOP Radio: State razes homeless man's huge makeshift shelter (http://www.wtop.com/139/3324611/Mans-impressive-shelter-is-razed)

QuoteVirginia transportation officials worked for hours to remove a huge makeshift shelter a homeless man built and lived in for 9 years.

QuoteBernard Roulston of the Virginia Department of Transportation tells WJLA-TV (http://wj.la/1489rPf) that the structure in Arlington required 10 trucks to haul away on Monday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2013, 10:42:42 PM
Washington Post: Prince William supervisors delay vote on Tri-County Parkway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/prince-william-supervisors-delay-vote-on-tri-county-parkway/2013/05/21/747fc21e-c257-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html)

QuoteThe Prince William Board of County Supervisors unanimously delayed a vote Tuesday that would have reaffirmed the county's support for a proposed parkway through Manassas Battlefield land that connects Prince William and Loudoun.

QuoteThe delay is another in a string of setbacks for the project known as the "Tri-County Parkway,"  a road the administration of Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) says is vital to the future of one of the fastest-growing regions in the country.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 25, 2013, 08:06:53 PM
The NVTA released its wish list for 2014 based on an expected infusion of $190 million from the new transportation-funding law. (.PDF link) (http://www.thenovaauthority.org/PDFs/Meetings/2013/5.23.13/NVTA%20Proposed%20Project%20List%20for%20Consideration%20for%20FY%202014%20Funding_05-24-13.pdf)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 27, 2013, 12:46:49 PM
Washington Post: Traffic management plan could expand use of I-66 shoulders when demand is high (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/traffic-management-plan-could-expand-use-of-i-66-shoulders-when-demand-is-high/2013/05/24/f12dcda2-c3e1-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html)

QuoteA new system called "active traffic management"  is going to change what drivers see – and maybe what they experience – on Interstate 66, one of the most congested highways in the D.C. region.

QuoteOn the very worst part of I-66, the part between Route 50 and the Capital Beltway, the X's and arrows regulate access to the shoulders.

QuoteThese were not built to be regular travel lanes, but when highway departments don't have the space or the money to widen roadways, they look for more ways to use the room they have. The surging demand on I-66 led the Virginia Department of Transportation to open the shoulders to all traffic at peak times.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 27, 2013, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 25, 2013, 08:06:53 PM
The NVTA released its wish list for 2014 based on an expected infusion of $190 million from the new transportation-funding law. (.PDF link) (http://www.thenovaauthority.org/PDFs/Meetings/2013/5.23.13/NVTA%20Proposed%20Project%20List%20for%20Consideration%20for%20FY%202014%20Funding_05-24-13.pdf)

Good stuff (I think), though still not enough money, given how deep in  the hole that Northern Virginia is. 

Related Washington Post story: Northern Virginia expecting big infusion of road building and transit money (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/northern-virginia-expecting-big-infusion-of-road-building-and-transit-money/2013/05/25/a6bbb3ba-c477-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_singlePage.html)

QuoteNorthern Virginia officials are wrestling with an unfamiliar but welcome challenge: deciding how to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to help commuters in one of the most congested areas of the country.

QuoteThe Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, set up by the General Assembly in 2002 to build regional projects, has been waiting for the money to carry out its primary mission for more than a decade. Because the authority had no funds, state legislators gave it the power to raise revenue. But Virginia's high court ruled that the arrangement was unconstitutional, and the authority had to return the money.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 28, 2013, 02:53:17 AM
QuoteThe surging demand on I-66 led the Virginia Department of Transportation to open the shoulders to all traffic at peak times.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this wasn't done strictly because of "surging traffic".  It was done when they converted the inside lane between Fair Oaks and the Beltway to peak-period HOV.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 28, 2013, 07:56:10 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 28, 2013, 02:53:17 AM
QuoteThe surging demand on I-66 led the Virginia Department of Transportation to open the shoulders to all traffic at peak times.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this wasn't done strictly because of "surging traffic".  It was done when they converted the inside lane between Fair Oaks and the Beltway to peak-period HOV.

That's what I recall as well. In addition, the FHWA authorized the use of shoulder lanes only as a "temporary" measure.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 28, 2013, 09:34:32 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 28, 2013, 02:53:17 AM
QuoteThe surging demand on I-66 led the Virginia Department of Transportation to open the shoulders to all traffic at peak times.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this wasn't done strictly because of "surging traffic".  It was done when they converted the inside lane between Fair Oaks and the Beltway to peak-period HOV.

It's a little more complicated than  that.

In the early 1990's, I-66 outside the Beltway as far west as U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks was three lanes each way for a total of six lanes.  West of Fair Oaks it was TWO lanes each way.

VDOT wanted to extend the I-66 HOV facility west from inside the Beltway, but the budget was extremely limited, and  they wanted to keep 3 general-purpose lanes.  So an "on the cheap" widening was done by converting the shoulders to full-depth and adding some "emergency pull-off" areas between interchanges, with the "Red X" and "Green Arrow" lane during the times that the left lane was HOV-2.  This clunky setup opened in 1995.  At the same time, I-66 between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks and Va. 234 Business (Sudley Road) was totally reconstructed with the left lane being for HOV use during peak-flow time.  That meant that during off-hours there is a lane drop eastbound right where an immense amount of traffic enters I-66 at all times from U.S. 50.  Not so good.

The HOV lanes with  the part-time shoulder never worked very well, because of violators jumping in and out of the HOV lane, especially eastbound between Va. 243 (Nutley Street) and I-495. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 05, 2013, 06:56:18 PM
WTOP Radio: Worker killed while removing I-81 debris in Va. (http://www.wtop.com/120/3347829/Worker-killed-while-removing-I-81-debris-in-Va)

QuotePolice are investigating the death of a highway maintenance worker who was killed while removing road debris in Montgomery County.

QuoteVirginia State Police Sgt. Rob Carpentieri identified the victim as 40-year-old Steven Anthony Cox of Roanoke.

QuoteCarpentieri tells media outlets that a tractor- trailer hit Cox as he was removing debris from a northbound lane of Interstate 81. Cox was pronounced dead at the scene.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 05, 2013, 10:42:18 PM
Any news on the US 460 toll road?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 06, 2013, 03:07:15 AM
Doesn't begin construction until next year.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 06, 2013, 09:37:54 PM
WTOP Radio: Section of I-66 in Fairfax used in project (http://www.wtop.com/120/3349935/I-66-to-test-new-technology-that-could-change-the-way-you-drive)

QuoteFAIRFAX, Va. (AP) -- A section of Interstate 66 in Fairfax County is being used in a research project on traffic.

QuoteGov. Bob McDonnell launched the project with the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech on Thursday. The four-square-mile area is I-66 between the Capital Beltway and Nutley Street, and on U.S. 50 and U.S. 29.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 06, 2013, 09:39:20 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 06, 2013, 03:07:15 AM
Doesn't begin construction until next year.

At which point Gov. Bob McDonnell will be out of office, thanks to Virginia's "one and done (but you can come back)" provisions in law.

Wonder if both, one or none of the two that want to succeed him are as enthused with the U.S. 460 project as he seems to be?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 07, 2013, 12:37:06 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 06, 2013, 09:39:20 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 06, 2013, 03:07:15 AM
Doesn't begin construction until next year.

At which point Gov. Bob McDonnell will be out of office, thanks to Virginia's "one and done (but you can come back)" provisions in law.

Wonder if both, one or none of the two that want to succeed him are as enthused with the U.S. 460 project as he seems to be?

Wasn't funding for this project part of the transportation bill that was passed a few months ago? The bill had bipartisan support (though I believe Cuccinelli was opposed).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 07, 2013, 02:24:55 AM
I'm not 100%, but contracts may have been signed already by now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on June 13, 2013, 08:38:54 AM
What happened to the Leesburg/Rt. 7 bypass project, adding a third lane WB? Last I heard was the comment period, and the Sycolin Rd. project, looks like it is getting going.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 14, 2013, 05:03:03 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Pocahontas Parkway turned over to lenders (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6591)

QuoteThe Pocahontas Parkway tollroad in the eastern part of the Richmond VA metro area is being turned over to its lenders by Transurban. The Australia-based toll operator has long written off its equity in the pike.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 14, 2013, 06:50:14 PM
I love how Transurban pretty much blames Richmond for the failure of VA 895.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on June 14, 2013, 10:34:34 PM
I always preferred taking 10 from 95 to 295.  I could never see what 895 could do that 10 couldn't accomplish that really justified the toll.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on June 14, 2013, 10:41:22 PM
895's only use for me was as a cutover from 295 to 95 in order to get on 85. Not worth paying the toll IMO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on June 14, 2013, 10:47:35 PM
Yeah, that's what I thought.  Heck, even though it's a pain in the neck to get to, VA 36 is a decent cutover from 85/95 to 295 (and it has an awesome Korean BBQ restaurant).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 15, 2013, 01:19:32 AM
I've used 895 a couple of times when I was in Chesterfield or somewhere along 150 and wanted to get back to 64 (or 5, the "scenic route" back east), but I'm in Richmond so infrequently that it's only been a handful of times total.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 15, 2013, 07:35:27 AM
Sometimes I drive 895 simply for the view from the bridge, maybe once a year. There's so little traffic I could probably pull over and take photos from there (of course, if I did that the cops would be there pretty quickly).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 15, 2013, 12:00:22 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 15, 2013, 07:35:27 AM
Sometimes I drive 895 simply for the view from the bridge, maybe once a year. There's so little traffic I could probably pull over and take photos from there (of course, if I did that the cops would be there pretty quickly).

I drove it once because the bridge is cool, and Va. 895 seemed very empty - I suppose it adds a link to the  Richmond-area freeway network that allows an easy shift from I-95 to I-295 or vice versa in the event of an incident (presumably on RTP part of I-95, which seems much more incident-prone for obvious reasons).

Growth in air traffic at Richmond International (RIC) might help 895 at some point in the future.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 15, 2013, 07:24:34 PM
Another VA-10 user here. Why bother paying a toll? Next boondoggle for the area, the US-460 "bypass".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on June 15, 2013, 09:26:54 PM
I use either VA 144/36 (living in Colonial Heights, this is easiest for me) or VA 10 going to and from I-295. I haven't been on 895 in years, probably before my first Prelude, but my dad has worked on projects on it and thus has taken some incredible pictures from the bridge. I may or may not ever use the new 460, since my typical route to Hampton Roads is "anything but 460". I'm sick of it, especially now that the Prince George section was dropped to 50 MPH. Depending on which part I go to, I prefer either VA 10 (southern parts) or VA 5/321/199/I-64 (north), but there are other ways to get there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 15, 2013, 10:28:09 PM
I used 895 a couple of times some years ago but generally have little reason to do so. If I'm coming up I-85 and I want to use I-295 (which is all the more likely now that it's posted at 70 mph), I tend just to go the four miles south.

If 895 had been there in the mid-1990s when I was at Duke and my brother was at William & Mary, I might (and I emphasize "might") have used it going up to Williamsburg to visit, but I kind of doubt it because it's too far north. I usually went over the Benjamin Harrison Bridge and then took Route 5. It's more direct and it's a scenic route, whereas I-64 is boring.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 16, 2013, 12:28:43 AM
So what exactly happens when a road gets turned over to its creditors? Will they close it? Raise the tolls? Sell it? Tear it down?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2013, 03:41:34 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 16, 2013, 12:28:43 AM
So what exactly happens when a road gets turned over to its creditors? Will they close it? Raise the tolls? Sell it? Tear it down?

I believe they own the concession to operate and maintain the road, but they do not own the road itself, which is, I believe, owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia (that seems to be the model in Virginia and at least some other states that have or have had privately-owned toll highway concessions, including Indiana and California).

The creditors can do several things (as I understand it):

(1) Operate it themselves (or hire someone to operate it);
(2) Try to sell the concession to someone else (and if they don't get enough to pay-off the debt they are owed, then they have to write the losses off);
(3) Operate it themselves in the hope that traffic (and toll revenue) will increase over time so they can sell the concession to someone else without having to take a write-off; or
(4) Abandon the project entirely (and write-off the debt they were owed), in which case the concession is presumably over and VDOT assumes ownership and operations responsibility (but owes the creditors nothing).

It's not at all directly comparable, but another non-VDOT toll facility in Virginia had bonds that were in default for quite a few years until traffic volumes increased enough to pay the principal and interest.  That facility was the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel District.  A friend of mine bought CBBTD bonds when they were in default at a pretty deep discount from their face value, but he ultimately made a lot of money on the deal, since he was eventually paid in full, including interest.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 16, 2013, 07:46:57 AM
Are you sure that was CBBT?  I recall hearing that the Dulles Greenway was in that position.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 16, 2013, 09:11:21 AM
Echoing the sentiments of others, when I lived in VA I took 895 precisely once- to clinch it after it opened. Otherwise, never had a reason to. It's always surprised me that it even got built, considering there are so many other road projects in the state that are on hold that actually have a lot more potential to be useful.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 16, 2013, 12:49:35 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 16, 2013, 07:46:57 AM
Are you sure that was CBBT?  I recall hearing that the Dulles Greenway was in that position.

The Greenway has definitely been in financial trouble several times.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2013, 01:00:02 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 16, 2013, 07:46:57 AM
Are you sure that was CBBT?  I recall hearing that the Dulles Greenway was in that position.

Absolutely sure. 

My friend owned (and sold) the CBBTD bonds years before there had been one spade of dirt turned for the Greenway. 

But yes, the Greenway also had major problems paying its creditors in its early years of operation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Arcanra on June 16, 2013, 01:19:30 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 16, 2013, 09:11:21 AM
Echoing the sentiments of others, when I lived in VA I took 895 precisely once- to clinch it after it opened. Otherwise, never had a reason to. It's always surprised me that it even got built, considering there are so many other road projects in the state that are on hold that actually have a lot more potential to be useful.

Same here. Living in the area, and having several friends and family members that live near it, no one I knows uses it, due to the high toll. They all say the extra 10-15 minutes travel time per day isn't worth the money they would spend per week to use it. My step-father and mother just moved here from Alaska a few months ago and live near it, they hopped onto it one day not realizing how high the toll was, and my step father was amazed at how no one was on it. When he got to the toll booth, he understood why.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2013, 01:54:16 PM
Washington Post op-ed: Wasteful Charlottesville highway highlights problem with Bob McDonnell's road plans (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/wasteful-charlottesville-highway-highlights-problem-with-bob-mcdonnells-road-plans/2013/06/15/bb41b078-d539-11e2-b05f-3ea3f0e7bb5a_story.html)

QuoteA proposed six-mile highway outside Charlottesville is so wasteful and ill-conceived that it's achieved literary status. It prompted best-selling novelist and area resident John Grisham to write a book implicitly denouncing it.

Quote"The Activist,"  published last month and aimed at youths ages 10 to 12, is fictional. But Grisham said it was inspired by the decades-long battle over a $245 million bypass west of the city that's home to the University of Virginia.

QuoteGrisham, famed for such legal thrillers as "The Firm,"  said the new book is about "a boneheaded bypass around a lovely little college town and all the issues that go into such a boondoggle."

QuoteThe rest of the state, and especially Northern Virginia, should be equally appalled. The road is one of the most egregious examples of a pattern in which Gov. Bob McDonnell's administration relentlessly pushes a major highway project despite abundant evidence that the money could be spent more wisely elsewhere.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 17, 2013, 01:43:49 AM
For a bypass to truly work, it'd have to go all the way to Ruckersville, which would cost a pretty penny.  But implementing the Places29 vision that was created a few years ago would do a lot more for US 29 traffic than the bypass would.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 17, 2013, 02:55:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2013, 01:43:49 AM
For a bypass to truly work, it'd have to go all the way to Ruckersville, which would cost a pretty penny.  But implementing the Places29 vision that was created a few years ago would do a lot more for US 29 traffic than the bypass would.

I remember when that process was getting started years ago, but have not followed it at all.

I am gratified that they have an access management component to the document, which is (IMO) badly  needed along many sections of U.S. 29 across Virginia (except perhaps between Centreville and the District of Columbia, where access management is a lost cause).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 17, 2013, 03:57:33 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2013, 01:43:49 AM
For a bypass to truly work, it'd have to go all the way to Ruckersville, which would cost a pretty penny.  But implementing the Places29 vision that was created a few years ago would do a lot more for US 29 traffic than the bypass would.

Extending a bypass to Ruckersville would create various other problems as well (some of which would themselves raise the cost). There would almost certainly be some environmental hurdles because of the reservoir that's located behind the Rio Hill/Wal-Mart area. That's one reason the northern end of the currently-planned route is shoehorned in the way it is. I suppose it might be possible to take the currently-planned route east across 29 near the hotel (I think it's now the Doubletree; I still think of it as the Sheraton) and up the other side of Proffit Road so as to avoid the reservoir, but as you say, the cost would be prohibitive, and I don't doubt you might encounter some element of the "I-40 in Greensboro" issue where a fair number of people would opt for the current route because it'd be so much more direct. The people in Hollymead and Forest Lakes would understandably fight like hell to prevent the construction, too.

I am not familiar with the "Places29" plan, but I remember how it felt like an interminable mess when they rebuilt Route 29 from Hydraulic Road to the Rivanna River into its current configuration back in the early 1990s. I recall at the time there were plans to build interchanges at Hydraulic, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road, but they were deferred due to cost, space concerns, and serious opposition from the business community. Are those still part of the current plans?

They do have a legitimate problem, though, in that if you don't want to use 29 to go north—south (or vice versa) you have to go a good distance out of your way unless it's a strictly local trip. From the west side of town or from the University it's easy enough, if perhaps a bit slow at times, to get to the airport area via Hydraulic and Earlysville Roads; you just hang a right at the roundabout. The other side of town has no equivalent option (using Proffit Road means going across the Free Bridge to Pantops and up Route 20).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 17, 2013, 04:24:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2013, 03:57:33 PM
I am not familiar with the "Places29" plan, but I remember how it felt like an interminable mess when they rebuilt Route 29 from Hydraulic Road to the Rivanna River into its current configuration back in the early 1990s. I recall at the time there were plans to build interchanges at Hydraulic, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road, but they were deferred due to cost, space concerns, and serious opposition from the business community. Are those still part of the current plans?

Sorry, should have posted a link to it - it is hosted on the Albemarle County Web site: Places29 Master Plan (http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=3735)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 17, 2013, 04:26:08 PM
WTOP Radio: Transurban: Express Lanes don't have problems like Richmond toll road (http://wtop.com/120/3360123/Transurban-Express-Lanes-dont-have-problems-like-Richmond-toll-road)

QuoteCreditors are taking over operations of a state-owned toll road outside Richmond that is run by the same company that runs the 495 Express Lanes, though a representative of the company denies that there are any problems regarding the Beltway lanes.

QuoteTransurban, an Australian company, tells WTOP that the Pocahontas Parkway and 495 Express Lanes couldn't be more different, but a look at the numbers shows that the Beltway lanes have far fewer drivers using them at this point than originally projected, and other High Occupancy Toll lanes across the country are similarly coming up short of expectations for either the number of vehicles or the revenue raised.

QuoteInitial projections for the lanes, prior to the economy faltering several years ago, said that more than 66,000 trips would be made each weekday within the first year. The lanes have been open seven months, and traffic is well below those expectations.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 17, 2013, 05:59:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 17, 2013, 04:24:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 17, 2013, 03:57:33 PM
I am not familiar with the "Places29" plan, but I remember how it felt like an interminable mess when they rebuilt Route 29 from Hydraulic Road to the Rivanna River into its current configuration back in the early 1990s. I recall at the time there were plans to build interchanges at Hydraulic, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road, but they were deferred due to cost, space concerns, and serious opposition from the business community. Are those still part of the current plans?

Sorry, should have posted a link to it - it is hosted on the Albemarle County Web site: Places29 Master Plan (http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=3735)

Thanks. Lots of info there that I'll have to look at some other time. I found it interesting, though, to see that the logo on the page you linked is a green "29" shield in the shape of an Interstate shield.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on June 17, 2013, 07:19:05 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 16, 2013, 09:11:21 AM
Echoing the sentiments of others, when I lived in VA I took 895 precisely once- to clinch it after it opened. Otherwise, never had a reason to. It's always surprised me that it even got built, considering there are so many other road projects in the state that are on hold that actually have a lot more potential to be useful.

Same here, took it once just to clinch it and photograph it for the website (06-22-05): https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=s0895va

Way back in 1987, I scrounged up enough money to buy an ADC atlas of Richmond just because it showed it proposed as I-895.

Though the photos are old, the IGuide write-up was updated in October 2011 with some research I did with newsbank about the original I-895 proposal. The Interstate designation originated in 1981 and was dropped and resurrected through to at least 1992:

http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-895_va.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: akotchi on June 17, 2013, 08:52:51 PM
I oversaw the overhead sign designs for the western half of the roadway (west of Va 5) and a portion of Va 150, and the early designs (1996 or so) still had Interstate shields.  About midway through the design were they changed to state route markers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on June 18, 2013, 06:16:39 AM
Speaking of the Dulles Greenway...Frank Wolf is on em' again about it, and Macquarie Bank...

http://wolf.house.gov/press-releases/wolf-again-expresses-disapointment-with-greenway-tolls-urges-scc-to-address-problem/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 18, 2013, 05:56:20 PM
Washington Post local op-ed: A Va. judge's transportation roadblock (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/post/a-va-judges-transportation-roadblock/2013/06/18/06fe7f58-d834-11e2-9df4-895344c13c30_blog.html)

QuoteFor four decades, James A. "Jac"  Cales Jr. was a fixture on the judicial halls of Hampton Roads, albeit not one to take himself too seriously.

QuoteAs Portsmouth commonwealth's attorney for a decade in the 1970s, he would lean back in his chair, his hands folded over his stomach and nod vigorously when a defendant in a drug case admitted something incriminating. He later served for three decades as a General District and Circuit Court judge, retiring officially in December.

QuoteSo, it may be fitting that on May 1, while filling in temporarily, Cales issued what could be the most important decision of his long legal career. It is a decision that is turning Virginia's transportation funding on its head.

QuoteCales decided that a plan to have a private developer toll users for $2.1 billion in tunnel upgrades in crowded Hampton Roads is unconstitutional. Only the state has the power to tax and that's what tolls really are, Cales ruled.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 18, 2013, 06:06:05 PM
Richmond Times-Dispatch: Chesterfield - Tolls ruling poses $3.5 billion threat to Va. (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/chesterfield/tolls-ruling-poses-billion-threat-to-va/article_ca314774-d78c-11e2-b1b3-0019bb30f31a.html)

QuoteVirginia could face a liability of almost $3.5 billion if a recent court ruling is upheld and invalidates all state contracts for privately operated toll facilities on public highways, Transportation Secretary Sean T. Connaughton warned lawmakers today.

QuoteWhile the focus was on a Hampton Roads river crossing project that the state is defending in court, the fallout from the legal battle could include an estimated $502 million for Pocahontas 895, the toll parkway between Henrico and Chesterfield counties that was the first project approved under the Public-Private Transportation Act, and $71 million for the U.S. 460 expressway approved last year between Prince George County and Suffolk.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 18, 2013, 06:08:04 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on June 18, 2013, 06:16:39 AM
Speaking of the Dulles Greenway...Frank Wolf is on em' again about it, and Macquarie Bank...

http://wolf.house.gov/press-releases/wolf-again-expresses-disapointment-with-greenway-tolls-urges-scc-to-address-problem/

If Rep. Wolf does not like private-sector toll roads, then he needs to resign  his seat in Congress and run for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates or Virginia Senate, and work to end all privately-owned toll roads across the Commonwealth.

Admittedly, the ruling by Judge Cales could have that desired effect, though it might not impact the Greenway  or its ownership.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 18, 2013, 06:30:30 PM
Judge Cales:

QuoteAt the heart of the legal concern is the ruling by Portsmouth Circuit Court Judge James A. Cales Jr. last month that the public-private partnership law unconstitutionally delegated legislative authority to private entities to raise tolls that he said are, in effect, taxes.

I'm not sure if I understand why tolls are "in effect, taxes".  private companies charge all kinds of fees to render all kinds of services.  how is a toll road different?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 18, 2013, 08:52:54 PM
I was briefly a property manager in Portsmouth in 1995, the very first time I had to sue a tenant for non-payment on behalf of the landlord, the Judge called me to the bench and said "son, I'm going to be easy on you since this is the first time in my courtroom, but landlords never win with me regardless of the facts".  Six months later the Peninsula Pilot paper ran a series on Judges in Hampton Roads who refused to uphold landlord/tenant laws in their courtrooms, the judge I encountered was on their list.  the judge tried to get a sheriff to arrest the reporter for contempt.  I would swear it was this same judge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on June 19, 2013, 07:17:53 AM
If Rep. Wolf does not like private-sector toll roads, then he needs to resign  his seat in Congress and run for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates or Virginia Senate, and work to end all privately-owned toll roads across the Commonwealth.

Admittedly, the ruling by Judge Cales could have that desired effect, though it might not impact the Greenway  or its ownership.
[/quote]

Rep. Wolf is trying to do the job that the Gen. Assy. will not do, and I applaud his efforts. I have brought this subject up with our local Gen. Assy.reps. as well, who seem uninterested. I agree that there should be no privately owned toll roads in Va. or elsewhere.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 19, 2013, 04:28:09 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on June 19, 2013, 07:17:53 AMAssy.


a great descriptor of the political machine.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 19, 2013, 05:22:52 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on June 19, 2013, 07:17:53 AM
Rep. Wolf is trying to do the job that the Gen. Assy. will not do, and I applaud his efforts. I have brought this subject up with our local Gen. Assy.reps. as well, who seem uninterested. I agree that there should be no privately owned toll roads in Va. or elsewhere.

It was Wolf's own party, during the time that George Felix Allen was governor, that the Public-Private Transportation Act (http://www.virginiadot.org/business/ppta-default.asp) was enacted into law (though the Dulles Greenway predates the PPTA).

I don't personally have any problem with privately-owned toll roads, but there are some people that seem to think that private means less expensive, and that may not be the case (and probably is not the case), though the Dulles Toll Road remains in the hands of a public-sector operator in the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, and tolls there have been increased enormously to pay for the construction of the train line to Dulles Airport.

Virginia does not have a statewide counterpart to agencies like the Maryland Transportation Authority or the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, quite possibly because there is a preference (among members of its General Assembly) for PPTA projects like the I-495 HOV/Toll Lanes and the pending conversion to HOV/Toll operation for the I-95 HOV lanes as part of their extension into Stafford County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2013, 01:52:04 PM
Washington Post Dr. Gridlock:  Virginia asking private sector for ideas on I-66 improvements (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2013/06/27/virginia-asking-private-sector-for-ideas-on-i-66-improvements/)

QuoteThe Virginia state government has issued a call to the private sector for ideas on improving Interstate 66 outside the Capital Beltway. Those ideas may include converting the High Occupancy Lanes into express toll lanes similar to those now in use on the Beltway.

QuoteThe ideas under consideration also include widening I-66 by adding regular travel lanes and creating a light rail line in the median. The program also could improve interchanges, ease choke points and better manage traffic with enhanced traveler information.

QuoteEasing congestion on I-66 is one of the greatest challenges that transportation planners face in Northern Virginia. The ideas under review now focus on the 25-mile corridor between the Beltway and Route 15 in Haymarket.

QuoteVirginia transportation officials completed an environmental review that advances all these ideas for further consideration, but there's a fairly long timeline on major changes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 29, 2013, 06:48:25 AM
Ultimately, I-66 will need a bit of everything.  Far more than what the private sector would be willing to front.  Here we go again with Virginia and their PPP's...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 01, 2013, 08:45:13 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 29, 2013, 06:48:25 AM
Ultimately, I-66 will need a bit of everything.  Far more than what the private sector would be willing to front.  Here we go again with Virginia and their PPP's...

What would you suggest for dealing with the misery of I-66?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 01, 2013, 09:42:13 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 01, 2013, 08:45:13 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 29, 2013, 06:48:25 AM
Ultimately, I-66 will need a bit of everything.  Far more than what the private sector would be willing to front.  Here we go again with Virginia and their PPP's...

What would you suggest for dealing with the misery of I-66?

Nothing can be done, IMHO, other than the invention of the transporter, than all commuting will be easy..."Energize"..
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 01, 2013, 09:57:43 AM
Article about traffic controls and related matters in the City of Richmond and Henrico County on Richmond.com that could be of interest here.

Why Richmond, Why?!? Traffic Signal Issues in the Suburbs (http://www.richmond.com/city-life/why-richmond-why/article_b03e7cf2-e000-11e2-9e69-001a4bcf6878.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 08, 2013, 12:38:20 AM
Washington Post: Northern Virginia tries to think big about road, transit improvements (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/northern-virginia-tries-to-think-big-about-road-transit-improvements/2013/07/05/7ed6f3fe-e1b0-11e2-80eb-3145e2994a55_story.html)

QuoteAs Northern Virginians debate how they should invest new transportation revenue, the region's jurisdictions are pressing for local projects on their wish lists. Reviewing those lists, some transportation advocates urge that the money be spent on the biggest possible congestion-busters, and fear it might not be.

QuoteAt times, the debate can sound like it's between people who want to spend money on highway relief for thousands and people who want fancy bus shelters for a handful of transit users.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 08, 2013, 01:09:21 AM
As a general rule, smaller projects offer more "bang for the buck", and can be congestion-busters in their own right.  Nevermind that you can fund more of them with the limited funds available.  MnDOT has slowly discovered this over the past 10 years.  It's time VDOT followed suit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 08, 2013, 08:06:48 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2013, 01:09:21 AM
As a general rule, smaller projects offer more "bang for the buck", and can be congestion-busters in their own right.  Nevermind that you can fund more of them with the limited funds available.  MnDOT has slowly discovered this over the past 10 years.  It's time VDOT followed suit.

My thoughts:

(1) There's so much to do in Northern Virginia, and even with this funding boost, there's not nearly enough money to do it all.

(2) I don't think VDOT is setting  the priorities here - the county and municipal elected officials on  the NVTA board are doing that.

(3) I agree with you - "smallball" projects can yield big results - single best example in recent years I can cite was the decision by VDOT to rebuild the exit ramp from the Outer Loop (southbound) of I-495 to westbound Va. 267 (DTR) from one lane to two lanes (and they made the curve a little less sharp in the process).  That small project yielded immediate benefits in the form of less recurring congestion and reduced vehicle emissions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 13, 2013, 08:58:21 PM
Washington Post: Would the Bi-County Parkway be a boost for Dulles International Airport? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/would-the-bi-county-parkway-be-a-boost-for-dulles-international-airport/2013/07/13/a1269a30-cfaf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html)

QuoteDulles International Airport has seen a tough few years. Fewer passengers are flying into and out of the airport's iconic terminal. Less cargo is moving across its tarmacs. And with the global economy still sputtering, there's no telling when the airport's fortunes will turn around.

QuoteA solution, some Virginia officials say, is the long-debated Bi-County Parkway, a proposed road between Prince William and Loudoun counties that could serve as a new conduit for people and cargo passing through Dulles. Proponents say it would spur business development by offering a vital north-south link to the airport, giving businesses easy access to an international gateway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 14, 2013, 03:18:39 AM
A short-term boost, at best.  Long-term prospects don't bode well for air travel, and the cost for this would be a worse situation on 66.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 14, 2013, 11:35:54 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 14, 2013, 03:18:39 AM
A short-term boost, at best.  Long-term prospects don't bode well for air travel, and the cost for this would be a worse situation on 66.

Please elaborate regarding air travel.  I know there have been groups (apparently more in Europe than North America) opposed to air travel (and airport expansion, such as at London Heathrow) and claim that trains will replace airplanes, but I am not convinced of the validity of such assertions, especially for longer trips (say over about 400 or 500 kilometers (250 to 300 miles)).

In the Eastern U.S., the Northeast Corridor (NEC) is a pretty good travel market for trains, especially for trips headed to New York City from any of the cities on the NEC to the north or south of Penn Station, but apparently travel from Washington to Boston on Acela is not all that popular (the longest-possible trip on that service), since the travel time is between 6 and 7 hours.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on July 14, 2013, 08:56:48 PM
I'm not sure as to how many people ride the Acela all the way from D.C. to Boston, but the service is more targeted towards people on intermediate legs anyway. Amtrak only reports statistics for the individual D.C.-NYC and NYC-Boston segments, and many trains only run one of those legs.

I would think a fair number of people do take it all the way though, or (like I did last month) almost all the way from Boston to a city like Philadelphia or Baltimore, considering Amtrak has a >50% market share on both legs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 15, 2013, 01:13:24 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 14, 2013, 08:56:48 PM
I'm not sure as to how many people ride the Acela all the way from D.C. to Boston, but the service is more targeted towards people on intermediate legs anyway. Amtrak only reports statistics for the individual D.C.-NYC and NYC-Boston segments, and many trains only run one of those legs.

I agree that they are not marketing Acela service all the way from end-to-end.  A colleague of mine did the trip northbound some years ago, and really liked it, but he also pointed out that flying (even with the time spent getting through security) would have been a lot faster.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 14, 2013, 08:56:48 PM
I would think a fair number of people do take it all the way though, or (like I did last month) almost all the way from Boston to a city like Philadelphia or Baltimore, considering Amtrak has a >50% market share on both legs.

Baltimore is almost Washington (well under an hour travel time between Baltimore Penn Station and Washington Union Station), so I would think that the same limitations apply when the other trip end is Boston (or some arbitrary point north of New York, perhaps north of New Haven).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 15, 2013, 10:03:13 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Virginia's framework for toll financing - McDonnell's drafty PPTA pipeline (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6639)

QuoteVirginia's increasingly uncertain arrangements for financing roads are nicely captured in the mixed metaphors of the latest from state governor Bob McDonnell. He has released a "Draft Virginia PPTA Pipeline." Now most pipelines are solid constructs. Once you're in a soundly constructed pipeline you don't get out until you reach the other end. Not under the McDonnell Administration in Richmond however. Virginia has a leaky P3 pipeline!

QuoteLess than a year ago tolls on I-95 on the longhaul between the outskirts of the DC metro area and North Carolina used to be a big part of the fuel in the McDonnell PPTA 'pipeline.' I-95, a premium grade product in the VA P3 pipeline seems to have leaked right out on McDonnell's watch. Gone!

QuoteThe list has a very leaky look. Explosive even.

QuoteThere's the Elizabeth River Crossings. Under a big PPTA toll concession they are due to start tolling February 1 2014 and the concessionaire is heavily invested in construction of an extra tunnel and other improvements. Yet a judge in Portsmouth, James Cales has put a stay on tolls there ruling that Virginia's P3 legislation is unconstitutional. He said the legislature couldn't delegates toll setting powers to the executive branch.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 16, 2013, 08:16:59 AM
Wow, Peter, tell us how you REALLY feel about the Gov and candidates...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2013, 04:34:45 PM
Washington Post op-ed/blog: Virginia's road-planning disaster (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/post/virginias-road-planning-disaster/2013/07/18/2f98546a-ef28-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_blog.html)

QuoteIt is curious how the drums are being beaten loudly for more truck traffic related to Dulles International Airport in a part of the metropolitan area that is already overwhelmed with traffic congestion.

QuoteIt's little more than a marketing campaign for the Bi-County Parkway that would link the airport with Interstate 66, which would send ill-considered sprawl in a new direction while adding thousands more trucks, making roads more clogged than they are.

QuoteWell, the airplane has been out of the hangar a little too long for Dulles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 19, 2013, 10:12:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2013, 04:34:45 PM
Washington Post op-ed/blog: Virginia's road-planning disaster (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/post/virginias-road-planning-disaster/2013/07/18/2f98546a-ef28-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_blog.html)

QuoteIt's little more than a marketing campaign for the Bi-County Parkway that would link the airport with Interstate 66, which would send ill-considered sprawl in a new direction while adding thousands more trucks, making roads more clogged than they are.

Unless the land has been spoken for as open space/farming/undeveloper, etc, would the land become developed regardless of this above issue?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 20, 2013, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 19, 2013, 10:12:27 AM
Unless the land has been spoken for as open space/farming/undeveloper, etc, would the land become developed regardless of this above issue?

Eventually, I believe the answer is yes.  The secondary roads are already  there, though many of them secondary  and primary roads are at or over capacity now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 21, 2013, 10:44:18 PM
Washington Post op-ed: Virginia can't create demand at Dulles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/virginia-cant-create-demand-at-dulles/2013/07/19/ed0b2342-efb9-11e2-8c36-0e868255a989_story.html)

QuoteIf a shrinking number of people want to fly in and out of an airport, is the solution to spend a billion dollars to build a road there? Or is the better approach to build infrastructure where people do want to go?

QuoteThe former doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but that's exactly what we're hearing from the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) and Virginia officials about the proposed Bi-County Parkway.

QuoteThe Post explored the question in the July 14 Metro article "Could a Pr. William-Loudoun road revive Dulles?"  The basic issue is that people seem more eager to fly in and out of Reagan National Airport than Dulles. Congress recently added exemptions to Reagan's perimeter rule that has allowed for airlines to add more long-distance flights, helping to spur a 5 percent increase in passenger traffic last year. Meanwhile, Dulles saw 2 percent growth in international traffic, but domestic traffic dropped 8 percent.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 21, 2013, 10:46:06 PM
Washington Post:  Bi-County Parkway in Virginia will add congestion, groups argue (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/groups-argue-bi-county-parkway-will-add-congestion/2013/07/19/19ac3a62-ef10-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html)

QuoteA coalition of groups critical of the proposed Bi-County Parkway has released a report it says bolsters its case that the roadway could worsen traffic congestion in Loudoun and Prince William counties.

QuoteNorman L. Marshall, president of Smart Mobility, which conducted the analysis using data from the Virginia Department of Transportation, said the north-south roadway would create new bottlenecks.

Quote"Building the [Bi-County Parkway] would generate more overall traffic – and more north-south travel – in the study area than would be the case if the [Bi-County Parkway] is not built,"  the report said.

QuoteThe study, released last week, is the latest in the back-and-forth battle over the proposed parkway, which would provide a north-south connection between Loudoun and Prince William counties. Supporters of the roadway say it is needed to accommodate future population growth and promote economic development.

Quote"We're not just talking about the present, we're talking about the future,"  said Bob Chase, head of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, which backs the road. "The best way to ensure that more people in this region have shorter commutes is to provide more jobs closer to where people live and have a grid that gives them a chance to move north, south, east and west."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on July 23, 2013, 08:28:00 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 21, 2013, 10:46:06 PM
Washington Post:  Bi-County Parkway in Virginia will add congestion, groups argue (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/groups-argue-bi-county-parkway-will-add-congestion/2013/07/19/19ac3a62-ef10-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html)

QuoteA coalition of groups critical of the proposed Bi-County Parkway has released a report it says bolsters its case that the roadway could worsen traffic congestion in Loudoun and Prince William counties.

QuoteNorman L. Marshall, president of Smart Mobility, which conducted the analysis using data from the Virginia Department of Transportation, said the north-south roadway would create new bottlenecks.

Quote"Building the [Bi-County Parkway] would generate more overall traffic – and more north-south travel – in the study area than would be the case if the [Bi-County Parkway] is not built,"  the report said.

QuoteThe study, released last week, is the latest in the back-and-forth battle over the proposed parkway, which would provide a north-south connection between Loudoun and Prince William counties. Supporters of the roadway say it is needed to accommodate future population growth and promote economic development.

Quote"We're not just talking about the present, we're talking about the future,"  said Bob Chase, head of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, which backs the road. "The best way to ensure that more people in this region have shorter commutes is to provide more jobs closer to where people live and have a grid that gives them a chance to move north, south, east and west."

I'm no expert on I-66 East in Rush hour traffic. However, one day a few weeks ago, I noticed how all of the bumper-to-bumper traffic I encountered broke up east on the VA-28 interchange (there were tons exiting there -- i.e. people from Manassas, Gainesville, Haymarket, and points west going to Dulles Airport, Herndon, Reston, etc. ). I wonder what a great deal of good for commuters to Arlington and DC this road could be if all of this traffic had an alternate route to get where they're going. Just my two cents.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 24, 2013, 03:00:34 AM
QuoteBi-County Parkway is much needed.

Disagree for the most part.  A 2-lane extension of the 234 bypass to get around the park would be useful so that NPS can have 234 closed through the park (a goal of theirs).  Otherwise, it'll make a bad situation on 66 a lot worse.  Also note that VDOT and supporters keep changing their tune as to why they want the road built...a strong sign that it's not really for congestion relief.

Aside from the above-mentioned battlefield bypass, before they spend one dime on the Bi-County Parkway, they should spend the money on improving 66.  Period.  No ifs-ands-or-buts.  East-west is where the real traffic problems west of the Beltway are...not north-south.  Eliminating some of the signals along 7 and 50 would be a plus too.

If you really want to sink money into a north-south route, why not improve 28 or the Fairfax County Parkway?  That's where the people and traffic are, after all...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on July 24, 2013, 03:55:29 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2013, 03:00:34 AM
why not improve 28?
Because I-366.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 24, 2013, 08:07:48 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2013, 03:00:34 AM
QuoteBi-County Parkway is much needed.

Disagree for the most part.  A 2-lane extension of the 234 bypass to get around the park would be useful so that NPS can have 234 closed through the park (a goal of theirs).  Otherwise, it'll make a bad situation on 66 a lot worse.  Also note that VDOT and supporters keep changing their tune as to why they want the road built...a strong sign that it's not really for congestion relief.

Getting Va. 234 (and U.S. 29) traffic out of the park is a reasonable and worthy  goal.  But those opposed to all highway improvements would rather keep the status quo (though they don't come right out and say that), because a new road might be better (and as they would like everyone to believe) might "induce" traffic.

Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2013, 03:00:34 AM
Aside from the above-mentioned battlefield bypass, before they spend one dime on the Bi-County Parkway, they should spend the money on improving 66.  Period.  No ifs-ands-or-buts.  East-west is where the real traffic problems west of the Beltway are...not north-south.  Eliminating some of the signals along 7 and 50 would be a plus too.

If it was your decision, what would you do to improve performance on I-66?

Quote from: froggie on July 24, 2013, 03:00:34 AM
If you really want to sink money into a north-south route, why not improve 28 or the Fairfax County Parkway?  That's where the people and traffic are, after all...

Getting rid of the remaining at-grade signalized intersections along Va. 28 between I-66 and U.S. 50 also seems like a worthy (and probably not that expensive) goal, in part because I believe the room is there.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 24, 2013, 08:13:03 AM
Quote from: dfnva on July 23, 2013, 08:28:00 AM
I'm no expert on I-66 East in Rush hour traffic. However, one day a few weeks ago, I noticed how all of the bumper-to-bumper traffic I encountered broke up east on the VA-28 interchange (there were tons exiting there -- i.e. people from Manassas, Gainesville, Haymarket, and points west going to Dulles Airport, Herndon, Reston, etc. ). I wonder what a great deal of good for commuters to Arlington and DC this road could be if all of this traffic had an alternate route to get where they're going. Just my two cents.

Oh, there's plenty more terrible traffic on I-66, especially between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks and I-495.

There was to have been an alternate route that was cancelled in part because "nobody was going to need it."

It was called the Monticello Freeway, and it would have roughly run parallel to Va. 620 (Braddock Road). Its eastern terminus was a tie-in to Va. 120 (Glebe Road) in Arlington County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 24, 2013, 09:36:08 AM
I believe the NVTA plans some improvements to Route 28, but I'm not sure what other than that an interchange at Braddock is not planned.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 24, 2013, 12:27:32 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 24, 2013, 08:13:03 AM
Quote from: dfnva on July 23, 2013, 08:28:00 AM
I'm no expert on I-66 East in Rush hour traffic. However, one day a few weeks ago, I noticed how all of the bumper-to-bumper traffic I encountered broke up east on the VA-28 interchange (there were tons exiting there -- i.e. people from Manassas, Gainesville, Haymarket, and points west going to Dulles Airport, Herndon, Reston, etc. ). I wonder what a great deal of good for commuters to Arlington and DC this road could be if all of this traffic had an alternate route to get where they're going. Just my two cents.

Oh, there's plenty more terrible traffic on I-66, especially between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks and I-495.

There was to have been an alternate route that was cancelled in part because "nobody was going to need it."

It was called the Monticello Freeway, and it would have roughly run parallel to Va. 620 (Braddock Road). Its eastern terminus was a tie-in to Va. 120 (Glebe Road) in Arlington County.

Was that road part of the original master D.C. Metro hub-and-spoke plan, from the early 60's?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 24, 2013, 12:48:02 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 24, 2013, 12:27:32 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 24, 2013, 08:13:03 AM
Quote from: dfnva on July 23, 2013, 08:28:00 AM
I'm no expert on I-66 East in Rush hour traffic. However, one day a few weeks ago, I noticed how all of the bumper-to-bumper traffic I encountered broke up east on the VA-28 interchange (there were tons exiting there -- i.e. people from Manassas, Gainesville, Haymarket, and points west going to Dulles Airport, Herndon, Reston, etc. ). I wonder what a great deal of good for commuters to Arlington and DC this road could be if all of this traffic had an alternate route to get where they're going. Just my two cents.

Oh, there's plenty more terrible traffic on I-66, especially between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks and I-495.

There was to have been an alternate route that was cancelled in part because "nobody was going to need it."

It was called the Monticello Freeway, and it would have roughly run parallel to Va. 620 (Braddock Road). Its eastern terminus was a tie-in to Va. 120 (Glebe Road) in Arlington County.

Was that road part of the original master D.C. Metro hub-and-spoke plan, from the early 60's?

I believe so. Forum member "NE2" found an archived copy of Scott Kozel's subsite about that plan (someone else had built the subsite and Kozel hosted it for him). Click the link below and then look under "History and Maps."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081207055023/http://www.roadstothefuture.com/roadsnova/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 24, 2013, 02:03:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 24, 2013, 12:48:02 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 24, 2013, 12:27:32 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 24, 2013, 08:13:03 AM
Quote from: dfnva on July 23, 2013, 08:28:00 AM
I'm no expert on I-66 East in Rush hour traffic. However, one day a few weeks ago, I noticed how all of the bumper-to-bumper traffic I encountered broke up east on the VA-28 interchange (there were tons exiting there -- i.e. people from Manassas, Gainesville, Haymarket, and points west going to Dulles Airport, Herndon, Reston, etc. ). I wonder what a great deal of good for commuters to Arlington and DC this road could be if all of this traffic had an alternate route to get where they're going. Just my two cents.

Oh, there's plenty more terrible traffic on I-66, especially between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks and I-495.

There was to have been an alternate route that was cancelled in part because "nobody was going to need it."

It was called the Monticello Freeway, and it would have roughly run parallel to Va. 620 (Braddock Road). Its eastern terminus was a tie-in to Va. 120 (Glebe Road) in Arlington County.

Was that road part of the original master D.C. Metro hub-and-spoke plan, from the early 60's?

I believe so. Forum member "NE2" found an archived copy of Scott Kozel's subsite about that plan (someone else had built the subsite and Kozel hosted it for him). Click the link below and then look under "History and Maps."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081207055023/http://www.roadstothefuture.com/roadsnova/
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 24, 2013, 12:48:02 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 24, 2013, 12:27:32 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 24, 2013, 08:13:03 AM
Quote from: dfnva on July 23, 2013, 08:28:00 AM
I'm no expert on I-66 East in Rush hour traffic. However, one day a few weeks ago, I noticed how all of the bumper-to-bumper traffic I encountered broke up east on the VA-28 interchange (there were tons exiting there -- i.e. people from Manassas, Gainesville, Haymarket, and points west going to Dulles Airport, Herndon, Reston, etc. ). I wonder what a great deal of good for commuters to Arlington and DC this road could be if all of this traffic had an alternate route to get where they're going. Just my two cents.

Oh, there's plenty more terrible traffic on I-66, especially between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks and I-495.

There was to have been an alternate route that was cancelled in part because "nobody was going to need it."

It was called the Monticello Freeway, and it would have roughly run parallel to Va. 620 (Braddock Road). Its eastern terminus was a tie-in to Va. 120 (Glebe Road) in Arlington County.

Was that road part of the original master D.C. Metro hub-and-spoke plan, from the early 60's?

I believe so. Forum member "NE2" found an archived copy of Scott Kozel's subsite about that plan (someone else had built the subsite and Kozel hosted it for him). Click the link below and then look under "History and Maps."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081207055023/http://www.roadstothefuture.com/roadsnova/

That's not the one, but parts of it are included. There was an article in the WaPo Mag. some years ago, that was devoted to it, the Inner/Outer Beltways, how SE D.C. was going to be virtually paved over with the D.C. Inner Beltway. The "spokes" from the Inner Beltway were going to connect to the (2?)Outer Beltway(s), plan was developed either slightly before/after 1960.

As far as the Bi-County Pkwy goes....looks like a small part of what was the 'ol Western Bypass, planned to go from near F-Burg to the Balt. Beltway....?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 25, 2013, 10:49:14 AM
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/DC_Interstate_Fwy.html

Not as extensive as the WaPo Mag. article was ( which I could not find), but has the basic plan...the article was more about how the inner city population was going to be dispersed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 25, 2013, 10:54:49 AM
If you're referring to Bob Levey's article in the Post Magazine, that article's credibility has been severely rebutted several times. That's not to say he didn't have some valid points about the deleterious effects some of the proposed highways would have had on several DC neighborhoods, mind you. But he severely exaggerated the amount of "paving over" that would have taken place.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 25, 2013, 12:58:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 25, 2013, 10:54:49 AM
If you're referring to Bob Levey's article in the Post Magazine, that article's credibility has been severely rebutted several times. That's not to say he didn't have some valid points about the deleterious effects some of the proposed highways would have had on several DC neighborhoods, mind you. But he severely exaggerated the amount of "paving over" that would have taken place.

That is it. I remember the paving over bit was the main focus of the article. So what were the issues with the credibility of the piece?  Is it still in WaPo's archives?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 25, 2013, 01:27:38 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 25, 2013, 12:58:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 25, 2013, 10:54:49 AM
If you're referring to Bob Levey's article in the Post Magazine, that article's credibility has been severely rebutted several times. That's not to say he didn't have some valid points about the deleterious effects some of the proposed highways would have had on several DC neighborhoods, mind you. But he severely exaggerated the amount of "paving over" that would have taken place.

That is it. I remember the paving over bit was the main focus of the article. So what were the issues with the credibility of the piece?  Is it still in WaPo's archives?

I don't know whether it's still available. One major criticism I recall being levelled is that Levey cited some number of square miles of parkland that would have been paved over for Interstate highways and critics showed that the figure was equal to the entire square mileage of the ORIGINAL District of Columbia (pre-retrocession of the Virginia side in 1847).

I did a Google search and found that Doug Willinger and Scott Kozel did a pretty thorough analysis of Levey's claims:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2007/03/bob-and-jane-levey-refuted.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 26, 2013, 05:12:40 AM
On my to-do list is creating a map showing the freeway corridors that were proposed in the late 1960s.  The idea for the "Monticello Freeway" may have started sooner, but it was in the 1969 Northern Virginia Major Thoroughfare Plan that it was extensively documented (and platted out too).  There was also a DeLew Cather and Associates report from 1971 on the DC Interstates and the 1967 Master Plan of Highways for both Prince George's and Montgomery Counties in Maryland.  Earlier DC plans from the 1950s showed a more extensive system of freeways and parkways within the DC core, but I have less verifiable information sources on what that system was, plus some of those early maps didn't clarify whether a route was going to be a full freeway, a parkway, or an at-grade partial-access arterial.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 26, 2013, 07:52:01 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 26, 2013, 05:12:40 AM
On my to-do list is creating a map showing the freeway corridors that were proposed in the late 1960s.  The idea for the "Monticello Freeway" may have started sooner, but it was in the 1969 Northern Virginia Major Thoroughfare Plan that it was extensively documented (and platted out too).  There was also a DeLew Cather and Associates report from 1971 on the DC Interstates and the 1967 Master Plan of Highways for both Prince George's and Montgomery Counties in Maryland.  Earlier DC plans from the 1950s showed a more extensive system of freeways and parkways within the DC core, but I have less verifiable information sources on what that system was, plus some of those early maps didn't clarify whether a route was going to be a full freeway, a parkway, or an at-grade partial-access arterial.


As I remember about the 2000 article in the Post Mag, the most interesting thing about it IMO were the maps/drawings that accompanied the article. That project you are describing, creating that map, would be awesome, especially combined with the old original maps, please proceed!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 28, 2013, 04:26:28 AM
QuoteIf it was your decision, what would you do to improve performance on I-66?

Optimally, about $3 billion worth.  In no particular order, extend the Orange Line to at least Fair Oaks, improved VRE service along the Manassas Line (with an extension to Haymarket), a 2-lane barrier-separated HOV facility from the Beltway to at least Centreville, implode the interchange at 28 and start over, a flyover from EB 66 to NB 7100 (nee 286), a consistent and permanent 4 lanes each way from Gainesville to the Beltway (IMO, Gainesville to 15 at Haymarket only needs 6 lanes, not 8), and auxiliary lanes between the Beltway and Nutley, between 123 and 50, and between 7100 and 29/Centreville.

A more realistic, more limited build would include VRE, a new interchange at 28, auxiliary lanes between 28 and 7100, the 7100 flyover, and 8 permanent lanes (thus restoring the shoulder) from Fair Oaks to the Beltway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2013, 01:35:06 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 28, 2013, 04:26:28 AM
A more realistic, more limited build would include VRE, a new interchange at 28, auxiliary lanes between 28 and 7100, the 7100 flyover, and 8 permanent lanes (thus restoring the shoulder) from Fair Oaks to the Beltway.

If current patronage on VRE is any guide, that is not going to divert very many trips - and none at all going to Tysons Corner, since VRE does not serve that destination.

That is what VDOT is proposing to do with a new  I-66 Active Traffic Management System.

See the video here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ZZKhaLRzI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ZZKhaLRzI)

Because there are no lanes added (at least as part of this project), it should be  (in relative terms) pretty cheap  to implement.  Though I really dislike the idea of not having shoulders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 29, 2013, 02:53:17 AM
QuoteIf current patronage on VRE is any guide, that is not going to divert very many trips - and none at all going to Tysons Corner, since VRE does not serve that destination.

Disagree.  It'll divert trips...that same "VRE patronage" shows it to be pretty popular and crowded.  Problem is there's a huge amount of latent demand on I-66, so that whatever gets diverted will refill very quickly.  Doesn't mean VRE expansion shouldn't be done (it very much should).  Giving people options is just as important as "adding capacity".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2013, 11:01:44 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 29, 2013, 02:53:17 AM
QuoteIf current patronage on VRE is any guide, that is not going to divert very many trips - and none at all going to Tysons Corner, since VRE does not serve that destination.

Disagree.  It'll divert trips...that same "VRE patronage" shows it to be pretty popular and crowded.

VRE can divert some trips (and it's doing it now).  But since the boardings for both Manassas and Fredericksburg lines are around 20,000 for both rush hours, that is not a huge number of trips.  It  is a matter of scale.

Quote from: froggie on July 29, 2013, 02:53:17 AM
Problem is there's a huge amount of latent demand on I-66, so that whatever gets diverted will refill very quickly.  Doesn't mean VRE expansion shouldn't be done (it very much should).  Giving people options is just as important as "adding capacity".

We have been giving people options since the 1920's in the  D.C. area.  Since the 1970's with Metrorail. In spite of that, the mode of choice for most users of the transportation system is the private automobile (and that is a good thing, since most of the subsidies to run transit, including VRE, come from highway user fees and taxes).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2013, 07:05:09 PM
Washington Business Journal: Tolling, HOV eyed as part of Fairfax County Parkway study (http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/2013/07/tolling-hov-eyed-as-part-of-fairfax.html)

QuoteFrom new interchanges to toll lanes to bus rapid transit, Fairfax County leaders want the state to study potential solutions to traffic congestion on two major county roads.

QuoteThe Board of Supervisors will vote Tuesday to launch a detailed analysis of traffic relief options on the Fairfax County and Franconia-Springfield parkways. First, the board will ask the Virginia Department of Transportation to tackle the $1.5 million job, and if it refuses, the county will pay for the work itself.

QuoteThe study would cover the Fairfax County Parkway from Route 7 to Route 1, and the Franconia-Springfield Parkway to Beulah Street.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2013, 12:38:45 AM
Washington Post:  Foes of Bi-County Parkway in Pr. William and Loudoun unite in grass-roots campaign (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/foes-of-bi-county-parkway-in-pr-william-and-loudoun-unite-in-grass-roots-campaign/2013/07/29/16487b30-e018-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 30, 2013, 04:01:27 AM
QuoteIn spite of that, the mode of choice for most users of the transportation system is the private automobile (and that is a good thing, since most of the subsidies to run transit, including VRE, come from highway user fees and taxes).

It's a good thing...?  Sitting in a mess of traffic on the Beltway or 66 or 95 is a good thing?  Finding parking in the DC core during peak hours is a good thing?  (or hunting for parking at Tysons Corner for that matter).

And how about the subsidies that come to run the road network?  Including but not limited to property taxes (including from non-drivers), sales taxes (in Virginia), and not the least of which Congress having to bail out the Highway Trust Fund from the General Treasury to the tune of billions of dollars (much more than gets taken out for the mass transit fund) over the past 5 years.

Keep in mind that land-use decisions that overwhelmingly segregated uses and all-but-forced suburban residents to drive is in no small part the reason why the car is the "mode of choice for most users".  Because it's the ONLY choice.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 10:16:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 28, 2013, 04:26:28 AM
QuoteIf it was your decision, what would you do to improve performance on I-66?

Optimally, about $3 billion worth.  In no particular order, extend the Orange Line to at least Fair Oaks, improved VRE service along the Manassas Line (with an extension to Haymarket), a 2-lane barrier-separated HOV facility from the Beltway to at least Centreville, implode the interchange at 28 and start over, a flyover from EB 66 to NB 7100 (nee 286), a consistent and permanent 4 lanes each way from Gainesville to the Beltway (IMO, Gainesville to 15 at Haymarket only needs 6 lanes, not 8), and auxiliary lanes between the Beltway and Nutley, between 123 and 50, and between 7100 and 29/Centreville.

I like your list.  I am not so enthused about Metrorail extensions, because of the operational limitations of the system, but I think running the Orange Line to Fair  Oaks or maybe  even to Fair Lakes makes some sense, because enormous numbers of Orange Line patrons live in that direction, and an extension actually would divert some trips to transit. 

As for the HOV facility, make it HOV/Toll and we have agreement. 

Not sure that any widening is needed between Gainesville and Haymarket, but what is needed is a much better interchange than the wheezing diamond at U.S. 15 that's been there since that part of 66 opened in the late 1970's or early 1980's.

Aux lanes would help, and can be connected to the C-D roadways already in place at Va. 243 (Nutley Street) and (partially) at Va. 123.
 
Quote from: froggie on July 28, 2013, 04:26:28 AM
A more realistic, more limited build would include VRE, a new interchange at 28, auxiliary lanes between 28 and 7100, the 7100 flyover, and 8 permanent lanes (thus restoring the shoulder) from Fair Oaks to the Beltway.

That is a pretty good start.  I am not so enthused about VRE to Haymarket for reasons previously discussed, but it looks like it is going to happen regardless of what I think about it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 10:23:53 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 30, 2013, 04:01:27 AM
QuoteIn spite of that, the mode of choice for most users of the transportation system is the private automobile (and that is a good thing, since most of the subsidies to run transit, including VRE, come from highway user fees and taxes).

It's a good thing...?  Sitting in a mess of traffic on the Beltway or 66 or 95 is a good thing?  Finding parking in the DC core during peak hours is a good thing?  (or hunting for parking at Tysons Corner for that matter).

Without subsidies from highway users, all of the Metrorail system (and Metrobus as well) would immediately shut down and all capital spending would cease.  That is what anyone in favor of transit needs to consider.

Quote from: froggie on July 30, 2013, 04:01:27 AM
And how about the subsidies that come to run the road network?  Including but not limited to property taxes (including from non-drivers), sales taxes (in Virginia), and not the least of which Congress having to bail out the Highway Trust Fund from the General Treasury to the tune of billions of dollars (much more than gets taken out for the mass transit fund) over the past 5 years.

You are spotlighting a political problem. Members of both houses of Congress from both parties are terrified of proposing an increase in the per-gallon motor fuel tax. 

Quote from: froggie on July 30, 2013, 04:01:27 AM
Keep in mind that land-use decisions that overwhelmingly segregated uses and all-but-forced suburban residents to drive is in no small part the reason why the car is the "mode of choice for most users".  Because it's the ONLY choice.

My home county, Montgomery County, Maryland has been rationalizing a host of (in many cases bad and mostly unsuccessful) efforts to improve and expand transit and force off the highway network since 1970.  There is plenty  of choice (in terms of transit), but the transit system is itself lightly  used, in part because of geography. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on August 04, 2013, 02:22:11 PM
Quote from: stonefort on August 02, 2013, 05:43:03 PM
Bi-County Parkway is a great idea.
And, yeah, roads letting citizens go about their business are a good idea. I know the ruling class prefers to control people and force them into inefficient, wasteful mass transit but I think people are slowly learning the folly after one white elephant light rail project after another fails miserably.
Troll much?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2013, 08:52:21 AM
Washington Post: Pr. William supervisors to hear from Connaughton about Bi-County Parkway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/pr-william-supervisors-to-hear-from-connaughton-about-bi-county-parkway/2013/08/02/7fa50fd4-fb8a-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html)

QuoteVirginia Transportation Secretary Sean T. Connaughton's scheduled appearance Tuesday in front of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors underscores an important moment in the debate over a controversial parkway that would connect Prince William and Loudoun counties, observers say.

QuoteThe Bi-County Parkway has divided elected officials in Prince William and Loudoun, with many raising concerns about the 10-mile road that would run through Civil War ground and Prince William's protected Rural Crescent. The coming weeks are important for the future of the parkway, because it is unclear whether a future administration would embrace plans for the road, and state officials look for a major legal agreement to be completed before year's end.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 12, 2013, 04:41:50 PM
AP via WTOP Radio: 41-vehicle pileup on I-81 in Va. injures 10 people (http://www.wtop.com/120/3418821/41-vehicle-pileup-in-Virginia)

QuoteLEXINGTON, Va. (AP) -- Police are investigating a 41-vehicle pileup in Rockbridge County that injured at least 10 people.

QuoteThe Virginia Department of Transportation says in a news release that the pileup occurred around 5 p.m. Sunday on Interstate 81 in the Lexington area. Six tractor-trailers were involved in the pileup.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on August 13, 2013, 06:50:13 AM
I was heading north on 81 between Edinburg and Winchester at that time, thank goodness it didn't happen there, but Shenandoah Co. is a real hotspot for accidents. I-81 should be renamed I-95 Alt.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2013, 12:02:35 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on August 13, 2013, 06:50:13 AM
I was heading north on 81 between Edinburg and Winchester at that time, thank goodness it didn't happen there, but Shenandoah Co. is a real hotspot for accidents. I-81 should be renamed I-95 Alt.

Does it really serve the same travel market as I-95?  I don't think so.  I suppose it is possible  (from the Washington area) to go west on I-66 to I-81, then south to I-77 and then I-26 to get back to I-95, but that is an awful lot of extra miles.

According to Google, it's about 475 miles from D.C. to I-95 and I-26 near Holly Hill, S.C. 

Taking I-66 to I-81 to I-77 to Columbia, S.C. to I-26 to I-95 at Holly Hill is about 580 miles.  Given the many  miles on I-81 (with the extremely  high  percentage of trucks), I think I will stay with I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2013, 12:03:45 AM
WTOP Radio: Pedestrian killed in possible suicide on I-66 (http://www.wtop.com/120/3419966/Pedestrian-struck-and-killed-on-I-66)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2013, 12:09:26 PM
AP via WBOC-TV: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Tolls to Rise in 2014 (http://www.wboc.com/story/23133531/chesapeake-bay-bridge-tunnel-tolls-to-rise-in-2014)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 14, 2013, 12:12:12 PM
Quote
The commission says the increases are needed to build a second Thimble Shoal Tunnel.

So does this mean they're actually going to build a second tunnel?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2013, 12:16:14 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 14, 2013, 12:12:12 PM
Quote
The commission says the increases are needed to build a second Thimble Shoal Tunnel.

So does this mean they're actually going to build a second tunnel?

At least they are going to get started on preliminary engineering and design. 

But to directly answer your question, I think the answer is yes

Which leads to another question.  Are they going to build a new (and deeper) four lane tube and abandon the existing two-lane tunnel?  Or will they just build a new parallel (2 lane) tube adjacent to the existing Thimble Shoal Tunnel?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2013, 12:19:41 PM
IMO, the headline is not hype, either.

Dr. Gridlock in the Washington  Post: Big improvement coming for Virginia traffic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2013/08/14/big-improvement-coming-for-virginia-traffic/)

QuoteA commuter asked us via Twitter Wednesday morning if we had any information on progress with the new interchange on Route 29 in Gainesville. He saw variable message boards reporting that changes would occur this coming weekend.

QuoteIn fact, that was the original plan for launching the major transportation improvement of the summer in the D.C. region. The Virginia Department of Transportation is on the verge of opening a new bridge that will separate Route 29 drivers from the Norfolk Southern tracks that cut across this important commuter route just southwest of the Interstate 66 interchange in the middle of Gainesville.

QuoteThe next phase of the project will put Linton Hall Road over Route 29 and the railroad tracks. That should be done by the end of 2014. The Gainesville project is one of the biggest road jobs in Virginia, and should remove a bottleneck that has slowed commuters, shoppers and long-distance travelers for many years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 14, 2013, 12:30:55 PM
That new overpass was needed 30 years ago. Long overdue. But he's right: Absolutely avoid that entire area next weekend. (Heck, avoid it this weekend. Buffett concert traffic will be a nightmare.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2013, 12:34:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 14, 2013, 12:30:55 PM
That new overpass was needed 30 years ago. Long overdue. But he's right: Absolutely avoid that entire area next weekend. (Heck, avoid it this weekend. Buffett concert traffic will be a nightmare.)

And I am afraid that even with the new grade separated crossing, that area will still be a mess when the venue is hosting a big act.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 14, 2013, 12:38:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2013, 12:16:14 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 14, 2013, 12:12:12 PM
Quote
The commission says the increases are needed to build a second Thimble Shoal Tunnel.

So does this mean they're actually going to build a second tunnel?

At least they are going to get started on preliminary engineering and design. 

But to directly answer your question, I think the answer is yes

Which leads to another question.  Are they going to build a new (and deeper) four lane tube and abandon the existing two-lane tunnel?  Or will they just build a new parallel (2 lane) tube adjacent to the existing Thimble Shoal Tunnel?

I see no reason they would remove the old tunnel. It's still perfectly serviceable.  I'm sure they'll just build a parallel tube,  like VDOT did with the HRBT and Downtown Tunnel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 14, 2013, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2013, 12:34:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 14, 2013, 12:30:55 PM
That new overpass was needed 30 years ago. Long overdue. But he's right: Absolutely avoid that entire area next weekend. (Heck, avoid it this weekend. Buffett concert traffic will be a nightmare.)

And I am afraid that even with the new grade separated crossing, that area will still be a mess when the venue is hosting a big act.

I think it will perhaps be even worse for the next year or two. Concert venues like that are the type of place a lot of people don't go very often, so they don't know about changes to the roads, and a lot of them will also put blind faith in a sat-nav. So even if there's a big sign telling you to exit to the right to go to the venue, you'll get people who are hearing their sat-nav to say to make the next left turn who will get over to the left and then get flummoxed when the left turn is gone. Same thing STILL sometimes happens on the Inner Loop of the Beltway at I-66 in the general-purpose lanes as people look for the left-side exit that now serves only the Express Lanes. It's been closed to general-purpose traffic for at least two years, but that doesn't stop the sat-nav reliers from expecting it to be there.

Edited to add: I just put a comment on Dr. Gridlock's article and I noted how the rendering reminds me a great deal of the reconstruction of the Gallows Road/Route 50 intersection (Yorktowne Center) back in the early 1980s. We lived not far from there until June 1983, when we moved closer to Fairfax City to where my parents still live today. I still vividly remember what a mess that area was during the construction, and it's funny how the ramp from southbound US-29 to Linton Hall Road looks so similar in configuration to the ramp from westbound US-50 to Gallows Road (primarily because in both cases an off-ramp from an Interstate touches down where that ramp splits off, so the ramp uses an underpass to allow higher-speed Interstate traffic to access either the exit ramp or the thru lanes without having to weave).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2013, 01:05:03 PM
I remember a VMS on US-441 near Dollywood saying explicitly "DO NOT OBEY GPS.  DOLLYWOOD NEXT RIGHT."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 14, 2013, 02:28:26 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2013, 01:05:03 PM
I remember a VMS on US-441 near Dollywood saying explicitly "DO NOT OBEY GPS.  DOLLYWOOD NEXT RIGHT."

Brilliant. That sort of thing would never happen in Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2013, 06:34:54 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 14, 2013, 12:38:07 PM
I see no reason they would remove the old tunnel. It's still perfectly serviceable.

Pump, I agree with you.  The only reason to entirely bypass (and ultimately remove) either of the existing CBBT tunnels  is channel depth.  Scott Kozel has a good discussion here (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/CBBT.html) about twinning (or replacing) the CBBT tubes.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 14, 2013, 12:38:07 PM
I'm sure they'll just build a parallel tube,  like VDOT did with the HRBT and Downtown Tunnel.

That would be the least-expensive alternative.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 14, 2013, 08:52:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 14, 2013, 02:28:26 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 14, 2013, 01:05:03 PM
I remember a VMS on US-441 near Dollywood saying explicitly "DO NOT OBEY GPS.  DOLLYWOOD NEXT RIGHT."

Brilliant. That sort of thing would never happen in Virginia.

Actually, Virginia has several permanent yellow signs I've seen throughout the commonwealth to not follow GPS onto certain roads.  Most (if not all) were meant for trucks...

Here is a newer plate sign like this for VA 56 from US 11: http://goo.gl/maps/TftrC

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2013, 10:23:18 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 14, 2013, 08:52:02 PM
Here is a newer plate sign like this for VA 56 from US 11: http://goo.gl/maps/TftrC

That's interesting.  I drove that section  of Va. 56 (from U.S. 11 to the crest of the ridge, where it crosses the Blue Ridge Parkway) quite a few years ago, and recall that the signs (then) read something about the route being "NOT RECOMMENDED" for vehicles over a certain length (might have been 40 or 60 or 65 feet). 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 14, 2013, 11:09:09 PM
There are several in southeastern Chesterfield County as well, telling trucks to stay off a very twisty (and fun, in a sports car) section of SR 746 known as Snake Road, seen here. (http://goo.gl/maps/9eAVv) I've followed a truck down it before, and it caused trouble for opposing traffic, as expected.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1149261_10201654744191643_1864756271_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on August 14, 2013, 11:11:54 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 14, 2013, 12:12:12 PM
Quote
The commission says the increases are needed to build a second Thimble Shoal Tunnel.

So does this mean they're actually going to build a second tunnel?
The timeline I'm familiar with says early to mid 2020s. Now's the time to start saving for it. As for why it's needed - how about plain simple redundancy? You can close one for maintenance, or if an accident happens, and still get traffic through.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 15, 2013, 07:39:15 AM
Well...I am astonished by the images mapmikey and Takumi posted. Those signs seem way too intelligent and creative for VDOT–certainly for their Northern Virginia bureau, at least. When I made some signage-related suggestions at a community meeting a few years back they rejected them because they weren't in STRICT compliance with the MUCTD, so I kind of figured anything creative was not an option for them. (Essentially the VDOT rep said that if the proposed sign was not shown, as proposed, in the MUTCD, their policy was that they couldn't post it. Of course, we currently have a white sign on a Beltway exit where the MUTCD calls for green....)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 15, 2013, 08:41:40 AM
Oh I absolutely agree that it is needed, Steve.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on August 15, 2013, 09:13:31 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2013, 12:09:26 PM
AP via WBOC-TV: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Tolls to Rise in 2014 (http://www.wboc.com/story/23133531/chesapeake-bay-bridge-tunnel-tolls-to-rise-in-2014)

Another article on the toll increase published today:

Chesapeake Bridge-Tunnel hikes tolls (http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130815/NEWS/308150037/Chesapeake-Bridge-Tunnel-hikes-tolls)

QuoteThe cost to cross the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel will increase by an average of 10 percent on Jan. 1.

The toll for passenger cars, now $12, will go up to $13 during off-peak periods and $15 during peak periods, defined as Fridays through Sundays between May 15 and Sept. 15.

The 24-hour return toll of $5 will be $3 for peak periods.

The vote also instituted a commuter toll as of Jan. 1 of $5 each way for 30 or more one-way trips within 30 days. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Commission approved the new schedule 7-2.

The original span and tunnels turn 50 next year.

The commission in May approved speeding up the massive tunnel construction project but did not formally approve the rate hike officials say is needed to pay for it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 15, 2013, 03:52:54 PM
Still a bargain compared to crossing the Hudson River on a PANYNJ crossing! That entire facility is close to 20 miles end to end so the per mile cost is actually quite low.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 16, 2013, 02:32:48 PM
WTOP Radio: Va. lawmaker claims transportation dollars are being misspent (http://www.wtop.com/149/3423492/Va-lawmaker-claims-transportation-dollars-are-being-misspent)

QuoteA Virginia lawmaker is suing an agency responsible for doling out money under a sweeping transportation package passed by the General Assembly this year.

QuoteDelegate Bob Marshall filed the lawsuit Thursday, claiming the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority is misusing tax dollars.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 16, 2013, 02:46:19 PM
The NVTA has also filed a declaratory judgment action in Fairfax County asking the Circuit Court to rule that the bonds the Authority plans to issue comply with the authorizing statutes. The issue of "demonstrated congestion relief" may be contested in that case because the Authority apparently may be trying to ignore that requirement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 16, 2013, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 16, 2013, 02:46:19 PM
The NVTA has also filed a declaratory judgment action in Fairfax County asking the Circuit Court to rule that the bonds the Authority plans to issue comply with the authorizing statutes. The issue of "demonstrated congestion relief" may be contested in that case because the Authority apparently may be trying to ignore that requirement.

I heard about that suit elsewhere.  Is it correct to say that Virginia law requires a lawsuit to be filed by the NVTA (and presumably ruled on by a Fairfax County Circuit Court judge) before the NVTA can sell its bonds?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 16, 2013, 03:22:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 16, 2013, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 16, 2013, 02:46:19 PM
The NVTA has also filed a declaratory judgment action in Fairfax County asking the Circuit Court to rule that the bonds the Authority plans to issue comply with the authorizing statutes. The issue of "demonstrated congestion relief" may be contested in that case because the Authority apparently may be trying to ignore that requirement.

I heard about that suit elsewhere.  Is it correct to say that Virginia law requires a lawsuit to be filed by the NVTA (and presumably ruled on by a Fairfax County Circuit Court judge) before the NVTA can sell its bonds?


I don't know, but the fact that they filed it definitely implies that you are correct.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 17, 2013, 03:42:30 PM
From what I saw in today's paper, it sounds as though Marshall may have filed a responsive pleading in the NVTA's case rather than his own lawsuit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2013, 06:00:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2013, 03:42:30 PM
From what I saw in today's paper, it sounds as though Marshall may have filed a responsive pleading in the NVTA's case rather than his own lawsuit.

And we should remember that like Marshall or not, he won the last time he sued the NVTA.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 21, 2013, 12:11:06 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 15, 2013, 03:52:54 PM
Still a bargain compared to crossing the Hudson River on a PANYNJ crossing! That entire facility is close to 20 miles end to end so the per mile cost is actually quite low.
Be that as it may, it doesn't make sense to have two different toll rates based on the time of day. If it's going to be $13 or $15, it should be that way 24/7.



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 21, 2013, 03:10:39 AM
QuoteBe that as it may, it doesn't make sense to have two different toll rates based on the time of day. If it's going to be $13 or $15, it should be that way 24/7.

Why not?  If traffic is heavier during a certain time of day (or day of week), it makes sense to charge a higher toll during those busier times.  Classic supply-and-demand concept example.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2013, 03:02:01 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2013, 03:10:39 AM
QuoteBe that as it may, it doesn't make sense to have two different toll rates based on the time of day. If it's going to be $13 or $15, it should be that way 24/7.

Why not?  If traffic is heavier during a certain time of day (or day of week), it makes sense to charge a higher toll during those busier times.  Classic supply-and-demand concept example.

Adam, I strongly agree.  Highway capacity during periods of peak demand has value, and should be accordingly priced.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2013, 03:41:58 PM
Quote from: Alex on August 15, 2013, 09:13:31 AM
Another article on the toll increase published today:

Chesapeake Bridge-Tunnel hikes tolls (http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130815/NEWS/308150037/Chesapeake-Bridge-Tunnel-hikes-tolls)

QuoteThe cost to cross the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel will increase by an average of 10 percent on Jan. 1.

The toll for passenger cars, now $12, will go up to $13 during off-peak periods and $15 during peak periods, defined as Fridays through Sundays between May 15 and Sept. 15.

The 24-hour return toll of $5 will be $3 for peak periods.

The vote also instituted a commuter toll as of Jan. 1 of $5 each way for 30 or more one-way trips within 30 days. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Commission approved the new schedule 7-2.

The original span and tunnels turn 50 next year.

The commission in May approved speeding up the massive tunnel construction project but did not formally approve the rate hike officials say is needed to pay for it.

And more detail:

TOLLROADSnews: Tolls raised to help finance parallel tunnel tube at Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6702)

QuoteChesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel (CBBT) directors voted at their latest meeting for an approximate ten percent toll increase to come into effect January 1, 2014. The higher tolls were adopted as part of a plan to finance an $800m dualization of one of their two single-tube (2x1 lane) tunnels. Similar 10% increases in toll rates will be applied every five years in future in order to generate the revenues to support second tubes.

QuoteFirst project is known as the Thimble Shoal Parallel Tunnel. The CBBT Commission thinks the financing climate and low interest rates are favorable to the project. They plan to complete environmental permitting and get an investment grade traffic and revenue report done to support the issue of bonds to finance the project.

QuoteAverage daily traffic in the summer months is about 13,000 to 14,000/day, about twice the daily rate in winter. Traffic Friday and the weekend is half as big again as daily traffic Mondays thru Thursdays - another indication of the importance of vacation travel in the crossing's traffic.

QuoteA study by Jacobs shows that traffic slows and travel times increase markedly when hourly volumes hit 1,100. Traffic backups begin at the lane-drops on the approach to the single lane per direction in the tunnel sections.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on August 21, 2013, 04:27:38 PM
QuoteTraffic Friday and the weekend is half as big again as daily traffic Mondays thru Thursdays - another indication of the importance of vacation travel in the crossing's traffic.
Shouldn't that be the weekend traffic is twice the volume as the weekday?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 21, 2013, 04:33:33 PM
Quote from: BrianP on August 21, 2013, 04:27:38 PM
QuoteTraffic Friday and the weekend is half as big again as daily traffic Mondays thru Thursdays - another indication of the importance of vacation travel in the crossing's traffic.
Shouldn't that be the weekend traffic is twice the volume as the weekday?

"Half as big again" is another way of saying 150 percent. That is, take the number, divide it by two, and then add the result to the original number. 150 is half as big again as 100, for example.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on August 21, 2013, 05:21:25 PM
Ok I've never heard anything phrased that way before.  Seems like a poor choice of words that will just confuse a significant portion of readers.  Even when I know what it means it trips my mind when reading it again.

Even after looking on the internet it's not clear if it's supposed to be half as much again or half again as much.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2013, 05:24:01 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Virginia state lawyers do nice job demolishing "tolls = taxes" argument (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6703)

QuoteLawyers for Virginia DOT appealing in the state Supreme Court a Circuit Judge's ruling in Portsmouth in Meeks vs VDOT do a strong, well-documented demolition of the tolls=taxes line of argument frequently used against tolling. The case (130955) involves the toll concession already in place for additions and improvements to the Elizabeth River tunnels and highway connections that link Norfolk to Portsmouth and points west.

QuoteIn the case the plaintiffs (Meeks etc) argued tolls are taxes for three reasons:

QuoteFirst, they are revenue-generating.

QuoteSecond, they will be imposed on the users of one facility to pay for another separate and independent facility.

QuoteThird, the setting of the tolls in this case involves the exercise of true legislative discretion in the consideration and balancing of several factors, not simply the cost of the facility on which the tolls are imposed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Stephane Dumas on August 25, 2013, 11:20:25 AM
Sorry if someone else already posted this info. ^^; VDOT study the possibility to upgrade the I-66/VA-28 interchange, with 2 variants studied.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/I-66-Rt_28_CIM_-_Overall_Plan.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on August 25, 2013, 02:25:27 PM
I-366, here we come!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 25, 2013, 07:19:08 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 25, 2013, 11:20:25 AM
Sorry if someone else already posted this info. ^^; VDOT study the possibility to upgrade the I-66/VA-28 interchange, with 2 variants studied.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/I-66-Rt_28_CIM_-_Overall_Plan.pdf

Thank you for posting these.

I had heard about these, but had not seen the plans.  This interchange (as it exists today (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=centreville+va&ll=38.848231,-77.432735&spn=0.009409,0.01929&hnear=Centreville,+Fairfax,+Virginia&gl=us&t=h&z=16)) is a mess, with at-grade movements on Va. 28 (Sully Road) and at Va. 620 (Braddock Road North). 

Va. 28 is planned to have full access control as far south as the existing U.S. 29 (Lee Highway) interchange (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=centreville+va&ll=38.838655,-77.431448&spn=0.00941,0.01929&hnear=Centreville,+Fairfax,+Virginia&gl=us&t=h&z=16) in "downtown" Centreville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 04, 2013, 01:16:49 PM
Some of us have frequently criticized the signs on southbound I-395 in the Springfield Interchange for being poorly-designed, primarily because they are too small and the arrows don't line up with the lanes.

Driving back from Reagan Airport earlier this afternoon I passed through Springfield in the HOV carriageway and I noticed VDOT has replaced at least some of the signs out in the general-purpose lanes with the new-style arrow-per-lane signs. I've only seen a few other signs of this style in Virginia so far, most of them on the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286) west of its split with the Franconia—Springfield Parkway (VA-289). Because I was in the HOV carriageway, I didn't get the best look at them and I was not able to discern at all whether these signs line up any better than the old ones did. I kind of hope the new APL style is more effective at conveying to drivers that the center lane is an option lane for the exit to Route 644, though. Lots of people don't realize that and seem startled when you use that lane to exit.

Guess I'll see in the next few days whether they'll replace the other signs through there. I hope so. There's a BGS for the Beltway that is missing about a quarter of the lower-right portion of the sign, been that way for almost a year now.

Pictures are dashcam video captures, hence the graininess. I do note, based on this limited view, that it looks as though they may have put too much space between the exit numbers and the letter suffix, just like they did on the signs back at the VA-236 exit. Rather odd, that, since I think whoever fabricated the signs for the rebuilt portion of the Beltway did a very good job.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FSpringfieldAPL1_zps7b83b8a2.png&hash=2c3484603b6347da4ab39b3bf1ee4f19b9553354)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FSpringfieldAPL2_zpsbf5f26aa.png&hash=2b1ea039f35b64a478a989d4415174ca11784b8f)


Edited to add: Before someone notes that pull-thru BGS being misaligned in the final photo, it's because the lanes were shifted into a new alignment within the past week. There are to be three thru lanes there in the future.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 05, 2013, 02:32:22 AM
First APL sign I'm aware of in Northern Virgina was on westbound Duke St (VA 236) approaching Telegraph Rd (VA 241).  This one was put in even before I moved out of Huntington last year.

Glad they did something about those overheads on 395.  Another place they could stand to improve the overheads is EB DTR to the Beltway...though I have not been there since they wrapped up the HO/T lane construction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 05, 2013, 09:43:18 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 05, 2013, 02:32:22 AM
First APL sign I'm aware of in Northern Virgina was on westbound Duke St (VA 236) approaching Telegraph Rd (VA 241).  This one was put in even before I moved out of Huntington last year.

Glad they did something about those overheads on 395.  Another place they could stand to improve the overheads is EB DTR to the Beltway...though I have not been there since they wrapped up the HO/T lane construction.

I don't recall whether I saw the one on Duke Street first or the ones on the Parkway first. I go to Old Town often enough, but I usually approach via Telegraph Road and then leave via Holland Lane->Eisenhower Avenue or via Route 1 and the Beltway, so I seldom pass under the sign you mention. I can picture the sign in my mind, I just don't go that way all that often (at my most frequent destination over there, the Whole Foods store on Duke Street, the parking garage exit is designed in such a way that it's more trouble than it's worth for me to go west on Duke Street).

I drove through the eastbound Toll Road on Sunday but wasn't paying much attention to the signs. If I have time in the next few days I'll pull up the dashcam video to see what I can find. They did redo almost all the signing as part of the HO/T construction and it's better than it used to be (among other things, the sign that used a secondary route marker for Route 123 instead of a primary marker has been replaced).

Not sure when I'll use I-395 next; maybe Sunday when Ms1995hoo comes back home and I pick her up at the airport. I'd like to get a better look at those signs in the pictures above. From the video captures, it looks like the left-side arrow is really crammed up tight against the left side of the sign.


Edited: I went ahead and pulled up the dashcam video from Sunday, trimmed it down, and sped it up to double-speed in order to reduce the file size a bit. Click thumbnail to play.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FDashcam%2520videos%2Fth_EastboundTollRoad_zps98acf0a7.jpg&hash=cd76cc75747baa53fb3760a3f2e81bb1ef8eb7df) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Dashcam%20videos/EastboundTollRoad_zps98acf0a7.mp4)

The advance Exit 18B signs (Beltway Inner Loop) aren't ideally positioned (they seem a bit far to the left), but the problem is the toll-rate signs for the HO/T lanes get in the way and restrict what they can do.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 07, 2013, 12:30:14 PM
[IMO, if the Hampton Roads plaintiffs win this round before the Virginia Supreme Court, then there will be massive bond defaults, and the Virginia General Assembly may be forced in to a massive motor fuel tax increase to make the bondholders whole (even though I don't think they are legally obligated to do so).  Virginia cannot have its cake and eat it too - nice new highways and bridges, plus low motor fuel tax rates and no tolls.]

WTOP Radio: Lawsuit could turn Va. tolls upside down, cost taxpayers millions (http://www.wtop.com/41/3443136/Suit-could-turn-Va-tolls-upside-down)

QuoteRICHMOND,Va. - How much Virginia drivers pay to commute or pay in taxes could be decided by the Virginia Supreme Court as part of a lawsuit over tolls.

QuoteThe lawsuit, filed by a group of residents from the Hampton Roads area, challenges the authority of the Commonwealth Transportation Board to set the toll rate on a public-private tunnel project there.

QuoteBut the court's decision could also apply to similar projects across the state including the 495 Express Lanes, which opened in November on the Capital Beltway, and the Interstate 95 Express Lanes currently under construction from Fairfax County to Stafford County.

QuoteThe lawsuit comes as another group, which includes the Loudoun County government, challenges toll hikes being proposed by the privately owned Dulles Greenway. That toll increase is now under review by the Virginia State Corporation Commission.

QuoteThe commission is currently reviewing the highway owner's request to raise the toll to $4.90 each way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 08, 2013, 02:07:18 AM
If the plaintiffs lose, the losers, in effect, are drivers of the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels and the Dulles Toll Road.

If the plaintiffs win, the losers are basically all Virginians and those who drive through Virginia.

And the General Assembly will be largely to blame, though they'll deflect blame elsewhere as is customary for politicians.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on September 08, 2013, 10:57:01 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 07, 2013, 12:30:14 PM
[IMO, if the Hampton Roads plaintiffs win this round before the Virginia Supreme Court, then there will be massive bond defaults, and the Virginia General Assembly may be forced in to a massive motor fuel tax increase to make the bondholders whole (even though I don't think they are legally obligated to do so).  Virginia cannot have its cake and eat it too - nice new highways and bridges, plus low motor fuel tax rates and no tolls.]

WTOP Radio: Lawsuit could turn Va. tolls upside down, cost taxpayers millions (http://www.wtop.com/41/3443136/Suit-could-turn-Va-tolls-upside-down)

QuoteRICHMOND,Va. - How much Virginia drivers pay to commute or pay in taxes could be decided by the Virginia Supreme Court as part of a lawsuit over tolls.

QuoteThe lawsuit, filed by a group of residents from the Hampton Roads area, challenges the authority of the Commonwealth Transportation Board to set the toll rate on a public-private tunnel project there.

QuoteBut the court's decision could also apply to similar projects across the state including the 495 Express Lanes, which opened in November on the Capital Beltway, and the Interstate 95 Express Lanes currently under construction from Fairfax County to Stafford County.

QuoteThe lawsuit comes as another group, which includes the Loudoun County government, challenges toll hikes being proposed by the privately owned Dulles Greenway. That toll increase is now under review by the Virginia State Corporation Commission.

QuoteThe commission is currently reviewing the highway owner's request to raise the toll to $4.90 each way.
What a stupid lawsuit. Everybody wants something, but nobody wants to pay for it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 08, 2013, 02:55:56 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 08, 2013, 02:07:18 AM
If the plaintiffs lose, the losers, in effect, are drivers of the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels and the Dulles Toll Road.

Not sure that the outcome of the lawsute applies to the Dulles Toll Road, since VDOT transferred it to another public agency to finance the Dulles Rail project.  The complaint against the private Dulles Greenway is a separate matter from the  Hampton Roads lawsuit.

Quote from: froggie on September 08, 2013, 02:07:18 AM
If the plaintiffs win, the losers are basically all Virginians and those who drive through Virginia.

The result of that may  be a statewide motor fuel tax increase.

Quote from: froggie on September 08, 2013, 02:07:18 AM
And the General Assembly will be largely to blame, though they'll deflect blame elsewhere as is customary for politicians.

I am not especially a fan of the Virginia General Assembly, with its many gerrymandered districts and uncontested elections, but the real blame still lies with the voters (including the people that don't bother to vote in Virginia's odd-year elections).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 08, 2013, 03:01:41 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on September 08, 2013, 10:57:01 AM
What a stupid lawsuit. Everybody wants something, but nobody wants to pay for it.

Agreed.  Or it is about getting Someone Else to pay for it. 

A lot of people in Virginia (especially far from Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia) are very much opposed to paying for badly-needed transportation improvements in those parts of the Commonwealth. 

Never mind that the money that funds the General Fund comes disproportionately from those parts of the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 08, 2013, 05:11:24 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 05, 2013, 02:32:22 AM
First APL sign I'm aware of in Northern Virgina was on westbound Duke St (VA 236) approaching Telegraph Rd (VA 241).  This one was put in even before I moved out of Huntington last year.

Glad they did something about those overheads on 395.  Another place they could stand to improve the overheads is EB DTR to the Beltway...though I have not been there since they wrapped up the HO/T lane construction.

Went through Springfield in the local lanes on I-395 southbound this afternoon and I saw they are replacing the other BGSs as well, though not all are done yet. They line up much better with the lanes. I'll post video captures sometime tomorrow after I download videos (no desire to turn on the PC on a Sunday afternoon, especially as it is in the warmest room in the house). I think the signs are an improvement, but Ms1995hoo thought they will confuse the heck out of a lot of drivers (and indeed, right after she said that, a woman ahead of us slowed to about 10 mph trying to decide where to go). But then, the old signs weren't exactly the easiest to follow if you didn't know the area. My father, who has lived in this area as long as I have (39 years), says he thinks there's simply too large an amount of signage through there for the average driver to process.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 08, 2013, 06:58:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 04, 2013, 01:16:49 PM
Pictures are dashcam video captures, hence the graininess. I do note, based on this limited view, that it looks as though they may have put too much space between the exit numbers and the letter suffix, just like they did on the signs back at the VA-236 exit. Rather odd, that, since I think whoever fabricated the signs for the rebuilt portion of the Beltway did a very good job.

Personally, I like the extra space.  A 'B' and an '8' can look fairly alike on the signs.  As an example, Exit 4B could be confused with Exit 48.  Exit 4 B is much more clearly Exit 4 B.

Will this come into play much?  Generally, no.  But on occasion, such as a sign far in advance of an exit (or even a billboard, for that matter) where the motorist gets a split-second look at the sign, the space can help distinguish the B within the exit number.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 09, 2013, 01:12:07 AM
QuoteNot sure that the outcome of the lawsute applies to the Dulles Toll Road, since VDOT transferred it to another public agency to finance the Dulles Rail project.  The complaint against the private Dulles Greenway is a separate matter from the  Hampton Roads lawsuit.

Not directly, but there will be ancillary effects to whatever the verdict is.  And you can bet your COG that the DTR and Greenway (not to mention the HO/T lane people) are watching the Hampton Roads lawsuit closely.

QuoteThe result of that may  be a statewide motor fuel tax increase.

That's what I was alluding to, yes...nevermind that such a tax increase wouldn't be going to finance new projects or better maintenance, but to fix the stupidity of the General Assembly.

QuoteI am not especially a fan of the Virginia General Assembly, with its many gerrymandered districts and uncontested elections, but the real blame still lies with the voters (including the people that don't bother to vote in Virginia's odd-year elections).

You prove my point.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on September 09, 2013, 06:35:11 AM
Please don't blame me, I have not missed a Fed/State/local election since 1972.... And Md. has their own funk going on.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 09, 2013, 09:30:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 08, 2013, 06:58:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 04, 2013, 01:16:49 PM
Pictures are dashcam video captures, hence the graininess. I do note, based on this limited view, that it looks as though they may have put too much space between the exit numbers and the letter suffix, just like they did on the signs back at the VA-236 exit. Rather odd, that, since I think whoever fabricated the signs for the rebuilt portion of the Beltway did a very good job.

Personally, I like the extra space.  A 'B' and an '8' can look fairly alike on the signs.  As an example, Exit 4B could be confused with Exit 48.  Exit 4 B is much more clearly Exit 4 B.

Will this come into play much?  Generally, no.  But on occasion, such as a sign far in advance of an exit (or even a billboard, for that matter) where the motorist gets a split-second look at the sign, the space can help distinguish the B within the exit number.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The issue isn't using a space per se. It's the amount of space. This came up in a prior thread, but it's been a long time and I don't recall what thread it was. The issue was that the current MUTCD specifies a smaller space between the exit number and the letter; I believe the space is supposed to be a quarter to half the width of the letter. VDOT instead used a full space between the number and the letter and it makes it look weird.

What's odder about it is that the new signs on I-395, including some that were there two or three years ago, use the too-large space but the new signs on I-495 through the area where HO/T lanes opened last year all use a smaller space. Maybe the private contractor who built the HO/T lanes had more say over those signs. I would not be surprised at all, though, if this is an issue of a VDOT employee who doesn't understand the difference between a "small space" and a full space. I doubt that's uncommon at all. After all, there are an awful lot of people who don't understand the difference between a hyphen, an en dash, and an em dash, or between an opening single quotation mark and an apostrophe. I see lots of embarrassing t-shirts and the like that have an opening single quotation mark when the designer should have used an apostrophe. I suspect part of the issue is that MS Word's autocorrect feature assumes you want an opening single quotation mark when you type that character after a space, and people just assume the autocorrect is accurate (which is odd, given that so many people know how smartphones' autocorrect features are often wrong).

I'll try to upload some more pictures of southbound I-395 through Springfield later today, but meanwhile, compare the following signs' exit numbering. Notice the much narrower spaces in the third set of signs, which are on the Beltway (the roadwork is done, but the signs remain the same).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FSpringfieldAPL1_zps7b83b8a2.png&hash=2c3484603b6347da4ab39b3bf1ee4f19b9553354)


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F5f25e0d5.jpg&hash=1e9ee6c5bbf0d26895c0704acf2bb3ef9f4777d8)


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F652d6dd3.jpg&hash=5746c4ced7c59c52763b2b33216f6e966dd36c9e)



Edited to add: Here are some more pictures from I-395 yesterday. The latter two show the new APL signs in Springfield more clearly than the one I uploaded the other day because this time I was out in the general-purpose lanes. A few signs still remain to be replaced, most notably the one further back towards Edsall Road that has about a quarter of the sign panel mysteriously missing (been that way for at least a year now).

It's odd to me that the arrows are jammed up so close to the edge on two of the signs but not on the one for the Beltway exit (Exits 1C and -D).

The first set of signs shown is from a few miles to the north just to give another close-up of the space between the numbers and the letter.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FSpacetoobig_zpse17739e0.png&hash=12e6c3bb416810b9b7f9d473080f027f2b695b7e)


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FSpringfieldAPL3_zpsebea1f7a.png&hash=f108d34d78727459c330d31aaf85e0b4ec472977)


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FSpringfieldAPL4_zps1ed4dc80.png&hash=855555b478d523ab2566e7dd99a08d9ad4122326)


Looking at that second picture of this set of three, I can see why Ms1995hoo thought it was a lot of arrows for someone unfamiliar with the area to decipher. In particular, I could see why someone who hasn't seen this style sign in the past might find it confusing that the route to Baltimore is shown as straight ahead whilst the exit for Route 644 is shown as exiting to the right.

I'll have another upload of some new signs on Loisdale Road in Springfield once I figure out which video that is.



Edited again: New Loisdale Road signs below. Discovered these earlier yesterday afternoon. Somewhere I know I have video of the old signs, but it would take too long to find it, so I've taken a screenshot of Google Street View instead. Old signs shown first. The change there is that you used to have three left-turn-only lanes, one straight-thru lane onto Commerce Street, and one right-turn-only lane onto eastbound Franconia Road (Route 644). Sometime within the past year they changed it so the rightmost of the three left-turn-only lanes (marked for I-95 South in the photo of the old signs) would be an option lane, left or straight; notice the arrows on the pavement in the old photo (which it says is from November 2012). Very few drivers ever go straight out of that lane. No doubt the very long solid line separating that lane from the "straight-only" lane to the right might be part of the issue there. The pavement was not re-striped, aside from new arrows being painted, when the lane was re-designated.

That arrow for the option lane on the new sign is a style I have not seen before.

The guy in the SUV who looks like he's making a last-minute lane change wasn't in the wrong, though; he had just come out of the driveway to the right, which serves a Bank of America.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FOldLoisdalesigns_zps68be7207.png&hash=691c51ccbae206c029beed1471131625a8bbcf44)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FNewLoisdalesigns_zpsc5b855df.png&hash=a08e0994fe5a71830e231b4eb01daaf8818e7005)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 09, 2013, 09:49:09 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 09, 2013, 06:35:11 AM
Please don't blame me, I have not missed a Fed/State/local election since 1972.... And Md. has their own funk going on.

I have never missed one either.

As for Maryland, I am not at all happy with the orgy of light rail construction that the O'Malley Administration is promoting - mostly financed by highway users, who are unlikely to derive any benefit from either project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 09, 2013, 09:56:46 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2013, 01:12:07 AM
QuoteNot sure that the outcome of the lawsute applies to the Dulles Toll Road, since VDOT transferred it to another public agency to finance the Dulles Rail project.  The complaint against the private Dulles Greenway is a separate matter from the  Hampton Roads lawsuit.

Not directly, but there will be ancillary effects to whatever the verdict is.  And you can bet your COG that the DTR and Greenway (not to mention the HO/T lane people) are watching the Hampton Roads lawsuit closely.

Agreed.

Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2013, 01:12:07 AM
QuoteThe result of that may  be a statewide motor fuel tax increase.

That's what I was alluding to, yes...nevermind that such a tax increase wouldn't be going to finance new projects or better maintenance, but to fix the stupidity of the General Assembly.

There's also the misplaced faith in the PPTA being some sort of a substitute for old-fashioned motor fuel taxes.  It's not and it never will be.  And if there are a series of bond defaults by private-sector bond issuers for Virginia transportation projects (effectively, there has already been a huge write-off for Va. 895), that will effectively repeal the PPTA, even if a majority of the General Assembly keeps believing in it.

Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2013, 01:12:07 AM
QuoteI am not especially a fan of the Virginia General Assembly, with its many gerrymandered districts and uncontested elections, but the real blame still lies with the voters (including the people that don't bother to vote in Virginia's odd-year elections).

You prove my point.

Voters get the kind of government they deserve.  But they cannot repeal the laws of physics, and they cannot prevent the highway network from deteriorating from the lack of maintenance.

Maybe when VDOT starts to post bridges with new and lower weight limits for trucks (like PennDOT is now doing) that anger some businesses and voters, perhaps causing some to start singing a different tune?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 09, 2013, 10:10:36 AM
The Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock reports that the southern end of the I-95 HOV lanes in Dumfries is getting comparative travel-time signs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2013/09/09/i-95-drivers-get-to-compare-travel-times/) as follows:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fdr-gridlock%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F09%2FTravel-time-sign.png&hash=66daf68bb642539d03aaf54aab53651b3ec18920)

Based on the rest of the blog entry, it sounds as though we should NOT expect to see similar signs on the Beltway any time soon.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 09, 2013, 10:21:17 AM
Hmmm ... noticed two abbreviations for "Turnpike" in those photos.

"Trpk," which I've never seen before, and "Tnpk," which is more standard.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 09, 2013, 10:24:46 AM
That one sign is the only one I've ever seen with "Trpk." All the other BGSs around here use "Tnpk." Street signs are a mixed bag. Most of the street signs use "Tpke," but there are a few in Annandale that use "Trnpk" (which makes me wonder why bother abbreviating at all).

There's no question that someone at the sign shop is sloppy. There's a small green sign on the Beltway's Outer Loop exit ramp to westbound Braddock Road (Route 620; Exit 54A) that refers to "Queensberry Rd." The street is named "Queensberry Avenue." I've reported it three times but they evidently don't care, as it hasn't been fixed (whereas when I reported misplaced exit tabs that were on the left for right-side exits, they fixed those within a week).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on September 09, 2013, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2013, 10:24:46 AM
That one sign is the only one I've ever seen with "Trpk." All the other BGSs around here use "Tnpk." Street signs are a mixed bag. Most of the street signs use "Tpke," but there are a few in Annandale that use "Trnpk" (which makes me wonder why bother abbreviating at all).

There's no question that someone at the sign shop is sloppy. There's a small green sign on the Beltway's Outer Loop exit ramp to westbound Braddock Road (Route 620; Exit 54A) that refers to "Queensberry Rd." The street is named "Queensberry Avenue." I've reported it three times but they evidently don't care, as it hasn't been fixed (whereas when I reported misplaced exit tabs that were on the left for right-side exits, they fixed those within a week).
Exit tabs are a federal guideline, street names are not!  I am guessing that VDOT fears the feds, but not local authorities.

Welcome to the club, here in Orlando we have a Hoffner Avenue that is signed Hoffner Road from FL 436 and a Kaley Street that is signed on I-4 as Kaley Avenue.  However with the latter, it may be cause west of I-4 (yes I-4 runs N-S in Orlando) it is Kaley Avenue because it is not part of the City of Orlando proper, but unicorporated Orange County.  Orlando itself, likes Avenues running North and South while streets running East and West.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on September 09, 2013, 09:31:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2013, 10:24:46 AM
That one sign is the only one I've ever seen with "Trpk." All the other BGSs around here use "Tnpk." Street signs are a mixed bag. Most of the street signs use "Tpke," but there are a few in Annandale that use "Trnpk" (which makes me wonder why bother abbreviating at all).

There's no question that someone at the sign shop is sloppy. There's a small green sign on the Beltway's Outer Loop exit ramp to westbound Braddock Road (Route 620; Exit 54A) that refers to "Queensberry Rd." The street is named "Queensberry Avenue." I've reported it three times but they evidently don't care, as it hasn't been fixed (whereas when I reported misplaced exit tabs that were on the left for right-side exits, they fixed those within a week).
Tpk. is supposed to be the standard, I believe, per MUTCD. It's possible Tnpk. is an alternative. Tpke. is deprecated, and anything else is silly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on September 09, 2013, 09:35:21 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 09, 2013, 09:31:59 PM
Tpk. is supposed to be the standard, I believe, per MUTCD. It's possible Tnpk. is an alternative. Tpke. is deprecated, and anything else is silly.
Tp. might work (for my bunghole heheheheheh) for an agency that always uses two-letter abbreviations (I've seen Py. for Parkway around here, but not consistently).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on September 09, 2013, 09:47:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2013, 10:10:36 AM
The Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock reports that the southern end of the I-95 HOV lanes in Dumfries is getting comparative travel-time signs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2013/09/09/i-95-drivers-get-to-compare-travel-times/) as follows:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fdr-gridlock%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F09%2FTravel-time-sign.png&hash=66daf68bb642539d03aaf54aab53651b3ec18920)

Based on the rest of the blog entry, it sounds as though we should NOT expect to see similar signs on the Beltway any time soon.
The Hampton Roads area has several of these kind of signs. They're hardly ever accurate, though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 10, 2013, 06:38:53 AM
They uncovered one which is located where the VA 234 ramp meets I-95 NB.

Both days (5:10 a.m.) it has put the Pentagon at 24 min via HOV and 29 min via mainline, which is largely the difference between 65 mph in HOV vs. lower limits in mainline.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 10, 2013, 08:49:51 PM
Washington Post: Loudoun County roads leave commuters zig-zagging to get around missing links (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/loudoun-county-roads-leave-commuters-zig-zagging-to-get-around-missing-links/2013/09/09/4625e41c-0518-11e3-88d6-d5795fab4637_story.html)

QuoteThere it is on area maps, a north-south artery near Dulles Airport. And there are big signs for the Loudoun County Parkway from the major highways it was designed to connect. But drivers who take the parkway exit heading south off the toll road find themselves, three miles later, staring at a huge orange-and-white fence, and a stretch of woods beyond.

QuoteThere's no sign. No detour arrow. The road just stops.

QuoteThe county, one of the fastest-growing in the country, is changing so quickly that its roads haven't caught up with all the new buildings and people, yet. There are more than 100 places in Loudoun, county leaders say, where there are missing links – a road starts, it jogs along nicely, then at some point, it stops dead.

QuoteIn recent years, as developers have bought up land and transformed farmland to suburbs, county leaders often required the businesses to pay for some of the infrastructure that would be needed when the new homes were filled with families, offices with workers and stores with shoppers. The system developed as a way to try to keep up with road needs even when the commonwealth – which is responsible for building and maintaining most roads in Virginia – couldn't keep pace with the growth.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on September 10, 2013, 10:46:19 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2013, 09:30:20 AM

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FSpringfieldAPL3_zpsebea1f7a.png&hash=f108d34d78727459c330d31aaf85e0b4ec472977)

I can see why Ms1995hoo thought it was a lot of arrows for someone unfamiliar with the area to decipher. In particular, I could see why someone who hasn't seen this style sign in the past might find it confusing that the route to Baltimore is shown as straight ahead whilst the exit for Route 644 is shown as exiting to the right.



This is the problem I have with APL signs.  Arguably, the only direction that corresponds to straight is Richmond.  Yet there has to  be some way to designate with arrows the 3 different directions that are right (Franconia, Baltimore, Tysons).

[In California, the radio reporters refer to the lanes of the highway by number, #1 being the left most lane and #2 the next lane to the right, etc.]

It seems that here, you have #1 Richmond, #2 Richmond or Franconia, #3 Franconia, #4 Baltimore, #5 & #6 Tysons.  At the point where the APL signs are located, it is just beyond where the gore is, so in effect it is where two roadways split from the mainline.  The left three lanes to Richmond and Franconia, the right three lanes to Baltimore and Tysons.  With respect to each individual roadway the straight and right arrows make sense.

Going a little bit north of this point, the roadway is 5 lanes.  Based on StreetsView, #1 & #2 for Richmond and Springfield; #4 & #5 for Baltimore and Tysons, #3 for all locations.  In other words, the big signs separate Richmond/Springfield from Baltimore/Tysons, but don't give any more advance lane designation.  How to resolve this, I don't know.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 11, 2013, 07:41:23 AM
Unrelated, but a couple of Richmond notes:

- The last original overhead sign for VA 195 (at the 12th Street entrance to VA 195 westbound) has been removed.

- US 60 has been slightly realigned in downtown Richmond; westbound US 60 used to turn onto 8th Street from Main Street, then follow the 8th Street Connector onto the Manchester Bridge. However, the 8th Street Connector and the parking lots adjacent to it have been destroyed to make way for a high-rise hotel, so US 60 now runs on 8th Street to Canal Street; the small segment of Canal Street between 8th and 9th has been converted to a two-way street, and US 60 traffic uses this to make the connection to 9th Street (both lanes are forced to turn right, it is not possible to turn left onto 9th Street from Canal Street).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman on September 12, 2013, 02:29:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 08, 2013, 06:58:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 04, 2013, 01:16:49 PM
Pictures are dashcam video captures, hence the graininess. I do note, based on this limited view, that it looks as though they may have put too much space between the exit numbers and the letter suffix, just like they did on the signs back at the VA-236 exit. Rather odd, that, since I think whoever fabricated the signs for the rebuilt portion of the Beltway did a very good job.

Personally, I like the extra space.  A 'B' and an '8' can look fairly alike on the signs.  As an example, Exit 4B could be confused with Exit 48.  Exit 4 B is much more clearly Exit 4 B.

Will this come into play much?  Generally, no.  But on occasion, such as a sign far in advance of an exit (or even a billboard, for that matter) where the motorist gets a split-second look at the sign, the space can help distinguish the B within the exit number.



Extra space between numbers and letters on exit tabs is now a MUTCD requirement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 13, 2013, 12:09:45 PM
William posted this to the DCROADS.NET group on Facebook, and some that are not members there might find it interesting.

WashingtonPost.com (from 1982):  A long road bitter fight against I-66 now history (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/15/AR2010071503948.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 13, 2013, 09:59:32 PM
I remember the day I-66 inside the Beltway opened the Post had a neat cartoon map of it. I'd love to find a copy of it someday. It was a Big Deal when that road finally opened.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 15, 2013, 04:52:38 PM
Dumb.  Fatally dumb this time.  Waste of a good young life.

Washington Post: Woman gets out of car to smoke; killed on Beltway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/woman-gets-out-of-car-to-smoke-killed-on-beltway/2013/09/14/7c6889f2-1d79-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html)

QuoteA 27-year-old woman was killed while running through Beltway traffic late Friday night, according to the Virginia State Police. Her companion told investigators she had asked him to pull over so she could smoke.

QuoteA Subaru driver was unable to stop in time, and hit Echo D. Davis, 27, of Benson, N.C., authorities said. Witnesses told police Davis had been wandering into the highway after 10 p.m. near the Eisenhower Connector exit, before trying to bolt across the road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on September 17, 2013, 03:48:45 PM
I don't think this has been mentioned before, but this weekend I saw some fairly new "truck rest areas" where there had been only blocked-off old pavement for once-planned regular rest areas.  The ones I saw were on I-64 eastbound between Clifton Forge and Lexington, and I-66 eastbound just east of I-81.  (The once-planned rest area on the opposite side of I-66 is still barricaded off, nothing obviously in progress to open it as a truck rest area.)

The new areas seem to provide nothing more than a lot of parking space for trucks, and a few porta-potties, so most of the investment seems to be the resurfaced pavement.  While they are designated as truck areas, they are not closed to cars, and there is no nearby rest area for cars.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 17, 2013, 08:35:47 PM
The Clifton Forge one goes back to at least 2009 (GMSV)...

Before it was rehabbed for the trucks, the one on I-66 still had the original black and white signs with cars/trucks directives plus fasten seat belts signs that were original to I-66's completion there.  I always thought I should stop and get pics of those but I never did...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on September 18, 2013, 04:22:05 PM
The Clifton Forge one opened back up in 2006.  When I was driving for an expedited trucking company, I stopped there on a couple of different runs just to use the restroom.  A truck was not allowed at the Welcome Center on I-64 at the WV/VA state line and the last rest area before that was in Beckley, WV.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2013, 07:00:01 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2013, 10:10:36 AM
Based on the rest of the blog entry, it sounds as though we should NOT expect to see similar signs on the Beltway any time soon.

Inrix is used to provide data for the signs.  As of right now, there is no way for Inrix to distinguish  between Beltway traffic using the HOV/Toll and the unmanaged "free" lanes. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 19, 2013, 07:03:00 AM
Oddly, one day this week instead of 24 min and 29 min, the sign read OPEN and 29 min.

Not sure how that is all that helpful...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2013, 07:04:31 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 19, 2013, 07:03:00 AM
Oddly, one day this week instead of 24 min and 29 min, the sign read OPEN and 29 min.

Not sure how that is all that helpful...

Mapmikey

Agreed.  May be they did not have enough probe vehicle data to provide a prediction that they could be confident in.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 19, 2013, 09:18:14 AM
QuoteInrix is used to provide data for the signs.  As of right now, there is no way for Inrix to distinguish  between Beltway traffic using the HOV/Toll and the unmanaged "free" lanes.

VDOT dropped an opportunity with the HO/T lane construction to add pavement detectors, which is how MnDOT does it in the Twin Cities.  Quite sophisticated ones too, as I understand.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2013, 10:00:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 19, 2013, 09:18:14 AM
QuoteInrix is used to provide data for the signs.  As of right now, there is no way for Inrix to distinguish  between Beltway traffic using the HOV/Toll and the unmanaged "free" lanes.

VDOT dropped an opportunity with the HO/T lane construction to add pavement detectors, which is how MnDOT does it in the Twin Cities.  Quite sophisticated ones too, as I understand.

In a sense, VDOT (or Transurban) has detectors, right now, at each  of the toll gantries.  Of course, that does not tell anyone how the non-managed lanes are running.

Detectors certainly work, but if the data are available from Inrix (or a competing service - I am pissed at Inrix right now), then there's no need for detectors. 

When the HOV/Toll lanes on I-394 were built, nobody had heard of Inrix.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 20, 2013, 12:18:01 AM
I'm not talking about just the HO/T lanes on I-394.  MnDOT has been using pavement detectors in Twin Cities freeways for YEARS now to estimate real-time traffic flow.  That VDOT/SHA haven't done the same is actually a bit disappointing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 23, 2013, 12:16:05 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 20, 2013, 12:18:01 AM
I'm not talking about just the HO/T lanes on I-394.  MnDOT has been using pavement detectors in Twin Cities freeways for YEARS now to estimate real-time traffic flow.  That VDOT/SHA haven't done the same is actually a bit disappointing.

The Transurban HOV/Toll lanes on I-495 do have microwave detectors to monitor vehicle speeds, some at the toll collection gantries, and some at stand-alone locations. 

Transurban is contractually obligated to maintain 45 MPH operation in those lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 23, 2013, 12:18:01 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 20, 2013, 12:18:01 AM
I'm not talking about just the HO/T lanes on I-394.  MnDOT has been using pavement detectors in Twin Cities freeways for YEARS now to estimate real-time traffic flow.  That VDOT/SHA haven't done the same is actually a bit disappointing.

VDOT, SHA and MdTA are using Inrix to provide real-time speeds on many parts of their respective freeway systems.

Note that I said many, not all.  There are some segments of the system that are not monitored by Inrix, though that should change at some point in the future.  I hope.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on September 23, 2013, 10:46:48 AM

Interesting article about Rt. 606/Loudoun co.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/breaking_ground/2013/09/shared-use-path-a-casualty-of-the.html?ana=e_wash_brk&s=newsletter&ed=2013-09-20


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 30, 2013, 01:35:15 AM
Washington Post op-ed: Save Manassas battlefield by building the Bi-County Parkway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/save-manassas-battlefield-by-building-the-bi-county-parkway/2013/09/27/9f104f58-2611-11e3-ad0d-b7c8d2a594b9_story.html)

QuoteMore than 150 years ago, the battles of Bull Run were fought in the fields and hollows along the Warrenton Turnpike. Twice in 13 months, Union and Confederate soldiers spread out in battle lines on the sides of this historic roadway and engaged in Civil War clashes that helped shape the course of history.

QuoteBrave Americans consecrated this land with their blood, and subsequent generations have honored that memory. For 60 years, activists have fought off numerous attempts to mar the landscape with inappropriate, encroaching development, including a freeway, a giant cemetery and a 1.5 million-square-foot mall. Even Disney was rebuffed in its bid to build a heritage-themed park nearby.

QuoteBut just as the battlefields' ease of access to Washington via major 19th-century roads allowed curious picnickers to watch the smoke rise from the first Battle of Bull Run, so too has this proximity doomed Manassas National Battlefield Park to be one of the country's most endangered battlefields.

QuoteToday, and for many years, the chief threat has been choking commuter and industrial traffic through the heart of the park. The old Warrenton Turnpike, now Lee Highway (Route 29), features bumper-to-bumper congestion as it runs through both battlefields. Park officials and supporters have thus far resisted widening the road beyond two lanes through the battlefield and losing historic land in the process. But this causes a funnel of congestion within the park, particularly at the intersection with Sudley Road (Route 234).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: abc2VE on October 03, 2013, 05:44:20 PM
Looks like Ken Cuccinelli is attending a rally for the guy, who I guess is the outspoken opponent of the Bi-county parkway/ potential outer-beltway, this Saturday on Page Snyder's farm which, if I remember correctly, is in the way of the new bypass.     :hmm:
https://www.eventbrite.com/event/8635134921 (https://www.eventbrite.com/event/8635134921)

It would be interesting to see people show up in opposition to this opposition, or Cuccinelli, but, I bet Mr Snyder would ask them to leave very quickly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 06, 2013, 02:13:48 PM
Quote from: abc2VE on October 03, 2013, 05:44:20 PM
Looks like Ken Cuccinelli is attending a rally for the guy, who I guess is the outspoken opponent of the Bi-county parkway/ potential outer-beltway, this Saturday on Page Snyder's farm which, if I remember correctly, is in the way of the new bypass.     :hmm:
https://www.eventbrite.com/event/8635134921 (https://www.eventbrite.com/event/8635134921)

It would be interesting to see people show up in opposition to this opposition, or Cuccinelli, but, I bet Mr Snyder would ask them to leave very quickly.

Washington Post: Cuccinelli opposes Bi-County Parkway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/cuccinelli-opposes-bi-county-parkway/2013/10/05/7c815b26-2deb-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html)

[Emphasis added below]

QuoteVirginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli II came out against the planned Bi-County Parkway at a Saturday morning rally in Prince William County, marking an apparent shift from the stance he took at a candidates' forum in August.

QuoteCuccinelli, speaking near Manassas National Battlefield Park, told a friendly crowd of about 150 people that he was opposed to the 10-mile connector between Loudoun and Prince William counties as it is currently planned.

Quote"The case has not been made that what's proposed right over here is an efficient use of your transportation dollars to reduce the congestion that plagues all of Northern Virginia,"  Cuccinelli (R) told the crowd. Cuccinelli, the state's attorney general, also reiterated his opposition to closing two crisscrossing roads within the National Park Service's borders in exchange for building a connector around its western edge, as the park's superintendent prefers.

Quote"It's crazy in Northern Virginia to be making a deal with the National Park Service that closes down major roads in the heart of communities in Northern Virginia,"  Cuccinelli said. "If this is just a developer's project, then it shouldn't happen."

QuoteSaturday's event took place on a farm owned by Page Snyder, a leading opponent of the Bi-County Parkway. Cuccinelli's campaign said he had not made a turnabout from remarks supporting a north-south link during the "Battleground Forum"  hosted in Manassas in August by several Northern Virginia chambers of commerce. At the forum, Cuccinelli expressed support for a connector between the two counties but also said he was "appalled"  at the idea of closing the arteries crisscrossing the park.

QuoteCuccinelli suggested that the state should look for a route farther west, perhaps through a state park.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 07, 2013, 12:39:24 AM
Washington Post: GMU report says Bi-County Parkway would give 8% boost to Dulles cargo business (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2013/10/04/a395fd06-2b6c-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html)

QuoteImproved access to the western side of Washington Dulles International Airport would have little effect on air cargo activity at the international gateway, a new analysis finds.

QuoteProponents of the Bi-County Parkway, a 10-mile road that would connect Loudoun and Prince William counties, had suggested the north-south link could spur businesses to use the airport more frequently, particularly its cargo operations. However, after looking at what effect avoiding traffic congestion along the Dulles Toll Road and Route 28 might have, the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University concluded that a new road would increase demand for air cargo only about 8 percent. That would do little to offset the sharp declines in air cargo activity at Dulles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 14, 2013, 04:35:11 PM
Richmond.com:  Why Richmond, Why?!? City Gets Paid for 'Moving Lanes' (http://www.richmond.com/city-life/why-richmond-why/article_a2d2ff32-31ab-11e3-8111-0019bb30f31a.html)

QuoteWhy can't we have bike lanes in Richmond? - many

QuoteMoney for bike lanes comes from the same source that pays for roads. We're working toward making Richmond a more bike-friendly city, right? There are plenty of hearty cyclists who aren't afraid to pedal with vehicular traffic (which legally is where they belong), but the city is planning for bike lanes that promise to get more of the bike-curious out of their cars an on a bike. How will Richmond pay for them has been a hot topic in my conversations.

QuoteWe're talking complete streets, a concept that directs a locality to create streetscapes that accommodate all modes of travel -- by car, bicycle, mass transit, walking, etc. I'm a driver, pedestrian, cyclist and taxpayer. I'm also a graduate student working on my masters degree in Urban Planning at VCU. None of those things qualify me as a traffic expert, but I'm going to take a stab at this one and y'all get to come along for the ride.

QuoteLocalities in Virginia appear to be struggling to install bike lanes that involve road diets -- the act of removing a street lane (termed a "moving lane") for the sake of creating bike lanes or reducing travel lanes. The solution to the problem may be as simple as rewording the Virginia Department of Transportation codes.

QuoteIn fiscal year 2013-14, the Richmond district (which contains Ashland, Blackstone, Chase City, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, Petersburg, South Hill and Richmond) will be allotted nearly $40 million for 3,048 lane miles in the from VDOT to pay for road maintenance of any kind. VDOT is scheduled to pay nearly $335 million for 26,057 lane miles statewide. The concern for localities is that there are no provisions in the codes that allow cities and towns to convert road lanes to bike lanes without avoiding financial penalties. Less miles = less money.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 14, 2013, 08:56:51 PM
Just a minor quibble, but Richmond.com is separate from the Times-Dispatch. Still, Richmond's roads have a lot more problems than this, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 14, 2013, 09:54:55 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 14, 2013, 08:56:51 PM
Just a minor quibble, but Richmond.com is separate from the Times-Dispatch. Still, Richmond's roads have a lot more problems than this, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Separate - but the bylines I see on Richmond.com (http://www.richmond.com/) seem remarkably similar to the ones seen on the Times-Dispatch (http://www.richmond.com/) site.

But thanks for pointing it out.

Looking at metropolitan Richmond from the perspective of someone that spends a lot of time driving on VDOT's Northern Virginia District roads, it seems that Richmond and it suburbs have gotten a better deal (overall) than NoVa (due at least in part to the behavior of some NoVa elected officials).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 15, 2013, 10:25:45 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 14, 2013, 09:54:55 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 14, 2013, 08:56:51 PM
Just a minor quibble, but Richmond.com is separate from the Times-Dispatch. Still, Richmond's roads have a lot more problems than this, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Separate - but the bylines I see on Richmond.com (http://www.richmond.com/) seem remarkably similar to the ones seen on the Times-Dispatch (http://www.richmond.com/) site.

But thanks for pointing it out.

They have the same ownership and became separate entities when Media General sold the Times-Dispatch (although all the websites are run by the same group, hence their similar layouts). RTD writers do sometimes write on Richmond.com, though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 21, 2013, 07:27:17 PM
Washington Post: Cuccinelli and McAuliffe on transportation issues (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/cuccinelli-and-mcauliffe-on-transportation-issues/2013/10/21/cf90c4c6-3a9f-11e3-a94f-b58017bfee6c_story.html)

QuoteCuccinelli released a transportation plan Monday calling for transferring authority for much of the commonwealth's transportation system to county and local governments. Cuccinelli opposed a landmark transportation-funding measure signed by Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) this year as a "massive tax increase"  and raised legal objections about the legislation as attorney general. He also declared unconstitutional the imposition of taxes only on Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. The taxes would raise a total of about $500 million a year, to be used regionally. But he also offered guidance on making the bill constitutionally sound and said he would not try to change it as governor. He has spoken out against the Metro system's second phase of expanding the Silver Line into Loudoun County, saying the costs outweigh the benefits except for landowners in its path. He has also expressed concerns about the impact of the project on Northern Virginia motorists, whose tolls are helping to pay for the rail line's construction.

QuoteMcAuliffe supported the transportation bill and said he would pursue similar bipartisan approaches to solving the state's transportation challenges. Earlier this year, he ran a TV ad suggesting that he made phone calls in support of the landmark measure that helped it pass in the Virginia General Assembly, a claim that met with objections from Republicans who supported the bill. He has said he will emphasize infrastructure to roads, rail lines and bridges focused on safety and economic development. He also said he would avoid a "laundry list"  approach to transportation projects by setting priorities. And he said he would search for ways to improve regional planning to prevent gridlock, as well as smart-growth planning in which land development decisions are made in ways that don't worsen traffic. He reiterated his desire to widen Route 58 to four lanes along the southern flank of Virginia. He has said he supports the Silver Line that will expand Metrorail service into Loudoun County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2013, 11:21:49 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 21, 2013, 07:27:17 PM
Washington Post: Cuccinelli and McAuliffe on transportation issues (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/cuccinelli-and-mcauliffe-on-transportation-issues/2013/10/21/cf90c4c6-3a9f-11e3-a94f-b58017bfee6c_story.html)

Excellent follow-up by the Post's Dr. Gridlock to the story above.  One of the best discussions I have ever read of Viginia's secondary highway network and how it differs from other states. Here's hoping that the folks that love to engage in VDOT-bashing read this.

Cuccinelli plan focuses primarily on secondary roads (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2013/10/22/cuccinelli-plan-focuses-primarily-on-secondary-roads/)

QuoteCuccinelli's plan may have emerged late in this campaign, but it's got a long history in the tensions between state and local control in decision-making on transportation issues. This is the short version:

QuoteIn the people-moving hierarchy, secondary roads rank beneath interstates, U.S. routes or primary roads, but they are highly important in the daily lives of Virginians, many of whom will start and end their trips on these local public streets. There are more than 10,000 miles of them in Northern Virginia, within communities and between communities, compared with about 470 miles of primary roads. To identify roads in the secondary system, look for a black and white state shield with a route numbered 600 or above.

QuoteOutside of the Commonwealth, secondary roads are often known as county roads, and it's the counties that take responsibility for them. In Virginia, the central government in Richmond has a lot more control over local streets than is typical in most other states, including Maryland.

QuoteThe Great Depression created an early crisis in local road financing, and the General Assembly agreed to have the state take control of many county routes. Under legislation known as the Byrd Road Act of 1932, creating a secondary road system in addition to the primary system of highways that the state already was developing and maintaining.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on October 22, 2013, 11:32:17 AM
Other states, except for Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 22, 2013, 12:09:22 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 21, 2013, 07:27:17 PM
Washington Post: Cuccinelli and McAuliffe on transportation issues (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/cuccinelli-and-mcauliffe-on-transportation-issues/2013/10/21/cf90c4c6-3a9f-11e3-a94f-b58017bfee6c_story.html)

QuoteCuccinelli released a transportation plan Monday calling for transferring authority for much of the commonwealth's transportation system to county and local governments. Cuccinelli opposed a landmark transportation-funding measure signed by Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) this year as a "massive tax increase"  and raised legal objections about the legislation as attorney general. He also declared unconstitutional the imposition of taxes only on Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. The taxes would raise a total of about $500 million a year, to be used regionally. But he also offered guidance on making the bill constitutionally sound and said he would not try to change it as governor. He has spoken out against the Metro system's second phase of expanding the Silver Line into Loudoun County, saying the costs outweigh the benefits except for landowners in its path. He has also expressed concerns about the impact of the project on Northern Virginia motorists, whose tolls are helping to pay for the rail line's construction.

QuoteMcAuliffe supported the transportation bill and said he would pursue similar bipartisan approaches to solving the state's transportation challenges. Earlier this year, he ran a TV ad suggesting that he made phone calls in support of the landmark measure that helped it pass in the Virginia General Assembly, a claim that met with objections from Republicans who supported the bill. He has said he will emphasize infrastructure to roads, rail lines and bridges focused on safety and economic development. He also said he would avoid a "laundry list"  approach to transportation projects by setting priorities. And he said he would search for ways to improve regional planning to prevent gridlock, as well as smart-growth planning in which land development decisions are made in ways that don't worsen traffic. He reiterated his desire to widen Route 58 to four lanes along the southern flank of Virginia. He has said he supports the Silver Line that will expand Metrorail service into Loudoun County.

I noted that a commenter posted information from Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis's website detailing Sarvis's positions on transportation. The big thing I noted was that Sarvis seems to be sympathetic to the idea that people who don't own cars shouldn't be paying taxes to support roads. I think that position is nonsensical because the overwhelming majority of non—car owners still realize significant benefits from the roads to the point that the road system is essential to their lives, regardless of how they commute and get around. How do they get their groceries, for example? There are very few people out there who grow all their own food to the point of complete self-sufficiency. Just about everybody else goes to a grocery store. The store receives groceries that arrive via motorized vehicles using the roads. That's one very simple example.

I may vote for Sarvis anyway. McAuliffe has no platform other than "don't vote for Cuccinelli." I haven't heard a single peep out of his campaign saying why we should vote for him–he focuses entirely on negative ads. I'm not sure I like Cuccinelli either, though. Something about him reminds me a lot of Jerry Kilgore, the Republican nominee in 2005 who was probably the worst candidate in recent memory (he spent his whole campaign arguing that Tim Kaine wasn't strong enough on the death penalty, which is simply not an important issue in most voters' daily lives). I voted for the independent candidate, Russ Potts, in 2005 in part because he was the only one of the three who was up-front on transportation in saying, "Voters want transportation improvements. But they insist they don't want government services cut. That means either higher taxes, tolls, or both." He was right! Saying you'll raise taxes is not a way to get elected, of course.

I don't believe in the old canard that voting for a third-party candidate is throwing away your vote. So many people say, "I'd vote for [fill in the blank] except he won't win." If everyone who said that voted for the third-party candidate, he'd win! My concern is more with splitting the vote and potentially ensuring McAuliffe gets elected.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2013, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2013, 12:09:22 PM
I noted that a commenter posted information from Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis's website detailing Sarvis's positions on transportation. The big thing I noted was that Sarvis seems to be sympathetic to the idea that people who don't own cars shouldn't be paying taxes to support roads. I think that position is nonsensical because the overwhelming majority of non—car owners still realize significant benefits from the roads to the point that the road system is essential to their lives, regardless of how they commute and get around. How do they get their groceries, for example? There are very few people out there who grow all their own food to the point of complete self-sufficiency. Just about everybody else goes to a grocery store. The store receives groceries that arrive via motorized vehicles using the roads. That's one very simple example.

Absolutely correct.  The hardest-core anti-auto and anti-highway activists still depend on those highways.  Even if they live in Arlington County, Virginia or Takoma Park, Maryland.

Consider that the Amish people who do not usually own motor vehicles and live in various rural parts of the East and Midwest (including Cecil, Charles  and St. Mary's Counties in Maryland) depend on the public highway network, even though they don't pay highway user taxes (since the feed that their horses and other draft animals consume is not subject to any tax that resembles a motor fuel tax).  Not sure if there are any Amish in Virginia (I've never seen them during my travels around the state). Besides, it is my understanding that most Amish do not vote.

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2013, 12:09:22 PM
I may vote for Sarvis anyway. McAuliffe has no platform other than "don't vote for Cuccinelli." I haven't heard a single peep out of his campaign saying why we should vote for him–he focuses entirely on negative ads. I'm not sure I like Cuccinelli either, though. Something about him reminds me a lot of Jerry Kilgore, the Republican nominee in 2005 who was probably the worst candidate in recent memory (he spent his whole campaign arguing that Tim Kaine wasn't strong enough on the death penalty, which is simply not an important issue in most voters' daily lives). I voted for the independent candidate, Russ Potts, in 2005 in part because he was the only one of the three who was up-front on transportation in saying, "Voters want transportation improvements. But they insist they don't want government services cut. That means either higher taxes, tolls, or both." He was right! Saying you'll raise taxes is not a way to get elected, of course.

IMO, that you vote is much more important than that you vote for the candidate that I might like.  I am not enthused about either of the  "main" candidates for governor of Virginia for various reasons (the usually very conservative editorial page of the Richmond-Times Dispatch declined to endorse anyone (http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/our-choice-for-governor-in-none-of-the-above/article_6a2c5e41-20f3-561a-a25d-52eedf4741f3.html) in the 2013 race for governor, and their reasons for not doing so are worth a read if you have not already).  In a race like this one, being able to vote for "none of the above" seems like a good idea.

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2013, 12:09:22 PM
I don't believe in the old canard that voting for a third-party candidate is throwing away your vote. So many people say, "I'd vote for [fill in the blank] except he won't win." If everyone who said that voted for the third-party candidate, he'd win! My concern is more with splitting the vote and potentially ensuring McAuliffe gets elected.

For reasons off-topic to this forum, I know who I would vote for if I lived in Virginia, but I don't, so I won't bore you by naming a name.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 22, 2013, 12:43:13 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2013, 12:28:07 PM
IMO, that you vote is much more important than that you vote for the candidate that I might like.  I am not enthused about either of the  "main" candidates for governor of Virginia for various reasons (the usually very conservative editorial page of the Richmond-Times Dispatch declined to endorse anyone (http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/our-choice-for-governor-in-none-of-the-above/article_6a2c5e41-20f3-561a-a25d-52eedf4741f3.html) in the 2013 race for governor, and their reasons for not doing so are worth a read if you have not already).  ....

Thanks for the link. I knew they had declined to endorse anyone but had not gotten around to reading the column. It's a good read.

I won't go further down the path of discussing the election in order to keep politics off the forum, with one exception. Some media outlets are complaining that Cuccinelli held up the transportation bill by objecting to its constitutionality. That's exactly the sort of thing an attorney general is supposed to do. He opined that the General Assembly's version violated the Virginia Constitution because it impermissibly imposed different sales tax rates upon different areas of the Commonwealth (Northern Virginia and the Tidewater area would have paid 6%, everyone else 5.3%). In response, Governor McDonnell asked the General Assembly to amend that aspect of the bill and they did by making the rate 6% everywhere. Cuccinelli may have opposed the bill for other reasons, but I cannot find fault in him stating that it would be unconstitutional in its original form over an issue like that one.

Turning aside from political discussion, it's been interesting to watch the price of gas in Virginia since the new transportation funding law took effect in July because the new tax is not a per-gallon tax paid at the pump but is instead a wholesale tax that gets passed on to the consumer by the station owner. It's not quite that simple, of course.

(//http://The%20Times-Dispatch%20explained%20it%20as%20follows:%5B/url)
QuoteThe gas tax rate is based on the wholesale price of a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline, determined twice a year to get a six-month statewide average, according to the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles.

The two base periods for the gas tax will be Dec. 1-May 31 for the tax period starting July 1, and June 1-Nov. 30 for the tax period starting Jan. 1.

To set the initial tax rate, which is going into effect today [July 1], state law used the wholesale price on Feb. 20: $3.17 a gallon.

The new gas tax also uses that Feb. 20 wholesale price as the minimum for calculating future semiannual rates for the gas tax. In short, the tax can go up, but not below 11.1 cents a gallon.

In certain jurisdictions in Northern Virginia and in Hampton Roads there's a 2.1 percent tax on top of that.

What would be really complex is if you drive a diesel car. See the end of that article.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2013, 01:38:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2013, 12:43:13 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2013, 12:28:07 PM
IMO, that you vote is much more important than that you vote for the candidate that I might like.  I am not enthused about either of the  "main" candidates for governor of Virginia for various reasons (the usually very conservative editorial page of the Richmond-Times Dispatch declined to endorse anyone (http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/our-choice-for-governor-in-none-of-the-above/article_6a2c5e41-20f3-561a-a25d-52eedf4741f3.html) in the 2013 race for governor, and their reasons for not doing so are worth a read if you have not already).  ....

Thanks for the link. I knew they had declined to endorse anyone but had not gotten around to reading the column. It's a good read.

I won't go further down the path of discussing the election in order to keep politics off the forum, with one exception. Some media outlets are complaining that Cuccinelli held up the transportation bill by objecting to its constitutionality. That's exactly the sort of thing an attorney general is supposed to do. He opined that the General Assembly's version violated the Virginia Constitution because it impermissibly imposed different sales tax rates upon different areas of the Commonwealth (Northern Virginia and the Tidewater area would have paid 6%, everyone else 5.3%). In response, Governor McDonnell asked the General Assembly to amend that aspect of the bill and they did by making the rate 6% everywhere. Cuccinelli may have opposed the bill for other reasons, but I cannot find fault in him stating that it would be unconstitutional in its original form over an issue like that one.

To the extent that Cooch was honestly expressing his legal opinion (which may not be shared by others, but so what, since he was (and is) the elected Attorney General, and expressing such opinions is part of the job), I absolutely agree with you.   

Though if he considered those provisions to be wrong, then how are the special motor fuel taxes that are collected for WMATA and VRE operating subsidies in the counties and cities that belong to the WMATA compact legal?  And the same question can be asked about the motor fuel taxes that are collected in the jurisdictions belonging to the Potomac-Rappahannock Transportation Commission to fund OmniRide, OmniLink and VRE subsidies?  In other words, it seems that collecting more tax on fuels sold in certain parts of Virginia is long-standing and accepted by most (though I also believe that many Virginia drivers are not aware that they are paying higher prices for fuel to subsidize transit than their fellow Virginians in rural and "small-town" parts of the Commonwealth).

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 22, 2013, 12:43:13 PM
Turning aside from political discussion, it's been interesting to watch the price of gas in Virginia since the new transportation funding law took effect in July because the new tax is not a per-gallon tax paid at the pump but is instead a wholesale tax that gets passed on to the consumer by the station owner. It's not quite that simple, of course.

(//http://The%20Times-Dispatch%20explained%20it%20as%20follows:%5B/url)
QuoteThe gas tax rate is based on the wholesale price of a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline, determined twice a year to get a six-month statewide average, according to the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles.

The two base periods for the gas tax will be Dec. 1-May 31 for the tax period starting July 1, and June 1-Nov. 30 for the tax period starting Jan. 1.

To set the initial tax rate, which is going into effect today [July 1], state law used the wholesale price on Feb. 20: $3.17 a gallon.

The new gas tax also uses that Feb. 20 wholesale price as the minimum for calculating future semiannual rates for the gas tax. In short, the tax can go up, but not below 11.1 cents a gallon.

In certain jurisdictions in Northern Virginia and in Hampton Roads there's a 2.1 percent tax on top of that.

What would be really complex is if you drive a diesel car. See the end of that article.

This is where having a computer to do what looks like simple arithmetic is a great idea!

Speaking of Diesel fuel, my state of Maryland also recently passed a significant increase in motor fuel taxes, yet curiously, the prices for Diesel fuel that I saw during my trip to Pike County, Kentucky for the Corridor Q meet were higher in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia than what I saw posted at several stations in Maryland.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 22, 2013, 02:02:50 PM
Being that I live on a "secondary" (a.k.a. backroad), these are more than neglected, not only with maintenance, but snow removal as well. As far as the politics go, looks like The Carpetbagger has the lead. the 'Pubs probably should have had Bill Bolling, but Cooch was the preferred establishement candidate.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 22, 2013, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 22, 2013, 02:02:50 PM
Being that I live on a "secondary" (a.k.a. backroad), these are more than neglected, not only with maintenance, but snow removal as well. As far as the politics go, looks like The Carpetbagger has the lead. the 'Pubs probably should have had Bill Bolling, but Cooch was the preferred establishement candidate.

OK, I said I wouldn't make any more political comments, but I'll make one exception: It was most likely a reaction to 2005, when the Republican establishment had pre-ordained Kilgore as the nominee but the mayor of Warrenton, George Fitch, also ran in the primary and got 18% of the vote. The establishment saw it as a big embarrassment for both Kilgore and the Powers That Be in the party and have made an effort not to allow the party to conduct contested primaries for state office since then. They knew Bolling would have drawn a lot of support had there been a primary.

It's a chickenshit way to do things.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on October 22, 2013, 08:28:56 PM
Ah, they joys of living in a swing district... in a swing state... with off-year elections. The local news is solid political ads.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on October 23, 2013, 07:45:31 AM
While politics is often relevant to roads, please keep it relevant to the topic at hand,and preferrably neutral.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 23, 2013, 07:55:11 AM
My apologies...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 23, 2013, 03:35:16 PM
Dr. Gridlock in the Washington Post: Fight over Virginia transportation priorities takes on new importance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2013/10/23/fight-over-virginia-transportation-priorities-takes-on-new-importance/)

QuoteThe Commonwealth Transportation Board, Virginia's decision-making panel on roads, rails and other mobility efforts, is ready to spend money. Now that the governor and General Assembly have given the board more revenue to work with, a lull that set in over the past few years may yield to a more active phase of transportation projects.
QuoteMany Northern Virginians are aware of this changing dynamic, so they came to a public meeting sponsored by the board Tuesday night in Fairfax County to argue for or against particular projects. The most frequently mentioned were the rebuilding of the interchange at Interstate 66 and Route 28 – everybody's for that one – and the proposed Bi-County Parkway, which has generated strong opposition in the neighborhood bordering the north-south corridor on the western edge of the Manassas National Battlefield Park.
QuoteThe broader issues at play emerged when two people spoke: Stewart Schwartz of the Coalition for Smarter Growth and Bob Chase of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 25, 2013, 11:38:10 AM
Washington Post: Baby boy delivered just off Beltway en route to hospital (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/baby-boy-delivered-just-off-beltway-en-route-to-hospital/2013/10/25/f362e218-3d78-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html)

QuoteA 27-year-old woman gave birth Friday morning to a baby boy just off the outer loop of the Capital Beltway.

QuoteThe woman, whose name was not released, was driving around 5 a.m. on the Beltway near the Route 123 exit in Tysons Corner when she called 911 for help because she started having contractions, according to police.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 27, 2013, 06:48:04 PM
Drove through Opal today...the new US 17 loop and connector looks close to completion, with overhead signs in place on southbound 15/29 (though covered) and pavement and lane striping on the ramps.  No indications yet of exactly when it'll open.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on October 27, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
Sounds like a little progress since I went through there 3 weeks ago. I don't think the ramps were striped yet then, and the advisory speed sign on the loop had no speed on it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 28, 2013, 07:43:58 AM
I also drove through Opal on Friday, though I couldn't get a good look because it was dark. I found myself wondering how many people will continue to try to turn left at the intersection out of habit.

I'll download video later today and I'll see whether that area is at all visible.

Edited to add: Here's the video. Click to play. I couldn't tell in the dark why the southbound carriageway rises up south of the interchange.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FDashcam%2520videos%2Fth_Opal_zps843a40d0.jpg&hash=4f39068fabc5387beca5294837104e736467fedd) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Dashcam%20videos/Opal_zps843a40d0.mp4)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 28, 2013, 12:12:16 PM
I couldn't open the video on my work computer to see exactly where the road rises in your query.  However, I do know that US 15-29 has some waviness in that area as the 1930s (or older) alignment follows the terrain...

Under certain circumstances turning left will probably still be faster than going to the ramp further south...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 28, 2013, 01:05:03 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 28, 2013, 12:12:16 PM
I couldn't open the video on my work computer to see exactly where the road rises in your query.  However, I do know that US 15-29 has some waviness in that area as the 1930s (or older) alignment follows the terrain...

Under certain circumstances turning left will probably still be faster than going to the ramp further south...

Mapmikey

Yeah, I know, and the southbound side has a bit more of that than the northbound, which makes me assume it was built first. I think the rise I referred to is something new because I don't recall the road rising in quite that manner at that point in the past, but frankly in the dark it was just too hard to tell. I may go that way again in a few weeks en route south for Thanksgiving and if so I'll follow up, but the Street View image of that area (which is from 2008) appears to confirm my recollection that the road was flatter through there and that the waviness started a little further south.

We just don't go that way as often anymore because from our house it's more direct to Charlottesville to take I-95 south to Route 3 or Route 208. In this case HOV-2 on a Friday evening trumped directness.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 28, 2013, 01:42:04 PM
One of the terrain rises is a lot higher...

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=opal,+va&hl=en&ll=38.612411,-77.800283&spn=0.015442,0.033023&sll=39.009931,-77.102652&sspn=0.015356,0.033023&t=h&hnear=Opal,+Fauquier,+Virginia&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.612364,-77.800594&panoid=mhOzA9hagwv0zT5zYQRFlg&cbp=12,151.96,,0,0

Living in Fredericksburg I never have occasion to use that part of US 15-29 so it's practically a foreign country to me right there...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 29, 2013, 11:40:34 AM
As I say, who knows. Driving at night can throw off your perception anyway.

For the trip home we took a different route. Our usual route home would have been up Routes 22 and 231 to Gordonsville, then US-15 to Orange, VA-20 to Wilderness, and VA-3 across to I-95. A guy at our tailgate suggested we take Route 208 across the bridge over Lake Anna instead. We had done that route once before and emerged onto I-95 at Thornburg and we thought it seemed slower, but he noted the new Lake Anna Parkway speeds up the trip considerably because you avoid all the traffic lights on Route 3 and it makes it a direct shot to Fredericksburg (you emerge on US-1 just north of the Massaponax interchange) once you turn from US-522 onto Route 208. Nice drive. It didn't save us any time because I only decided to go that way once we were already on Route 22 near Keswick Hall, so that meant using the country roads across to Louisa instead of using I-64 east to 208 (it did allow me to complete a clinch of Route 22). I also think any time you're on an unfamiliar road it often makes it seem longer than a route you know really well. Still, we'll go that way again under the right circumstances. It seems like every year they're throwing up more and more traffic lights on Route 3 west of I-95 as they build more retail, so avoiding those is nice even if the time works out about the same.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 29, 2013, 08:52:31 PM
Ok, after seeing the pictures in Takumi's latest blog post I think it was just my eyes deceiving me at night. The slog out I-66 directly into the sun hadn't helped my alertness.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 30, 2013, 08:41:40 AM
I was just on it Sunday and, while I didn't have my camera, I don't recall any significant/noticeable grade changes near the loop.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on October 31, 2013, 12:26:07 PM
In other Virginia news, it looks like tolls at the Midtown and Downtown tunnels are starting in February. The state Supreme Court overturned the local judge's ruling against them:

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/10/va-supreme-court-reverses-ruling-tunnel-tolls
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 31, 2013, 06:09:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 29, 2013, 11:40:34 AM
As I say, who knows. Driving at night can throw off your perception anyway.

For the trip home we took a different route. Our usual route home would have been up Routes 22 and 231 to Gordonsville, then US-15 to Orange, VA-20 to Wilderness, and VA-3 across to I-95.

Hoo, I have had business in Charlottesville a few times (it is a long drive from anywhere in Maryland for a meeting), but I absolutely love the drive from Fredericksburg by way of Va. 3 and then Va. 20 all the way to U.S. 250 (Richmond Road/Long Street) on the east side of Charlottesville. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 01, 2013, 10:47:15 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 31, 2013, 12:26:07 PM
In other Virginia news, it looks like tolls at the Midtown and Downtown tunnels are starting in February. The state Supreme Court overturned the local judge's ruling against them:

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/10/va-supreme-court-reverses-ruling-tunnel-tolls

TOLLROADSnews: Virginia Supreme Court makes important ruling for tolls and P3s in Meeks case (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6800)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 01, 2013, 11:06:54 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 31, 2013, 06:09:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 29, 2013, 11:40:34 AM
As I say, who knows. Driving at night can throw off your perception anyway.

For the trip home we took a different route. Our usual route home would have been up Routes 22 and 231 to Gordonsville, then US-15 to Orange, VA-20 to Wilderness, and VA-3 across to I-95.

Hoo, I have had business in Charlottesville a few times (it is a long drive from anywhere in Maryland for a meeting), but I absolutely love the drive from Fredericksburg by way of Va. 3 and then Va. 20 all the way to U.S. 250 (Richmond Road/Long Street) on the east side of Charlottesville. 

We don't normally use Route 20 the whole way because it can be a slow drive, even though it's a very scenic drive. I've found over the years that the part between Charlottesville and Barboursville is often extremely slow and that the part between Barboursville and Orange is only a bit better. It's a combination of a 45-mph speed limit, a twisty road, slow drivers, and (at certain times of year) a lot of slippery leaves. We gave up our football season tickets a few years ago because we preferred to use the money for our Capitals tickets, but most of our trips to Charlottesville are still football-related once or twice a year. I'm sure that contributes to my sense of Route 20 through there being slow, as the football games obviously lure a lot more traffic. It's true that there also aren't a lot of passing zones on Routes 22/231 between Shadwell and Gordonsville, but for whatever reason traffic usually moves a little better on there (probably due to a less-twisty road) and the nine-mile dual-carriageway segment of Route 15 between Gordonsville and Orange is a chance to overtake some of the "Sunday driver" types.

Our usual route has been like this: http://goo.gl/maps/kCKpe

This past Saturday we instead went like this: http://goo.gl/maps/k7wtc  (There's a secondary road I could have taken that would have cut off going through Mineral, but I forgot about it. Just as well, this way I clinched Route 22. It would have been faster to have taken I-64 east to Route 208, but we only decided to use this route once we were already passing Keswick on Route 22.)

So not much difference in the overall mileage. The biggest difference was that this weekend's route eliminated all those traffic lights west of Fredericksburg on Route 3. It seems like every year they throw up a few more lights in that area. It can be a very frustrating drive if you hit it at the wrong time. I didn't really get a feel for whether this weekend's route was any faster, but either way I don't think it would have felt any faster because we don't know those roads very well (aside from I-95) and, as I said in a prior post, I've always felt that when you don't know the road it often makes it feel faster than when you recognize all the landmarks.

I may consider using that route south later this month when we head to Florida for Thanksgiving, but I'm not sure. We're leaving the Saturday before Thanksgiving and I think I want to avoid I-95 due both to boredom with the road and traffic, so I've been considering going down Route 29 to Greensboro, then continuing south on 220 to the Rockingham area and then down US-52 through Darlington to Florence. We've never done that segment from Greensboro to Florence. So the question is whether I want to take Route 29 the whole way from Gainesville or whether I want to drop south on I-95 before cutting west. Don't know yet. (What I would REALLY like to do is to take I-81 down to I-26, then I-26 through western North Carolina, but I don't think Ms1995hoo will stand for it. It's way out of the way, I-81 is frustrating, and I think she will lose her temper if we're still in Virginia after over five hours on the road! She wants to get to Florida to see her sister, which I certainly understand.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 01, 2013, 05:15:37 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 01, 2013, 11:06:54 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 31, 2013, 06:09:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 29, 2013, 11:40:34 AM
As I say, who knows. Driving at night can throw off your perception anyway.

For the trip home we took a different route. Our usual route home would have been up Routes 22 and 231 to Gordonsville, then US-15 to Orange, VA-20 to Wilderness, and VA-3 across to I-95.

Hoo, I have had business in Charlottesville a few times (it is a long drive from anywhere in Maryland for a meeting), but I absolutely love the drive from Fredericksburg by way of Va. 3 and then Va. 20 all the way to U.S. 250 (Richmond Road/Long Street) on the east side of Charlottesville. 

We don't normally use Route 20 the whole way because it can be a slow drive, even though it's a very scenic drive. I've found over the years that the part between Charlottesville and Barboursville is often extremely slow and that the part between Barboursville and Orange is only a bit better. It's a combination of a 45-mph speed limit, a twisty road, slow drivers, and (at certain times of year) a lot of slippery leaves. We gave up our football season tickets a few years ago because we preferred to use the money for our Capitals tickets, but most of our trips to Charlottesville are still football-related once or twice a year. I'm sure that contributes to my sense of Route 20 through there being slow, as the football games obviously lure a lot more traffic. It's true that there also aren't a lot of passing zones on Routes 22/231 between Shadwell and Gordonsville, but for whatever reason traffic usually moves a little better on there (probably due to a less-twisty road) and the nine-mile dual-carriageway segment of Route 15 between Gordonsville and Orange is a chance to overtake some of the "Sunday driver" types.

Next time I need to head down that way, I am going to give your route a try.  Looks interesting.

Thanks for sharing it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 01, 2013, 05:17:02 PM
Bacon's Rebellion: The Tallest Bridges in Virginia (http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2013/11/the-tallest-bridges-in-virginia.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 01, 2013, 05:19:25 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 31, 2013, 12:26:07 PM
In other Virginia news, it looks like tolls at the Midtown and Downtown tunnels are starting in February. The state Supreme Court overturned the local judge's ruling against them:

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/10/va-supreme-court-reverses-ruling-tunnel-tolls

Pump, this is good news. 

I realize that many people in Hampton Roads feel that their (expensive and often congested) bridges and tunnels should be free of tolls, but keeping the Commonwealth's motor fuel tax low seems a higher priority to the members of the Virginia General Assembly.  The same can be said about Northern Virginia, though there it's usually a lack of highway capacity overall, not just crossings of large bodies of water.

That being the case, tolls are the only alternative - unless local governments in these congested parts of Virginia want to jack-up their taxes on real property.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 04, 2013, 12:53:17 AM
Washington Post: Sudley Church in Manassas battlefield worries Bi-County Parkway plan will doom its future (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/sudley-church-in-manassas-battlefield-worries-bi-county-parkway-plan-will-doom-its-future/2013/11/02/411cefaa-4236-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html)

QuoteBut Sudley Church, which sits on a hillside in Manassas National Battlefield Park, still defines itself by the role its parishioners played amid some of the most brutal days of the Civil War.

QuoteNow its pastor, Bass Mitchell, worries that protecting the battlefield's history will destroy his congregation's future.

QuoteThat's because the church lies alongside a road, once a simple dirt path, that as Northern Virginia has grown has become a busy commuter route. Dump trucks thunder past the weathered split-rail fences that line the fields of the Manassas battlefield, and at rush hours, traffic inches along.

QuoteTo protect the historic park, the National Park Service would like to shut down the stretch of Route 234 in the battlefield. "We have been working literally for decades to find solutions to get traffic down,"  said Ed Clark, the superintendent of the park. "It's hallowed ground, a place for contemplation, understanding history. Fighting traffic and trucks is not exactly the way to facilitate that."

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 04, 2013, 09:50:22 AM
Richmond.com: Why Richmond, Why?!? Questions About Historic Granite (http://www.richmond.com/city-life/why-richmond-why/article_7e97d588-42f0-11e3-973c-001a4bcf6878.html)

QuoteI was walking down the street the other day ago, and found what looks to be either an old County Line marker or a tombstone between the sidewalk and the curb. The inscription on it says C.L. 1906 (unsure what the year date on it actually is). Just curious what it actually is, and if there are any more markers like this one? - Tom Jones

Quote"The City placed these markers in 1906 and 1914 at the time of annexation. There are a number of survivors around the City," wrote Richmond historian Tyler Potterfield (also of the City of Richmond Department of Planning and Development Review). 

Quote"City Limit" or "City Line" are my best assumptions but I could not find a confirmation for what the initials represent. There are more markers there, but the ones I mentioned are the ones I've seen or have been reported to me. Post yours below or email me priggan@richmond.com, I'm thinking about making another map of all the markers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 04, 2013, 11:56:18 AM
Probably stands for "Coporate Limits" which is a term the CTB uses going back to at least 1922.


Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 04, 2013, 05:37:16 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 31, 2013, 12:26:07 PM
In other Virginia news, it looks like tolls at the Midtown and Downtown tunnels are starting in February. The state Supreme Court overturned the local judge's ruling against them:

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/10/va-supreme-court-reverses-ruling-tunnel-tolls

More about the aftermath of the ruling of the Virginia (state) Supreme Court.

HamptonRoads.com: Toll opponents' attorney: "They're not quitting" (http://hamptonroads.com/2013/11/toll-opponents-attorney-theyre-not-quitting)

QuoteThe state's highest court delivered what appeared to be a knockout blow Thursday to an effort to stop the Elizabeth River tunnel tolls. That evening, about a dozen determined fighters gathered to discuss how they might go another round.

QuoteThey talked for about two hours, mulling their options and chances for success. Their attorney, Patrick McSweeney, was there, still incredulous over the Supreme Court justices' reasoning. He had heard their ruling in person, then driven to Portsmouth to counsel his clients.

QuoteIdeas ranged from a legislative fix that would require political pressure, to a federal challenge, to hope that voters on Tuesday would elect Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, whom the toll opponents view as an ally.

QuoteFriday morning, McSweeney said he was "working on something"  but wasn't ready to divulge specifics. He was more clear about the resolve of the group.

Quote"They're not,"  he said, "going to quit."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 04, 2013, 05:39:25 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 04, 2013, 11:56:18 AM
Probably stands for "Coporate Limits" which is a term the CTB uses going back to at least 1922.

Yeah, that makes loads of sense.  VDOT (and before VDOT, VDH) has posted "Corporate Limits" in a smallish typeface under the name of towns at town (but not city) limits for as long as I can remember.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 06, 2013, 08:46:10 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 30, 2013, 08:41:40 AM
I was just on it Sunday and, while I didn't have my camera, I don't recall any significant/noticeable grade changes near the loop.

I was able to go look at this today in the daytime.  The rise that 1995hoo found just past the new ramp to 17 south is the normal rise of the road that has always been there and happens to be a lot higher than the NB lanes of 15-29.

Two other notes:  VMS signs suggest this ramp opens Nov. 11 and that the old 17 by the Sheetz, etc is posted as F1077 already from US 15-29.  I don't know if the F-designation carries all the way to where the new 17 ties in as I used SR 663 to get back to 17 after driving by the ramp.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on November 08, 2013, 11:00:46 PM
The US 17 ramp in Opal opens Monday, per VDOT

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/culpeper/2013/flyover_to_open_at69145.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 10, 2013, 08:00:18 AM
Daily Progress via Richmond Times-Dispatch: Incoming board could put brakes on Western Bypass (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/incoming-board-could-put-brakes-on-western-bypass/article_7d93e264-49c9-11e3-a6f1-0019bb30f31a.html)

QuoteMore than two years and $50 million after the so-called "midnight vote,"  the road still might go nowhere.

QuoteThe Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, or MPO, could vote to slam the brakes on the project to build the Western Bypass of U.S. 29, said Sarah Rhodes, program coordinator for the MPO, the federally mandated entity tasked with long-range regional transportation planning.

Quote"At any time, the MPO could start or stop a project,"  Rhodes said.

QuoteThe MPO, which controls the area's Transportation Improvement Program, has final say over how the Federal Highway Administration obligates funds, Rhodes said. All it would take is a vote, and funding for the bypass would be blocked, Rhodes said.

QuoteFederal environmental requirements or a different direction from Richmond following the change in the governor's mansion from Republican Bob McDonnell to Democrat Terry McAuliffe also could impact the $245-million project, officials said.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2013, 07:49:18 PM
TOLLROADSnews: New Virginia governor McAuliffe to try negotiating lower Norfolk-Portsmouth tolls (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6819)

QuoteVirginia's governor-elect Terry McAuliffe says he wants to lower the tolls set to start at the Elizabeth River Tunnels February 1 next year. The tolls being levied under a toll concession rceently survived a state supreme court review in which the court unanimously upheld their legality and constitutional authority.

QuoteTolls are already among the lowest levied on any major tunnel:

Quote$1.59 off-peak and $1.84 peak hours for cars and 3-axle vehicles and over $4.77 and $7.36. Those are with an E-ZPass transponder account.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2013, 07:56:42 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on November 08, 2013, 11:00:46 PM
The US 17 ramp in Opal opens Monday, per VDOT

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/culpeper/2013/flyover_to_open_at69145.asp


Bob Marbourg, P.M. drive traffic reporter on Washington's WTOP Radio, reported this afternoon that the new ramp in "downtown" Opal is open to traffic.

At least for now, he reported that it is still possible to make the at-grade left to follow U.S. 17 from Warrenton in the direction of Bealeton, I-95 and Fredericksburg.

As an aside, WTOP has a repeater FM transmitter (107.7 mHz) someplace near Opal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 13, 2013, 06:16:53 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2013, 07:56:42 PM


At least for now, he reported that it is still possible to make the at-grade left to follow U.S. 17 from Warrenton in the direction of Bealeton, I-95 and Fredericksburg.

This will continue to be available going forward.  It is already posted as F1077 and also reaching SR 608 Clarkes Rd would be extremely inconvenient if the left turn were taken away.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on November 13, 2013, 07:00:59 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2013, 07:49:18 PM
TOLLROADSnews: New Virginia governor McAuliffe to try negotiating lower Norfolk-Portsmouth tolls (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6819)

QuoteVirginia's governor-elect Terry McAuliffe says he wants to lower the tolls set to start at the Elizabeth River Tunnels February 1 next year. The tolls being levied under a toll concession rceently survived a state supreme court review in which the court unanimously upheld their legality and constitutional authority.

QuoteTolls are already among the lowest levied on any major tunnel:

Quote$1.59 off-peak and $1.84 peak hours for cars and 3-axle vehicles and over $4.77 and $7.36. Those are with an E-ZPass transponder account.

I would actually start liking him if he reduced tolls on The Dulles Greenway.... but.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 13, 2013, 08:13:44 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 13, 2013, 06:16:53 AM
This will continue to be available going forward.  It is already posted as F1077 and also reaching SR 608 Clarkes Rd would be extremely inconvenient if the left turn were taken away.

Taking that left away would probably do significant economic damage to the Sheetz store in Opal, which has (at least in the past) very much relied on traffic making that left turn. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 13, 2013, 09:53:25 AM
I am familliar with this intersection.  One article says a flyover, one says a loop ramp.  What did they do there, google maps does not even show the construction yet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on November 13, 2013, 10:01:24 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-pHeEGWU8FPY%2FUlciv0yNHvI%2FAAAAAAAAGe0%2FVoPFmEk4_dg%2Fs1600%2FIMG_1640.JPG&hash=4ee6fdfa7e01a4f1bd8ae7e3431f6eca53ee4f45)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-mSRHk3aDYcU%2FUlciwblnBEI%2FAAAAAAAAGe4%2Fz1ueUR-f1dE%2Fs1600%2FIMG_1641.JPG&hash=ff8fe42a58a6fa060cf3a95c73b4991256f15911)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-hOFzxGLcfxI%2FUlciwZSz97I%2FAAAAAAAAGfE%2FwTYejhofTzs%2Fs1600%2FIMG_1642.JPG&hash=755cf917e3bbbe0f81b3336ca2896e13c44e63ab)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 13, 2013, 10:05:17 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on November 13, 2013, 09:53:25 AM
I am familliar with this intersection.  One article says a flyover, one says a loop ramp.  What did they do there, google maps does not even show the construction yet.

If you're going south on US-29 (say, from DC to Charlottesville), instead of turning left at the existing light you go a short distance past it and take a loop-around ramp on the right that goes around and back over US-29. Some people think of that as a flyover because you're passing over the road, although I think most of us would consider a flyover to be a higher-speed configuration. VDOT's press release calls it a flyover as well.

I guess if you want to visualize it, this particular ramp is probably most similar to a partial trumpet interchange. It just doesn't have the other movements that normally go along with a trumpet. For example, traffic coming from northbound Route 17 doesn't have an accompanying ramp to access southbound Route 29. There's not really a lot of reason for most traffic to need to make said movement because you can use Route 28 a few miles south to cut off some distance.


Edited to add: VDOT has a .PDF diagram available at http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Culpeper/Opal_Interchange/Opal_Interchange_Diagram.pdf



Edited again: BTW, they're still considering proposals for the proposed interchange at the southern end of the Warrenton bypass where 15/17/29 Business all split off to go through the town. I believe they've said work on that might begin in 2017 if they select an alternative and the FHWA concurs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 13, 2013, 11:31:18 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 13, 2013, 10:05:17 AM


Edited again: BTW, they're still considering proposals for the proposed interchange at the southern end of the Warrenton bypass where 15/17/29 Business all split off to go through the town. I believe they've said work on that might begin in 2017 if they select an alternative and the FHWA concurs.

A couple of these alternatives would connect VA 355 to the rest of the primary system...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 13, 2013, 11:42:28 AM
From the VDOT diagram, it appears that they got ROW to build a half-cloverleaf style terminus, as opposed to a trumpet.  I would be curious if there is some far off plan to make a full cloverleaf and an extension to some point yet to be determined.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 13, 2013, 11:58:14 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on November 13, 2013, 11:42:28 AM
From the VDOT diagram, it appears that they got ROW to build a half-cloverleaf style terminus, as opposed to a trumpet.  I would be curious if there is some far off plan to make a full cloverleaf and an extension to some point yet to be determined.

Fair enough. I used the term "trumpet" because it's more or less the closest to what's actually there given that Route 17 joins Route 29 at Opal. Extending Route 17 would essentially constitute building sort of a western bypass around Warrenton, although it'd be on a larger scale than that. I'd be a bit surprised if we see that in any of our lifetimes. I remember when they built the interchange east of Warrenton where the existing 15/29 Bypass splits off the old route through town. It doesn't seem that long ago. My father talks about how when he attended UVA Law, he used to take US-211 west from Warrenton to VA-229 south through Rixeyville to Culpeper. It cut off a couple of lights in both of those towns. I believe the bypass around Culpeper opened a year or two after he graduated. The US-15/29 bypass east of Warrenton is a lot newer than that, and I believe the US-17 northern bypass at Warrenton opened sometime in the 1990s.

By the way, for those interested in error shields, if you take eastbound I-66 from Haymarket to Gainesville and then bear right to exit onto Route 29, you'll see some erroneous VA-29 shields posted on I-66's C/D roadway. I spotted them on November 2 but was too far over to get a good picture (we weren't exiting and I only saw the error shields at the last moment as we went by on the mainline). The ramp from eastbound 66 to southbound 29 is closed as part of the ongoing reconstruction project and the erroneous state shields are there to indicate the detour route.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 13, 2013, 05:10:19 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on November 13, 2013, 07:00:59 AM
I would actually start liking him if he reduced tolls on The Dulles Greenway.... but.

As I understand it, the tolls on the Greenway are regulated by the State Corporation Commission (SCC). I don't know how much any Governor of Virginia has influence over the SCC (which I believe is at least quasi-judicial in terms of its functioning) and its decision making process.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 13, 2013, 08:42:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 13, 2013, 11:58:14 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on November 13, 2013, 11:42:28 AM
From the VDOT diagram, it appears that they got ROW to build a half-cloverleaf style terminus, as opposed to a trumpet.  I would be curious if there is some far off plan to make a full cloverleaf and an extension to some point yet to be determined.

Fair enough. I used the term "trumpet" because it's more or less the closest to what's actually there given that Route 17 joins Route 29 at Opal. Extending Route 17 would essentially constitute building sort of a western bypass around Warrenton, although it'd be on a larger scale than that. I'd be a bit surprised if we see that in any of our lifetimes. I remember when they built the interchange east of Warrenton where the existing 15/29 Bypass splits off the old route through town. It doesn't seem that long ago. My father talks about how when he attended UVA Law, he used to take US-211 west from Warrenton to VA-229 south through Rixeyville to Culpeper. It cut off a couple of lights in both of those towns. I believe the bypass around Culpeper opened a year or two after he graduated. The US-15/29 bypass east of Warrenton is a lot newer than that, and I believe the US-17 northern bypass at Warrenton opened sometime in the 1990s.

By the way, for those interested in error shields, if you take eastbound I-66 from Haymarket to Gainesville and then bear right to exit onto Route 29, you'll see some erroneous VA-29 shields posted on I-66's C/D roadway. I spotted them on November 2 but was too far over to get a good picture (we weren't exiting and I only saw the error shields at the last moment as we went by on the mainline). The ramp from eastbound 66 to southbound 29 is closed as part of the ongoing reconstruction project and the erroneous state shields are there to indicate the detour route.

I was not intending to be critical of your trumpet description, I was more expressing surprise that VDOT had set it up for some kind of future extension.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 14, 2013, 09:25:59 AM
QuoteTolls are already among the lowest levied on any major tunnel:

Yeah, TollRoadsNews, it's kinda hard to get lower than zero, since there haven't been any tolls on the Midtown/Downtown Tunnels in decades.

QuoteAs I understand it, the tolls on the Greenway are regulated by the State Corporation Commission (SCC). I don't know how much any Governor of Virginia has influence over the SCC (which I believe is at least quasi-judicial in terms of its functioning) and its decision making process.

However, the Governor can exert some influence on the General Assembly, who could easily provide more state funding to the Dulles Rail project and thus reduce the amount of toll increase needed.  Same principle with the Midtown/Downtown/MLK project.  Or the Governor could exert influence on VDOT and the CTB to divert funding to those projects in order to lower the tolls.

QuoteI was not intending to be critical of your trumpet description, I was more expressing surprise that VDOT had set it up for some kind of future extension.

Not much of an extension, to be fair.  From what I've gleaned of past Fauquier County plans, any such extension west of 15/29 would simply tie into the secondary route system nearby.  No significant extension west, nor is there any real need for such.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 15, 2013, 02:56:48 PM
For those of you who drive in Fairfax County....

At our HOA's annual meeting last night, some staffers from Supervisor Jeff McKay's office (he was unable to attend himself) told us that Mulligan Road, the new connector from Telegraph Road to US-1, should open next spring. It will run from Telegraph near Hilltop Golf Club and the under-construction Wegmans and will emerge on Route 1 at the intersection with Route 235 (Mount Vernon Memorial Highway) near George Washington's grist mill. Long-overdue replacement for the roads the Army blocked off after 9-11.

The construction on Telegraph Road between Van Dorn Street and Kings Highway is supposed to be finished in late 2014. Utility relocation has been the main holdup.

The widening of Route 1 through Fort Belvoir is supposed to be done by February 2016.

I recently noticed some new blue signs on Van Dorn directing people to use Metro Road, rather than Eisenhower Avenue, to the Metro station. It seems Fairfax County has been trying to get Alexandria to close off the annoying left turn from southbound Van Dorn to eastbound Eisenhower because it eats up too much of what would otherwise be green time for northbound Van Dorn (the traffic backups every morning are hideous....it can take us 45 minutes to go three miles to the Metro stop). It would be easy enough for Alexandria to do this because of the loop-around route afforded by Metro Road, but for whatever reason they refuse to do so. The only thing they've agreed to is to allow improved signage encouraging people to use Metro Road instead of the left turn. But of course that won't solve anything because they won't change the light cycle unless people start using the other route, and people won't start using the other route unless they're forced to do so. It's sort of a chicken-egg problem.


Finally.....froggie might get a kick out of this....some elderly man wasted everyone's time asking multiple questions about the long-dead Lockheed Boulevard Connector. He wouldn't shut up despite being told it was deleted from the plans. He was upset that Van Dorn was extended to Telegraph without the Lockheed Connector being built. The damage that would have been done to Huntley Meadows made that road a non-option.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2013, 04:11:37 PM
Washington Post: McAuliffe names Aubrey Layne transportation chief (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcauliffe-names-aubrey-layne-transportation-chief/2013/11/22/66d2baf0-5397-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html)

QuoteGov.-elect Terry McAuliffe on Friday named a Virginia Beach resident steeped in the region's traffic woes to be his secretary of transportation.

QuoteMcAuliffe (D) revealed his selection of Aubrey Layne, a member of the Commonwealth Transportation Board since 2009, at a news conference at the Norfolk International Terminals – a location meant to highlight the connection between good transportation and a strong economy.

QuoteLayne's appointment was also touted as evidence that McAuliffe, who narrowly defeated Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) this month, will have a bipartisan cabinet, as Layne has served governors of both parties.

QuoteIn 2009, then-governor Timothy M. Kaine (D) named Layne to the transportation board. And in 2010, Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) put Layne on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel Commission. Layne became chair in 2012.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2013, 04:20:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 15, 2013, 02:56:48 PM
For those of you who drive in Fairfax County....

What I would love to see in your part of the Commonwealth is the elimination of the miserable at-grade signalized intersections where Va. 286 (Fairfax County Parkway, former 7100) crosses Loisdale Road and Terminal Road (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=newington+virginia&ll=38.736394,-77.189577&spn=0.008185,0.015857&hnear=Newington,+Fairfax,+Virginia&gl=us&t=m&z=16) (thousands of truck trips come in and out of there every day because of the petroleum terminals and other industrial/warehouse land uses there).

Because there is so much traffic on both of these minor roads, and thanks to I-95 being so close, I don't think that VDOT has any possibility of getting them timed to reduce recurring congestion on 286, even in the middle of the day!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 26, 2013, 08:28:47 AM
We drove through Opal on Saturday on our way south for Thanksgiving. Portable VMS units set up as far north as the Warrenton bypass. In an unusual move for VDOT, but a good one, the signs said "NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AT RT 17"/"DO NOT USE GPS" and later signs added a third screen saying "RT 17 KEEP RIGHT."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on November 26, 2013, 09:27:27 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 26, 2013, 08:28:47 AM
We drove through Opal on Saturday on our way south for Thanksgiving. Portable VMS units set up as far north as the Warrenton bypass. In an unusual move for VDOT, but a good one, the signs said "NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AT RT 17"/"DO NOT USE GPS" and later signs added a third screen saying "RT 17 KEEP RIGHT."

I've seen many permanent "GPS routing not advised" signs in other parts of Virginia, to discourage use of particularly steep and/or winding rural routes:

(//www.alaskaroads.com/GPS-routing-not-advised-sign_DSC8859.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2013, 03:12:23 PM
Quote from: oscar on November 26, 2013, 09:27:27 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 26, 2013, 08:28:47 AM
We drove through Opal on Saturday on our way south for Thanksgiving. Portable VMS units set up as far north as the Warrenton bypass. In an unusual move for VDOT, but a good one, the signs said "NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN AT RT 17"/"DO NOT USE GPS" and later signs added a third screen saying "RT 17 KEEP RIGHT."

I've seen many permanent "GPS routing not advised" signs in other parts of Virginia, to discourage use of particularly steep and/or winding rural routes:

(//www.alaskaroads.com/GPS-routing-not-advised-sign_DSC8859.jpg)

Years ago, Va. 56 over the Blue Ridge was marked something like "TRACTOR TRAILERS PROHIBITED" or maybe "NOT ADVISABLE FOR TRUCKS OVER 65 FEET."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 08, 2013, 09:40:18 AM
Check out this weird design (http://www.virginiadot.org/images/info/ddi_roundabout.jpg).  Not only is VDOT proposing a diverging diamond at I-264/Ballentine in Norfolk, but the intersection immediately south (at Westminster Ave) would be converted into a roundabout complete with access ramps to/from the "wrong way" part of the DDI.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 08, 2013, 09:52:46 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 08, 2013, 09:40:18 AM
Check out this weird design (http://www.virginiadot.org/images/info/ddi_roundabout.jpg).  Not only is VDOT proposing a diverging diamond at I-264/Ballentine in Norfolk, but the intersection immediately south (at Westminster Ave) would be converted into a roundabout complete with access ramps to/from the "wrong way" part of the DDI.


If that is built, I think someone should go set up a 24/7 video feed similar to what that guy in Durham does with the 11'8" bridge!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 08, 2013, 10:44:55 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think it might actually work.  Virtually all of the traffic on Ballentine is to/from the north.  If there's anything that'd confuse people, it'd be the "wrong way" aspect of the DDI.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on December 08, 2013, 10:45:53 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 08, 2013, 09:40:18 AM
Check out this weird design (http://www.virginiadot.org/images/info/ddi_roundabout.jpg).  Not only is VDOT proposing a diverging diamond at I-264/Ballentine in Norfolk, but the intersection immediately south (at Westminster Ave) would be converted into a roundabout complete with access ramps to/from the "wrong way" part of the DDI.
This is why Norfolk's signage department shouldn't be allowed to design interchanges.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 09, 2013, 01:44:47 PM
Fredericksburg.com: Report knocks public-private agreements—includes I-95 express lanes (http://news.fredericksburg.com/transportation/2013/12/09/report-knocks-public-private-agreements-includes-i-95-express-lanes/)

QuoteA recent report by the  Washington, D.C., advocacy group In the Public Interest paints an unseemly picture of public-private partnerships, something that in recent times has become quite the rave in various sectors, such as healthcare, utility services and prison systems.

QuoteBut public-private partnerships also are big in transportation nowadays.

QuoteWe have a big one right here in our neck of the woods—the Interstate 95 express lanes, the nearly $1 billion project that will extend the HOV lanes in the median of the interstate to Garrisonville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 09, 2013, 01:46:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 08, 2013, 09:52:46 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 08, 2013, 09:40:18 AM
Check out this weird design (http://www.virginiadot.org/images/info/ddi_roundabout.jpg).  Not only is VDOT proposing a diverging diamond at I-264/Ballentine in Norfolk, but the intersection immediately south (at Westminster Ave) would be converted into a roundabout complete with access ramps to/from the "wrong way" part of the DDI.


If that is built, I think someone should go set up a 24/7 video feed similar to what that guy in Durham does with the 11'8" bridge!

I doubt that as many box trucks will be destroyed at the DDI - the Durham railroad bridge is a champion at that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 10, 2013, 10:00:20 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2013, 09:30:20 AM
....

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FSpringfieldAPL3_zpsebea1f7a.png&hash=f108d34d78727459c330d31aaf85e0b4ec472977)

....

Drove through Springfield in the HOV last night on the way home from Ford's Theatre and noted that VDOT is replacing the northernmost set of overheads for the Beltway interchange, the one for which one of the signs was missing about a third of the sign for the past few years. What's interesting is that this one is a single-panel BGS, a very large sign, instead of the multiple panels shown above. It uses the new APL format, though, with a splitting arrow for the option lane. I haven't downloaded videos yet, so I don't know whether I have any pictures of it, but my initial reaction was that it's a much more effective sign than the other ones shown above because it eliminates the issue of apparently-conflicting arrows. I didn't get the closest look at it because of the HOV construction combined with other traffic, and only the bottom half of the new sign was in place last night.

Ms1995hoo thinks I pay too much attention to road signs, but even she noticed the new APL format and remarked on it (her comment? "That new sign has strange-looking arrows.").

Don't know whether I'll get a picture tonight. We usually use I-295 to come home from Caps games, but whether we do that tonight depends on the weather. (The HOV is not normally open late enough for us to use it after games.)

Speaking of APL signs in Virginia, by the way, I noted one day last week (I don't know which, as my dashcam date stamp was messed up) that VDOT is apparently going to replace at least some of the overhead LGSs on eastbound Franconia Road in Springfield with new-style APL signs. When I exited I-95 onto eastbound Franconia there was a work crew assembling an APL sign on which I managed to notice the word "Mall." The current LGSs are kind of ugly because they say "TO Mall" and the word "TO" was added after the fact and doesn't line up correctly with the rest of the text.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 10, 2013, 10:51:11 AM
Bacon's Rebellion: No Easy Answers for NoVa's I-95 Corridor (http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2013/12/no-easy-answers-for-novas-i-95-corridor.html)

QuoteTraffic flow in the Interstate 95 corridor in Northern Virginia has improved since completion of the "Mixing Bowl"  project (at the intersection with the Interstate 495 Capital Beltway) and travelers could see even more improvements when the I-95 express lane projects open for service. But several sections of I-95 still will operate at failing levels of service, while continued population and job growth in the corridor will keep the transportation infrastructure under continued stress.

QuoteSo concludes a new report, "Outlook for the I-95 Corridor in Fairfax and Prince William Counties,"  by David E. Versel, senior research associate at George Mason University's Center for Regional Analysis.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 10, 2013, 11:15:13 AM
I find it hard to give a lot of credibility to the rosy projections for the I-95 HOT lanes as a means of relieving congestion on that road. I think Mike Tantillo gave a pretty good analysis of those lanes in a post he made here last year: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7481.0  It'll be interesting to see how it all works out, but I think a lot of his comments were very insightful.

One thing that is quite clear from the (generally quite inexpensive) Beltway Express Lanes is that some drivers are simply stubborn and will just refuse to pay a toll, period, no matter how minimal the toll is and no matter how bad the traffic is. Last Saturday evening Ms1995hoo and I were headed out to Great Falls to meet my parents at L'Auberge Chez Francois (my dad's birthday was last week and we were taking them out to dinner). I presumed I would take the Express Lanes to avoid Tysons Corner traffic, and the radio confirmed a backup in the general-purpose lanes heading north towards the American Legion Bridge. The VMS units indicated the toll from Tysons north to the lanes' northern end was 90¢. Yet Tysons drivers continued to pour into the local lanes, leaving the Express Lanes wide open. I loved it, of course. I did change plans so as to take the Dulles Toll Road west to Hunter Mill instead of staying on the Beltway to Georgetown Pike, but either way, it's a nice experience going 70 mph while the traffic next to you is at a standstill.

See video below (click thumbnail to play). Anyway, experiences like this one confirm to me that the I-95 Express Lanes–which will likely have higher tolls and which will have a more complex "segment-based" tolling system–will face the same resistance from drivers who simply refuse to pay a toll and who are willing to sit in the local lanes. The big difference on I-95 is that they're converting existing lanes, so people will be able to say (with some justification) the project made it worse (if that turns out to be the case). On the Beltway, since the project consisted of building four entirely new lanes, there's no basis for saying the new lanes made anything worse.

(To be fair to the drivers in the general-purpose lanes in this video, I suppose if you were headed to Maryland via the Beltway you'd wind up in traffic anyway even if you used the Express Lanes. In that situation you're just paying the toll to jump part of the queue.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FDashcam%2520videos%2Fth_BeltwayExpressLanesonaSaturdaynightinDecember_zps8fca037e.jpg&hash=e841d1411e9d5b2dce1b58e065310e8ce3076462) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Dashcam%20videos/BeltwayExpressLanesonaSaturdaynightinDecember_zps8fca037e.mp4)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on December 10, 2013, 11:59:15 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2013, 10:00:20 AM

Drove through Springfield in the HOV last night on the way home from Ford's Theatre

Nobody got shot, did they?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 11, 2013, 01:18:16 PM
Following on my comment above from yesterday, here is a video capture of the new BGS in Springfield. I assume the weather is the reason why they haven't finished it.

Compare this to the other signs shown further up this thread (seen in the distant background of this image).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FNewAPLSpringfield_zps8987c1c6.png&hash=ebe1ea019da99fd93e38d22e711263c3acaa7fc0)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on December 11, 2013, 08:40:29 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 11, 2013, 01:18:16 PM
Following on my comment above from yesterday, here is a video capture of the new BGS in Springfield. I assume the weather is the reason why they haven't finished it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FNewAPLSpringfield_zps8987c1c6.png&hash=ebe1ea019da99fd93e38d22e711263c3acaa7fc0)
See, usually, in sane states, the sign is finished first, on the ground, and then erected.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 11, 2013, 09:59:24 PM
[H.B., there's a quote from a guy by the name of Antony Elkins below - any relation?]

WTOP Radio: Companies propose solutions to fix I-66 traffic (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=654&sid=3522622&pid=0)

QuoteAt the same time drivers sit in the bumper-to-bumper traffic that plagues weekday commutes on I-66, an in-depth discussion is going on in regards to long-term solutions to solve the congestion woes along one the busiest highways in our region.

QuoteLate last month, nearly 20 companies responded to a Request for Information (RFI) from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) on how to solve the congestion.

QuoteThe documents are now posted online, and reflect a complex debate about toll lanes, HOV rules, law enforcement, toll prices, public-private partnerships and the future of mass transit options, such as Metro, bus-rapid transit and light rail.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on December 11, 2013, 10:22:33 PM
^^^

Not to my knowledge, unless he can trace his ancestry back to the Lincoln County, WV area, which is where my paternal grandfather was from.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 12, 2013, 09:38:52 PM
Quote from: Steve on December 11, 2013, 08:40:29 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 11, 2013, 01:18:16 PM
Following on my comment above from yesterday, here is a video capture of the new BGS in Springfield. I assume the weather is the reason why they haven't finished it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FNewAPLSpringfield_zps8987c1c6.png&hash=ebe1ea019da99fd93e38d22e711263c3acaa7fc0)
See, usually, in sane states, the sign is finished first, on the ground, and then erected.

Normally that's what VDOT does. I passed this sign this afternoon in Springfield; it's to be hoisted over the road in the direction I was heading. Maybe the sheer size of the other sign on I-395 was part of the issue? I don't expect to use I-395 again until next weekend, so I don't know when they might finish that one.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F744e73b39a217908acf8fc6777fbcce8_zps8203dace.jpg&hash=ebe2247580e66235542459e719758b89f5b3b38c)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 15, 2013, 06:05:07 PM
I don't remember it being mentioned before, but VA 54's west end at US 33 has been reconfigured fairly recently. It now hits US 33 a little further south of where it used to, and at a right angle. The old alignment is now SR 828 and does not connect to US 33 anymore. Pics to come soon.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on December 16, 2013, 08:49:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2013, 09:38:52 PM
Quote from: Steve on December 11, 2013, 08:40:29 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 11, 2013, 01:18:16 PM
Following on my comment above from yesterday, here is a video capture of the new BGS in Springfield. I assume the weather is the reason why they haven't finished it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FNewAPLSpringfield_zps8987c1c6.png&hash=ebe1ea019da99fd93e38d22e711263c3acaa7fc0)
See, usually, in sane states, the sign is finished first, on the ground, and then erected.

Normally that's what VDOT does. I passed this sign this afternoon in Springfield; it's to be hoisted over the road in the direction I was heading. Maybe the sheer size of the other sign on I-395 was part of the issue? I don't expect to use I-395 again until next weekend, so I don't know when they might finish that one.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F744e73b39a217908acf8fc6777fbcce8_zps8203dace.jpg&hash=ebe2247580e66235542459e719758b89f5b3b38c)

I've wonder why VDOT has some sort of aversion to posting SR-789 on BGS's for Commerce St and Loisdale Rd.   
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 16, 2013, 11:11:35 PM
Quote
Late last month, nearly 20 companies responded to a Request for Information (RFI) from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) on how to solve the congestion.

Quote...law enforcement...

Because nothing helps traffic move better than cops standing next to vehicles pulled over on the side of the highway. :hmmm:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 17, 2013, 12:07:26 AM
Quote from: dfnva on December 16, 2013, 08:49:14 PM
I've wonder why VDOT has some sort of aversion to posting SR-789 on BGS's for Commerce St and Loisdale Rd.

Good question. 

Especially (as you know) since Va. 789 continues all the way south to Va. 286 (Fairfax County Parkway) as Loisdale Drive.

I still would love to get rid of the at-grade signalized intersection at Va. 286 and Va. 789.

And at Va. 286 and Terminal Road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 17, 2013, 01:27:13 PM
I don't remember the interchange myself, nor have I seen any messages on the topic, but all the aerial photos of the I-81 interchange with US 460 in Christiansburg seems to indicate that this was another unfinished cloverleaf that would have lead to an unbuilt highway. Anyone have some info on that?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 17, 2013, 02:49:17 PM
Quote from: dfnva on December 16, 2013, 08:49:14 PM
I've wonder why VDOT has some sort of aversion to posting SR-789 on BGS's for Commerce St and Loisdale Rd.   

I don't really see how there'd be much benefit to doing it. I'd wager next to nobody knows the route number and even fewer people refer to it by number. (I've lived a short distance east of there since 2001 and didn't know the route number until I read your post.) Yes, I know that hasn't stopped the posting of route numbers for some other roads where nobody knows/uses the number (a nearby example is Frontier Drive BGSs on the Franconia—Springfield Parkway).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on December 17, 2013, 05:50:55 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2013, 10:00:20 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2013, 09:30:20 AM
....

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FSpringfieldAPL3_zpsebea1f7a.png&hash=f108d34d78727459c330d31aaf85e0b4ec472977)

....

Drove through Springfield in the HOV last night on the way home from Ford's Theatre and noted that VDOT is replacing the northernmost set of overheads for the Beltway interchange, the one for which one of the signs was missing about a third of the sign for the past few years. What's interesting is that this one is a single-panel BGS, a very large sign, instead of the multiple panels shown above. It uses the new APL format, though, with a splitting arrow for the option lane. I haven't downloaded videos yet, so I don't know whether I have any pictures of it, but my initial reaction was that it's a much more effective sign than the other ones shown above because it eliminates the issue of apparently-conflicting arrows. I didn't get the closest look at it because of the HOV construction combined with other traffic, and only the bottom half of the new sign was in place last night.

Ms1995hoo thinks I pay too much attention to road signs, but even she noticed the new APL format and remarked on it (her comment? "That new sign has strange-looking arrows.").

Don't know whether I'll get a picture tonight. We usually use I-295 to come home from Caps games, but whether we do that tonight depends on the weather. (The HOV is not normally open late enough for us to use it after games.)

Speaking of APL signs in Virginia, by the way, I noted one day last week (I don't know which, as my dashcam date stamp was messed up) that VDOT is apparently going to replace at least some of the overhead LGSs on eastbound Franconia Road in Springfield with new-style APL signs. When I exited I-95 onto eastbound Franconia there was a work crew assembling an APL sign on which I managed to notice the word "Mall." The current LGSs are kind of ugly because they say "TO Mall" and the word "TO" was added after the fact and doesn't line up correctly with the rest of the text.

This was done due to many, many complaints from drivers about the signing at Springfield.  The "four down arrows for three lanes" setup was marginally effective at best in many cases, and downright confusing as heck where you have three diverges like on southbound I-395.  The arrow per lane is a big step in the right direction.  The arrows are a little shorter than I would have expected though. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on December 17, 2013, 05:58:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 10, 2013, 11:15:13 AM
I find it hard to give a lot of credibility to the rosy projections for the I-95 HOT lanes as a means of relieving congestion on that road. I think Mike Tantillo gave a pretty good analysis of those lanes in a post he made here last year: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7481.0  It'll be interesting to see how it all works out, but I think a lot of his comments were very insightful.

One thing that is quite clear from the (generally quite inexpensive) Beltway Express Lanes is that some drivers are simply stubborn and will just refuse to pay a toll, period, no matter how minimal the toll is and no matter how bad the traffic is. Last Saturday evening Ms1995hoo and I were headed out to Great Falls to meet my parents at L'Auberge Chez Francois (my dad's birthday was last week and we were taking them out to dinner). I presumed I would take the Express Lanes to avoid Tysons Corner traffic, and the radio confirmed a backup in the general-purpose lanes heading north towards the American Legion Bridge. The VMS units indicated the toll from Tysons north to the lanes' northern end was 90¢. Yet Tysons drivers continued to pour into the local lanes, leaving the Express Lanes wide open. I loved it, of course. I did change plans so as to take the Dulles Toll Road west to Hunter Mill instead of staying on the Beltway to Georgetown Pike, but either way, it's a nice experience going 70 mph while the traffic next to you is at a standstill.

See video below (click thumbnail to play). Anyway, experiences like this one confirm to me that the I-95 Express Lanes—which will likely have higher tolls and which will have a more complex "segment-based" tolling system—will face the same resistance from drivers who simply refuse to pay a toll and who are willing to sit in the local lanes. The big difference on I-95 is that they're converting existing lanes, so people will be able to say (with some justification) the project made it worse (if that turns out to be the case). On the Beltway, since the project consisted of building four entirely new lanes, there's no basis for saying the new lanes made anything worse.

(To be fair to the drivers in the general-purpose lanes in this video, I suppose if you were headed to Maryland via the Beltway you'd wind up in traffic anyway even if you used the Express Lanes. In that situation you're just paying the toll to jump part of the queue.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FDashcam%2520videos%2Fth_BeltwayExpressLanesonaSaturdaynightinDecember_zps8fca037e.jpg&hash=e841d1411e9d5b2dce1b58e065310e8ce3076462) (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c378/1995hoo/Dashcam%20videos/BeltwayExpressLanesonaSaturdaynightinDecember_zps8fca037e.mp4)



I am nothing short of STUNNED at how cheap drivers are when it comes to paying tolls, as in, flipping out over a dollar toll.  I can understand frustration over the Dulles Toll Road, where the rates are somewhat excessive.  But people don't want to pay 50 cents to drive from Route 7 to I-66 on the Express Lanes? People flipping over the 50 cent a month E-ZPass fee in Virginia?  In DC area where many people are fairly wealthy? I really don't get it! 

I honestly expect the I-95 Express Lane tolls to by sky high, because all of the carpoolers will price everyone else out.  But outside of rush hours, I bet the lanes will have plenty of room to accomodate anyone willing to pay.  Hopefully with more entrances and exits traffic will be more evenly distributed within the lanes, as opposed to what you have now where the lanes are jammed in the north end sometimes, and empty down south. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 17, 2013, 06:00:59 PM
Oh, I definitely agree that the latest of the new signs on I-395 (the one seen as an incomplete sign in my photo) is a massive improvement. Among other reasons, the arrows actually line up with the lanes now! The old signs were too small and suffered from feeling crammed-together. I haven't been on I-395 since last Tuesday night and so don't know whether they've finished that sign. Our next game is Saturday, so I might see it then.

I think the single large sign is a more effective design than the other ones seen in my September 8 video capture just because I can see why people may find the arrows on the latter signs to be confusing. But you know, ultimately there's never going to be a 100% perfect solution there. It's simply so complex a junction with so many movements in a small area that people unfamiliar with it will almost always suffer from some degree of signage overload. The new signs are a big improvement, either way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 17, 2013, 08:49:51 PM
Speaking of obscure numbered SR shields on BGSs in Virginia, I ran across this on Dec 7.  This is I-81 just north of the I-77 SB split.  This used to just be a BGS that said "Service Rd."  I believe this is the first instance of an F-route on a BGS.  F044 is old US 11.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2FF044-F045%2520bgs.jpg&hash=6f9227118ce10cb6f2ddae9964e79d269dae367c)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on December 17, 2013, 10:54:17 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 17, 2013, 08:49:51 PM
Speaking of obscure numbered SR shields on BGSs in Virginia, I ran across this on Dec 7.  This is I-81 just north of the I-77 SB split.  This used to just be a BGS that said "Service Rd."  I believe this is the first instance of an F-route on a BGS.  F044 is old US 11.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2FF044-F045%2520bgs.jpg&hash=6f9227118ce10cb6f2ddae9964e79d269dae367c)

Mapmikey
If I were a coffee drinker, it would be all over my screen right now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 17, 2013, 11:52:22 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 17, 2013, 08:49:51 PMThis used to just be a BGS that said "Service Rd."

Route  F-269 (Live Oak Drive) is posted on an overpass over I-495 between Va. 193 and the George Washington Memorial Parkway (just south of the American Legion Bridge) in Fairfax County (here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mclean+va&ll=38.959759,-77.190993&spn=0.008159,0.015857&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=np&hnear=McLean,+Fairfax,+Virginia&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.95983,-77.190916&panoid=LSXJbCV9isKUtbQX3O-TRg&cbp=12,103.71,,2,-19.73) and here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mclean+va&ll=38.960226,-77.1908&spn=0.008226,0.015857&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&channel=np&hnear=McLean,+Fairfax,+Virginia&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.960168,-77.190869&panoid=EFbfYqx1oBf-7a0hRxnt6w&cbp=12,252.13,,0,4.55)). 

Not the same as your context, but that is the only one I have ever seen signed on an Interstate in any context.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 18, 2013, 06:56:41 AM
There's a few F-routes posted on overpass/underpass signs on I-64.  One in mind is just east of Afton Mountain.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 18, 2013, 07:46:41 AM
It just occurred to me to check on whether VDOT did the same with the "Service Rd" interchange near Ft Chiswell, Exit 77.

They indeed have signed F042 and F043 on the BGS there now (the road across the overpass is technically F326)
http://goo.gl/maps/uqdM5

I know there are F-routes that are not posted for overpasses where they could - I-81 Exit 10 (signed as US 11-19) is actually F310; Lovers Lane near Wytheville which is F04x (not posted anywhere and traffic log is contradictory); Lithia Rd in Wytheville is F324; Exit 1 on I-64 is F198 (posted only as Jerry's Run last time I was there); I-77 over F001 is not signed

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 18, 2013, 10:36:57 AM
Quote from: dfnva on December 16, 2013, 08:49:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2013, 09:38:52 PM
....

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F744e73b39a217908acf8fc6777fbcce8_zps8203dace.jpg&hash=ebe2247580e66235542459e719758b89f5b3b38c)

I've wonder why VDOT has some sort of aversion to posting SR-789 on BGS's for Commerce St and Loisdale Rd.   

I was thinking about this comment further and I wonder if in this particular situation it might be due in part to the way the street names are arranged on the sign. You can reach Frontier Drive, which is past the Commerce/Loisdale intersection, from either lane, although ultimately you'll have to move to the right after you pass the first light because Frontier is a right turn. But you have to be in the left lane to access Commerce and you have to be in the right lane to access Loisdale. So in theory, using this particular arrangement of names, you'd presumably need the 789 marker twice with a 2677 marker in between them (for Frontier), or if you wanted to put those markers directly next to the street names they'd have to be pretty small. I wonder if that sort of number duplication or small marker size might just confuse people unnecessarily in a situation where nobody uses the number anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 18, 2013, 08:16:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 18, 2013, 06:56:41 AM
There's a few F-routes posted on overpass/underpass signs on I-64.  One in mind is just east of Afton Mountain.

Adam, thanks. 

I have not driven that part of I-64 since 1975 (!).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 18, 2013, 08:19:08 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 18, 2013, 07:46:41 AM
It just occurred to me to check on whether VDOT did the same with the "Service Rd" interchange near Ft Chiswell, Exit 77.

They indeed have signed F042 and F043 on the BGS there now (the road across the overpass is technically F326)
http://goo.gl/maps/uqdM5

I know there are F-routes that are not posted for overpasses where they could - I-81 Exit 10 (signed as US 11-19) is actually F310; Lovers Lane near Wytheville which is F04x (not posted anywhere and traffic log is contradictory); Lithia Rd in Wytheville is F324; Exit 1 on I-64 is F198 (posted only as Jerry's Run last time I was there); I-77 over F001 is not signed

Wonder why VDOT has decided to "showcase" the F routes?

Used to be the only places to see them was on the small rectangular route markers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 18, 2013, 09:06:14 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 18, 2013, 08:16:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 18, 2013, 06:56:41 AM
There's a few F-routes posted on overpass/underpass signs on I-64.  One in mind is just east of Afton Mountain.

Adam, thanks. 

I have not driven that part of I-64 since 1975 (!).

Here's a picture I took from 2006 of the F182 overpass, labeled...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fbridges%2FF182-5.jpg&hash=16ada923771a2c4bc867aa46ce20e4b4ee171001)

There have definitely been F routes in regular SR circle shields for at least 23 years.  A rare style of F-route posting is this one I found in Wise County in 2008.  F routes came into being when this style of SR marker was already fading from view...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Foldsigns%2FoldF817.jpg&hash=a22a8749af5d7b44adcf8ad7eda58cccb8b3d130)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 18, 2013, 10:03:26 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 18, 2013, 09:06:14 PM
There have definitely been F routes in regular SR circle shields for at least 23 years.  A rare style of F-route posting is this one I found in Wise County in 2008.

Aside from your image of the F circle from I-81, I don't think I have ever noticed one before (most of my driving in Virginia is in the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg Districts, and along I-95 to the North Carolina border).

Quote from: Mapmikey on December 18, 2013, 09:06:14 PM
F routes came into being when this style of SR marker was already fading from view...

Do you mean the extremely rusty plate under the ROAD ENDS sign (itself something of a VDOT classic), or did you mean the F-817 plate with the very classy and classic arrow?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 18, 2013, 10:07:51 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 18, 2013, 10:03:26 PMthe extremely rusty plate under the ROAD ENDS sign

wow, where did you find that?  does Michael Summa know about this one?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 19, 2013, 06:40:46 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 18, 2013, 10:03:26 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 18, 2013, 09:06:14 PM
There have definitely been F routes in regular SR circle shields for at least 23 years.  A rare style of F-route posting is this one I found in Wise County in 2008.

Aside from your image of the F circle from I-81, I don't think I have ever noticed one before (most of my driving in Virginia is in the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg Districts, and along I-95 to the North Carolina border).

Quote from: Mapmikey on December 18, 2013, 09:06:14 PM
F routes came into being when this style of SR marker was already fading from view...


Do you mean the extremely rusty plate under the ROAD ENDS sign (itself something of a VDOT classic), or did you mean the F-817 plate with the very classy and classic arrow?


It occurs to me I might not have been clear enough.  I was referring to F-routes in an SR circle on stand alone trailblazers and reassurance shields.

The rusty SR rectangle was what I was referring to.  This size of rectangle went out of fashion on a statewide basis decades ago.  Although District 8 (Staunton north through Shenandoah Valley) has new ones but they are reflective and probably wouldn't rust like the originals.

Mapmikey

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 19, 2013, 06:55:12 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 18, 2013, 10:07:51 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 18, 2013, 10:03:26 PMthe extremely rusty plate under the ROAD ENDS sign

wow, where did you find that?  does Michael Summa know about this one?

If he follows Virginia Highways Project photo galleries he does...

The rusty F817 sign is still present as of Aug 2012 GMSV, difficult to see but definitely still there - http://goo.gl/maps/eVVyH

Others I have found:

Off VA 94 near Ivanhoe:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Foldsigns%2Foldsr713nearivanhoe.jpg&hash=fb9242b775262fa180d0f0af18322f4bb74162e1)

SR 738 (old VA 51):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Foldsigns%2Fsr738.jpg&hash=0f62876f6d7faaf88e27d6e32aba374bf45de5e8)

This one I know is gone from Coeburn:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Foldsigns%2Fcoeburn813.jpg&hash=e9132345e1eea07924b18f1e319f1630fd7b346b)

The first one I ever found was at the end of Old VA 124 outside West Point:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fold%2Fold219westpoint_st_03.jpg&hash=cf9eaf615d1c444858d9701e671f44ae6a369901)

SR 606 near Fries:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Foldsigns%2Foldsr606.jpg&hash=28e697938c024bcf72a280f295cf5cce6620c365)

Here is what they look like when not rusted.  This is the original VA 16 crossing into NC:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Foldsigns%2Foldsr856.jpg&hash=f5753f22a38b9a9b858b185423fc55eb0dabfe19)

They even were made of wood sometimes.  I found this one in Appalachia:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Foldsigns%2Foldsr1320.jpg&hash=d6302de0490e78b50ea98500d007d46203bd59bf)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 19, 2013, 11:51:47 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 19, 2013, 06:55:12 AM

Others I have found:


Thank you for sharing these. I am old enough to remember when signs like that were pretty common around Fairfax County (especially around Lake Barcroft, where I had an aunt and uncle) in in the 1960's.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on December 19, 2013, 12:10:07 PM
I've seen both F-series and T-series routes signed in the circular secondary marker style, but only on standalone route markers and, to my knowledge, not on an interstate guide sign.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 19, 2013, 01:51:42 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2013, 12:10:07 PM
I've seen both F-series and T-series routes signed in the circular secondary marker style, but only on standalone route markers and, to my knowledge, not on an interstate guide sign.

I've seen T signs in some places (and in circles), but they are pretty rare in Northern Virginia, because most of the towns maintain their own streets, just as the cities do.

The only place where I have recently seen the T signs (including perhaps a circular one or two) is in the Town of Middleburg, Loudoun County while driving through there on U.S. 50. 

Clifton, Fairfax County, is also an incorporated town, and VDOT maintains its streets, yet I don't think there is a T sign to be found there (the streets have route numbers that look just like the "regular" VDOT secondary system route numbers).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on December 19, 2013, 05:13:40 PM
I was just cruising GSV and noticed that in Virginia Beach along US 58's home stretch that 30th Street now branches off of Laskin Road.  Google shows it a thick yellow line while Laskin to Atlantic Avenue is a thin one.  In addition Laskin now is only two lanes east of the 30th cutoff, so am I to assume not only is the City of VA Beach making 30th Street the new through route to US 60 and the Oceanfront, but redesignating that as US 58?

I know that in VA Beach signage for US 58, US 60, and US 58 Business is scarce to none and the Laskin Road/ 30th Street intersection has no US 58 shields up to say which is which, so I was wondering if anyone knows for sure if US 58 still ends with Laskin or is now on 30th EB and 33rd WB with the new development in that area?

Wiki is no help, of course, but then again is the City of VA Beach either?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 20, 2013, 08:09:22 AM
Last time I was over that way (pre-deployment), it was still under construction.  However, since Virginia has not submitted a routing change to AASHTO, nor has their internal documentation noted any differences, it's safe to say that US 58 still follows Lasking Rd and ends at the Laskin Rd/Pacific Ave intersection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on December 20, 2013, 11:09:42 AM
I do not even think VA Beach knows or even cares about US 58's existence in VA Beach hence the lack of trailblazers. 

Look at the US 60 END assembly on Rudee Inlet Bridge where it is not US 60 as US 60 crosses over to Atlantic Avenue at VA Beach Boulevard and continues south to the loop at the south end of that particular street.  I do not think AASHTO was notified of US 60 being brought to end on Pacific at Rudee Inlet either.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 20, 2013, 02:50:30 PM
I wouldn't put any stock in the fact that VDOT has not documented changes in their own universe or requested from AASHTO.

US 11, 17, and 50 have all been rerouted (by signage anyway) in Winchester.

US 17 Bus and VA 2 have also been rerouted by signage in Fredericksburg.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 20, 2013, 10:32:35 PM
The key will be to see what VDOT's 2013 Roadway Center Line shapefiles look like, once they're available.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 20, 2013, 11:02:34 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 20, 2013, 10:32:35 PM
The key will be to see what VDOT's 2013 Roadway Center Line shapefiles look like, once they're available.

Is that available for download, or do you still have to ask VDOT for a CD-ROM or DVD?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on December 21, 2013, 12:07:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 18, 2013, 10:36:57 AM
Quote from: dfnva on December 16, 2013, 08:49:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2013, 09:38:52 PM
....

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F744e73b39a217908acf8fc6777fbcce8_zps8203dace.jpg&hash=ebe2247580e66235542459e719758b89f5b3b38c)

I've wonder why VDOT has some sort of aversion to posting SR-789 on BGS's for Commerce St and Loisdale Rd.   

I was thinking about this comment further and I wonder if in this particular situation it might be due in part to the way the street names are arranged on the sign. You can reach Frontier Drive, which is past the Commerce/Loisdale intersection, from either lane, although ultimately you'll have to move to the right after you pass the first light because Frontier is a right turn. But you have to be in the left lane to access Commerce and you have to be in the right lane to access Loisdale. So in theory, using this particular arrangement of names, you'd presumably need the 789 marker twice with a 2677 marker in between them (for Frontier), or if you wanted to put those markers directly next to the street names they'd have to be pretty small. I wonder if that sort of number duplication or small marker size might just confuse people unnecessarily in a situation where nobody uses the number anyway.

That's a good point -- I find VDOT's rhyme and reason for posting route numbers is inconsistent.  Before the early 1990s, there was no shield for SR-617 at what is now Exit 166 (before it became the Fairfax County Pkwy) -- the BGS just said "Fort Belvoir / Newington." There still are no shields for VA-420 or VA-402 on I-395 at exits 4 and 6, respectively.  Yet, other cases, there are useless routes posted on BGS's (SR-7700 on the BGS for Fairlakes Pkwy comes to mind as well as the F-routes shown a few posts higher).  I think VDOT would do well to post significant secondary routes in shields on BGS's and trailblazers but insignificant ones would be fine not being posted on BGS's and only on white rectangles (LWS's) at intersections ala 4-digit routes in PA. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 22, 2013, 04:35:25 PM
QuoteIs that available for download, or do you still have to ask VDOT for a CD-ROM or DVD?

Been available for at least 4 years on the Virginia GIS clearinghouse website (don't recall the specific site offhand).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 22, 2013, 07:15:25 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 22, 2013, 04:35:25 PM
QuoteIs that available for download, or do you still have to ask VDOT for a CD-ROM or DVD?

Been available for at least 4 years on the Virginia GIS clearinghouse website (don't recall the specific site offhand).

Thanks.  I will see if I can track it down.  Funny that I had never heard of those files being available (we use Navteq at the office). 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 28, 2013, 01:39:04 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 20, 2013, 08:09:22 AM
Last time I was over that way (pre-deployment), it was still under construction.  However, since Virginia has not submitted a routing change to AASHTO, nor has their internal documentation noted any differences, it's safe to say that US 58 still follows Lasking Rd and ends at the Laskin Rd/Pacific Ave intersection.
I'm in Virginia Beach now, and was at the area in question earlier. No signage of any kind, of course, but it's finished now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 02, 2014, 12:26:23 PM
WAMU piece on a George Mason University study (http://wamu.org/news/14/01/02/more_lanes_wont_mean_less_traffic_on_i_95_says_new_study) that suggests more lanes on I-95 will not work in the long-run.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 02, 2014, 02:43:09 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 02, 2014, 12:26:23 PM
WAMU piece on a George Mason University study (http://wamu.org/news/14/01/02/more_lanes_wont_mean_less_traffic_on_i_95_says_new_study) that suggests more lanes on I-95 will not work in the long-run.

But as you know, many of the worst days of congestion on I-95 correlated with heavy "through" trips, which are not going to be impacted either way by the suggestions made in the WAMU story.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2014, 03:21:46 PM
Too often, they determine a widening project will be a failure if any congestion continues.  During the peak periods, of course congestion will continue.  But during those off peak periods when congestion isn't expected, that's where the biggest improvement will come.  Or during an accident, or construction, when more lanes will be available to get traffic thru.  Or even the total length of the congested period - if today's congestion is 3 hours in length, and future congestion will be only 90 minutes in length, that's still an improvement.

Yes, we all know it's going to be congested at 7:30am weekdays going to work, and 4:30pm weekdays leaving work.  But if it can be congested from 7am to 8:30am, rather than 6am till well after 9am, then the widening project has worked.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2014, 09:40:13 AM
HamptonRoads.com: Getting an E-ZPass before tolls start becomes difficult (http://hamptonroads.com/2014/01/getting-ezpass-tolls-start-becomes-difficult)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 15, 2014, 02:19:10 PM
Speaking of the tunnel tolls, several (http://hamptonroads.com/2014/01/board-approves-temporary-reduced-tunnel-toll-rates) local (http://wtkr.com/2014/01/15/ctb-members-unanimously-vote-in-support-of-temporarily-lowering-tolls/) news (http://www.wavy.com/news/local/sources-tolls-reduced-during-construction) outlets (http://www.wvec.com/my-city/norfolk/Toll-relief-on-the-way-for-Downtown-Midtown-tunnel-240106711.html) are reporting this afternoon that the CTB unanimously approved lower toll rates for the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels here in Norfolk for the next few years.  They'll start next month at $0.75 off-peak/$1 peak, and raise $0.25 each year for the next two years.  The original toll rates...$1.59 off-peak/$1.84 peak...will go into effect New Year's Day 2017.  The 2014 rates are confirmed on the Elizabeth River Tunnel website (http://driveert.com/toll-rates/).

Peak is defined as 5:30-9am and 2:30-7pm weekdays.

They're reporting that the cost of this will be $82.5 million (though WAVY-10 is reporting it as $86 million).  WTKR reports that they'll use use leftover money from past projects to pay for the change.

Both Pilot Online and WTKR also note that truck tolls will also drop, to $2.25 off-peak/$4 peak.

Lastly, these are all the EZPass rates.  "Pay-by-plate/pre-paid" drivers who are registered pay $0.75 more, while non-EZPass/non-registered drivers will pay $1.50 more.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 16, 2014, 09:45:41 PM
I-64 Widening in Newport News Approved - WAVY-10  (http://www.wavy.com/news/local/newport-news/i-64-widening-in-newport-news-approved?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

Quote from: WAVY-10NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (WAVY) - The Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board unanimously approved funding Thursday to widen a stretch of Interstate 64 in Newport News.

The HRTPO Board allocated $44 million from the Hampton Roads Transportation Fund to widen I-64 from the Jefferson Avenue exit to just east of Yorktown Road.

The vote is the first time HRTF money generated from the HB2313 has been used, and the HRTPO Board says it will fast-track the project.

The General Assembly passed the HB2313, a transportation funding package, in July. It provides $200 million per year in additional transportation funds for Hampton Roads. The HRTPO Board is in charge of selecting which transportation projects get the HB2313 money.

This should have been done decades ago IMO.   
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 17, 2014, 07:23:59 AM
I'd noticed the I-64 widening (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/i-64_widening_project.asp) while perusing VDOT's Hampton Roads projects (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hampton%20roads/default.asp) page a few days ago.  Agree that it's long overdue, but I also noticed that it's a "downgrade" from previous plans, which had previously called for adding 2 lanes each way between Jefferson Ave and Williamsburg (one HOV, one general-purpose in each direction).

Comparing the VDOT page to the news reports, sounds like there have been a few changes.  For starters, only going to VA 238/Yorktown Rd instead of to Williamsburg (though it's plausible that going to Yorktown Rd is the first stage in what will be a multi-stage project), and starting in 2016 vice 2017.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 17, 2014, 10:22:39 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2014, 07:23:59 AM
I'd noticed the I-64 widening (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/i-64_widening_project.asp) while perusing VDOT's Hampton Roads projects (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hampton%20roads/default.asp) page a few days ago.  Agree that it's long overdue, but I also noticed that it's a "downgrade" from previous plans, which had previously called for adding 2 lanes each way between Jefferson Ave and Williamsburg (one HOV, one general-purpose in each direction).

There's also the elephant in the room when we discuss I-64 in Hampton Roads - the undersized HRBT.  Quite a few years ago, there was a PPTA proposal to (re)toll the HRBT and the MMBT (I-664), but I have not heard anything about them for a while.

Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2014, 07:23:59 AM
Comparing the VDOT page to the news reports, sounds like there have been a few changes.  For starters, only going to VA 238/Yorktown Rd instead of to Williamsburg (though it's plausible that going to Yorktown Rd is the first stage in what will be a multi-stage project), and starting in 2016 vice 2017.

At least some of that increased tax revenue from the McDonnell Administration appears to be starting to flow.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 17, 2014, 10:32:45 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 17, 2014, 10:22:39 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2014, 07:23:59 AM
I'd noticed the I-64 widening (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/i-64_widening_project.asp) while perusing VDOT's Hampton Roads projects (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hampton%20roads/default.asp) page a few days ago.  Agree that it's long overdue, but I also noticed that it's a "downgrade" from previous plans, which had previously called for adding 2 lanes each way between Jefferson Ave and Williamsburg (one HOV, one general-purpose in each direction).

There's also the elephant in the room when we discuss I-64 in Hampton Roads - the undersized HRBT.  Quite a few years ago, there was a PPTA proposal to (re)toll the HRBT and the MMBT (I-664), but I have not heard anything about them for a while.

Based on the way people reacted to the I-264/US-58 tunnel tolling, (raising Cain over a 2$ toll) this will never happen.
----
IMO, only adding one lane each way is a huge mistake, especially if there's some sort of evacuation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 17, 2014, 11:23:32 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 17, 2014, 10:32:45 AM
Based on the way people reacted to the I-264/US-58 tunnel tolling, (raising Cain over a 2$ toll) this will never happen.
----
IMO, only adding one lane each way is a huge mistake, especially if there's some sort of evacuation.

When people complain about highway congestion, there are several alternatives:

(1) Do nothing, and "toll" drivers by wasting their time and their fuel;
(2) Increase motor fuel taxes to fund at least some improvements;
(3) Impose tolls to fund improvements, even if the tolls do not vary by time-of-day;
(4) Impose tolls to fund improvements, and vary them when needed to manage demand.

What is not an option is to demand improvements without a way to pay for them.

Why are you opposed to just adding one lane each way at the HRBT?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 17, 2014, 11:41:21 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 17, 2014, 11:23:32 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 17, 2014, 10:32:45 AM
Based on the way people reacted to the I-264/US-58 tunnel tolling, (raising Cain over a 2$ toll) this will never happen.
----
IMO, only adding one lane each way is a huge mistake, especially if there's some sort of evacuation.

When people complain about highway congestion, there are several alternatives:

(1) Do nothing, and "toll" drivers by wasting their time and their fuel;
(2) Increase motor fuel taxes to fund at least some improvements;
(3) Impose tolls to fund improvements, even if the tolls do not vary by time-of-day;
(4) Impose tolls to fund improvements, and vary them when needed to manage demand.

What is not an option is to demand improvements without a way to pay for them.

Why are you opposed to just adding one lane each way at the HRBT?
I am in favor of expanding and tolling the Bridge-Tunnels. However, the way people raised Hell over a $2 toll on roads that had previously been tolled leads me to believe that any bill that tolls the Bridge-Tunnels will be DOA.

As for the comment about adding only one lane being a mistake, I was referring to the widening of I-64 in Newport News. I probably should have been more clear.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2014, 03:35:39 PM
Washington Post:  King Street [Va. 7 in the City of Alexandria] bike lanes bother residents who will lose street parking along busy route (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/king-street-bike-lanes-bother-residents-who-will-lose-street-parking-along-busy-route/2014/01/21/c374b620-7fa5-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html)

QuoteAll it takes to understand the volume of traffic on Alexandria's King Street is to walk west of the Metrorail station and stand a few minutes on the curb.

QuoteCars, trucks, buses and highway-bound semis accelerate up the slope toward Janneys Lane. Another mixed fleet, which sometimes includes emergency vehicles, barrels downhill toward Old Town. About 12,750 vehicles per day use the 30-foot-wide street, at speeds averaging about 34 mph, despite the 25 mph speed limit.

QuotePedestrians, separated from traffic by only a curb and, in some places, parked cars, walk warily along the sidewalks on both sides of the street. An occasional bicyclist – either 12 or 24 per day, depending upon whom you ask – will risk the ride.

QuoteThe city of Alexandria, in what it says is an attempt to improve safety for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists, plans to remove 27 of the 37 on-street parking spots in front of those King Street homes to make way for bike lanes for seven-tenths of a mile.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on January 31, 2014, 08:46:28 AM
Fairfax Co. highway wish list....

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/breaking_ground/2014/01/whats-on-fairfax-countys-priority.html?ana=e_wash_brk&s=newsletter&ed=2014-01-29
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 31, 2014, 09:17:03 AM
WTOP Radio: Options on I-66: Toll lanes, extending Metro discussed at meeting (http://www.wtop.com/654/3553480/Options-on-I-66-Toll-lanes-extending-Metro)

QuoteAt the first of two public meetings to update commuters on I-66, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) told drivers about options such as adding general-purpose lanes, adding toll lanes and transit options such as extending Metro, VRE or light rail.

QuoteLate last year, 19 companies responded to a VDOT request for information on how to ease congestion on I-66, and each touted the benefits that toll lanes would bring to the corridor from the Beltway out to Haymarket.

QuoteThe 495 Express Lanes were the first major experiment in Northern Virginia into the toll-lanes concept, with more such lanes opening in early 2015 on I-95 between Stafford and Alexandria.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 31, 2014, 09:25:00 AM
The Van Dorn—Franconia interchange is a waste unless they can first uncork the backup a short distance to the north between the Beltway interchange and Pickett Street. The interchange would send Van Dorn under Franconia (the traffic light would be on Franconia) and all it would accomplish is making it easier to reach the backup further north. In other words, the light at that intersection is not the problem. The intersection does have other issues mainly attributable to bad behavior by drivers (no advance notice on southbound Van Dorn that the left lane becomes left-turn-only, so lots of people try to shove right at the last second; people trying to turn right from the left lanes; etc.), but driver behavior issues aren't necessarily a reason for a full rebuild.

The real problem is that the City of Alexandria is unwilling to consider a number of needed improvements on their segment (a dedicated right-turn lane northbound at Pickett Street so that thru traffic need not slow down for turning traffic; closing off the southbound left turn at Eisenhower in favor of the loop-around via Metro Road so as to allow more green time for northbound thru traffic). Part of that is no doubt an attitude of "why should we help people driving from Fairfax County."

We live near the first light south of Franconia Road. It's not unusual during the morning rush hour for Van Dorn to be backed up from Pickett Street to beyond that light near our neighborhood. Even though that's only about three miles, it can take half an hour or more to drive it. You don't solve that sort of thing with an interchange at the southern part of the backup.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 31, 2014, 10:16:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2014, 09:25:00 AM
We live near the first light south of Franconia Road. It's not unusual during the morning rush hour for Van Dorn to be backed up from Pickett Street to beyond that light near our neighborhood. Even though that's only about three miles, it can take half an hour or more to drive it. You don't solve that sort of thing with an interchange at the southern part of the backup.

I am quite familiar with both streets, and I agree that the interchange will not provide a lot of congestion relief during peak demand periods, but it may make a difference at other times.

One thing I do not know is if there are a lot of wrecks in that intersection.  If there is a history of wrecks (especially with injuries), then the grade separation may be a worthy investment anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 31, 2014, 10:51:43 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 31, 2014, 10:16:56 AM
....

One thing I do not know is if there are a lot of wrecks in that intersection.  If there is a history of wrecks (especially with injuries), then the grade separation may be a worthy investment anyway.

Not really, which is kind of a surprise with a high school adjacent to it. There are wrecks south of the intersection where the high school has a mid-block entrance/exit, but the wrecks there are mainly due to irresponsible driving and not to anything to do with the intersection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 31, 2014, 11:05:52 AM
hoo has a good point about the signal at Van Dorn and Eisenhower.  But this streetview image (https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.803882,-77.133835&spn=0.002579,0.005681&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.804253,-77.133663&panoid=mWAJQXdgFR09cZRbfquzrw&cbp=12,190.73,,0,9.86) should highlight the problems with trying to shoehorn in a right turn lane at Pickett St.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 31, 2014, 01:01:31 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2014, 11:05:52 AM
hoo has a good point about the signal at Van Dorn and Eisenhower.  But this streetview image (https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.803882,-77.133835&spn=0.002579,0.005681&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.804253,-77.133663&panoid=mWAJQXdgFR09cZRbfquzrw&cbp=12,190.73,,0,9.86) should highlight the problems with trying to shoehorn in a right turn lane at Pickett St.

Oh, no question. Absolutely it would be difficult and I didn't mean to imply it was as simple as just adding a lane, though as I re-read my post I can see why it might have come across that way. I daresay, however, that the new condos going up on that corner are just going to exacerbate an already very bad situation.

Of course, today the problem on Van Dorn is the Mr. Wash queue spilling out into the street and through the intersection at Edsall!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 02, 2014, 06:05:36 PM
Richmond Times-Dispatch: Legislation would let Chesterfield maintain its own roads (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/virginia-politics/legislation-would-let-chesterfield-maintain-its-own-roads/article_b135f89f-dd41-520d-b37d-0c311481686e.html)

QuoteChesterfield County is seeking authority to maintain its own secondary road system at the same funding level that Virginia reimburses Henrico County for maintaining its road network.

QuoteSen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, introduced Senate Bill 606 with the encouragement of Chesterfield leaders, even though the Board of Supervisors has not publicly discussed the idea as part of its legislative agenda.

Quote"The board has not formally discussed it and there has been no commitment to taking (the road system) over,"  said Chesterfield County Administrator James J.L. Stegmaier.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2014, 03:18:49 PM
Richmond Times-Dispatch: McAuliffe wants to scrap E-ZPass maintenance fee (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/virginia-politics/mcauliffe-wants-to-scrap-e-zpass-maintenance-fee/article_bc561d8d-0feb-5308-8129-bf56d8e21828.html%5B/url)

QuoteGov. Terry McAuliffe's administration wants to eliminate a monthly maintenance fee on E-ZPass transponders and move administration of the program to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

QuoteSecretary of Transportation Aubrey L. Layne Jr. told a Senate subcommittee on Wednesday that the administration "takes a little different view"  of the fee than did the administration of Gov. Bob McDonnell, which imposed it in mid-2012.

QuoteLayne said he is working with Sen. John C. Miller, D-Newport News, on legislation that would give the Virginia Department of Transportation until Sept. 1 to devise and carry out a plan to eliminate the fee – currently 50 cents a month for a standard transponder and $1 a month for a deluxe "flex"  model.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: JawnwoodS96 on February 07, 2014, 01:04:08 PM
I would like to see the fee removed. Since one already pays for it upfront, it just seems more like a cash grab to charge someone monthly.

Hopefully it is removed and I hope the same for other states *cough*Pennsylvania*cough*.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: maplestar on February 07, 2014, 01:15:15 PM
Quote from: JawnwoodS96 on February 07, 2014, 01:04:08 PM
I would like to see the fee removed. Since one already pays for it upfront, it just seems more like a cash grab to charge someone monthly.

All one pays upfront (at least in Virginia) is tolls. There is a $35 up-front charge, I believe, which is all converted to your balance, so only goes to paying tolls.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 10, 2014, 05:36:56 PM
Richmond.com: Why Richmond, Why?!? I-295/Route 288 Isn't a Beltway (http://www.richmond.com/city-life/why-richmond-why/article_58e1071a-8cd3-11e3-8d18-0017a43b2370.html)

QuoteWhy isn't 288 and 295 connected to make the 295 beltway around Richmond? - D.W.

QuoteThis reader is asking about Route 288 and Interstate 295. I researched several sources, but the Richmond Times-Dispatch archives had the best coverage of the developments of the "beltway," including this breakdown of the vision for a beltway around Richmond:

Quote"Original plans showed I-295 serving as a true beltway around the city, connecting with Route 10 south of the city and I-64 to the north. But environmental and historical preservation issues, among other concerns, derailed plans for a one-shot north-to-east beltway. The beltway...will be a long, sweeping arc of I-295 northbound broken by a three-mile hop up I-64 to Route 288. From west of the city, Route 288's four lanes will flow south around the metro area's belly to another interruption, at I-95. To complete the loop back to I-295, it's either a short hop south on I-95 to Route 10 or a four-mile ride north to Route 895, the Pocahontas Parkway [toll road]. Although the final product is a stuttering affair, the combination of roads completes something of a vision."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 12, 2014, 09:54:53 AM
HamptonRoads.com/Virginian Pilot: Traffic down 21.8 percent after first week of tolls (http://hamptonroads.com/2014/02/traffic-down-218-percent-after-first-week-tolls)

QuoteAfter six or seven years of the same agonizing commute, Karen Watkins' trip to and from work changed Feb. 3 in two drastic ways.

QuoteOne: She had to pay a toll.

QuoteTwo: The traffic jams disappeared.

Quote"My commute all week last week was wonderful," she said.

QuoteVehicle counts for the first week at the newly tolled Downtown and Midtown tunnels were released Monday, and the numbers reinforce what many drivers are seeing in the suddenly congestion-free crossings. At the same time, they raise questions about whether people already may be returning to their old patterns.

QuoteElizabeth River Crossings, the private tunnel and toll operator, said an average of 103,543 vehicles used the tunnels each weekday last week. That represents a 21.8 percent drop from pre-toll traffic recorded in January, the company said.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 12, 2014, 01:19:20 PM
it always strikes me as crazy that reducing traffic by only 20% can get rid of the jams.

I've actually read that it is as little as 1%, if you can find the correct 1% to remove.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 12, 2014, 03:14:34 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 12, 2014, 01:19:20 PM
it always strikes me as crazy that reducing traffic by only 20% can get rid of the jams.

I've actually read that it is as little as 1%, if you can find the correct 1% to remove.

I suspect that it will "snap back" over time.  But it could make for an interesting timeseries.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 12, 2014, 03:50:49 PM
Quoteit always strikes me as crazy that reducing traffic by only 20% can get rid of the jams.

I've actually read that it is as little as 1%, if you can find the correct 1% to remove.

It doesn't take much.  Often just in the 5-10% range.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: lepidopteran on February 12, 2014, 06:03:13 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 12, 2014, 03:50:49 PM
Quoteit always strikes me as crazy that reducing traffic by only 20% can get rid of the jams.

I've actually read that it is as little as 1%, if you can find the correct 1% to remove.

It doesn't take much.  Often just in the 5-10% range.
I suspect that this is what happened during Los Angeles Olympics in 1984.  There were fears that the LA freeways would become hopelessly gridlocked.  But actually, those two weeks were reportedly one of the few times that there were no traffic jams.  Perhaps only 5% of motorists stayed off the freeways out of fear that traffic would be nasty, and the result was a rare free-flow.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 12, 2014, 06:07:19 PM
Carmageddon was the same thing.  traffic flowed perfectly.

I for one would be all in favor of "congestion cameras", if we needed to have robots enforcing the law in the first place.  instead of enforcing speed, which is a tertiary problem, I'd train the cameras on the people hogging the left lane, passing inefficiently, merging at the last second, and in general being boorish drivers. 

first ticket can be $1, then it doubles every subsequent offense.  ten offenses and you're talking a serious chunk of change; 15 you've learned your lesson or you're an eccentric.  25, you're an eccentric who has been priced into agoraphobia nonetheless.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 12, 2014, 07:41:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 12, 2014, 09:54:53 AM

QuoteVehicle counts for the first week at the newly tolled Downtown and Midtown tunnels were released Monday, and the numbers reinforce what many drivers are seeing in the suddenly congestion-free crossings. At the same time, they raise questions about whether people already may be returning to their old patterns.

What old patterns? Is anyone measuring the other crossings to see if their traffic went up?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 12, 2014, 09:13:51 PM
Old patterns = using the Midtown and Downtown tunnels.  I haven't seen the hard numbers, but the implication is that counts were low at the beginning of the week, and ramped up as the week progressed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 12, 2014, 10:58:57 PM
When the Hispanic community staged thier "day without immigrants" a few years back, traffic in soCal was so free flowing, that people expressed a desire for it to be like that all the time.  They decided to never have that again.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 12, 2014, 11:18:25 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 12, 2014, 09:13:51 PM
Old patterns = using the Midtown and Downtown tunnels.  I haven't seen the hard numbers, but the implication is that counts were low at the beginning of the week, and ramped up as the week progressed.
Oh, okay. Yes, people try alternate routes, realize how badly they suck, and decide the toll isn't THAT bad.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on February 13, 2014, 09:22:21 AM
Quote from: maplestar on February 07, 2014, 01:15:15 PM
Quote from: JawnwoodS96 on February 07, 2014, 01:04:08 PM
I would like to see the fee removed. Since one already pays for it upfront, it just seems more like a cash grab to charge someone monthly.

All one pays upfront (at least in Virginia) is tolls. There is a $35 up-front charge, I believe, which is all converted to your balance, so only goes to paying tolls.

I agree about removing the EZ-Pass fee, but I wonder about the fairness.  If Virginia removes its fee, what will stop other people from other states coming in and signing up for a Virginia EZ-Pass.

I believe the most fair approach would be for Virginia to impose EZ-Pass fees, but if a driver incurs at least $5 of Virginia tolls per month, the fee is waived.

But I'm happy to have the fees removed, especially for the EZ-Pass Flex, where so far there is no other option to acquire one.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 13, 2014, 04:10:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on February 13, 2014, 09:22:21 AM
Quote from: maplestar on February 07, 2014, 01:15:15 PM
Quote from: JawnwoodS96 on February 07, 2014, 01:04:08 PM
I would like to see the fee removed. Since one already pays for it upfront, it just seems more like a cash grab to charge someone monthly.

All one pays upfront (at least in Virginia) is tolls. There is a $35 up-front charge, I believe, which is all converted to your balance, so only goes to paying tolls.

I agree about removing the EZ-Pass fee, but I wonder about the fairness.  If Virginia removes its fee, what will stop other people from other states coming in and signing up for a Virginia EZ-Pass.

I believe the most fair approach would be for Virginia to impose EZ-Pass fees, but if a driver incurs at least $5 of Virginia tolls per month, the fee is waived.

But I'm happy to have the fees removed, especially for the EZ-Pass Flex, where so far there is no other option to acquire one.
I believe the most fair approach would be for all agencies to remove E-ZPass fees.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on February 13, 2014, 09:39:04 PM
DDI interchange at I-64 and US 15 opens next week (as long as the weather hasn't delayed it)

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/culpeper/2014/diverging_diamond_at_zion70780.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2014, 01:48:12 AM
Washington Post: Loudoun is happily in a rut (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/loudoun-wants-to-keep-its-historic-potholed-gravel-roads-unpaved/2014/02/14/ccdda5e0-94c8-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html)

QuoteOn an icy morning recently in western Loudoun County, Greg Wilmoth eased his school bus over the slick, steep unpaved road and told the parents waiting at each stop: I wouldn't want my children on this bus today.

QuoteLoudoun County, the wealthiest and one of the fastest-growing counties in the U.S., has more than 300 miles of gravel roads -- more than any other county in Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 17, 2014, 07:40:31 AM
Not just Loudoun, but in Prince William and Fauquier as well.  One that comes to mind:  SR 606 between VA 28 and SR 607/Carriage Ford Rd.  Paved in Fauquier, gravel in Prince William.  Never stopped me from using it as a "short cut" to/from Culpeper/Warrenton and points west.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2014, 02:01:11 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2014, 07:40:31 AM
Not just Loudoun, but in Prince William and Fauquier as well.  One that comes to mind:  SR 606 between VA 28 and SR 607/Carriage Ford Rd.  Paved in Fauquier, gravel in Prince William.  Never stopped me from using it as a "short cut" to/from Culpeper/Warrenton and points west.

I will need to check that out. 

I recall a road near there that crossed the Norfolk Southern mainline on a very rickety structure (it had a low weight limit posted by VDOT, but I think I saw in the news that VDOT eventually deemed it unsafe and blocked it off). 

May have been replaced by now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 18, 2014, 08:36:42 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2014, 02:01:11 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2014, 07:40:31 AM
Not just Loudoun, but in Prince William and Fauquier as well.  One that comes to mind:  SR 606 between VA 28 and SR 607/Carriage Ford Rd.  Paved in Fauquier, gravel in Prince William.  Never stopped me from using it as a "short cut" to/from Culpeper/Warrenton and points west.

I will need to check that out. 

I recall a road near there that crossed the Norfolk Southern mainline on a very rickety structure (it had a low weight limit posted by VDOT, but I think I saw in the news that VDOT eventually deemed it unsafe and blocked it off). 

May have been replaced by now.

You may be referring to the SR 646 Aden Rd bridge, built in 1882, pic below I took in 2008.  VDOT is scheduled to widen and rehab this bridge starting in spring 2015 - http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/aden_road.asp

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fbridges%2F646-1882-2.jpg&hash=7e99323a9fa0a94defc9f846bc098534297ec9cb)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 18, 2014, 09:10:54 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 18, 2014, 08:36:42 PMbuilt in 1882

that's gotta be one of the oldest steel through truss bridges in existence.  any older ones around?  any older bridge I can think of than 1882 is covered wooden, stone arch, suspension, or that one on US-11.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 18, 2014, 10:08:41 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 18, 2014, 09:10:54 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 18, 2014, 08:36:42 PMbuilt in 1882

that's gotta be one of the oldest steel through truss bridges in existence.  any older ones around?  any older bridge I can think of than 1882 is covered wooden, stone arch, suspension, or that one on US-11.

VDOT says this one below (my 2009 photo) is from the 1870s.  It is the original Rappahannock River crossing for VA 21 and US 211 near Waterloo.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fbridges%2F1870-rapp-1.jpg&hash=286bb961b0ddd358ef3b6df2bca516f1f9accd15)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 19, 2014, 09:37:51 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 13, 2014, 04:10:49 PM
I believe the most fair approach would be for all agencies to remove E-ZPass fees.

Agreed. E-ZPass maintenance and operations should be part of the tolls charged. 

Only "extra" fee should be for the transponders themselves, and since nearly every E-ZPass Group member I know about is planning to eventually go cashless, I think it might be sound policy to give those away at no extra charge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 19, 2014, 12:47:46 PM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 18, 2014, 09:10:54 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 18, 2014, 08:36:42 PMbuilt in 1882

that's gotta be one of the oldest steel through truss bridges in existence.  any older ones around?  any older bridge I can think of than 1882 is covered wooden, stone arch, suspension, or that one on US-11.

Here's one partially intact from 1884 (old VA 45 crossing of James)...1st entry with 8 photos
http://www.vahighways.com/oldbridges/abandoned.htm

Augusta County used to have several from the turn of the century or slightly older...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 19, 2014, 06:09:07 PM
Quotethat's gotta be one of the oldest steel through truss bridges in existence.  any older ones around?  any older bridge I can think of than 1882 is covered wooden, stone arch, suspension, or that one on US-11.

It's not Virginia, but there's a through truss bridge southwest of Meridian, MS (http://www.roadsites.org/losthwy/ms_stuckey.html) that dates to the late 1840s.  Was still drivable in 2008, too.  See link for photos I took in 2000.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 19, 2014, 06:22:01 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 18, 2014, 10:08:41 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 18, 2014, 09:10:54 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 18, 2014, 08:36:42 PMbuilt in 1882

that's gotta be one of the oldest steel through truss bridges in existence.  any older ones around?  any older bridge I can think of than 1882 is covered wooden, stone arch, suspension, or that one on US-11.

VDOT says this one below (my 2009 photo) is from the 1870s.  It is the original Rappahannock River crossing for VA 21 and US 211 near Waterloo.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fbridges%2F1870-rapp-1.jpg&hash=286bb961b0ddd358ef3b6df2bca516f1f9accd15)

Mapmikey
¿Aquí? (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.695772,-77.906311&spn=0.001176,0.002384&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=38.813419,78.134766&t=k&z=19)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 19, 2014, 07:48:09 PM
yes
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2014, 01:55:51 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 19, 2014, 06:09:07 PM
It's not Virginia, but there's a through truss bridge southwest of Meridian, MS (http://www.roadsites.org/losthwy/ms_stuckey.html) that dates to the late 1840s.  Was still drivable in 2008, too.  See link for photos I took in 2000.

That is exceptionally cool.  Thanks for sharing.

Have you ever seen the Bollman Truss Railroad Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollman_Truss_Railroad_Bridge) that once carried a single-track railroad spur but now carries a recreational trail in Savage, Maryland? 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on February 26, 2014, 02:49:28 PM
Once upon a time, VDOT had a feature on its Web site that had photos of most state primary and US routes. I thought it was on the VDOT Dashboard, but I'm having trouble finding it. Did they do away with it or do I just not know where to look?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 26, 2014, 08:20:23 PM

I was not aware of what you are describing (which is not to say it didn't exist).
VDOT does have some galleries with some good stuff here (there are vintage photos of the Norfolk tunnels and the original US 17 James River Bridge)
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/galleries.asp

They briefly had a street-view type application several years ago but that went away.  I may still have it bookmarked on my work computer and maybe it can be seen at webarchive.org.  I will check tomorrow.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 26, 2014, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 26, 2014, 08:20:23 PM

I was not aware of what you are describing (which is not to say it didn't exist).
VDOT does have some galleries with some good stuff here (there are vintage photos of the Norfolk tunnels and the original US 17 James River Bridge)
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/galleries.asp

They briefly had a street-view type application several years ago but that went away.  I may still have it bookmarked on my work computer and maybe it can be seen at webarchive.org.  I will check tomorrow.

Mapmikey



Yeah that streetview sort of thing was called Virtual Cruise I think.  I tried using it a couple times, but it never really worked well for me for some reason.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 27, 2014, 06:15:52 AM
The link is still on my work computer but doesn't work.  It was called "VDOT's Drive It"
My memory of it was that it was extremely slow.

web.archive.org does not have anything for the address that was in my favorites list for this site.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on February 27, 2014, 01:50:44 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 27, 2014, 06:15:52 AM
The link is still on my work computer but doesn't work.  It was called "VDOT's Drive It"
My memory of it was that it was extremely slow.

That's it. Perhaps it was rendered obsolete by Street View?

Kentucky now has something similar.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 08, 2014, 03:33:52 PM
Virginia's EZPass fees may be going away:

https://twitter.com/RT_Thomson/status/442396939980931072

(hopefully this comes true)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: maplestar on March 09, 2014, 05:52:41 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 08, 2014, 03:33:52 PM
Virginia's EZPass fees may be going away:

https://twitter.com/RT_Thomson/status/442396939980931072

(hopefully this comes true)
It has passed both the House and the Senate with no votes opposed in either chamber, so all it needs is the governor's signature.

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=141&typ=bil&val=SB156&submit=GO
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 11, 2014, 09:16:39 AM
Got an E-mail recently from the Elizabeth River Tunnels folks (building the parallel Midtown Tunnel and the MLK Fwy extension).  They plan to sign the MLK Freeway extension to I-264 as a VA 164 extension.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 14, 2014, 03:45:43 PM
In the course of looking for some pictures of the old Landmark Center in Alexandria before it became a mall, I found these. The first is I-495 between the Dulles Airport exit (then Exit 12) and the Georgetown Pike/VA-193 exit (then Exit 13) in 1968. The second is of the Landmark area looking towards DC, presumably sometime in the early 1970s due to I-95 being under massive reconstruction. I had forgotten there used to be a Woodies at Landmark. I've always disliked that mall. Didn't like it when it was an outdoor shopping center when I was a kid. Didn't like it as an indoor mall. Reports this week are that demolition is to begin this fall. Good riddance. (Sears and Hecht's will remain. They own their own buildings.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FMcLean_beltway_1968_zpsdeb84409.jpg&hash=0e357f4388979677b7c9aea46bd0d60e5ed68b52)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2F6047773384_c41a571d91_b_zps7ce5a866.jpg&hash=ef319afb578225da9faaa647e10312ac6fb6c7ba)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 17, 2014, 08:19:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 14, 2014, 03:45:43 PM
In the course of looking for some pictures of the old Landmark Center in Alexandria before it became a mall, I found these. The first is I-495 between the Dulles Airport exit (then Exit 12) and the Georgetown Pike/VA-193 exit (then Exit 13) in 1968.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FMcLean_beltway_1968_zpsdeb84409.jpg&hash=0e357f4388979677b7c9aea46bd0d60e5ed68b52)

Great find!  Thanks for sharing.  This image is probably taken from the Lewinsville Road bridge, with the camera looking north in the direction of Old Dominion Drive.

Has to be more recent than 1968, because the VDH project to widen the Beltway from Springfield to the George Washington Memorial Parkway (4 lanes to 8 lanes in one massive project) took place in the early-to-mid 1970's. 

The car in the slow lane is a 1973 or 1974 Oldsmobile Omega (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Omega) clone of the Chevrolet Nova.  The car in the left lane is a 1972 Buick Electra 225 ("deuce and a quarter"). Behind the Buick is a Ford F-series pickup truck, about 1974 or 1975. 

Today, this is where the two HOV/Toll lanes break off from the four "free" lanes when headed south from Va. 193, Georgetown Pike.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 17, 2014, 08:21:15 PM
Thanks for the info. The person who had posted the picture said 1968, which is why I cited that year, but your analysis strikes me as more reliable.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 17, 2014, 08:29:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 14, 2014, 03:45:43 PM
The second is of the Landmark area looking towards DC, presumably sometime in the early 1970s due to I-95 being under massive reconstruction. I had forgotten there used to be a Woodies at Landmark. I've always disliked that mall. Didn't like it when it was an outdoor shopping center when I was a kid. Didn't like it as an indoor mall. Reports this week are that demolition is to begin this fall. Good riddance. (Sears and Hecht's will remain. They own their own buildings.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2F6047773384_c41a571d91_b_zps7ce5a866.jpg&hash=ef319afb578225da9faaa647e10312ac6fb6c7ba)

Nice picture.  Thanks for sharing this one as well.

Highway-related comments. 

Did you know that Landmark was something of a bus hub when the so-called Bus-on-Freeway demonstration project (a/k/a Shirley Express) was getting started in the early 1970's?  In the off-peak, most of the buses running in the corridor (in both directions) would all stop at Landmark (they used the flyover from eastbound Va. 236 (Duke Street) to get in to the mall). Wish like Hades that this service had been maintained.  But a lot of people were much more obsessed with Metrorail. 

From the image above, it looks like the I-95 Busway (as it was called in those days) was largely complete (but not entirely on its final alignment) but there was plenty of work to be done in the interchange, and the conventional roadway (at least northbound) was still only two lanes.

Landmark comments.

Agreed.  That mall always impressed me in a very bad way.  Things were hard to find and the parking setup was clunky at best.  Though it never seemed to suffer from crime and criminals (which is what killed Landover Mall in Prince George's County and IMO damaged Springfield Mall).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 18, 2014, 11:53:30 AM
Atlantic Cities: Putting a Price on D.C.'s Worst Commute (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/03/putting-price-dcs-worst-commute/8653/)

QuoteFor a few giddy moments, it seems I've dodged the torture awaiting commuters into Washington, D.C., most any weekday morning. As I merge onto Interstate 95 in Fredericksburg, Virginia, 50 miles from the Pentagon, the traffic around me glides along at the 65-mph speed limit. No brake lights illuminate the predawn dark. I set my cruise control. Perhaps, I dare to think, this won't be so bad.

QuoteThe illusion ends before I've covered a mile. Without warning or obvious reason, the highway's flow thickens to a viscous dribble. My speed drops to 30, then 15, then an idling roll slower than I can walk. It remains there for a minute before shuddering to zero. I sit.

QuoteIt's 6:30 a.m. on a typical Monday on the outskirts of the nation's capital, and I'm mired in traffic the Texas A&M Transportation Institute reckons to be the worst in America, trumping even the titanic freeway logjams of Los Angeles. Here are highways so notoriously overtaxed that even on weekends, "speed" is more lovely abstraction than realistic goal. Here is a circumferential interstate – the famed Washington Beltway – that has become synonymous with stress.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: J N Winkler on March 18, 2014, 03:15:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 27, 2014, 01:50:44 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 27, 2014, 06:15:52 AMThe link is still on my work computer but doesn't work.  It was called "VDOT's Drive It"

My memory of it was that it was extremely slow.

That's it. Perhaps it was rendered obsolete by Street View?

Kentucky now has something similar.

StreetView might have provided a convenient excuse to phase it out, but I'd suspect the real reasons had to do with usability and bandwidth.  There are some exceptions (e.g. Florida DOT's photolog (http://www3.dot.state.fl.us/videolog/)), but in my experience online photolog viewers have a painfully slow frame rate and no "pin on map" method for selecting a starting point, which makes them awkward to search for features from a location with known map position but unknown milepoint.

The best use case for state DOT photologs, at least for road enthusiasts, is actually to download the full-size imagery (not the thumbnails) for a given route in advance, and scroll through it rapidly on the local hard disk using an image browser and a smooth-scrolling mouse, effectively "driving" the route by computer.  That is how I compiled lists of mileage sign destinations for various Interstates in Colorado and Utah; I could not have done this nearly as efficiently with StreetView because I had no advance knowledge of the location of each mileage sign.

However, this works only when the full-size imagery has a low enough resolution that it can be displayed on the screen without resampling, otherwise the image browser can't keep up and you see mostly a black screen with occasional flickers of image.  On my computer (1920 x 1080 screen resolution), this isn't a problem with WSDOT SRView (1376 x 1032) or Oregon DOT's videolog (640 x 480), but it is with some KyTC photolog imagery (older images are 1600 x 1200, while newer is often 2400 x 1800) and recent Utah DOT Roadview imagery (2012 vintage; older UDOT imagery is 1280 x 1024, newer is 3296 x 2472).  Florida DOT (1900 x 1426) is right at the margin where it becomes impossible, at least for my screen (I have to choose "Show actual size" to avoid the screen going black).

The bandwidth consumption associated with photologs is significant.  The industry standard is 200 images per mile per camera position (always front and right; some state DOTs, like KyTC, use three in a left-center-right configuration).  Depending on the pixel count per image, the disk storage burden for a complete primary state highway system can be quite large.  When I discovered Colorado DOT's photolog in 2013, I estimated the total storage requirement at 1.8 TB (1280 x 960 images, center-right configuration, both directions, 9144 miles of state highway:  that is, 7.3 million images at 0.25 MB per image, or 1.8 TB).  Even if you restrict yourself to one position and one direction (as I have tried to do to limit sun shadow on signs), a download of photologging for a full primary state highway system can easily be several multiples of a typical monthly bandwidth usage cap for a residential cable Internet account (mine, for example, is capped at 250 GB).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 18, 2014, 03:19:30 PM
Washington Post: Highway historian looks at HOT lanes projects (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/03/18/highway-historian-looks-at-hot-lanes-projects/)

QuoteEarl Swift, who wrote "The Big Roads,"  a fascinating history of America's superhighways, takes on the future of the D.C. area's highways in an article for The Atlantic Cities Web site.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Laura on March 18, 2014, 11:24:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 18, 2014, 03:19:30 PM
Washington Post: Highway historian looks at HOT lanes projects (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/03/18/highway-historian-looks-at-hot-lanes-projects/)

QuoteEarl Swift, who wrote "The Big Roads,"  a fascinating history of America's superhighways, takes on the future of the D.C. area's highways in an article for The Atlantic Cities Web site.


I love Earl Swift. Mike and I met him at a book signing in my hometown back in 2012. He lurks on here from time to time. I've been meaning to email him and let him know that Mike and I tied the knot.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 19, 2014, 01:11:41 PM
My brother sent me the e-mail quoted below earlier today. I've written back to ask him for the source of the information about the house's owner being allowed to use the access road in question onto and off of I-66. I've passed the road in question hundreds of times over the years, both on I-66 and on Virginia Lane, and I may have used it illegally to enter the highway one time (not that I would ever admit that publicly if I had....), but I didn't know there was a house down the end.

I note he used the "classic" Google Maps interface, which I appreciated....

QuoteHere's a weird real estate/zoning quirk.

So this "authorized vehicle only"  access road off of 66-eastbound, but before Virginia Lane is not only a shortcut for emergency vehicles to get up to Virginia Lane and the houses/communities there, but it's also somebody's driveway!

https://www.google.com/maps?ll=38.890399,-77.211246&spn=0.18,0.3&cbll=38.890399,-77.211246&layer=c&panoid=_0ozyZRY309JYp4hmF9TNg&cbp=,95.25,,0,13.190002&output=classic&dg=ntvo

See the view from Virginia Lane itself:  https://www.google.com/maps?ll=38.890638,-77.209959&spn=0.18,0.3&cbll=38.890638,-77.209959&layer=c&panoid=1iRkupPTaSwtuKya-4PReA&cbp=,215.09,,0,16.75&output=classic&dg=ntvo

It's an old late-1800s farmhouse that got stranded down there when 66 was built.  That access road is off of the house's driveway, so he's allowed to use it when getting on or off I-66.  Quite odd!

(zoom back out of streetview and flip to satellite for a good look)



Edited to add: My brother just responded to my query as follows (the first sentence refers to the house in question).

QuoteYeah, I had no idea it was there either.  During the snow on Monday, the driver parked his car blocking the W&OD at the court just south of his driveway.  Some of the lunatics that commuted by bike that day were bitching about it on the Bike Arlington Forum and a one of the users there knows the owner and posted those links to make them aware of why he parks up on the street (although that he shouldn't block the trail) and that he can access that maintenance road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 19, 2014, 05:52:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 19, 2014, 01:11:41 PM
My brother sent me the e-mail quoted below earlier today. I've written back to ask him for the source of the information about the house's owner being allowed to use the access road in question onto and off of I-66. I've passed the road in question hundreds of times over the years, both on I-66 and on Virginia Lane, and I may have used it illegally to enter the highway one time (not that I would ever admit that publicly if I had....), but I didn't know there was a house down the end.

Oh yeah, that house was there long before that section of I-66 was built in the late 1970's early 1980's.

We did field work there a year or two ago, and it did not seem that anyone was home (my people were there from 5 AM to 10 AM). 

The "ramps" are mostly used by Virginia State Police and VDOT's Safety Service Patrol to turn around using the Virginia Lane overpass (since there are no median crossovers due to the rail line being there).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 19, 2014, 06:17:41 PM
In the absence of official documentation, I'm not convinced that the owner of that house is authorized to use the I-66 access.  I dug back through my scans of older Fairfax County maps...as best as I can tell, that house has always been accessed off Virginia Ln.  It's also worth noting that there used to be a station stop on the old W&OD on the south side of his property, named Green on the Fairfax County maps and in the book about the W&OD.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 19, 2014, 08:50:04 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2014, 06:17:41 PM
In the absence of official documentation, I'm not convinced that the owner of that house is authorized to use the I-66 access.  I dug back through my scans of older Fairfax County maps...as best as I can tell, that house has always been accessed off Virginia Ln.  It's also worth noting that there used to be a station stop on the old W&OD on the south side of his property, named Green on the Fairfax County maps and in the book about the W&OD.

I agree. 

They almost certainly do not have the right to access the Interstate from their home, and are supposed to use Virginia Lane (a very nice paved driveway runs from Virginia Lane to their property). 

But the chain-link fence gates that could be used to deny movement from Virginia Lane to either side of I-66 have been open for so long that it was impossible for me to even move them - at all - the last time we were there - the bottoms of the gates are that deeply embedded in dirt and gravel.

That applies to the gates connecting Virginia Lane to the westbound side of I-66 as well.

EDIT - yes, the W&OD did run right by there, though it's not as obvious since I-66 was built, since the W&OD trail deviates substantially from the path of the railroad to use the Virginia Lane structure to cross I-66.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 19, 2014, 10:10:46 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 19, 2014, 06:17:41 PM
In the absence of official documentation, I'm not convinced that the owner of that house is authorized to use the I-66 access.  I dug back through my scans of older Fairfax County maps...as best as I can tell, that house has always been accessed off Virginia Ln.  It's also worth noting that there used to be a station stop on the old W&OD on the south side of his property, named Green on the Fairfax County maps and in the book about the W&OD.

I thought the same, but I didn't e-mail my brother back to say so for two reasons–(a) it'd feel a bit dickish and we don't always get along anyway and (b) he's just repeating what someone told him. "Accessing that maintenance road" to reach his driveway is not the same as accessing I-66.

BTW, it's interesting to note on Street View that the guy doesn't have a mailbox along Virginia Lane. I'll have to keep my eyes peeled next time I use that road. (Other houses have standard street-side mailboxes.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: J N Winkler on March 19, 2014, 10:53:45 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 19, 2014, 10:10:46 PMBTW, it's interesting to note on Street View that the guy doesn't have a mailbox along Virginia Lane. I'll have to keep my eyes peeled next time I use that road. (Other houses have standard street-side mailboxes.)

Could he have been living at that address long enough to have a doorside mailbox or letter slot grandfathered in?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Laura on March 20, 2014, 11:53:01 AM
He could also use a P.O. Box.


iPhone
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 07, 2014, 02:36:33 AM
WTOP Radio: I-66 widening starts Monday night (http://www.wtop.com/120/3596589/I-66-widening-starts-Monday-night)

QuoteCrews will begin widening a 3 mile stretch of Interstate 66 from Route 29 in Gainesville, Va. to Route 15 in Haymarket Monday night. The work isn't expected to impact either rush hours since most of the work will happen overnight.

QuoteVirginia Department of Transportation's Jennifer McCord says, "We're talking about mostly traffic impacts at night. We're talking about overnight closures."

QuoteAfter the work begins Monday, closures will occur Sunday through Thursday nights moving forward. The construction for this particular part of the project will last about two months.

QuoteMcCord says one HOV lane and one regular lane will be added in both directions of the interstate.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 17, 2014, 01:16:50 PM
Washington Post: Virginia doing away with E-ZPass fee (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/04/17/virginia-doing-away-with-e-zpass-fee/)

QuoteVirginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe signed the bill passed by the General Assembly to eliminate the monthly fee the state charges for maintenance of E-ZPass accounts. Now, the state's transportation department has to figure out how to do that.

QuoteThe deadline for eliminating the fee is Sept. 1.

QuoteVirginia imposed the fee of 50 cents a month in September 2012 on drivers who got new transponders. Drivers who got the E-ZPass Flex transponder for the free carpooler ride in the high occupancy toll lanes were charged $1 a month. But they could get the fee waived if they used the Flex exclusively for carpooling in the 495 Express Lanes.

QuoteThe Virginia Department of Transportation said at the time that the annual operating cost of the E-ZPass customer service center is $10 million, just part of the cost of running the system of transponders and accounts. Many agencies that issue E-ZPass transponders and maintain the accounts charge maintenance fees. Maryland charges $1.50 a month, but waives it for accounts used to pay at least three tolls during the previous month in Maryland.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 18, 2014, 02:20:46 PM
Another sign that VDOT's Safety Service Patrol (SSP) is privately operated nowdays.

The other day, I happened to notice that the VDOT SSP trucks no longer have Virginia "S" series state government tags, even though the paint and markings are on-spec current VDOT. 

The SSP vehicles now have private Virginia "TX" truck tags.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 28, 2014, 10:00:20 PM
WTOP Radio: Road improvements underway at Fort Belvoir (http://www.wtop.com/41/3612207/2-years-of-Route-1-construction-starts)

QuoteA major road construction project is getting underway on U.S. Route 1 near Fort Belvoir.

QuoteThe work on Richmond Highway between Telegraph Road (Route 611) and Mount Vernon Highway (Route 235) will occur in phases beginning near the middle of the 3.68 mile stretch. It will take about two years to complete.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 30, 2014, 03:52:00 PM
Off topic a bit.....since the Springfield interchange has been complete for awhile...would you say it has fixed traffic problems?  Or are there still backups or new areas of backups?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 30, 2014, 04:18:56 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on April 30, 2014, 03:52:00 PM
Off topic a bit.....since the Springfield interchange has been complete for awhile...would you say it has fixed traffic problems?  Or are there still backups or new areas of backups?

Massive improvement on the Beltway. There are other backups in the area, but none of them are due to Springfield. The "problem" with uncorking one problem is, of course, that you just make it easier for traffic to get to the next problem spot, which in the case of I-95 in Virginia has often been in Newington four miles south of the Beltway. I never drive that way during the afternoon rush hour, so I don't know whether the project to add a lane helped alleviate that. One issue in Newington is that a traffic light on the Fairfax County Parkway often backs up the traffic around a cloverleaf loop ramp into the deceleration lane on I-95, which means you then get the typical self-important DC-area drivers who think they shouldn't have to wait on line with everyone else and so stop in the thru lane to try to shove over at the gore point. Somewhere I have a dashcam video of that from the morning rush hour a few weeks ago.

But yes, the Springfield Interchange is no longer the problem. Some local media members complained about how all it did was shift the backup elsewhere, but to be fair, the Springfield project was never intended to uncork Newington. It was intended to untangle one of the worst interchanges on the East Coast and it did that very well. There are still a heck of a lot of BGSs to read and obey, just as there were before, and it is perhaps the single most unforgiving interchange I've ever seen in that if you miss your ramp, you have to go on to the next interchange and turn around to try again (no easy way to correct a mistake in Springfield). But the benefits of the project outweigh those issues in my view.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 30, 2014, 05:15:40 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on April 30, 2014, 03:52:00 PM
Off topic a bit.....since the Springfield interchange has been complete for awhile...would you say it has fixed traffic problems?  Or are there still backups or new areas of backups?

I drive the Springfield Interchange and 95 south to Fredericksburg Mon-Thurs afternoon rush hours...

The following statement does not apply since the Express Lane construction got started...
The 4th lane project did clear up Newington SB.  Quite often I could get past the Lorton exit before the backup from the lane drop at VA 123 began.  The backup at 123 is exacerbated by the weave of folks entering 95 from Exit 161 and those wanting to exit at VA 123.  I always thought the exit to 123 from SB I-95 should've started before the Exit 161 NB on-ramp so that there would be no weave.  This same weave problem may also be created at the new south end of the express lanes at Exit 143. 

There is also a consistent backup on 95 SB at the VA 294 exit (Exit 158) as the off-ramp backs way up onto the mainline interstate...

Mapmikey

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 01, 2014, 07:52:12 AM
Quoteand it is perhaps the single most unforgiving interchange I've ever seen in that if you miss your ramp, you have to go on to the next interchange and turn around to try again (no easy way to correct a mistake in Springfield).

I'd argue that the Wilson Bridge is a worse offender for this.  For a semi-related example, I had one commute home (from Suitland to Huntington) where the local lanes were closed due to a jumper threat, so they forced everyone onto the express lanes.  But because the Eisenhower Connector interchange was closed for the reconstruction and Mill Rd hadn't opened yet, I had to go all the way down to Van Dorn St when my "normal" exit is Route 1.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 01, 2014, 08:51:23 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 01, 2014, 07:52:12 AM
Quoteand it is perhaps the single most unforgiving interchange I've ever seen in that if you miss your ramp, you have to go on to the next interchange and turn around to try again (no easy way to correct a mistake in Springfield).

I'd argue that the Wilson Bridge is a worse offender for this.  For a semi-related example, I had one commute home (from Suitland to Huntington) where the local lanes were closed due to a jumper threat, so they forced everyone onto the express lanes.  But because the Eisenhower Connector interchange was closed for the reconstruction and Mill Rd hadn't opened yet, I had to go all the way down to Van Dorn St when my "normal" exit is Route 1.

Fair argument, but the Wilson Bridge isn't really an "interchange," so I'll stand by my original comment that Springfield is the most unforgiving INTERCHANGE I've seen. If I were referring to roads in general I might have cited the Pennsylvania Turnpike due to the long gaps between interchanges. (I haven't driven the portion of Florida's Turnpike between Fort Pierce and Orlando and so it's not one "I've seen.")

Correcting yourself at any of the interchanges that were rebuilt as part of the Wilson Bridge project is no easy task even if they are all open, though, because none of them lets you "ride the ramps" (e.g., a "cloverleaf U-turn") and some of them require somewhat convoluted routing to turn around. The best example of the latter that comes readily to mind is if you mistakenly take the Outer Loop THRU lanes when you wanted I-295. You can exit to MD-210, but the process of getting back to the Inner Loop is quite involved and requires looping around past the new outlet mall, through a few lights, and then around a couple of loop-around ramps.


(Edited to correct a typo)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 03, 2014, 05:29:02 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 01, 2014, 07:52:12 AM
Quoteand it is perhaps the single most unforgiving interchange I've ever seen in that if you miss your ramp, you have to go on to the next interchange and turn around to try again (no easy way to correct a mistake in Springfield).

I'd argue that the Wilson Bridge is a worse offender for this.  For a semi-related example, I had one commute home (from Suitland to Huntington) where the local lanes were closed due to a jumper threat, so they forced everyone onto the express lanes.  But because the Eisenhower Connector interchange was closed for the reconstruction and Mill Rd hadn't opened yet, I had to go all the way down to Van Dorn St when my "normal" exit is Route 1.

At least the express lane span was available to you for that incident (and I concede that it's a pretty long way from U.S. 1 to Va. 613 (S. Van Dorn Street)).

I recall the one especially ugly (in terms of traffic impact) jumper incident (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/wilson/wilson110598.htm) on the old Woodrow Wilson Bridge in 1998 that resulted in the entire crossing being closed for an extended period in the P.M. peak commute period. It was (IMO) mishandled by the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department (MPDC) from start to finish (this was in the days when MPDC insisted on responding to and handling any non-traffic incident on the D.C. part of the bridge), and finally ended after many hours when one of their officers shot the jumper with a "beanbag," which resulted in the jumper jumping into the river, where he was then fished-out by a police boat and taken away for medical treatment. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 03, 2014, 05:38:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 01, 2014, 08:51:23 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 01, 2014, 07:52:12 AM
Quoteand it is perhaps the single most unforgiving interchange I've ever seen in that if you miss your ramp, you have to go on to the next interchange and turn around to try again (no easy way to correct a mistake in Springfield).

I'd argue that the Wilson Bridge is a worse offender for this.  For a semi-related example, I had one commute home (from Suitland to Huntington) where the local lanes were closed due to a jumper threat, so they forced everyone onto the express lanes.  But because the Eisenhower Connector interchange was closed for the reconstruction and Mill Rd hadn't opened yet, I had to go all the way down to Van Dorn St when my "normal" exit is Route 1.

Fair argument, but the Wilson Bridge isn't really an "interchange," so I'll stand by my original comment that Springfield is the most unforgiving INTERCHANGE I've seen. If I were referring to roads in general I might have cited the Pennsylvania Turnpike due to the long gaps between interchanges. (I haven't driven the portion of Florida's Turnpike between Fort Pierce and Orlando and so it's not one "I've seen.")

I must agree with Adam on this one - no, the Wilson Bridge is not (and was not) an interchange, but the terribly substandard interchanges at Va. 243 in Fairfax County; U.S. 1 in Alexandria; I-295 in Prince George's County and Md. 210 were (to varying degrees) out-dated and obsolete 1960's interchanges (the one at U.S. 1 probably being the worst of the bunch).

Quote from: 1995hoo on May 01, 2014, 08:51:23 AM
Correcting yourself at any of the interchanges that were rebuilt as part of the Wilson Bridge project is no easy task even if they are all open, though, because none of them lets you "ride the ramps" (e.g., a "cloverleaf U-turn") and some of them require somewhat convoluted routing to turn around. The best example of the latter that comes readily to mind is if you mistakenly take the Outer Loop THRU lanes when you wanted I-295. You can exit to MD-210, but the process of getting back to the Inner Loop is quite involved and requires looping around past the new outlet mall, through a few lights, and then around a couple of loop-around ramps.

(Edited to correct a typo)

I agree with you that making a mistake in terms of a missed exit at the WWB interchanges can lead to a long detour. 

But - the rebuilt WWB and its approaches do accomplish something we could use a lot more of - they (hopefully) separate trips by trip length, with the shorter, local trips in the LOCAL lanes, and the longer trips in the THRU lanes.  That is something that planners yearn for in both freeway and transit system design. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 07, 2014, 11:01:13 AM
The Post reports Virginia's new governor signed the bill to end the E-ZPass fees but says the fees will be phased out by July 1 instead of the original Sept. 1 timetable:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/05/07/virginia-advances-timetable-for-ending-e-zpass-fee/

I might actually consider getting the E-ZPass Flex when the batteries in our current transponders expire. If there's no fee for doing so, there's little reason not to get that device. I don't have one now because our current devices are grandfathered in as fee-free and we so seldom have three people in the car that there would be no benefit to paying the $1.00 a month fee for the Flex. But if both it and the standard device carry no fee, there's not much reason not to get it when the time comes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on May 07, 2014, 07:07:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 07, 2014, 11:01:13 AM
The Post reports Virginia's new governor signed the bill to end the E-ZPass fees but says the fees will be phased out by July 1 instead of the original Sept. 1 timetable:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/05/07/virginia-advances-timetable-for-ending-e-zpass-fee/

I might actually consider getting the E-ZPass Flex when the batteries in our current transponders expire. If there's no fee for doing so, there's little reason not to get that device. I don't have one now because our current devices are grandfathered in as fee-free and we so seldom have three people in the car that there would be no benefit to paying the $1.00 a month fee for the Flex. But if both it and the standard device carry no fee, there's not much reason not to get it when the time comes.
I have a grandfathered device as well, but I don't plan on getting the Flex simply because I don't use the HOT lanes that often. Unless they decide to use them in Hampton Roads, then I may reconsider.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 07, 2014, 08:24:33 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 07, 2014, 07:07:34 PMI have a grandfathered device as well, but I don't plan on getting the Flex simply because I don't use the HOT lanes that often. Unless they decide to use them in Hampton Roads, then I may reconsider.

I use them frequently but never with three people. It's more a case of there simply being no reason not to get it if you live in this area. If I lived in Richmond or Tidewater I'd never even consider getting it unless I made frequent trips up I-95 (this because the I-95 HO/T lanes are to open next year).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 10, 2014, 08:20:04 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.274729,-76.689265,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1svCmmhI8PgmUaKXHkCcf-3w!2e0
I am guessing that not only is this sign assembly at the intersection of Page Street and Second Street in Williamsburg placed by the City of Williamsburg instead of VDOT, but that Williamsburg maintains all of its city streets like most VA cities as well even if it carries state and US designations?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 10, 2014, 09:42:28 AM
All independent cities in Virginia maintain their own roads (including signage styles)  except for the interstates.  VDOT gives a certain amount of $ per mile for primary designations and a smaller amount of $ per mile for the rest...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 11, 2014, 01:22:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2014, 08:20:04 AM
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2918/14168943373_0eaae10f32_c.jpg
I am guessing that not only is this sign assembly at the intersection of Page Street and Second Street in Williamsburg placed by the City of Williamsburg instead of VDOT, but that Williamsburg maintains all of its city streets like most VA cities as well even if it carries state and US designations?

That link loaded a construction scene (of a bridge and retaining wall) and not of a sign assembly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 12, 2014, 08:20:57 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2014, 01:22:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2014, 08:20:04 AM
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2918/14168943373_0eaae10f32_c.jpg
I am guessing that not only is this sign assembly at the intersection of Page Street and Second Street in Williamsburg placed by the City of Williamsburg instead of VDOT, but that Williamsburg maintains all of its city streets like most VA cities as well even if it carries state and US designations?

That link loaded a construction scene (of a bridge and retaining wall) and not of a sign assembly.
Fixed it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 12, 2014, 10:00:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2014, 08:20:57 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2014, 01:22:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2014, 08:20:04 AM
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2918/14168943373_0eaae10f32_c.jpg
I am guessing that not only is this sign assembly at the intersection of Page Street and Second Street in Williamsburg placed by the City of Williamsburg instead of VDOT, but that Williamsburg maintains all of its city streets like most VA cities as well even if it carries state and US designations?

That link loaded a construction scene (of a bridge and retaining wall) and not of a sign assembly.
Fixed it.

Still getting the construction area here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 13, 2014, 06:20:55 AM
Go back to his original post...quoted links don't get fixed automatically.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 13, 2014, 06:54:21 PM
I do not know how that particular link got in there in the first place as I thought I highlighted the original GSV link.  I think I  must of hit CTRL V and not CTRL C and it kept the original copy/paste from when I was uploading my flickr photo previously.

Yes, like froggie says, go to the original.  Quotes do not get fixed, unless the moderator does it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 13, 2014, 10:40:11 PM
Found this image from I-81:
http://ruinedchildhood.com/post/85665106263/tastefullyoffensive-staycheesy
http://tumblr.tastefullyoffensive.com/post/83018948912/staycheesy#.U3LWXRXD-M8


:-D :-P

Should I post the pic?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: DBrim on May 23, 2014, 08:13:53 AM
I'm trying to clean up my VA county map, potentially in preparation for a county-clinching trip. There's a few independent cities which I'm not sure if I have or not. I've done 81 through the entire state (southbound). The ones I'm unsure of are Radford, Staunton, and Winchester. Google maps has 81 right on the border in all of these cases, usually with southbound actually in the county and northbound not. Does anybody have a definitive answer?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 23, 2014, 08:21:43 AM
Quote from: DBrim on May 23, 2014, 08:13:53 AM
I'm trying to clean up my VA county map, potentially in preparation for a county-clinching trip. There's a few independent cities which I'm not sure if I have or not. I've done 81 through the entire state (southbound). The ones I'm unsure of are Radford, Staunton, and Winchester. Google maps has 81 right on the border in all of these cases, usually with southbound actually in the county and northbound not. Does anybody have a definitive answer?

Radford from what I have noticed is definitely not on I-81, but taking the exits for VA 177 (Exit 109) or VA 232 (Exit 105) can get you there very quickly.  I also do not remember seeing any signs saying that I-81 enters Staunton.  I am unsure about Winchester, but from looking at the Virginia state map I believe that I-81 never technically enters any of these cities.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 23, 2014, 08:31:30 AM
Probably the best source to answer this type of question is the VDOT Traffic Logs...

http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/Traffic_2012/AADT_PrimaryInterstate_2012.pdf

I-81 does pass into Winchester for 0.07 miles.  The northern edge of this is 0.09 miles south of the VA 7 exit.

It does not pass through any of the other cities you mention.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2014, 02:12:47 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 23, 2014, 08:31:30 AM
Probably the best source to answer this type of question is the VDOT Traffic Logs...

http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/Traffic_2012/AADT_PrimaryInterstate_2012.pdf

That is indeed an excellent source.

Quote from: Mapmikey on May 23, 2014, 08:31:30 AM
I-81 does pass into Winchester for 0.07 miles.  The northern edge of this is 0.09 miles south of the VA 7 exit.

It does not pass through any of the other cities you mention.

Mapmikey

Do you remember the "Annexation wars" between Alexandria and Fairfax County, which resulted in a "truce" that has the boundary between the two  running alongside  the Capital Beltway (I do not believe it's in the median at any point)?

Alexandria wanted to annex some lands that were south of the Beltway (I think in the vicinity of Va. 241, Telegraph Road), but the efforts by the city were ultimately beaten-back. 

So now the city has all of the Beltway from a point west of the U.S. 1 (Patrick Street) interchange to the Virginia landing of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, and the only lands within the city but "outside" the Beltway are just south of Beltway along U.S. 1 and the apartment buildings south of the Beltway along Va. 400 (South Washington Street).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 23, 2014, 07:58:08 PM
Quoteand the only lands within the city but "outside" the Beltway are just south of Beltway along U.S. 1 and the apartment buildings south of the Beltway along Va. 400 (South Washington Street).

The latter yes, but technically not the former.  The city/county boundary basically follows Cameron Run through this area, so while the apartment buildings immediately south of the Beltway along Washington St are in Alexandria, the development on US 1 south of the Beltway is in Fairfax County.  Cameron Run is very tidal in this area, hence why the Outer Loop ramps are almost completely on bridge structure.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2014, 10:21:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 23, 2014, 07:58:08 PM
Quoteand the only lands within the city but "outside" the Beltway are just south of Beltway along U.S. 1 and the apartment buildings south of the Beltway along Va. 400 (South Washington Street).

The latter yes, but technically not the former.  The city/county boundary basically follows Cameron Run through this area, so while the apartment buildings immediately south of the Beltway along Washington St are in Alexandria, the development on US 1 south of the Beltway is in Fairfax County.

Yeah, that's right. I should have stated it better or more clearly.  You were not in the D.C. area for the annexation wars, were you?  I don't think you could have been, since they took place in the 1960's and early 1970's, and the Virginia General Assembly put an "interim" halt to cities doing hostile take-overs of unincorporated land in about 1979 - a halt that continues today.

Quote from: froggie on May 23, 2014, 07:58:08 PM
Cameron Run is very tidal in this area, hence why the Outer Loop ramps are almost completely on bridge structure.

Yes.  Even parts of the Beltway itself are on bridges, though it is not especially obvious to drivers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 26, 2014, 04:08:23 PM
How does Virginia Law Enforcement confirm a single rider on I-66 bound for Dulles Airport, as during peak travel times the I-66 freeway is designated HOV2?  I often wondered that because if that were the case any single rider using I-66 when it is restricted could be a lone business traveler on way to and from IAD, especially east of the Dulles Airport Access Road and the Roosevelt Bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 26, 2014, 05:25:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 26, 2014, 04:08:23 PM
How does Virginia Law Enforcement confirm a single rider on I-66 bound for Dulles Airport, as during peak travel times the I-66 freeway is designated HOV2?  I often wondered that because if that were the case any single rider using I-66 when it is restricted could be a lone business traveler on way to and from IAD, especially east of the Dulles Airport Access Road and the Roosevelt Bridge.

In the afternoons I've typically seen them doing HOV enforcement on the off-ramps on westbound I-66 and at the split between the airport lanes and the local lanes (the latter that become the Dulles Toll Road). In the mornings I've typically seen them doing enforcement at the on-ramps. I know in both cases they sometimes do the opposite (I've seen them at the on-ramp from Fairfax Drive some afternoons), but more often than not I've seen the way I described. In that situation, it makes it clear the SOV isn't airport-bound.

When I've used I-66 as an SOV to go to the airport, I've printed out my flight confirmation and brought it along in case I got stopped. One time I went to pick up my wife (actually I guess we weren't married yet) and I don't remember what I did that time. I do remember going out there quite early so I could go SOV during rush hour even though her flight arrived after HOV hours ended. I've never been stopped, so I don't know what sorts of things they ask, but they claim to be good at ferreting out people who aren't legitimate.

An interesting nuance, by the way, is that any airport business is legitimate for use of the Dulles Access Road (including putting gas in the car or buying coffee at the airport gas station), but VDOT says the same is not true for I-66 and that you get the HOV exemption only if you yourself are catching or coming from a flight or if you are picking up someone arriving on a flight.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 19, 2014, 03:08:53 PM
Richmond Times Dispatch: Pocahontas 895 toll road under a new operator (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/pocahontas-toll-road-under-a-new-operator/article_94f7e91f-e346-57c4-807d-fd7c60fcdb64.html)

QuotePocahontas 895 has a new operator, a year after an Australian company walked away from a long-term concession for the underperforming toll parkway across the James River between Henrico and Chesterfield counties.

QuoteDBi Services, based in northeastern Pennsylvania, quietly assumed control of the parkway – the first road built by public-private partnership in Virginia – on May 15 and informed local government officials two weeks later.

QuoteThe company took over operation from Transurban, an Australian company whose board of directors voted last June to transfer control of the highway to a consortium of European banks that holds $300 million in debt on the project, not including a $150 million federal loan that must be repaid.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 09, 2014, 01:09:04 PM
WTVR Channel 6 (CBS): VDOT conducting study for widening of I-64 between Richmond and beach (http://wtvr.com/2014/07/08/backups-on-i-64-toward-virginia-beach-when-will-vdot-widen-the-road/)

QuoteRICHMOND, Va. — The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) continues to study the stretch of Interstate 64 between Richmond and Newport News, as drivers complain about constant backups and weekend gridlock.

QuoteOn Tuesday, traffic backed up for nine miles on I-64 East in New Kent County after a crash.

QuoteHundreds of drivers sat in standstill traffic for several hours.

QuoteAlthough VDOT is conducting the study for the eventual widening of the stretch of I-64 between Richmond and Newport News, so far funding has only been made available to widen a five-mile stretch of the road in Newport News.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: maplestar on July 10, 2014, 01:23:30 PM
New Va. state transportation map available - http://hamptonroads.com/2014/07/new-va-state-transportation-map-available

Quote
Virginia officials say the state's new transportation map is now available.

The Virginia Department of Transportation said more than 2 million maps are available at state welcome centers and by request at safety rest areas. State maps also are available at VDOT offices across the state and on their website (http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/maps-default.asp).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: TheOneKEA on July 13, 2014, 09:07:44 PM
I witnessed approximately 100+ cars, trucks and 18-wheelers exit I-95 north at Thornburg today and then turn onto US 1 north, with the end of the backup clearly visible beyond the interchange.

At some point it will become economically infeasible to expand or improve I-95 any further, and with I-81 too far away, I wonder what other north-south corridors in central Virginia could be upgraded to abstract the long-distance traffic and some of the commuter traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 16, 2014, 07:56:35 PM
US 29 Bypass extension from US 250 north to Rivanna River is rescinded from the State Highway System today...

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2014/july/reso/Resolution_Agenda_Item_8.pdf

The FHWA is not happy with the environmental assessments so far and Virginia's response is to start over with improvements to 29 north of US 250 being part of a larger mobility study that is funded in the 2015-2020 six-year plan.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 16, 2014, 11:03:09 PM
From NVTA (no link available yet):

July 16, 2014
   
Fixin' to Fix I-66
More than a decade since the last I-66 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was abandoned, VDOT is moving forward with a Tier 2 EIS and efforts to solicit private sector (P3) offers.

Details on these initiatives were provided at today's Commonwealth Transportation Board meeting.

Of the 10 improvement Concept Scenarios formulated following the Tier 1 EIS, the highest rated scenarios are the following: (order not related to ranking)

    Two Managed Lanes + Metrorail
    Two Managed Lanes + Metrorail + VRE
    One New General Lane + Two Managed Lanes + Metrorail
    Two New General Lanes + Two Managed Lanes + Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) + VRE
    Two New General Lanes + Two Managed Lanes + BRT

Project benefits goals include providing new travel choices and congestion relief, promoting regional connectivity, and creating a seamless network of transit/HOV/express lanes to serve major job centers. The scope of the Tier 2 study will include adding two Express lanes, maintaining three general lanes and adding rapid bus service. Tolling options will also be studied.



The 1-66 corridor project will move forward as a P3 project to more quickly advance improvements. At today's CTB meeting, VDOT officials put forward the following projected project timeline: 

    Brief CTB on findings prior to initiation of a potential P3 procurement - fall 2014
    Issue Request for Qualifications (RFQ) - late 2014
    Announcement of short-listed teams - mid 2015
    Develop and Issue Request for Proposals (RFP) - late 2015
    CTB approval of selected alternative in 2015
    Anticipated NEPA completion - End of 2015
    Construction projected to begin by 2017

To review slides presented at today's CTB meeting, click here (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2014/july/pre/pres/Final_I-66_briefing_CTB_7-16-14_meeting.pdf).

"I-66 is probably the number one transportation
priority, not just in Northern Virginia, but in the 
entire state."

Aubrey L. Layne, Jr.
Virginia Secretary of Transportation

July 16, 2014
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 16, 2014, 11:28:06 PM
Though Metro out to at least Fair Oaks would seem logical, at some point, maybe it's already occurring, you won't be able to find any available occupancy during the commutes from Ballston into DC
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 17, 2014, 12:19:53 AM
Not unless and until a separate Blue Line tunnel from Rosslyn east is built.  Even so, that will only get them 6 more Orange or Silver Line trains per hour.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: TheOneKEA on July 17, 2014, 08:17:02 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 17, 2014, 12:19:53 AM
Not unless and until a separate Blue Line tunnel from Rosslyn east is built.  Even so, that will only get them 6 more Orange or Silver Line trains per hour.

I would also argue that the upcoming arrival of the 7000-Series trains will help, but only if the order is increased sufficiently to allow all of the Orange Line trains to be 8 cars, every day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 17, 2014, 09:27:06 AM
Quote from: TheOneKEA on July 17, 2014, 08:17:02 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 17, 2014, 12:19:53 AM
Not unless and until a separate Blue Line tunnel from Rosslyn east is built.  Even so, that will only get them 6 more Orange or Silver Line trains per hour.

I would also argue that the upcoming arrival of the 7000-Series trains will help, but only if the order is increased sufficiently to allow all of the Orange Line trains to be 8 cars, every day.

The 7000-series cars will run only in four- or eight-car consists, so any train using those will pretty much have to have eight cars because they're also incompatible with the older cars. (The cynic in me says they'll run four-car 7000-series trains on the Blue Line.) But WMATA have also been pretty emphatic about saying they need to upgrade the power system before they can run all eight-car trains on any line (except maybe the Blue since as of Monday it'll only have five trains per hour, even at rush hour, but they won't all be eight cars).

Regarding I-66, I find the mentions of VRE interesting but puzzling. I can't begin to picture where you'd put that sort of train along that corridor. Inside the Beltway the old W&OD right-of-way is reasonably proximate to I-66 (although development along the route would pose eminent domain issues in places), but I can't see them dumping the park in favor of a rail line, especially when the W&OD is already a pretty thriving commuter route as it is. I'm not aware of any other rail right-of-way in that area. Same issue applies to the idea of a nonstop train from Dulles to Union Station (in the mold of the Heathrow Express, but preferably with a lower fare)–neither the tracks nor the right-of-way exist.

It's all well and good to talk about extending Metrorail service further out, but it's not viable to do anything about it (beyond the already-in-progress Silver Line) until they uncork the downtown bottleneck, as froggie notes. Otherwise you're just dumping more people through the same narrow chokepoint and at some point you simply can't do it anymore.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 17, 2014, 09:33:17 AM
My guess is that the VRE extension component means extending it from Manassas to Haymarket...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 17, 2014, 09:38:22 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 17, 2014, 09:33:17 AM
My guess is that the VRE extension component means extending it from Manassas to Haymarket...

Mapmikey

Ah, I didn't even picture that area because I believe they're preparing to start the widening from Gainesville to Haymarket as it is (this based on orange work zone signs starting to appear when we drove out to Linden on July 6). I just presumed they wouldn't be considering further upgrades to that part of the corridor right now. I was picturing the part that is most desperately in need of improvement, the part from the Beltway to Fair Oaks–which, of course, is also by far the most difficult to improve in any meaningful way!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 17, 2014, 09:55:39 AM
QuoteRegarding I-66, I find the mentions of VRE interesting but puzzling. I can't begin to picture where you'd put that sort of train along that corridor.

The presumption is that a combination of the Haymarket extension (that Mike mentioned) and service improvements on the Manassas Line would give folks in Manassas and points west an alternative to the I-66 slog.

VRE has been highly successful, and their survey numbers indicate that they have been very successful in attracting the "niche" crowd (riders who own 2+ cars and/or are in high income brackets).  But VRE is also starting to bump into the same capacity issues that Metro is running into.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 17, 2014, 10:16:59 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 17, 2014, 09:55:39 AM
QuoteRegarding I-66, I find the mentions of VRE interesting but puzzling. I can't begin to picture where you'd put that sort of train along that corridor.

The presumption is that a combination of the Haymarket extension (that Mike mentioned) and service improvements on the Manassas Line would give folks in Manassas and points west an alternative to the I-66 slog.

VRE has been highly successful, and their survey numbers indicate that they have been very successful in attracting the "niche" crowd (riders who own 2+ cars and/or are in high income brackets).  But VRE is also starting to bump into the same capacity issues that Metro is running into.


Yeah, as I said above, that area hadn't occurred to me as part of the discussion, but it's nice to see some thinking ahead. The I-66 widening about to begin from Gainesville to Haymarket is, in a sense, similar to extending the Metrorail–it's an important project and will help people out there, but it will also to some degree pose the problem of helping to speed people's access to the backed-up segment from Fair Oaks to the Beltway. So if they're focusing on other improvements beyond that widening (not counting the seemingly-endless and long-overdue US-29 project because it's well underway), that's a good thing.

Ultimately, ANY sort of service from Virginia to DC, whether it be a subway, commuter rail, bus rapid transit, or new or improved roads, will run into the same issue: There's a natural barrier there in the form of the Potomac River that imposes constraints on what you can do because of the expense of building new bridges or tunnels. Unless I'm mistaken, as a practical matter all the train service heading from Virginia to Union Station has to go over the Long Bridge and through the area near the Mandarin Oriental and the old DOT headquarters, then through the tunnel. (I'm discarding the idea of some sort of roundabout routing out beyond Leesburg and through Maryland because it's unrealistic–hence why I said "as a practical matter.") I'm sure that has to impose some limitation on what you can do, just as the Rosslyn tunnel does.

Either way, for Virginia to be considering commuter rail options is a big change from where things were 30 years ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2014, 07:46:29 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 17, 2014, 10:16:59 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 17, 2014, 09:55:39 AM
QuoteRegarding I-66, I find the mentions of VRE interesting but puzzling. I can't begin to picture where you'd put that sort of train along that corridor.

The presumption is that a combination of the Haymarket extension (that Mike mentioned) and service improvements on the Manassas Line would give folks in Manassas and points west an alternative to the I-66 slog.

VRE has been highly successful, and their survey numbers indicate that they have been very successful in attracting the "niche" crowd (riders who own 2+ cars and/or are in high income brackets).  But VRE is also starting to bump into the same capacity issues that Metro is running into.


Yeah, as I said above, that area hadn't occurred to me as part of the discussion, but it's nice to see some thinking ahead. The I-66 widening about to begin from Gainesville to Haymarket is, in a sense, similar to extending the Metrorail–it's an important project and will help people out there, but it will also to some degree pose the problem of helping to speed people's access to the backed-up segment from Fair Oaks to the Beltway. So if they're focusing on other improvements beyond that widening (not counting the seemingly-endless and long-overdue US-29 project because it's well underway), that's a good thing.

Ultimately, ANY sort of service from Virginia to DC, whether it be a subway, commuter rail, bus rapid transit, or new or improved roads, will run into the same issue: There's a natural barrier there in the form of the Potomac River that imposes constraints on what you can do because of the expense of building new bridges or tunnels. Unless I'm mistaken, as a practical matter all the train service heading from Virginia to Union Station has to go over the Long Bridge and through the area near the Mandarin Oriental and the old DOT headquarters, then through the tunnel. (I'm discarding the idea of some sort of roundabout routing out beyond Leesburg and through Maryland because it's unrealistic–hence why I said "as a practical matter.") I'm sure that has to impose some limitation on what you can do, just as the Rosslyn tunnel does.

Either way, for Virginia to be considering commuter rail options is a big change from where things were 30 years ago.

Commuter rail is only going to get people to Alexandria, Arlington (Crystal City) and two stops in D.C.  And because it has to co-exist to some extent with freight rail, its headways will always be limited.

As for extending the Orange Line further west, I am not at all certain that will do much either.  For one thing, an enormous public investment in parking has been made at Vienna.  Second, where would the stops be, and how much parking would there be at those?

Extending also means much more pressure on the stations further east (West Falls Church, East Falls Church and so on).

The whole traction power issue (and inability to run 8-car trains) was an act of deceit by previous WMATA employees.  On the one hand, they proudly talked about line capacity as if the system could handle 8-car consists from the very start of service.  On the other hand, they deliberately undersized the traction power infrastructure when the system was constructed to "save money."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2014, 07:47:42 AM
Washington Post: Virginia transportation officials pledge to ease traffic problems on Interstate 66 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/virginia-transportation-officials-pledge-to-ease-traffic-problems-on-interstate-66/2014/07/17/6ee72468-0ded-11e4-8341-b8072b1e7348_story.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Henry on July 18, 2014, 02:29:14 PM
This has to be welcome news to that part of the Washington metro area! Then again, anything to ease congestion is.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2014, 02:41:47 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 17, 2014, 09:33:17 AM
My guess is that the VRE extension component means extending it from Manassas to Haymarket...

There's also a constraint there - the NS line between Manassas and Front Royal (on which a future Haymarket stop would be located) is a single-track affair, so it will not be able to handle that many trains.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 18, 2014, 02:56:24 PM
QuoteThere's also a constraint there - the NS line between Manassas and Front Royal (on which a future Haymarket stop would be located) is a single-track affair, so it will not be able to handle that many trains.

Given precedent elsewhere, the line would probably be double-tracked to Haymarket before VRE would run trains.  The new overpasses at US 29 are designed to accommodate three tracks underneath.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 18, 2014, 03:18:25 PM
This extension has been in the works in one way or another since 2003...

http://www.vre.org/about/G-H/archives.html

The 2009 feasibility report is here - http://www.vre.org/about/G-H/PDF/VRE_Executive_Summary_09_28_2009.pdf

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on July 19, 2014, 12:38:06 PM
Wow. So much buzz about improving I-66, but I think they should've made more general-purpose lanes and space for the Orange Line (as well as room for two light rail spurs at the 28 and 234 interchanges to Manassas) past the terminus in Vienna.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 21, 2014, 10:45:52 AM
[Manchester Bridge carries U.S. 60 over the James River]

Richmond.com: Why Richmond, Why?!? Bridge Projects Getting People Excited (http://www.richmond.com/city-life/why-richmond-why/article_574d660a-0dde-11e4-b1e1-001a4bcf6878.html)

QuoteNow, to explain the work on the Manchester Bridge Rehabilitation Project we contacted Sharon R. North, the public information manager for the City of Richmond Department of Public Works.

Quote"This is a bridge rehabilitation project that consists of bridge cleaning, painting of structural steel, joint and deck repairs, replacement of handrails and guardrails along the bridge. The cost of the construction repairs is $6.5 million and is scheduled to be completed by the summer 2015," she wrote.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 21, 2014, 10:58:47 AM
I'm not sure they need a 3-2-2-3 cross-section for I-66.  I'd think a 4-2-4 would be appropriate.  Either way, it will require some right-of-way just west of the Beltway, which NOBODY will like...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on July 21, 2014, 05:50:18 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 21, 2014, 10:58:47 AM
I'm not sure they need a 3-2-2-3 cross-section for I-66.  I'd think a 4-2-4 would be appropriate.  Either way, it will require some right-of-way just west of the Beltway, which NOBODY will like...

Umm, the 495 Express Lanes only took a couple of houses by the Gallows Road exit on Lutrell Road, where there was this funky house that stuck outside the sound walls. Remember?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 21, 2014, 06:54:07 PM
I do.  But the Beltway also had a wider right-of-way to begin with than I-66 does immediately west of the Beltway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 21, 2014, 08:41:15 PM
Apparently that house that stuck through the wall was purchased by Fluor or Transurban and was used as a field office until it came time to demolish it.

Acquiring right-of-way along I-66 would be a major expense and is a reason why just about any improvement will wind up being tolled. I was driving on that road today (Fair Oaks east to the Beltway) shortly before 11:00 AM. There is really no good time to drive on there. Traffic was moving at around 55 to 65 the whole way, but it's just a nerve-wracking drive (and I was in the green arrow lane for much of the way).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 22, 2014, 06:29:34 AM
And I remember as a kid when 66 was just another 4 lane road when it was only open from Gainesville to the Beltway, little used, like Corridor H is now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 22, 2014, 06:39:43 AM
This poor old covered bridge just keeps getting hammered... right off Rt. 11 south of Mt. Jackson

http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2014/07/meems-bridge-damaged-repairs-underway.php
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 22, 2014, 11:37:04 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 22, 2014, 06:29:34 AM
And I remember as a kid when 66 was just another 4 lane road when it was only open from Gainesville to the Beltway, little used, like Corridor H is now.

I remember I-66 from those days (there was a sign westbound west of I-495 informing drivers that it was only open to Gainesville), but there were times when it could be pretty busy. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 22, 2014, 11:42:21 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 22, 2014, 06:39:43 AM
This poor old covered bridge just keeps getting hammered... right off Rt. 11 south of Mt. Jackson

http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2014/07/meems-bridge-damaged-repairs-underway.php

What's needed is a rigid overhead "overheight preventer," fabricated from a steel I-beam or two, before entering the bridge from either side.   

VDOT used to have something like that at the approaches to the Barrett's Ferry Bridge on Va. 5 crossing the Chickahominy River. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 22, 2014, 12:24:49 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 22, 2014, 11:37:04 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 22, 2014, 06:29:34 AM
And I remember as a kid when 66 was just another 4 lane road when it was only open from Gainesville to the Beltway, little used, like Corridor H is now.

I remember I-66 from those days (there was a sign westbound west of I-495 informing drivers that it was only open to Gainesville), but there were times when it could be pretty busy. 

I don't recall those days, even though I know I rode on I-66 during the 1970s, but I do recall seeing a medium-sized ground-mounted green sign off to one side somewhere between Manassas and Gainesville saying that I-66 was now open to I-81. I believe that must have been sometime around 1981, as the segment between Haymarket and Gainesville opened in December 1980.

(I do remember all the hoopla when I-66 opened inside the Beltway just before Christmas 1982. The Washington Post devoted most of the "Virginia Weekly" section to covering the new highway.)




Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 22, 2014, 11:42:21 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 22, 2014, 06:39:43 AM
This poor old covered bridge just keeps getting hammered... right off Rt. 11 south of Mt. Jackson

http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2014/07/meems-bridge-damaged-repairs-underway.php

What's needed is a rigid overhead "overheight preventer," fabricated from a steel I-beam or two, before entering the bridge from either side.   

VDOT used to have something like that at the approaches to the Barrett's Ferry Bridge on Va. 5 crossing the Chickahominy River. 

Heh. Visit http://11foot8.com/ and you'll see those rigid protectors sometimes have.....interesting side effects.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 22, 2014, 01:48:55 PM
That would totally ruin the whole experience. Stupidity must be stopped before that happens.    :pan:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 23, 2014, 10:02:15 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 22, 2014, 12:24:49 PM
Heh. Visit http://11foot8.com/ and you'll see those rigid protectors sometimes have.....interesting side effects.

Yeah, I have watched some of those videos. 

In the case of that bridge, because it is in an urbanized area, it may be hard to "set back" an overheight preventer far enough to STOP tall vehicles from reaching the bridge, though I wonder if the agency in charge of the street (City of Durham or NCDOT?) has considered one of those "waterfall" STOP systems (http://www.truckinginfo.com/blog/on-the-road/story/2013/05/aussies-deploy-water-wall-tunnel-warning-technology.aspx), as are used in Australia to keep overheight vehicles away from tunnels. 

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 22, 2014, 01:48:55 PM
That would totally ruin the whole experience. Stupidity must be stopped before that happens.    :pan:

My intent is to have the stupidity preventers some distance back from the actual bridge - and far enough back that people can photograph and otherwise enjoy the bridge without seeing them.

A government agency in the D.C. area uses such devices (low steel barriers) to keep unwanted trucks away from roads where they are not supposed to be - and where they might present a hazard to the agency and its employees.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on July 23, 2014, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 22, 2014, 11:42:21 AM
What's needed is a rigid overhead "overheight preventer," fabricated from a steel I-beam or two, before entering the bridge from either side.   

VDOT used to have something like that at the approaches to the Barrett's Ferry Bridge on Va. 5 crossing the Chickahominy River. 

The Alaska equivalents (using one I-beam) are there called "headache bars".  They are used, among other places, on side roads passing under the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 24, 2014, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 23, 2014, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 22, 2014, 11:42:21 AM
What's needed is a rigid overhead "overheight preventer," fabricated from a steel I-beam or two, before entering the bridge from either side.   

VDOT used to have something like that at the approaches to the Barrett's Ferry Bridge on Va. 5 crossing the Chickahominy River. 

The Alaska equivalents (using one I-beam) are there called "headache bars".  They are used, among other places, on side roads passing under the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

If you hit one, you get a headache!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 29, 2014, 03:42:30 PM
Mulligan Road, connecting Telegraph Road near Hilltop Golf Club to US-1 at its intersection with VA-235 (Mount Vernon Memorial Highway) is currently scheduled to open August 18. This should be a huge help to getting around this part of Fairfax County by partially substituting for the routes across Fort Belvoir that were lost when the Army closed off public access to Beulah Street and Woodlawn Road after 9-11.

Map is centered on Mulligan Road, the one running by itself vertically through the middle of the image:
https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.733799,-77.144794&spn=0.028388,0.055747&t=h&z=15
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2014, 10:02:13 PM
Japolink.com: Never Speed In Virginia: Lessons From My Three Days In Jail (http://jalopnik.com/never-speed-in-virginia-lessons-from-my-three-days-in-1613604053)

QuoteI knew I would be in trouble a month earlier, when I blasted the ZL1 down a rural straightaway in Virginia and then saw the state trooper's blue-and-silver Ford Taurus peeking out from the side of the road. I slowed down when I saw him, but his lights came on right away.

QuoteThe trooper pulled me over and said he had me on radar doing 93 mph in a 55 mph zone. I figured it would be a nasty ticket. It wasn't, because I got nailed in Virginia, a state where the police and the courts take speeding more seriously than possibly anywhere else in America. A fun day in a very powerful car just got a lot less fun.

QuoteOn Friday, July 25, my wife dropped me off at the Rappahannock Shenandoah Warren Regional Jail in Front Royal. I was escorted inside by a guard, handcuffed, booked, and had my mugshot taken. I was given a set of orange and white striped jail scrubs and a plastic mat and ushered into a big room with two stories of cells on either side. This would be home for the weekend.

QuoteI'm not trying to sound like a hardass or anything, but I wasn't scared. I just wanted to get the three days I had been sentenced to over with.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 04, 2014, 10:30:17 PM
If he was on US 211 in Rappahannock County in a 55 zone, he was somewhere between Sperryville and Amissville, as the 2-lane portion from Sperryville west to Skyline Dr never gets above 45.

Been on 211 numerous times....pleasant drive.  But not a road you want to go over 70 on, and not just because of the enforcement.  Much of it is hilly with limited sight distances.  It's for this that I have little sympathy for the article commenters and the insane speeds they said they were going when they got pulled over.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2014, 10:45:18 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 04, 2014, 10:30:17 PM
If he was on US 211 in Rappahannock County in a 55 zone, he was somewhere between Sperryville and Amissville, as the 2-lane portion from Sperryville west to Skyline Dr never gets above 45.

Been on 211 numerous times....pleasant drive.  But not a road you want to go over 70 on, and not just because of the enforcement.  Much of it is hilly with limited sight distances.  It's for this that I have little sympathy for the article commenters and the insane speeds they said they were going when they got pulled over.

Agreed.  U.S. 211 is a very classic Virginia four-lane arterial highway between Sperryville and Warrenton, but even there, I think 60 or 65 is about as fast as I want to go (and I have seen speed limit enforcement on this road many times by both county sheriff's deputies and Virginia State Police, usually in the median). 

But as you say, it's a two-lane arterial from the west side of the Blue Ridge all the way to Sperryville, and the speeds mentioned in the article are not appropriate.  I do not recall the speed limit, but given the curvy nature of the road, especially east of Skyline Drive, your 45 sounds about right.

One thing not mentioned in the article (but the commenters talk about it) - the consequences of a reckless driving ticket in Virginia can vary wildly depending on what county the summons is issued in. In some counties, the Commonwealth's Attorney and the judges will not cut anyone any slack.  In other counties, it can be pleaded down to a much less serious charge.

I do think that the Virginia reckless driving laws (unfortunately) keep the crotch rocketers and their Hayabusas and other "sport" motorcycles on the Maryland side of the Potomac River, but we will never enact any statutes like Virginia's as long as Del. Joe Vallario is chair of the committee that hears such things in the state House of Delegates, since he represents drunk and reckless drivers in his law practice.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 05, 2014, 07:27:34 AM
QuoteAgreed.  U.S. 211 is a very classic Virginia four-lane arterial highway between Sperryville and Warrenton, but even there, I think 60 or 65 is about as fast as I want to go (and I have seen speed limit enforcement on this road many times by both county sheriff's deputies and Virginia State Police, usually in the median).

I only occasionally saw speed enforcement along 211.  But when I did, they ignored me...I typically went low 60s.

QuoteBut as you say, it's a two-lane arterial from the west side of the Blue Ridge all the way to Sperryville, and the speeds mentioned in the article are not appropriate.  I do not recall the speed limit, but given the curvy nature of the road, especially east of Skyline Drive, your 45 sounds about right.

45 from Sperryville to the foot of the hill, 35 on the hill climb, 45 on the Page County side of the hill climb.

QuoteOne thing not mentioned in the article (but the commenters talk about it) - the consequences of a reckless driving ticket in Virginia can vary wildly depending on what county the summons is issued in. In some counties, the Commonwealth's Attorney and the judges will not cut anyone any slack.  In other counties, it can be pleaded down to a much less serious charge.

Another thing not mentioned in the article:  it's at the discretion of the officer whether a reckless charge is included or not.  It's not an automatic for the 20+ over the limit part, as I learned while sitting in court for my own (NON-reckless) speeding ticket in Charles City County.  Not sure if the over 80 is automatic or not, as the case I overheard was not an over-80 (was a 59 in a 35, IIRC)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2014, 07:46:34 AM
The cop has discretion on the "over 80 mph" part as well. I was at the Fairfax courthouse once and saw a judge ask a cop why he didn't write a reckless for a guy who was clocked at 98 mph on I-66 between Fair Oaks and Route 28. The cop said he didn't feel the driver was endangering anyone because the weather was dry, there was a full moon with no clouds, there was almost nobody else on the road, and the guy was driving a new Corvette such that the cop interpreted it as poor judgment by someone wanting to try out his new sports car. The judge said "OK." I've always thought that was a good example of a cop using discretion. I do not remember what penalty the defendant received because I found the aforementioned exchange more interesting.

The thing I find odious in Virginia is that they did not amend the reckless driving statute when they authorized the 70-mph speed limit back in 2010. I think having the law set up so you can be given a reckless driving ticket for going a mere 11 mph over the speed limit regardless of the conditions is a serious "gotcha" kind of law, and I don't think there's anything inherently dangerous about going 81 mph in a 70 mph zone that makes it more worthy of a reckless driving ticket than going 66 mph in a 55 mph zone (assuming there are no aggravating circumstances like bad weather, driving without headlights, etc.). There's nothing magical about 80 mph other than its use in that particular statute. Back in the old days of bias-ply tires, lousy breaks, etc., maybe it was different.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on August 05, 2014, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 04, 2014, 10:30:17 PM
If he was on US 211 in Rappahannock County in a 55 zone, he was somewhere between Sperryville and Amissville, as the 2-lane portion from Sperryville west to Skyline Dr never gets above 45.

Been on 211 numerous times....pleasant drive.  But not a road you want to go over 70 on, and not just because of the enforcement.  Much of it is hilly with limited sight distances.  It's for this that I have little sympathy for the article commenters and the insane speeds they said they were going when they got pulled over.
I agree. Speed limits in VA are definitely too low, but there is truly no good reason to go over 90 anywhere in the state. IMO, they should drop the 80+ part of the law and just stick with the 20 mph over law. Also, where are these people driving that allows them to do over 90?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2014, 10:21:40 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 05, 2014, 07:27:34 AM
Another thing not mentioned in the article:  it's at the discretion of the officer whether a reckless charge is included or not.  It's not an automatic for the 20+ over the limit part, as I learned while sitting in court for my own (NON-reckless) speeding ticket in Charles City County.  Not sure if the over 80 is automatic or not, as the case I overheard was not an over-80 (was a 59 in a 35, IIRC)

Hoo has mentioned this before, and he repeats it downthread.  I have asked Virginia troopers about that provision, and they say the same thing - it is at the discretion of the officer writing the ticket.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 05, 2014, 07:46:34 AM
The cop has discretion on the "over 80 mph" part as well. I was at the Fairfax courthouse once and saw a judge ask a cop why he didn't write a reckless for a guy who was clocked at 98 mph on I-66 between Fair Oaks and Route 28. The cop said he didn't feel the driver was endangering anyone because the weather was dry, there was a full moon with no clouds, there was almost nobody else on the road, and the guy was driving a new Corvette such that the cop interpreted it as poor judgment by someone wanting to try out his new sports car. The judge said "OK." I've always thought that was a good example of a cop using discretion. I do not remember what penalty the defendant received because I found the aforementioned exchange more interesting.

98 MPH on an empty I-66 between Gainesville (or maybe Manassas if we go back a few years) and U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks in the middle of the night is not reckless driving.   Stupid, perhaps, but not reckless.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 05, 2014, 07:46:34 AM
The thing I find odious in Virginia is that they did not amend the reckless driving statute when they authorized the 70-mph speed limit back in 2010. I think having the law set up so you can be given a reckless driving ticket for going a mere 11 mph over the speed limit regardless of the conditions is a serious "gotcha" kind of law, and I don't think there's anything inherently dangerous about going 81 mph in a 70 mph zone that makes it more worthy of a reckless driving ticket than going 66 mph in a 55 mph zone (assuming there are no aggravating circumstances like bad weather, driving without headlights, etc.). There's nothing magical about 80 mph other than its use in that particular statute. Back in the old days of bias-ply tires, lousy breaks, etc., maybe it was different.

Absolutely.  Especially on a road like I-85 south of Petersburg.  Few interchanges, not much in the way of horizontal or vertical curvature leads to a road where going over 80 is quite reasonable.  Most of I-295 (including the Hopewell speed trap) is the same way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2014, 10:48:57 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2014, 10:21:40 AM
....

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 05, 2014, 07:46:34 AM
The thing I find odious in Virginia is that they did not amend the reckless driving statute when they authorized the 70-mph speed limit back in 2010. I think having the law set up so you can be given a reckless driving ticket for going a mere 11 mph over the speed limit regardless of the conditions is a serious "gotcha" kind of law, and I don't think there's anything inherently dangerous about going 81 mph in a 70 mph zone that makes it more worthy of a reckless driving ticket than going 66 mph in a 55 mph zone (assuming there are no aggravating circumstances like bad weather, driving without headlights, etc.). There's nothing magical about 80 mph other than its use in that particular statute. Back in the old days of bias-ply tires, lousy breaks, etc., maybe it was different.

Absolutely.  Especially on a road like I-85 south of Petersburg.  Few interchanges, not much in the way of horizontal or vertical curvature leads to a road where going over 80 is quite reasonable.  Most of I-295 (including the Hopewell speed trap) is the same way.

Back in the 1990s I used to go anywhere from 80 on up to 95 mph on that road all the time and almost never saw a cop. Seldom went much over 95 because of the difficulty of slowing down if I picked up police radar. Funny thing, though....no matter how fast I went on there, it still always took four hours to make the trip in either direction between my parents' house just east of Fairfax City and my apartment on Duke's Central Campus.

Aside from the fact that I don't generally drive as fast as I used to, and I like having my low insurance premiums, the thing that would give me serious pause about going that fast on I-85 these days would be my concern about deer. I don't know whether deer are as big a problem in Southside as they are in Northern Virginia, but on a road lined with lots of trees like I-85 I always worry about them (whereas 20 years ago the thought seldom crossed my mind). I would not have the same concern on a road like, say, the Lynchburg—Madison Heights bypass segment of Route 29, which doesn't have nearly as many trees along the sides and they aren't as close to the road (it's the only non-Interstate in Virginia posted at 70 mph, as far as I know). My concern about deer makes me feel like speeds in excess of 80 mph are more appropriate on I-295 than on I-85 in Virginia, though I think speeds UP TO 80 mph are probably OK on I-85 during daytime hours.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 05, 2014, 11:31:00 AM
QuoteI don't know whether deer are as big a problem in Southside as they are in Northern Virginia,

They are..
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 05, 2014, 11:37:51 AM
VA is absolutely insane when it comes to 'Reckless Driving' charges.  In most states, 93 in a 55 is a decent speeding ticket; nothing else.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 05, 2014, 11:49:57 AM
However, one could argue that 93 in a 55 is pretty reckless when the 55 in question is an at-grade arterial with lots of hills and driveways...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2014, 10:52:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 05, 2014, 11:49:57 AM
However, one could argue that 93 in a 55 is pretty reckless when the 55 in question is an at-grade arterial with lots of hills and driveways...

Agreed.

An arterial highway, or a functional class expressway-type road (think ADHS Corridor G or Corridor H) with speeds that high is pretty clearly reckless driving.

A "t-bone" wreck or "rear-ender" wreck with one vehicle operating at a speed that high is very likely to result in one or several fatalities.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on August 07, 2014, 10:01:54 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 05, 2014, 11:49:57 AM
However, one could argue that 93 in a 55 is pretty reckless when the 55 in question is an at-grade arterial with lots of hills and driveways...
From reading the article, the person was a car writer testing out a Camaro. The Camaro can get up to speed quickly and brake quickly, so he was probably using short straightaways to buzz up to speed and wind down again. That's not dangerous as long as he maintains control of the car.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 08, 2014, 07:26:26 AM
It read to me like he sped quickly, but wasn't slowing back down quickly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 08, 2014, 05:02:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 29, 2014, 03:42:30 PM
Mulligan Road, connecting Telegraph Road near Hilltop Golf Club to US-1 at its intersection with VA-235 (Mount Vernon Memorial Highway) is currently scheduled to open August 18. This should be a huge help to getting around this part of Fairfax County by partially substituting for the routes across Fort Belvoir that were lost when the Army closed off public access to Beulah Street and Woodlawn Road after 9-11.

Map is centered on Mulligan Road, the one running by itself vertically through the middle of the image:
https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.733799,-77.144794&spn=0.028388,0.055747&t=h&z=15

Took the convertible out for a drive this afternoon to charge the battery after jumpstarting it and I decided to check out Mulligan Road. I was tempted to drive on it because the Telegraph Road end is blocked off only with orange barrels, but better sense prevailed (when you're driving a 1988 Mazda RX-7 with a personalized license plate, you're not exactly inconspicuous, setting aside the risk of getting a flat tire from construction debris or the like and the problem of getting a tow if I broke down). The road will be four lanes, divided, with a 40-mph speed limit. A new traffic light is in place at the intersection with Telegraph Road and the nearby neighborhood has a new sound wall (standard VDOT grey....sound protection nice for the neighborhood, visual effect a drag for the people living immediately behind it). Technically, the road changes names maybe three-quarters of the way down to its intersection with US-1 (Richmond Highway) and VA-235 (Mount Vernon Memorial Highway)–once you pass the intersection with Pole Road (Route 622), it becomes Jeff Todd Way, apparently named for a local businessman and community leader who was killed in a car crash en route to Nags Head in the summer of 2011. Jeff Todd was the head of Todd Restaurants, which owns the three Roy Rogers franchises in this part of Fairfax County. The "Jeff Todd Way" sign is already in place at the intersection with US-1, although the intersection there isn't complete and doesn't seem like it will be 100% done by August 18.

Telegraph Road's new lanes, widening it to four lanes divided from just east of Beulah Street to the western end of Old Telegraph Road (between Hilltop Golf Course and Hayfield Secondary School), are supposed to open on or about August 13, according to the portable message sign I passed today.

It's a very good thing the new road is opening now. Construction on the new Wegmans at Hilltop Town Center (northeast corner of Beulah Street and Telegraph Road near the fire station) is moving right along. The distinctive steeple-type thing is already in place. Last I update I heard from Lee District Supervisor Jeff McKay is that the store is supposed to open sometime early next year, so it's critical the new road, and the widened Telegraph Road, be open before then to avoid massive gridlock. Not that the grand opening won't be a schemozzle anyway–I remember the day the Wegmans near Fairfax City opened the traffic was so bad it was mentioned in all the radio traffic reports! (On the map below, Wegmans will be just to the left of the "T" in "Telegraph.")

I'm wondering what this will do in terms of changing traffic patterns in my part of the county. Van Dorn Street is virtually unusable in the mornings from Franconia Road to Pickett Street on weekdays outside the summer months and I wonder how many drivers from the Woodlawn area might decide to attempt using Mulligan to Telegraph to Van Dorn.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfdc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2FNew-Road.jpg&hash=bcc37df0cfc5032b3351d76205e296e2e3c77755)

Meanwhile, the new culvert is in place on Telegraph between Van Dorn and South Kings Highway, so hopefully within the next month they can start laying the new road there. It's being widened to four lanes between those two streets.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 08, 2014, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 08, 2014, 05:02:08 PM
I'm wondering what this will do in terms of changing traffic patterns in my part of the county. Van Dorn Street is virtually unusable in the mornings from Franconia Road to Pickett Street on weekdays outside the summer months and I wonder how many drivers from the Woodlawn area might decide to attempt using Mulligan to Telegraph to Van Dorn.

What hurts this part of Fairfax County is a familiar theme - lack of east-west (circumferential) highway capacity.  It's a shame that Va. 289 (Franconia Springfield Parkway) does not run in a straight shot all the way east to U.S. 1, though the parklands and existing development make that difficult.

I hope this helps, at least a little.  As an aside, I think I have eaten at all three of those Roy Rogers restaurants in southeastern Fairfax County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 08, 2014, 10:22:22 PM
I don't really think an east—west route would help so much as another way across the Beltway. I understand why the folks on Clermont Avenue would bitterly fight having that road connect to the Eisenhower Connector (which, years ago, was part of Clermont). It'd mess up their neighborhood bigtime. But the problem is, the Beltway is like a wall. There are not many ways across it and they act like funnels. So my concern is that Mulligan Road, as important as it is, might make it too easy for people who would now go up the GW Parkway or Route 1 will now try to cut northwest to Van Dorn. There is ONE way out of my neighborhood–Van Dorn (either north to the Beltway or south towards Telegraph). Maybe I should have thought of that in 2001.....on the other hand, volume has increased exponentially since 2001.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2014, 01:15:17 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 08, 2014, 10:22:22 PM
I don't really think an east—west route would help so much as another way across the Beltway. I understand why the folks on Clermont Avenue would bitterly fight having that road connect to the Eisenhower Connector (which, years ago, was part of Clermont).

It has been quite a few years, but I believe that what is now Eisenhower Avenue Connector was called Clermont Drive on the planning documents in the 1980's and 1990's.  The only thing that survived was a bicycle/pedestrian trail. 

I have some sympathy for the people along Clermont Drive - the grades there (behind the Beltway noise wall are steep (similar to Van Dorn Street at the Beltway except steeper)), and a big reconstruction project would have been required to carry "thru" N-S movements from Alexandria to Va.644 (Franconia Road).

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 08, 2014, 10:22:22 PM
It'd mess up their neighborhood bigtime. But the problem is, the Beltway is like a wall. There are not many ways across it and they act like funnels. So my concern is that Mulligan Road, as important as it is, might make it too easy for people who would now go up the GW Parkway or Route 1 will now try to cut northwest to Van Dorn. There is ONE way out of my neighborhood–Van Dorn (either north to the Beltway or south towards Telegraph). Maybe I should have thought of that in 2001.....on the other hand, volume has increased exponentially since 2001.

I had some friends who lived off of Beulah Street in one of the several 1980's townhouse properties.  I can recall traffic being pretty heavy even then (though at the time, the only access to I-95 was via Va. 644 or Va. 617 (Backlick Road)) or to head north to Va. 613 (S. Van Dorn Street).  No Fairfax County Parkway, no Franconia Springfield Parkway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 09, 2014, 09:36:58 AM
QuoteThere is ONE way out of my neighborhood–Van Dorn (either north to the Beltway or south towards Telegraph).

Which, to me, simply points to the absolute stupidity of developmental design over the last few decades.  Yes, I realize residents don't like or want "cut through" traffic in front of their houses.  But the (significant) downsides to that are that traffic all gets funneled into one or two chokepoints instead of being more spread out, just as you argue with the lack of connections across the Beltway.  Furthermore, in the event of a major crash or casualty on Van Dorn in front of your development, you'd be completely stuck.

QuoteMaybe I should have thought of that in 2001.....on the other hand, volume has increased exponentially since 2001.

Out of curiosity, I looked up traffic volumes along Van Dorn St.  According to VDOT, Van Dorn St actually has less traffic between Franconia Rd and the Beltway today (48K) than it did in 2002 (54K).  If you live south of Franconia Rd, that's where you probably saw some increase.  Van Dorn wasn't open south of Kingstowne Blvd to Telegraph until ca. 2004.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 09, 2014, 10:45:16 AM
Yeah, I remember the day Van Dorn opened to Telegraph.

It's not unusual for the backup in the morning to extend from Pickett Street all the way to Kingstowne Village Parkway. While that's maybe about two miles, three miles tops, it can take 45 minutes to make that drive if you hit it on the wrong day. Why, I don't really know. We just go a different way if we see stopped traffic when we approach the light leaving our neighborhood. Regardless of the number of cars on the road, it never took that long when I moved here.

It could also well be that even if the overall number of daily trips has decreased, those trips have become more concentrated at certain times of day so the volume seems to have increased.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 18, 2014, 10:55:33 AM
I drove down to Mulligan Road this morning but, as of about 10:20, it wasn't open yet. Don't know whether it will open today or not. The north/eastbound side of Telegraph has been opened and has two lanes to a point just east of the new Mulligan Road, where the right lane abruptly (and with minimal warning) becomes right-turn only into Fort Belvoir. I could see that spot becoming a problem in the future if they don't post a little more advance warning the lane ends. South/westbound Telegraph has not yet been restriped to accommodate two lanes of traffic, and various orange barrels occasionally block the left lane such that it's impractical to treat it as being two lanes.

Don't know whether they will want to resurface/restripe the other side of Telgraph before Mulligan opens. If I have time this afternoon, and if it doesn't rain, I may go check it out again to see whether it opens. I was kind of disappointed it wasn't open this morning, but I also wasn't terribly surprised either.


Edited to add: BTW, Bing Maps shows the new road and will let you plot a route using it (Google shows it as under construction). It's 2.2 miles down Mulligan Road/Jeff Todd Way from Telegraph Road to Route 1 at the intersection of VA-235 (Mount Vernon Memorial Highway). I believe the speed limit is to be 40 mph between Telegraph and Pole Road; don't know about the rest. The existing route, which requires going down Telegraph to the Fairfax County Parkway, following that to Route 1, and going back up through Fort Belvoir, is a 6-mile drive but can take 20 minutes or more depending on the traffic and the time of day (in the afternoon, going in the reverse of the direction I just stated can be an interminable slog since Route 1 crawls through the base).


Second edit: I sent a tweet to the VDOT Northern Virginia office to ask about it and they replied it is to open when the Telegraph Road traffic signal is operational (it was flashing yellow this morning).


Third edit (3:09 PM): VDOT just sent me a tweet to say it's open. I'm at a good stopping point on what I'm working on, so I think I'll go check it out before it rains. $%&*!!!! I drove over there (thankfully a short distance) to find it wasn't open. Guess I'll try again tomorrow if I have time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 19, 2014, 04:33:18 PM
The new road is open. Went to check it out this afternoon. It's not a route I'm likely to use all that often just because it doesn't go anywhere I normally need to go, but it was vital they get this open prior to the opening of the new Wegmans sometime in 2015.

I can see this road being a goldmine for cops, especially once the high school kids discover it, because a lot of people are going to ignore the 40-mph speed limit. In the video, I had my cruise control set at 40 just so I could look around, although ultimately there isn't much to see–and I'm sure that's one reason the US Army agreed to allow a publicly-accessible road to be located in that part of Fort Belvoir! I did see a wild turkey off to one side of the road just out of the camera's field of view.

Almost no publicity surrounding the opening, but people will discover it soon enough, just like they did when Van Dorn Street opened to Telegraph Road about ten years ago or so. Be interesting to see if it has an effect on the traffic on Telegraph Road and Van Dorn Street by making them more accessible to people in the Woodlawn area.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 19, 2014, 05:09:14 PM
QuoteBe interesting to see if it has an effect on the traffic on Telegraph Road and Van Dorn Street by making them more accessible to people in the Woodlawn area.

There might be some off-peak impact for that, but Telegraph being 2 lanes from Hayfield to Van Dorn will be a check against significant traffic change.  More realistically, I see Mulligan Rd traffic using Telegraph to tie into Beulah or Hayfield rather than Van Dorn.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 19, 2014, 06:41:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 19, 2014, 05:09:14 PM
QuoteBe interesting to see if it has an effect on the traffic on Telegraph Road and Van Dorn Street by making them more accessible to people in the Woodlawn area.

There might be some off-peak impact for that, but Telegraph being 2 lanes from Hayfield to Van Dorn will be a check against significant traffic change.  More realistically, I see Mulligan Rd traffic using Telegraph to tie into Beulah or Hayfield rather than Van Dorn.


Don't forget Kingstowne Village Parkway, which is four lanes and connects Hayfield to Van Dorn (indeed it's how I came back from exploring today). It was the thru route prior to the last piece of Van Dorn opening. Also a good amount of Beulah traffic connects to Van Dorn via Franconia Road.

Edited to add: I was thinking about it further when I was driving this morning and I thought of two other points. First, in respect to my comments above, I certainly couldn't fault anyone from down that end of the US-1 corridor from at least trying some variant of a route using the new road at some point. They'd be crazy not to TRY it to see how it works, though later in September would be a more accurate test.

Second, and potentially more interesting, the new road opens up access to the Franconia—Springfield Metrorail stop to a lot of people who don't have an easy way to get there now. If I lived down in the Woodlawn area and wanted to ride the Metrorail, previously I'd have had to slog up to Huntington or take an out-of-the-way route to Springfield. The new route is an interesting option for commuters down there in this respect. While you have a longer ride on the train, you potentially make that up with a shorter trip to and from the train. (Similar to the reason why, except during the summer, we often go to the Springfield stop rather than Van Dorn even though the latter is slightly closer. It takes 10 minutes to reach Springfield, but it can often take over half an hour to go from Franconia Road to the Van Dorn stop.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 20, 2014, 12:40:35 PM
This just appeared on Twitter. Interesting. This probably makes sense given the ever-increasing toll rates such that none of the tolls are under $1 anymore. (I entered at Spring Hill Road last month and it showed up on my E-ZPass statement as a $1.00 toll.)

I have not paid cash on the Dulles Toll Road since sometime in 2001, but as I recall, back then when all the tolls were under a dollar if you paid with something requiring change, the toll attendant gave you the change and then threw coins in the amount of the toll into the coin basket to make the arm go up. I assume that is no longer the case these days.

QuoteFirst4Traffic ‏@First4Traffic 1h

19 lanes along Dulles Toll Road will go from "exact change" to EZ Pass only. Starting at FFX Co Pkwy on 9/2. @nbcwashington @News4Today
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: formulanone on August 20, 2014, 03:10:23 PM
Question: why does everyone drive so slow through the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel?

Seems to be backed up for at least a mile for no apparent reason other than folks like to travel at 15mph through there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2014, 03:28:16 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2014, 12:40:35 PM
This just appeared on Twitter. Interesting. This probably makes sense given the ever-increasing toll rates such that none of the tolls are under $1 anymore. (I entered at Spring Hill Road last month and it showed up on my E-ZPass statement as a $1.00 toll.)

I have not paid cash on the Dulles Toll Road since sometime in 2001, but as I recall, back then when all the tolls were under a dollar if you paid with something requiring change, the toll attendant gave you the change and then threw coins in the amount of the toll into the coin basket to make the arm go up. I assume that is no longer the case these days.

QuoteFirst4Traffic ‏@First4Traffic 1h

19 lanes along Dulles Toll Road will go from "exact change" to EZ Pass only. Starting at FFX Co Pkwy on 9/2. @nbcwashington @News4Today

Dr. Gridlock of the Post: More E-ZPass and the end of coin payments on the Dulles Toll Road (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/08/20/more-e-zpass-and-the-end-of-coin-payments-on-the-dulles-toll-road/)

IMO, a band-aid solution - they are going in the right direction, but what the Toll Road needs to go to cashless, virtual-ticket tolling (like Md. 200). 

Put up a gantry in each direction between each interchange and be done with it - that also treats short trips between Exits 9 (Va. 28, Sully Road) and 14 (Va. 674, Hunter Mill Road) more-fairly than the current system does (where the ramp tolls assume that your trips involves a trip as far east as Va. 7 or the main barrier).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on August 20, 2014, 04:08:26 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 20, 2014, 03:10:23 PM
Question: why does everyone drive so slow through the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel?

Seems to be backed up for at least a mile for no apparent reason other than folks like to travel at 15mph through there.

I would assume a combination of no shoulders and 11' wide lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2014, 04:32:12 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 20, 2014, 03:10:23 PM
Question: why does everyone drive so slow through the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel?

Seems to be backed up for at least a mile for no apparent reason other than folks like to travel at 15mph through there.

(1) 2012 published AADT by VDOT of 86,000 for the crossing.  That is enough right there.

(2) Add relatively steep climbs (even with relatively low truck volumes) from the low point in each tube, and you get slow traffic much of the day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 20, 2014, 05:56:50 PM
The backups are most often caused by stoppages to turn around overheight trucks from the westbound tunnel.  #2 cause of backups is crashes.

But, even without congestion, folks drive slow through the tunnels because they're often timid in tunnels...what Thing posted is part of that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2014, 05:47:22 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 20, 2014, 03:10:23 PM
Seems to be backed up for at least a mile for no apparent reason other than folks like to travel at 15mph through there.

I drive the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel (I-895) somewhat frequently and it is slightly longer than the tunnel portion of the HRBT (BHT is slightly over 7,600 feet portal-to-portal, while the tunnel part of the HRBT is about 7,500 feet). Both are two lanes in each direction. No shoulders in either tunnel.   

But there's a difference in traffic volume.  The BHT has an AADT of between 68,000 and 69,000, while the HRBT runs at around 86,000.  That is the reason that the HRBT is so frequently congested. The BHT is generally not congested, unless there is an incident of some sort.

The BHT would probably be as congested as the HRBT had the I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel (AADT about 120,000) not been built and opened to traffic in 1985.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 22, 2014, 06:40:47 PM
Heh. I remember in the years before the Fort McHenry Tunnel opening it sometimes took an hour to crawl along the Harbor Tunnel Thruway and through the tunnel if my parents forgot to take I-695 instead.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2014, 07:01:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2014, 06:40:47 PM
Heh. I remember in the years before the Fort McHenry Tunnel opening it sometimes took an hour to crawl along the Harbor Tunnel Thruway and through the tunnel if my parents forgot to take I-695 instead.

The best bail route in the period 1977 to 1985 to avoid the BHT when it was congested was to take I-695/Md. 695 south across the F. S. Key Bridge, even though the approach roads to the bridge were Super-2's.  Little traffic in either direction, and in the southbound (695 Inner Loop) movement you had (and have) your choice of Md. 295 (B-W Parkway) or I-95.

The "topside" of I-695 past Towson is usually much more congested (then and now).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 22, 2014, 09:39:44 PM
Yup, we used to use Key Bridge. I clearly remember the time, most likely when I was 10, when I told my mom to go that way and she ignored me on the basis that it was a weekday morning and traffic wouldn't be bad. Uh-huh. Took an hour to go five miles on the Thruway, during which one of the power window motors in her 1979 Volvo wagon overheated. Last time my mom ever questioned my sense for what roads to use.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: DeaconG on August 23, 2014, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2014, 07:01:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2014, 06:40:47 PM
Heh. I remember in the years before the Fort McHenry Tunnel opening it sometimes took an hour to crawl along the Harbor Tunnel Thruway and through the tunnel if my parents forgot to take I-695 instead.

The best bail route in the period 1977 to 1985 to avoid the BHT when it was congested was to take I-695/Md. 695 south across the F. S. Key Bridge, even though the approach roads to the bridge were Super-2's.  Little traffic in either direction, and in the southbound (695 Inner Loop) movement you had (and have) your choice of Md. 295 (B-W Parkway) or I-95.

The "topside" of I-695 past Towson is usually much more congested (then and now).

I lived in Maryland during that time and I found myself taking the Key Bridge on my trips to Philly and back.  I knew that stretch north of the bridge would be four laned one day-and that ride by the Sparrows Point steelmaking facility was always alternatively impressive and sad.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 26, 2014, 06:26:05 AM
WTOP Radio: New road alleviates major Va. commuting headache (http://www.wtop.com/149/3688646/New-road-alleviates-commuting-headache)

QuoteFORT BELVOIR, Va. - A new road will alleviate a lot of commuting headaches in Fairfax County.

QuoteJeff Todd Way opened on Monday to commuters looking to get from Route 1 to Telegraph Road without driving around the base.

QuoteJeff McKay, Fairfax County supervisor, calls the road a game changer.

Quote"Since Woodlawn Road was closed ... you're largely, from the commuting standpoint, been held hostage," McKay said.

QuoteWoodlawn Road was closed in 2001 for security reasons, and since then drivers were forced to add 10 miles to their commute. During rush hour, that meant leaving a lot earlier for work.

Quote"It can be 45 minutes to go 10 miles during rush hour," McKay said of the area without the new Jeff Todd Way.

QuoteOnce the Department of Defense and the county agreed on where to build a more secure road, Fairfax County stepped in with the money to make the road four lanes instead of two.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 26, 2014, 07:34:01 AM
WTOP is several days late. That's the road I mentioned further up the thread that opened last Tuesday. Part of it (Route 1 to Pole Road) is Jeff Todd Way and the remainder is Mulligan Road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 02, 2014, 01:55:12 PM
If you drive the highways of the Commonwealth, or use other forms of transportation around Virginia, please take this survey!

VTrans2040 Vision Survey (https://www.research.net/s/vtrans)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 02, 2014, 05:42:02 PM
Heh. My answer to the question about "evolving technologies" noted the current to-do about hackers getting pictures of nude actresses and said that I shudder at the thought of said hackers messing with the systems used by self-driving cars.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 02, 2014, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 02, 2014, 05:42:02 PM
Heh. My answer to the question about "evolving technologies" noted the current to-do about hackers getting pictures of nude actresses and said that I shudder at the thought of said hackers messing with the systems used by self-driving cars.

Security and self-driving cars is an issue. 

Glad you took the survey. I don't think too many people in the Commonwealth of Virginia use skateboards or ferries to get around, yet those submodes seemed to have drawn the attention and affection of the person or persons that developed the survey.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on September 04, 2014, 08:18:18 PM
Just a couple of days ago on Google Earth, I noticed there was a temporary overpass on the ramp from I-495/I-95 Outer Loop onto US 1 North, which connected with the latter road at a signal. I do not remember it in real life, but from researching on Earth, I know it lasted from late 2005 to Spring 2007, before the loop ramp was entirely constructed.  Well, I pretty much know everything else, but I wonder how it was pulled off, especially since it might have been then torn down. :P
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 07, 2014, 11:30:02 PM
TimeDispatch.com: [Op-Ed] Reflections on an encounter with the camera police (http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/columnists-blogs/tom-silvestri/silvestri-reflections-on-an-encounter-with-the-camera-police/article_6bc5ff7a-dd43-564b-b04a-4790b0618373.html)

QuoteIt's a good bet that all drivers will encounter the camera police one day.

QuoteI'm here to report my first experience.

QuoteNot so good.

QuoteThe use of cameras at dangerous intersections and on busy toll highways generates debate.

QuoteIs it smart law enforcement or an unchecked invasion of privacy?

QuoteCan we trust the monitors to be right or should we accept nothing less than 100 percent accuracy?

QuoteIs it a temptation for juiced-up revenue for agencies and government, or is it a new lower-cost way to use technology to ensure everyone pays what's owed?

QuoteHere's my take:

QuoteWhile it helps police catch brash violators, not all occurrences are clear-cut. Allowances are required.

QuoteMy case involves the E-ZPass system and the Downtown Expressway in the city of Richmond.

QuoteThe day's personal snail mail last month included one of those official-looking envelopes that can only spell headaches.

QuoteThe white envelope presented a "Toll Violation Notice"  from the "Violation Processing Center"  in Clifton Forge, dated Aug. 6.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 08, 2014, 10:59:59 AM
They're processing Virginia E-ZPass violations in Clifton Forge? Which is closer to the WV Turnpike than any of Virginia's toll facilities?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 08, 2014, 11:45:18 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 08, 2014, 10:59:59 AM
They're processing Virginia E-ZPass violations in Clifton Forge? Which is closer to the WV Turnpike than any of Virginia's toll facilities?

The main Virginia E-ZPass (and, previously, Smart Tag) customer service center has been located in Clifton Forge for at least the past 14 years. Don't know why.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 08, 2014, 03:24:50 PM
Probably a case of a local state delegate having some "clout" when the site was selected...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 08, 2014, 04:37:13 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 08, 2014, 03:24:50 PM
Probably a case of a local state delegate having some "clout" when the site was selected...


Good point. Creigh Deeds represents the Clifton Forge area in the state Senate and previously represented that area in the House of Delegates prior to his election to the Senate in 2001 (a special election to replace Sen. Emily Couric, who died). I'd say he's a rather high-profile Virginia politician now, but I have no idea how well-known he was back in that time period.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 09, 2014, 05:55:47 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 08, 2014, 03:24:50 PM
Probably a case of a local state delegate having some "clout" when the site was selected...

The Governor at the time (I think it was Mark Warner, who required VDOT to join the E-ZPass Group) wanted the service center in a part of the Commonwealth that could use a few new steady jobs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 09, 2014, 06:15:47 AM
If it was done in 2000 (as hoo suggests), would've been Jim Gilmore.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 09, 2014, 07:41:40 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2014, 06:15:47 AM
If it was done in 2000 (as hoo suggests), would've been Jim Gilmore.

I don't know whether it was 2000 or before when they located the service center there, but when I got my Smart Tag sometime that year, it came from an address in Clifton Forge, so I presume it was located there not later than 2000.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 09, 2014, 06:38:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2014, 07:41:40 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 09, 2014, 06:15:47 AM
If it was done in 2000 (as hoo suggests), would've been Jim Gilmore.

I don't know whether it was 2000 or before when they located the service center there, but when I got my Smart Tag sometime that year, it came from an address in Clifton Forge, so I presume it was located there not later than 2000.

When I had SmarTags, I got them directly from the neighborhood Customer Service Center, which has been at a few different places along the Va. 267 Corridor over the years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadsguy on September 11, 2014, 09:26:47 PM
At the eastern end of the Suffolk Bypass (US 58/460), there's a stub and ROW for a loop ramp, all pointing south. Where would this have gone? Would it have looped back around and connected to the US 13 section? A full beltway seems overkill for Suffolk.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 11, 2014, 10:07:02 PM
Yes, a full Suffolk bypass loop was proposed back in the 1970s.  The southeast quadrant was permanently killed about 10 years ago...around the same time the southwest leg (US 13 south of US 58) opened.  The "turnaround" loop to U-turn back to the east (built and intended for trucks coming out of the landfill entrance) was built in part on what would have been the ramp from the southeast bypass quadrant to eastbound 13/58/460.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 12, 2014, 01:34:29 PM
Something I had never seen in Virginia until Wednesday. This is on eastbound Franconia Road (Secondary 644) at Villa Street (I was on the westbound side at the time). I have not yet passed through there in the other direction to see whether they've posted a "Don't Block the Box" sign. I should get around to it this weekend.

I wonder if VDOT might start using the box in conjunction with "Don't Block the Box" signs. I've seen a few such signs around Virginia, but I've never seen an actual box painted on the road on any Virginia highway.

I don't think it'll help much at this location unless there's enforcement. People block the box there in part because during the morning rush hour, the traffic trying to turn left (north) onto Van Dorn Street often backs up the left lane most of the way to Beulah Street about half a mile to the west. So people try to sneak down the middle lane and then cut over at the last second; if the box isn't blocked, they see that as an invitation to cut in.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FBox_zpsc492d079.png&hash=5d1ea20cee74e3f0653651680dab1f371308102f)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 12, 2014, 09:02:52 PM
Pretty sure there's at least one in Virginia Beach.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 12, 2014, 09:13:27 PM
Pacific Ave (US 60) at both 21st and 22nd have these, back to at least 2007 (GMSV).  The 2003 historic aerials shot looks inconclusive to me.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 12, 2014, 09:41:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 12, 2014, 09:02:52 PM
Pretty sure there's at least one in Virginia Beach.

I'll take your word for it. Haven't been there since March 1991.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 13, 2014, 08:03:43 AM
Pretty sure the Virginia Beach examples date back to at least 2005...I recall them before I left Norfolk the first time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 13, 2014, 11:38:17 AM
It bears remembering if they're in Virginia Beach, they might not be a VDOT thing. Seeing one on what is indisputably a VDOT road is interesting.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 14, 2014, 02:41:33 PM
Following up on my prior comment–I drove through there about 20 minutes ago and there is no "Don't Block the Box" sign. Interesting to see the box without a sign. The following intersection (Franconia and Van Dorn) has the sign but not the box.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Laura on September 16, 2014, 10:02:29 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 13, 2014, 08:03:43 AM
Pretty sure the Virginia Beach examples date back to at least 2005...I recall them before I left Norfolk the first time.

I remember them when I was there on a family vacation in Summer 2001.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: pcity on September 16, 2014, 01:44:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 26, 2014, 07:34:01 AM
WTOP is several days late. That's the road I mentioned further up the thread that opened last Tuesday. Part of it (Route 1 to Pole Road) is Jeff Todd Way and the remainder is Mulligan Road.

They've actually named the entire thing Jeff Todd Way now.  See "Project Background" part on this page:

http://virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/jeff_todd_way_and_telegraph_rd.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 16, 2014, 02:16:52 PM
Quote from: pcity on September 16, 2014, 01:44:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 26, 2014, 07:34:01 AM
WTOP is several days late. That's the road I mentioned further up the thread that opened last Tuesday. Part of it (Route 1 to Pole Road) is Jeff Todd Way and the remainder is Mulligan Road.

They've actually named the entire thing Jeff Todd Way now.  See "Project Background" part on this page:

http://virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/jeff_todd_way_and_telegraph_rd.asp

You know, I've seen conflicting reports on it, and the last time I used that road (August 31, coming back from playing golf in Woodbridge) there were no street signs at all at the Telegraph Road end, so who knows for sure. All the more reason why I don't rely just on street names or route numbers or the like when I give directions!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: pcity on September 16, 2014, 03:14:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 16, 2014, 02:16:52 PMYou know, I've seen conflicting reports on it, and the last time I used that road (August 31, coming back from playing golf in Woodbridge) there were no street signs at all at the Telegraph Road end, so who knows for sure. All the more reason why I don't rely just on street names or route numbers or the like when I give directions!

There is a sign on northbound Telegraph that says "Jeff Todd Way, next signal" (might be "Jeff Todd Way, next right"), but I think you're right that there's no sign right at the intersection yet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on September 16, 2014, 04:04:06 PM
Has it been signed as USBR 1 yet?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 16, 2014, 05:57:36 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 16, 2014, 04:04:06 PM
Has it been signed as USBR 1 yet?

I presume that's a bike route reference? I didn't notice. I'll try to remember to look next time I go that way, but it probably won't be this week.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on September 16, 2014, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 16, 2014, 05:57:36 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 16, 2014, 04:04:06 PM
Has it been signed as USBR 1 yet?

I presume that's a bike route reference? I didn't notice. I'll try to remember to look next time I go that way, but it probably won't be this week.

Yep. USBR 1 used to go through Fort Belvoir, but since the Feds got uppity it's had a gap. Mulligan has been set to be USBR 1 for a while.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 17, 2014, 06:37:54 PM
Dr. Gridlock reports VDOT marked the completion of the reconstruction of Route 50's interchanges near Fort Myer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/09/17/vdot-is-wrapping-up-route-50-interchanges/) today, although some minor landscaping and punchlist items remain. I used 10th Street to access inbound Route 50 last month in late July and even with the project not yet being complete, it was still a huge improvement over the old access because they essentially built a left-side C/D road on inbound 50. The traffic lights weren't yet operational then.

Maybe next week I can check it out with the dashcam running, perhaps next Friday since we have Capitals preseason tickets that night and I can just head into the city a bit early.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 08, 2014, 12:42:21 PM
For those who are interested in Virginia's secondary route numbers....

About half an hour ago I was on the road variously referred to as Jeff Todd Way and Mulligan Road (still no sign at the intersection with Telegraph, though an advance sign on southbound Telegraph says "Jeff Todd Way"). I noted it's been assigned secondary route number 619 based on a lone marker on the southbound side just after turning onto the road. Didn't see any other markers in either direction, but I presume the Route 619 designation extends down to Route 1 based on a photo I saw online of a marker with that number on southbound Route 1 outside Roy Rogers. (I have not gone through in that direction to confirm.) Pavement was in better condition than the last time I was on that road, too–less dirt and debris.

No photo of the "619" marker. I was going to use a dashcam screenshot, but sun glare made it useless. Oh well.

Also, to answer NE2's question about a bike route–no bike route signs I could spot, probably because there's to be a path next to the road and the path isn't finished yet. Some work was being done on the segment closest to Pole Road when I drove by, but currently the path's end at Telegraph Road is blocked with some of that orange netting and a "Sidewalk Closed" sign. (It's not a "sidewalk" in the normal suburban style of a concrete walkway since it uses asphalt. Hence my use of "path," as I think of an asphalt walkway as a "path" going back to when I was a little kid and our neighborhood had both concrete "sidewalks" and asphalt "paths," the latter not adjacent to the streets.)




Meanwhile, the construction up the road at Telegraph Road/Van Dorn Street/Kings Highway has really accelerated in the past two months. Traffic is using the new roadway instead of the temporary bypass that existed while they rebuilt the culvert over Dogue Creek. Southbound traffic on Kings Highway now has two left-turn lanes onto Telegraph. Southbound Telegraph widens at the intersection with Kings; currently the far left lane is blocked off, the middle lane goes straight on Telegraph, and the right lane is right-only onto Van Dorn. Northbound Telegraph is similar–left lane blocked off, second lane thru on Telegraph, right lane goes right onto Kings. Southbound Van Dorn has an unmarked center lane people are using as a left-turn lane.

Big improvement. Only notable problem for the moment is that people are, understandably, not familiar with the new traffic pattern, and because the work isn't done there aren't many signs up clarifying what lane goes where. (Not that completion of work, or posting of signs, would stop people from getting in the wrong lane and then trying to force their way over!)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on October 08, 2014, 01:38:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 08, 2014, 12:42:21 PM
About half an hour ago I was on the road variously referred to as Jeff Todd Way and Mulligan Road (still no sign at the intersection with Telegraph, though an advance sign on southbound Telegraph says "Jeff Todd Way"). I noted it's been assigned secondary route number 619 based on a lone marker on the southbound side just after turning onto the road. Didn't see any other markers in either direction, but I presume the Route 619 designation extends down to Route 1 based on a photo I saw online of a marker with that number on southbound Route 1 outside Roy Rogers.
It's been 619 for quite some time, probably from the beginning: http://research.archives.gov/description/5840300

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 08, 2014, 12:42:21 PM
Also, to answer NE2's question about a bike route–no bike route signs I could spot, probably because there's to be a path next to the road and the path isn't finished yet.
USBR 1 is explicitly defined to use roads, not sidepaths, elsewhere in Fairfax (e.g. reassurance on SR 123 southbound after the turn from SR 642).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 08, 2014, 02:00:58 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 08, 2014, 01:38:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 08, 2014, 12:42:21 PM
Also, to answer NE2's question about a bike route–no bike route signs I could spot, probably because there's to be a path next to the road and the path isn't finished yet.
USBR 1 is explicitly defined to use roads, not sidepaths, elsewhere in Fairfax (e.g. reassurance on SR 123 southbound after the turn from SR 642).

Regardless of what may be the case elsewhere, there were no bike route signs there today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on October 15, 2014, 07:36:19 AM
Where exactly is US 33's eastern terminus these days?  I see that on I-95 the Exit 74C exit guides show US 33 heading both directions on Broad Street.

I do remember back in 1995 the sign bridge on US 1 & 301 used to show it only heading west of there and that it continued as VA 33 east a few blocks north on Leigh Street while erroneously signed along US 1 & 301 as US 33 still.  According to GSV all signage pretty much at Broad and Belivdere Streets is now gone including the overheads.

However east on Broad there is a TO VA 33 shield shown in the median pointing north on Belvidere Street.   US 33 and VA 33 are supposed to be one continuous route aren't they?  So if that is the case then the I-95 signage is totally wrong then, unless VDOT took VA 33 off the MLK Bridge which it has always been for decades.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 15, 2014, 08:14:35 AM
I-95 BGS has been in error since 1981 when VA 33 was moved onto the MLK Jr bridge and shortly after US 33 was altered to meet it.

The US 33/VA 33 changeover is where it leaves Broad St.

There are numerous old and new erroneous US 33 shields north and east of there to the MLK Jr bridge.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on October 15, 2014, 10:33:54 AM
Whoever wrote the wikipedia article says the route turns on Hancock NB from Broad.  I checked street view and Hancock is a one way SB.  Even Dale Sanderson is confused as he devoted one whole page to it trying to figure this thing out.

However, that is so messed up that an error on road signs still exist 33 years later.  Plus when VDOT took over the now defunct toll road, you think they would have gotten it right when they redid the exit numbering from the old Turnpike sequential to the VDOT sequential or even later when they finally went mile based.   Plus if memory serves me correctly, the original sequential signs for the Richmond- Petersburg Turnpike had the same type of set up as the NJ Turnpike with the exit numbers on the sign itself and did not use tabs at all.  If so those signs at the Broad Street ramps were totally replaced after 1981.

I would like to know what the City of Richmond's excuse is for taking down the overheads on US 1 and 301 at US 250 and not replacing them even with ground shields.  You would figure the person who ordered the crews to remove the sign would get the hint that the shields are there for a reason and that even if they cannot afford the replacement of a new mast arm that they do need to be there someplace. 

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 15, 2014, 12:41:46 PM
The postings on 1-301 NB at Broad were removed between Apr 2009 and July 2011.  These were ground shields that replaced the overheads that had been up for decades and were unreadable.  US 250 is extremely poorly posted east of VA 161 and not posted at all east of I-95.

It has not been possible to follow 33 EB as defined on paper in quite some time.  Hancock is one way SB for only 1 block off Broad but the next E-W street (Marshall) is one way EB, so it is not possible to go past Hancock on Broad to get back to Hancock unless you go all the way to 1-301, but it is also illegal to turn left on Clay (one way WB).

There is a US 33 EAST trailblazer on Clay WB at Hancock but this is actually intended for SB 1-301 traffic trying to go East on VA 33.  They conveniently do not post the 1-301 SB and Clay intersection to do this.

This thread https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8743.msg207809#msg207809 - from 2013 - has the most current information on this question and there is no reason to believe anything has changed about it.  i will be down there next week and can field check it again but expect no changes.

Dale Sanderson's discussion on the US 33 endpoint largely comes from me and AFAIK what he says there is accurate.

VDOT has also never added route shields to BGS's in the Hampton Roads area for several routes even though the BGS's have been replaced at least twice (VA 190, 225, 239, 247 etc) so the fact that the US 33 shields have persevered is not surprising.  There is a BGS in Fredericksburg that has been wrong for the last 42 years.

Mapmikey


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on October 15, 2014, 11:06:35 PM
Thanks for the info.  I believe you are right, as I have had a photo that I took posted on Adam's old site, and come to think of it, it was old when I took the picture sometime in the early 2000's.http://www.gribblenation.com/papics/outofstate/Photo0101.jpg


Maybe you might be able to help me here.  Where was the Colonial Heights mainline toll plaza on I-95?

I do know that the I-95 plaza in Petersburg was  in between the I-85 ramps on and off,  and also was erected on mainline I-95, but indeed a ramp plaza as I-95 technically exited the old Richmond Petersburg Turnpike in Petersburg which is why it was always 15 cents up until removal.  Then the I-85 plaza was considered the southernmost mainline plaza on the Turnpike and was full price.

I also know the Richmond Plaza was south of Belvidere Street, but the other one plaza just south of Richmond I do not know where it was either.  I also remember all  ramp tolls south of VA 10 were unmanned and had no actual booths and shield to protect you from the weather when dropping your coins into a basket on the side of the ramp.  In addition the VA 10 interchange was always a full cloverleaf and had E-W suffixed exits and no ramp tolls whatsoever because it was the mid point between two mainline plazas and if you went north or south on I-95 from VA 10 you would either have to pay ramp tolls or run into the south of Richmond Plaza or the Colonial Heights Plaza.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7175/6823479057_fd8746047f_z.jpg)  The Exit 2 ramp plaza was just beyond the ramp to I-85 SB, but before the NB I-85 merge into I-95 NB in the distance, and the SB exit for I-85 from I-95 byassed the plaza (hence the long ramp diverge as you can see) as this photo has plenty of evidence to see where the mainline looking ramp plaza stood years ago.

However, my memory does not remember the location of the two middle plazas of the Turnpike.   I do know that the Colonial Heights Mainline was not far from this location in the photo as I remember the short hop between these two plazas. 

Do you happen to remember where the location was for those two plazas and just how far south on I-85 from I-95 was the only toll on I-85 as there were no exits between I-95 and US 1 & 460 (now US 460 Business) at the existence of the Turnpike, so it could basically be anywhere in those several miles of formerly tolled Turnpike on I-85?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on October 16, 2014, 12:01:07 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2014, 11:06:35 PM
Maybe you might be able to help me here.  Where was the Colonial Heights mainline toll plaza on I-95?
Right in the middle of the SR 144 interchange: http://ims.er.usgs.gov/gda_services/download?item_id=5297208 (12 MB PDF)

You can see leftover extra wideness on the southbound bridge over the ramps.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 16, 2014, 06:34:33 AM
1968 aerial of the toll plaza at the current VA 144 interchange (this is looking SB on I-95)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historicaerials.com%2Fapi%2Fimg-server.php%3Fop%3DfetchHistoricPhotograph%26amp%3Bbbox%3D-77.4051765297849%2C37.2610212397826%2C-77.3935925297849%2C37.2494372397826%26amp%3Byear%3D1968%26amp%3Bstamp%3Dtrue&hash=daf676fb741793c3670d91cc1afce1c3ac177ccd)

1968 aerial of booths in the I-85/95 interchange:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historicaerials.com%2Fapi%2Fimg-server.php%3Fop%3DfetchHistoricPhotograph%26amp%3Bbbox%3D-77.3970325297846%2C37.2274376059355%2C-77.3854485297846%2C37.2158536059355%26amp%3Byear%3D1968%26amp%3Bstamp%3Dtrue&hash=5d553f295e2143b137581b663ff05423693443c1)

1968 aerial of booths on I-85, in between US 1-460 interchange and VA 319 overpass:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historicaerials.com%2Fapi%2Fimg-server.php%3Fop%3DfetchHistoricPhotograph%26amp%3Bbbox%3D-77.464552529785%2C37.2046599690224%2C-77.452968529785%2C37.1930759690224%26amp%3Byear%3D1968%26amp%3Bstamp%3Dtrue&hash=a4791e86940009a431eb3b9c163fc87ed2ae75c7)


Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 23, 2014, 06:15:30 PM
Break.com had this picture in their October 23, 2014 picture gallery. Not sure what road this contraption is on:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcmcV0zi.jpg&hash=30671613b9cad504c8c341f20f7a762d1149106f)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 23, 2014, 08:58:58 PM
That looks like the eastbound Braddock Road overpass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 26, 2014, 11:26:02 AM
Besides the one that opened early this year at Zions Crossroads (I-64/US 15), VDOT has at least three more diverging diamond interchanges (DDI) planned in the next couple years.

One is at US 460/Southgate Dr (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/southgate_connector_-_blacksburg.asp) near Virginia Tech.  This will get rid of the last traffic signal on the Blacksburg Bypass and complete a freeway segment running from the north end of the bypass to I-81.

The second DDI will be built at I-581/Valley View Blvd (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/valley_view_interchange.asp) (Exit 3C) in Roanoke.  This project will take the existing half-interchange and convert it into a full interchange, with accommodation for an eventual extension of Valley View Blvd south of I-581.

Both DDIs are expected to be completed in 2016.

The third planned DDI is at I-66/US 15 (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/i-66_and_route_15_interchange.asp) in Haymarket.  This is a design-build project that is related to but separate from the adjacent I-66 widening project.  The previous plan at 66/15 was for a diamond interchange with a SB 15-to-EB 66 flyover.  The approved design-build bid was instead for a DDI, which is also noticeably cheaper ($36M vs. estimated $60M) than the previous plan.  This interchange isn't expected to be completed until 2017.

A DDI is also being considered at I-81/VA 8 (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/i-81-route_8_exit_114_bridge_replacements_-_montgomery_county-christiansburg.asp) near Christiansburg.

There's also the proposal I found late last year (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.msg263815#msg263815) for a DDI-with-roundabout at I-264/Ballentine Blvd in Norfolk.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 26, 2014, 11:48:30 PM
Washington Post: A hated Virginia road summed up in 7 or fewer characters: 'I66BLOZ' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/a-hated-virginia-roadway-summed-up-in-7-or-fewer-characters-i66bloz/2014/10/26/28e49f00-4a5f-11e4-b72e-d60a9229cc10_story.html)

QuoteKristan Barnes was sitting in traffic recently on Interstate 66, just before Exit 57B (Route 50/Lee Jackson Memorial Highway). The day was gray, and traffic, as usual, was at a standstill. And then the Fairfax receptionist spotted the Virginia license plate on a sporty red coupe and burst into laughter.

Quote"I66 SUXX."

QuoteFor Barnes, the seven-character sentiment offered a bit of levity to the daily slog on one of Northern Virginia's most notoriously traffic-choked arteries.

QuoteLong before Twitter allowed users to express themselves in 140 characters and Instagram in a single image, individuals were doing it in on the backs – and fronts – of their vehicles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on October 27, 2014, 05:24:11 AM
There are only two secondary route numbers that span four counties, and one of them cheats by running along a county line (though VDOT does include different portions in each county's traffic counts).
SR 600 (http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=State+Rte+600&daddr=37.7914125,-76.4891928+to:37.9329375,-76.5586341+to:37.992394,-76.656872+to:38.060337,-76.732309+to:State+Rte+600&hl=en&ll=37.929034,-76.577454&spn=0.386164,0.793076&sll=38.072825,-76.769156&sspn=0.024088,0.049567&geocode=FdxSQAIdYjZx-w%3BFbSmQAIdGN5w-ym5KP7tJqqwiTHe3ypQZjbi3g%3BFYnPQgId1s5v-ymVVuVhj1O3iTGbYILG5rWnvQ%3BFcq3QwIdGE9u-yldDLJeFk63iTGlPLRcN7zWbQ%3BFTHBRAIdayht-ykPyojFrEi3iTFaC7dDBdqDdw%3BFdX6RAIdl3ps-w&mra=dme&mrsp=5&sz=15&via=1,2,3,4&t=m&z=11): Lancaster to Templeman, coincidentally both served by SR 3, and almost exactly the same length via either route
SR 611 (http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=State+Rte+626&daddr=36.6356093,-77.9913746+to:36.6680545,-77.8043771+to:36.7221963,-77.4455826+to:36.766275,-77.4176154+to:State+Rte+611&hl=en&ll=36.699806,-77.714539&spn=0.392531,0.793076&sll=36.77961,-77.420901&sspn=0.006127,0.012392&geocode=FRqqLgId3NZY-w%3BFdkDLwIdMvJZ-ymJ8b2f6P6tiTFpvZOO8vZMLQ%3BFZaCLwIdp8xc-ynLnRvmdwKuiTHbZZpHpozGsw%3BFRRWMAIdMkZi-ylbUhAf3tuxiTFMjtYJdpQs-g%3BFUMCMQIdcbNi-ynPdqyx5NqxiTG-LDEWITiG0w%3BFSM-MQIdkaxi-w&mra=dme&mrsp=5&sz=17&via=1,2,3,4&t=m&z=11): southeast of South Hill to east of Jarratt, probably the shortest route between these two middle-of-nowhere points
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ixnay on October 31, 2014, 07:09:07 PM
On the DC thread use of NPS roads (Rock Creek Parkway, GWMP, B-WP, Suitland Pkwy.) as commuter routes was mentioned.

Do the Skyline Drive and BRP get much commuter traffic?

ixnay
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 31, 2014, 09:13:19 PM
Skyline Drive only has 3 access points in 105 miles, so definitely no for that route.

Blue Ridge Pkwy around Asheville could see a smidge but I'm less confident it would see any around the Roanoke area.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on October 31, 2014, 11:25:46 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 31, 2014, 09:13:19 PM
Skyline Drive only has 3 access points in 105 miles, so definitely no for that route.

Blue Ridge Pkwy around Asheville could see a smidge but I'm less confident it would see any around the Roanoke area.

Mapmikey
As far as I have been able to discern, no on both counts.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on November 02, 2014, 06:59:39 PM
For anyone on Facebook, I recommend joining the group "Northern Virginia History."  Lots of old road pics from VA -- in the last few days there have been numerous old pics of the I-495 Beltway posted with original signage.  (You may have to scroll a bit -- but worth it )
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 02, 2014, 09:18:13 PM
Quote from: dfnva on November 02, 2014, 06:59:39 PM
For anyone on Facebook, I recommend joining the group "Northern Virginia History."  Lots of old road pics from VA -- in the last few days there have been numerous old pics of the I-495 Beltway posted with original signage.  (You may have to scroll a bit -- but worth it )

Joined. There's some really cool stuff here, such as this:

(https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/1904252_1555333728032368_1260097639590360448_n.jpg?oh=d0ff85e1211342960a4385a2d6abf56d&oe=54DBB53A)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on November 02, 2014, 10:10:19 PM
I like this sign a lot at I-495 NB at VA-7 (found in the Northern Virginia History Facebook group).

Was it a common practice for VDOT to post populations on BGS's? 

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs4.postimg.org%2Fka8jsje25%2Fold_sign.jpg&hash=c9f87600af051c51165e255b9ba1326f7d6328bd)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 02, 2014, 10:31:51 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 02, 2014, 09:18:13 PM
Quote from: dfnva on November 02, 2014, 06:59:39 PM
For anyone on Facebook, I recommend joining the group "Northern Virginia History."  Lots of old road pics from VA -- in the last few days there have been numerous old pics of the I-495 Beltway posted with original signage.  (You may have to scroll a bit -- but worth it )

Joined. There's some really cool stuff here, such as this:

(https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/1904252_1555333728032368_1260097639590360448_n.jpg?oh=d0ff85e1211342960a4385a2d6abf56d&oe=54DBB53A)

VDH liked to use Frederick [Md.] as the control city on the Inner Loop of I-495 between Springfield and the American Legion Bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 02, 2014, 10:37:21 PM
I know nothing about Facebook, but you can find a treasure trove of old photos of the Beltway at the following link:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000017394611;view=1up;seq=3

It's a transcript of Congressional hearings from 1968 regarding how to improve road signs. Funny thing is, a lot of the same driver misbehavior goes on around here today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 03, 2014, 10:45:39 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 02, 2014, 10:37:21 PM
I know nothing about Facebook, but you can find a treasure trove of old photos of the Beltway at the following link:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000017394611;view=1up;seq=3

It's a transcript of Congressional hearings from 1968 regarding how to improve road signs. Funny thing is, a lot of the same driver misbehavior goes on around here today.

Not just the Capital Beltway, either! 

Am going to have to download that document and snip-out the images with Photoshop later.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 03, 2014, 04:46:59 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 03, 2014, 10:45:39 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 02, 2014, 10:37:21 PM
I know nothing about Facebook, but you can find a treasure trove of old photos of the Beltway at the following link:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000017394611;view=1up;seq=3

It's a transcript of Congressional hearings from 1968 regarding how to improve road signs. Funny thing is, a lot of the same driver misbehavior goes on around here today.

Not just the Capital Beltway, either! 

Am going to have to download that document and snip-out the images with Photoshop later.

Indeed, I'm already skimming through and seeing some great photos of old signage from New York City, Los Angeles, and other areas. There's a lot of really cool stuff in here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 03, 2014, 05:16:35 PM
I hadn't mentioned the other stuff because this thread is the Virginia thread, but I also didn't look all that closely at the California photos because I've never been there and thus they don't fascinate me in the same way the evolution of the Beltway does.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: adventurernumber1 on November 05, 2014, 01:43:53 PM
Quote from: dfnva on November 02, 2014, 10:10:19 PM
I like this sign a lot at I-495 NB at VA-7 (found in the Northern Virginia History Facebook group).

Was it a common practice for VDOT to post populations on BGS's? 

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs4.postimg.org%2Fka8jsje25%2Fold_sign.jpg&hash=c9f87600af051c51165e255b9ba1326f7d6328bd)

If posting populations was a regular practice, they'd have to replace signs crazily frequently due to the fact a city's population is always changing, whether the change be big or small. It probably wouldn't be a huge deal if a city's population changed by just a matter of a few hundred, but say a city grew from 30k to 40k. That would require some replacing  :biggrin:

Also, they could format the population as I just did (ex. 40k which stands for 40,000), to avoid having the exact specific population, and then the city's population changing by a few hundred going up and down all the time would cause zero problem.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 05, 2014, 03:17:38 PM
Those signs are from the 1960s. Back then, they probably would have written "40M" to denote 40,000. The use of "M" derived from Roman numerals, where "M" denoted 1,000. The use of "K" or "k" to denote thousands was less common in the USA until the mid- to late 1980s, when the use of "KB" and "MB" in the computer context caused a gradual shift. In the accounting world, I believe "M" to denote a thousand is still common.

I have no idea whether wider knowledge of the metric system, with its use of "k" in the context of kilograms and kilometres (and its far less common use of "M" for "mega-" to denote a million, as in a megagram, or Mg, being a million grams or a thousand kilograms), contributed.

Either way, there is normally no reason why the population would be at all useful on a BGS for navigation purposes unless, perhaps, it might help distinguish between two similarly-named places (perhaps Washington, Virginia, versus Washington, DC?). But I'm sure there are better ways than population to distinguish that sort of thing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ixnay on November 08, 2014, 07:55:49 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on October 31, 2014, 11:25:46 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 31, 2014, 09:13:19 PM
Skyline Drive only has 3 access points in 105 miles, so definitely no for that route.

Blue Ridge Pkwy around Asheville could see a smidge but I'm less confident it would see any around the Roanoke area.

Mapmikey
As far as I have been able to discern, no on both counts.

Does the Colonial Parkway (fairly close to the Hampton Roads commuter zone) get a workout in that regard?

ixnay
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 08, 2014, 10:35:46 AM
Not really.  Folks might use it as a shortcut between Yorktown and Williamsburg but there's not a lot of traffic that actually tries to do such.  Because it lacks direct connections to both I-64 and most of the Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, it's not used much for commuting.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on November 08, 2014, 11:12:28 AM
Some random chump at Wikipedia says:
QuoteThe lower speed limits, enforced by the National Park Service law enforcement rangers, coupled with few exits, combine to help preserve the road for tourists and protect wildlife by making it an unattractive short-cut for most local traffic and commuters.

I suppose it could be useful between the Middle Peninsula and Williamsburg, but 238 to I-64 isn't much longer.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 08, 2014, 12:16:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 08, 2014, 11:12:28 AM
Some random chump at Wikipedia says:
QuoteThe lower speed limits, enforced by the National Park Service law enforcement rangers, coupled with few exits, combine to help preserve the road for tourists and protect wildlife by making it an unattractive short-cut for most local traffic and commuters.

I suppose it could be useful between the Middle Peninsula and Williamsburg, but 238 to I-64 isn't much longer.

Yeah, the only reason I would use the Colonial Parkway as a commuter route between Williamsburg and Gloucester would be if both I-64 and US 60 were severely congested.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 08, 2014, 05:45:07 PM
When my brother was attending William & Mary and I was visiting him from either Charlottesville or Durham, we used to use the Colonial Parkway a lot because it was the most direct route from the College over to the Cheatham Annex, where there was a golf course that was open to the public. It wasn't much of a course, and in fact two fairways actually crossed each other, but it was $10 for all-you-could-play so it was perfect for students. My brother was over there so frequently the guards would know he was coming from the sound of his car (a 1974 Beetle) and they'd be waving him through before he even reached the gate.

But we seldom encountered any other cars on that road. It just wasn't used much. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2014, 09:57:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 05, 2014, 03:17:38 PM
Those signs are from the 1960s. Back then, they probably would have written "40M" to denote 40,000. The use of "M" derived from Roman numerals, where "M" denoted 1,000. The use of "K" or "k" to denote thousands was less common in the USA until the mid- to late 1980s, when the use of "KB" and "MB" in the computer context caused a gradual shift. In the accounting world, I believe "M" to denote a thousand is still common.

I have no idea whether wider knowledge of the metric system, with its use of "k" in the context of kilograms and kilometres (and its far less common use of "M" for "mega-" to denote a million, as in a megagram, or Mg, being a million grams or a thousand kilograms), contributed.

Either way, there is normally no reason why the population would be at all useful on a BGS for navigation purposes unless, perhaps, it might help distinguish between two similarly-named places (perhaps Washington, Virginia, versus Washington, DC?). But I'm sure there are better ways than population to distinguish that sort of thing.
Ontario along the QEW uses population approaching all large cities along its route.   For the Ontario Ministry of Transportation it is to let drivers know the big population centers for tourists interests as well as travelers.

I imagine that VDOT was doing it for the same purpose at the time. 

I also remember seeing those type of notations along I-95 for Fredericksburg, Ashland, and Emporia back in the 70's on many exit guides.

Also, I remember how the beltway exit numbers were placed beneath the signs and not on tabs above and especially on overheads where the exit number was placed to the side of the road next to the sign supports.  The above photos bring back those memories.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 09, 2014, 11:53:39 AM
Quote from: NE2 on September 16, 2014, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 16, 2014, 05:57:36 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 16, 2014, 04:04:06 PM
Has it been signed as USBR 1 yet?

I presume that's a bike route reference? I didn't notice. I'll try to remember to look next time I go that way, but it probably won't be this week.

Yep. USBR 1 used to go through Fort Belvoir, but since the Feds got uppity it's had a gap. Mulligan has been set to be USBR 1 for a while.

Following up, I was on this road the other day (it's now Jeff Todd Way, as noted above, confirmed by signs) and the bike path was open but was marked simply with the normal rectangular green "Bike Route" sign with a picture of a bike. No number posted. Interestingly, there was also a "Keep Right Except to Pass" sign posted at the Telegraph Road end of the bike trail (its positioning strongly suggests it's not aimed at motorized traffic).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on November 09, 2014, 01:22:38 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 08, 2014, 12:16:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 08, 2014, 11:12:28 AM
Some random chump at Wikipedia says:
QuoteThe lower speed limits, enforced by the National Park Service law enforcement rangers, coupled with few exits, combine to help preserve the road for tourists and protect wildlife by making it an unattractive short-cut for most local traffic and commuters.

I suppose it could be useful between the Middle Peninsula and Williamsburg, but 238 to I-64 isn't much longer.

Yeah, the only reason I would use the Colonial Parkway as a commuter route between Williamsburg and Gloucester would be if both I-64 and US 60 were severely congested.

I occasionally use the parkway to get home from Williamsburg (specifically the theme parks), but it adds ~10-15 minutes to my trip.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 12, 2014, 04:49:21 PM
The Washington Post has this rendering of one of the "Active Traffic Management" gantries planned for I-66. I cannot imagine VDOT ever allowing different speed limits for different lanes absent some sort of barrier like the one on the Beltway.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fdr-gridlock%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F11%2FActive-Traffic-Management-VDOT-image.jpg&hash=1c1f16de8f676ac4962f8a222f73b5a42fcf43f6)


Link to full piece: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/11/12/road-work-starting-for-i-66-traffic-management-program/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on November 12, 2014, 05:02:48 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 12, 2014, 04:49:21 PM
The Washington Post has this rendering of one of the "Active Traffic Management" gantries planned for I-66. I cannot imagine VDOT ever allowing different speed limits for different lanes absent some sort of barrier like the one on the Beltway.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fdr-gridlock%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F11%2FActive-Traffic-Management-VDOT-image.jpg&hash=1c1f16de8f676ac4962f8a222f73b5a42fcf43f6)


Link to full piece: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/11/12/road-work-starting-for-i-66-traffic-management-program/

I noticed they are installing a lot of the infrastructure (control boxes, ramp meters) inside the beltway on I-66.

Differential speed limits that are legally enforcable are not used in the US. Different speeds of an advisory nature only can be used (they are used in Minnesota). Really what they are trying to do is get people to ease off the gas before approaching an area with stopped traffic. Just like on the NJ Turnpike where reducing from 65 to 45 really means "something is up, so maybe go 65 instead of 80".

Incidentally, that is an old photo of I-66. This is eastbound approaching Exit 52, and the signs are different now. Exit 53 only leads to NB Route 28, so there is one less control city on the left sign and a cardinal direction next to the shield. The Exit direction sign for Exit 52 has been completely replaced with a new one stating "29 to 28 south".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 12, 2014, 05:49:16 PM
The new signs are also in Clearview. But I don't think the BGSs are the point.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 12, 2014, 08:49:29 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 02, 2014, 09:18:13 PM
Quote from: dfnva on November 02, 2014, 06:59:39 PM
For anyone on Facebook, I recommend joining the group "Northern Virginia History."  Lots of old road pics from VA -- in the last few days there have been numerous old pics of the I-495 Beltway posted with original signage.  (You may have to scroll a bit -- but worth it )

Joined. There's some really cool stuff here, such as this:

(https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/1904252_1555333728032368_1260097639590360448_n.jpg?oh=d0ff85e1211342960a4385a2d6abf56d&oe=54DBB53A)

Can you please post a link.  I went to that site and there were few photos, I must have the wrong site.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on November 13, 2014, 06:48:32 AM
I remember that ramp very well, and looks like a 66 Chevelle in the Beltway lane
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 13, 2014, 09:18:50 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 12, 2014, 04:49:21 PM
The Washington Post has this rendering of one of the "Active Traffic Management" gantries planned for I-66. I cannot imagine VDOT ever allowing different speed limits for different lanes absent some sort of barrier like the one on the Beltway.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fdr-gridlock%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F11%2FActive-Traffic-Management-VDOT-image.jpg&hash=1c1f16de8f676ac4962f8a222f73b5a42fcf43f6)

Might as as well make those STOPPED TRAFFIC 2 MILES panels static, since that is normal for I-66 eastbound, even well outside of traditional peak commute periods.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on November 13, 2014, 09:57:54 AM
And I also remember when the traffic was very light on 66, like the ICC is currently.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 13, 2014, 10:17:34 AM
I-66 presents something of a conundrum in that the eastbound road narrows, with little to no room available to widen it, right at the area where the congestion is usually the worst (from Fair Oaks Mall to the Beltway).

BTW, construction is underway to widen it from Gainesville west to Haymarket, jersey walls set up along the side of the road. When we went out that way on November 1, some construction worker was standing in the left lane with no sort of protective cones or flares or anything. I have no idea what he was doing–he was bent over holding some kind of machine that looked a little like a video camera or a radar gun, but why he was bent over to near ground level was beyond me, and the lane wasn't closed!

Sometimes it feels like construction on that road never ends. When I was an undergrad at UVA about 20 years ago, they were widening it from Fair Oaks west to Manassas. Then it was Manassas to the Prince William Parkway maybe ten years ago now. (I forget the exact timing, but I do recall VDOT initially refused to start the widening because they had designated the project area as going all the way to Gainesville and they only had the funding to widen it to the Prince William Parkway. Governor Warner, to his credit IMO, ordered them to go ahead and widen the part for which they had the funding.) Some years later they extended the widening to Gainesville. Now, of course, the big Gainesville project to elevate Route 29 over the train tracks and to construct an interchange at Linton Hall Road isn't really an I-66 project, but it sure "feels like" one because so much of the I-66 traffic exits there.

I used to think it would make sense to defer the I-66 widening to Haymarket until the Gainesville Route 29 project is complete so as to allow for an assessment of whether eliminating the railroad crossing and the traffic lights alleviates I-66 enough to eliminate the need for the widening. But then I drove down US-15 from Gilberts Corner to I-66 one day and saw how much new development there is out there in the past ten years. The widening is needed either way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtfallsmikey on November 13, 2014, 10:31:19 AM
It's called poor planning... HOV lanes should have been extended to Haymarket originally IMO on 66, same thing with the Leesburg Bypass widening project on Rt. 7 going on currently, should extend the new 3rd lane to Purcellville, but what do I know?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 13, 2014, 10:51:06 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on November 13, 2014, 10:31:19 AM
It's called poor planning... HOV lanes should have been extended to Haymarket originally IMO on 66, same thing with the Leesburg Bypass widening project on Rt. 7 going on currently, should extend the new 3rd lane to Purcellville, but what do I know?

I don't think the funding existed to widen it out to Haymarket before. Same issue that caused the Manassas-to-Gainesville segment to be split into two phases.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2014, 11:10:41 AM
Bacon's Rebellion: Optimism Bias and Risk in Public Private Partnerships (http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2014/11/optimism-bias-and-risk-in-public-private-partnerships.html)

QuoteRandy Salzman, a free-lance Charlottesville writer, has spent the last couple of years trying to understand how Public Private Partnerships (P3s) work in Virginia. If the private sector is supposed to be so much more efficient than government, he asks, how  come so many big P3 transportation projects in Virginia and across the nation have gone bankrupt? Why do private sector companies continue investing in similar projects despite the obvious risk? And what exposure do taxpayers when deals go bad? He doesn't have any definitive answers, but he lays out a lot of good questions in the latest issue of Style Weekly.

QuoteSalz, an occasional contributor to Bacon's Rebellion, gets closest to the truth when he mentions the "optimism bias"  in traffic forecasts. In project after project across the country, private P3 companies and  their government partners have over-estimated traffic volumes on the roads they build.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 12, 2014, 03:54:33 PM
N.Y. Times: Virginia Sues Trinity Industries Over Potentially Risky Guardrail (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/business/virginia-sues-trinity-industries-over-potentially-risky-guardrail.html)

QuoteVirginia is suing the guardrail maker Trinity Industries, saying that it sold the state thousands of pieces of potentially dangerous, improperly tested and unapproved products.

QuoteThe suit makes Virginia the first governmental entity to participate in whistle-blower suits against Trinity, which is based in Dallas. The suits were brought on behalf of state and federal governments, but none of those entities, until now, have been plaintiffs.

QuoteIn October, a jury found that Trinity had defrauded the federal government when it did not inform the Federal Highway Administration of changes it made to the guardrail, the ET-Plus, in 2005. The company sold the guardrails to state governments, which, in turn, received federal reimbursement.

QuoteThe jury returned with a verdict for $175 million, which will, by law, be tripled, to $525 million. The highway agency did not participate in the federal case.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 13, 2014, 03:46:26 PM
Washington Post: Officials to consider road widening, HOT lanes through Arlington portion of I-66 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/officials-to-consider-road-widening-hot-lanes-through-arlington-portion-of-i-66/2014/12/12/2bf9a97e-824a-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html)

QuoteVirginia transportation officials are studying a series of traffic improvements for the perpetually congested portion of Interstate 66 inside the Beltway, an effort that may include road widening and the addition of high-occupancy toll lanes – and would require buy-in from historically resistant Arlington County.

Quote"We've got their agreement to work through this process,"  Aubrey Layne, the commonwealth's secretary of transportation, said Friday, referring to Arlington. Layne said that creating toll roads, improving rail capacity and adding bus lanes would also likely be parts of the solution.

Quote"In terms of what may result from it, obviously we're constrained physically,"  he said. "I can see maybe creating an additional lane using the shoulders, but I don't see a whole lot of additional right of way there."

QuoteThe leafy and narrow portion of I-66 that runs inside the Beltway has been choked with traffic for decades – a period punctuated with calls to widen that portion of the highway and resistance from Arlington County out of concern that it would lead to more noise, pollution and traffic.

QuoteIn 1970, Arlington residents filed a lawsuit to block the highway's construction, but the suit was thrown out. Even so, opposition delayed construction inside the Beltway until 1977, when an agreement was reached to build four lanes while prohibiting truck traffic in the corridor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cl94 on December 15, 2014, 11:42:30 PM
I have a question about I-77 near the North Carolina line. I was looking at Google Maps and noticed that the dashed lines are spaced very closely with an excessive amount of reflectors from the border to the top of the hill. Any reason why the line spacing is so unusual?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 16, 2014, 06:09:25 AM
fog
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 16, 2014, 07:26:03 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 16, 2014, 06:09:25 AM
fog

Indeed. Do a Google search for "I-77 fancy gap fog" and you'll find a lot of info. Make sure you look at the image search results, too.

It has to do with the Blue Ridge Escarpment. I-64 has a fog problem at Afton Mountain west of Charlottesville for similar reasons.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 16, 2014, 09:24:48 AM
I've only driven I-77 a couple times (with no issues) but I have definitely been caught in the I-64 Afton fog.  Cannot see 5 feet in front of you.  Doesn't matter if the valleys on both sides are perfectly clear...driving faster than 10 mph in the Afton fog is endangering yourself...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 16, 2014, 09:50:34 AM
There was a 95-car pileup (http://95-car%20pileup[url=http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/04/01/three-dead-after-95-car-pileup-in-virginia) there on Easter Sunday last year, and that is just one of many that have happened over the years.  I would not even let myself drive through overnight just due to that.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 18, 2014, 11:29:46 AM
Yesterday I had lunch in Reston with my father and brother. Driving out there, I noted the main toll plaza on the Dulles Toll Road–at which the toll is $2.50–still has toll-machine "Coins Only" lanes. Given that there are no tokens the way there used to be in New York City, this seemed really stupid to me. I don't know whether the machines accept half-dollars or dollar coins, but even if they do, how many people actually have those in the car? (I suppose someone truly dedicated to not getting an E-ZPass might do that, but somehow I doubt it's common.) I do suspect it's more likely they take dollar coins than half-dollars. Either way, though, assume they take both. If you don't have half-dollars or dollar coins, you need to have ten quarters available or even more in the way of nickels and dimes. How many drivers actually do that? I should note the "Coins Only" lanes were unused when I went through there except by E-ZPass users who went through without slowing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 18, 2014, 11:47:49 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 18, 2014, 11:29:46 AM
Yesterday I had lunch in Reston with my father and brother. Driving out there, I noted the main toll plaza on the Dulles Toll Road–at which the toll is $2.50–still has toll-machine "Coins Only" lanes. Given that there are no tokens the way there used to be in New York City, this seemed really stupid to me. I don't know whether the machines accept half-dollars or dollar coins, but even if they do, how many people actually have those in the car? (I suppose someone truly dedicated to not getting an E-ZPass might do that, but somehow I doubt it's common.) I do suspect it's more likely they take dollar coins than half-dollars. Either way, though, assume they take both. If you don't have half-dollars or dollar coins, you need to have ten quarters available or even more in the way of nickels and dimes. How many drivers actually do that? I should note the "Coins Only" lanes were unused when I went through there except by E-ZPass users who went through without slowing.

I believe MWAA is taking out all of its exact change lanes and machines for the reasons you cite above, though they are doing them one interchange at a time (I saw them working on it at the miserable and miserably deficient interchange at Va. 286 (Fairfax County Parkway) last month).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 18, 2014, 11:53:58 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 18, 2014, 11:47:49 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 18, 2014, 11:29:46 AM
Yesterday I had lunch in Reston with my father and brother. Driving out there, I noted the main toll plaza on the Dulles Toll Road–at which the toll is $2.50–still has toll-machine "Coins Only" lanes. Given that there are no tokens the way there used to be in New York City, this seemed really stupid to me. I don't know whether the machines accept half-dollars or dollar coins, but even if they do, how many people actually have those in the car? (I suppose someone truly dedicated to not getting an E-ZPass might do that, but somehow I doubt it's common.) I do suspect it's more likely they take dollar coins than half-dollars. Either way, though, assume they take both. If you don't have half-dollars or dollar coins, you need to have ten quarters available or even more in the way of nickels and dimes. How many drivers actually do that? I should note the "Coins Only" lanes were unused when I went through there except by E-ZPass users who went through without slowing.

I believe MWAA is taking out all of its exact change lanes and machines for the reasons you cite above, though they are doing them one interchange at a time (I saw them working on it at the miserable and miserably deficient interchange at Va. 286 (Fairfax County Parkway) last month).

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Seems to me the ramp tolls, where the charge is $1.00, would be more logical places to consider maintaining an exact coins option than the main toll plaza where it's $2.50.

On a semi-related note, my father was riding with me and we both commented on how absurd the signs for the main toll plaza are because the amount of the toll is displayed in the SMALLEST typeface anywhere on the sign. We both thought that information should be most prominent info, especially for people who plan to pay cash. Very strange how the signs there are designed. Maybe they ought to hire Transurban to redo the signs. Regardless of one's opinion on the PPTA projects, I think it's reasonable to say Transurban did a good job with the BGSs they've posted at the various interchanges (once they fixed the "exit tab on the wrong side" problem on several of their new signs, anyway).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on December 19, 2014, 09:14:16 PM
The goal is to get E-ZPass Only lanes in. If you take exact change on the ramps, you still have to have a full service lane, and therefore you can't have an E-ZPass only lane. One of the other reasons for the replacement is to replace the ancient treadles with electronic classification loops. Those are much more durable, as the treadles were not designed for high speed traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on December 19, 2014, 09:33:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 18, 2014, 11:29:46 AM
If you don't have half-dollars or dollar coins, you need to have ten quarters available or even more in the way of nickels and dimes. How many drivers actually do that?

Just one data point, but I have quarter dispensers from the Container Store in the consoles of both my car and my truck, that take up to around $6 in quarters.  They once came in handy for situations like that, especially when I was outside E-ZPass or SunPass territory.  I still use them, but mainly for parking meters and laundry.

My former 1996 BMW 328i had dispensers for quarters, dimes, and nickels built into its console.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 19, 2014, 09:50:16 PM
Yeah, my Acura has a coin holder and I do have some coins in it, but I have no idea how much it holds. Never bothered to count.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on December 21, 2014, 03:28:46 PM
The Verrazano Bridge in NYC had "toll machines" up to when the cash toll was $7. That's 28 quarters!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 22, 2014, 04:44:59 PM
Virginian-Pilot/HamptonRoads.Com: Chesapeake leaders: Don't toll new High-Rise Bridge (http://hamptonroads.com/2014/12/chesapeake-leaders-dont-toll-new-highrise-bridge)

QuoteOne of the region's worst Interstate chokepoints is due for a major expansion, with a new, eight-lane High-Rise Bridge as the centerpiece.

QuoteCity leaders, while eager for the relief, sent a message last week about what they don't want in the final product: tolls.

QuoteCouncil members unanimously approved a resolution that said user fees - even if assessed on only some traffic lanes - would hamper economic activity in the region and create a financial burden for residents and business owners.

QuoteTheir wishes appear to be headed for a financial reality check when state and regional officials begin discussing how to pay for a project that is estimated to cost around $2 billion.

QuoteVirginia Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne said building a new High-Rise Bridge and adding lanes to a sizeable stretch of I-64 in Chesapeake without tolls is possible but not likely.

QuoteOne wrinkle that figures to be raised in the discussion is how much the state might have to pay the private operator of the Downtown and Midtown tunnels if an expanded High-Rise Bridge is built with no tolls. The state's 58-year contract with Elizabeth River Crossings, the tunnel operator, allows the company to seek compensation from the state if it can prove that a new river crossing has siphoned motorists from the tunnels and damaged ERC's bottom line.

QuoteLayne said he expects the High-Rise project to be based on what's best for traffic and financing there, not on how much exposure the state might face with ERC. But, he said, tolling additional lanes at the High-Rise Bridge would mitigate that exposure.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 22, 2014, 05:32:24 PM
I'd be surprised if there were no tolls on the new bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 23, 2014, 02:39:13 PM
Bacon's Rebellion: Is VDOT Flooding Mathews County? (http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2014/12/is-vdot-flooding-mathews-county.html)

QuoteThe Virginia Department of Transportation's road maintenance program in Mathews County, you could say, has driven into a ditch. Over the years, VDOT has failed to properly maintain roadside ditches in the county, with the consequence that many now fail in their function of draining water into the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay, contends Carol J. Bova, community activist and author of "Drowning a County,"  published this year.

QuoteThe repercussions of inadequate drainage are surprisingly far-reaching, according to Bova. When roads block natural drainage into rivers and streams, water builds up in land that once was dry, inundating and harming forests and septic systems. Ill-maintained ditches create standing water that breeds mosquitoes and allows the build-up of sometimes-toxic cyanobacteria. Stagnant ditch water also accumulates muck and invites invasive species. Receiving waters lose a source of oxygen-rich rainwater, and marshes lose a source of sediment that allow them to survive sea-level rise. Most counter-productively of all, inundation of soil around the roads accelerates the deterioration of VDOT-maintained roadbeds. The cost of poor maintenance is silent but extensive.

QuoteBova and fellow activist G.C. Morrow have led a campaign to clean up the ditches of Mathews County but have encountered stiff bureaucratic resistance from VDOT, they say. The transportation agency contends that the problem isn't the quality of roadside ditches. Mathews County is too flat to drain, and inundation is increasing because of sea level rise.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on January 06, 2015, 05:26:45 PM
Virginia has a new "Welcome to Virginia" sign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/01/06/millions-of-travelers-may-have-no-idea-dulles-airport-is-in-virginia/

I don't like it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 06, 2015, 05:49:18 PM
Because putting it on the default license plate wasn't bad enough.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 06, 2015, 05:58:47 PM
What is it with Virginia and white on black signs? Reminds me of the RADAR DETECTORS ILLEGAL signs (perhaps they should have incorporated it into the new sign!). The font screams 70s for some reason. Also, a welcome sign on the airport exit isn't all that unusual. NC has one at the exit from RDU for example.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 05:59:06 PM
Hideous. I've always hated that slogan, too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kkt on January 06, 2015, 06:08:15 PM
"Single People Not Admitted"?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on January 06, 2015, 06:12:48 PM
Yeah, I'm not particularly fond of a black background. This is a tourism industry initiative.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on January 06, 2015, 06:52:00 PM
Very easy to spraypaint an S over the heart.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Zeffy on January 06, 2015, 07:40:08 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on January 06, 2015, 05:26:45 PM
Virginia has a new "Welcome to Virginia" sign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/01/06/millions-of-travelers-may-have-no-idea-dulles-airport-is-in-virginia/

I don't like it.

Neither do I. Then again, I don't like how much New York went overboard with the I <3 NY signs everywhere in the state, and the ridiculous TV commercials they air.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on January 06, 2015, 07:45:11 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 06, 2015, 05:49:18 PM
Because putting it on the default license plate wasn't bad enough.

And the current "Virginia is for Lovers" license plate makes that slogan much less conspicuous than on the old specialty plate.

You see a lot of "LOVE", in large free-standing plastic letters, in front of rest areas and visitor centers.  So the slogan is getting more of a workout than on welcome signs.

The slogan was once adapted for bumper stickers still seen in the wild, "Virginia is for Lovers, Not Liars", in a long-ago U.S. Senate race where the major party candidates were accused of being, respectively, a philanderer and a congenital liar.  (I held my nose and voted for the liar.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 08:27:19 PM
I suppose "Virginia Is for Lovers" was amusing when Maryland used "Maryland Is for Crabs."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on January 06, 2015, 09:19:53 PM
Quote from: oscar on January 06, 2015, 07:45:11 PM
The slogan was once adapted for bumper stickers still seen in the wild, "Virginia is for Lovers, Not Liars", in a long-ago U.S. Senate race where the major party candidates were accused of being, respectively, a philanderer and a congenital liar.  (I held my nose and voted for the liar.)
Figures that Oscar the Grouch would vote for Oliver Fucking North.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cl94 on January 06, 2015, 09:25:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 08:27:19 PM
I suppose "Virginia Is for Lovers" was amusing when Maryland used "Maryland Is for Crabs."

Hey, leave the sophomoric comments to a certain other user  :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on January 06, 2015, 10:22:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 06, 2015, 09:19:53 PM
Figures that Oscar the Grouch

Hey, I resemble that remark!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 10:24:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 06, 2015, 09:25:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 08:27:19 PM
I suppose "Virginia Is for Lovers" was amusing when Maryland used "Maryland Is for Crabs."

Hey, leave the sophomoric comments to a certain other user  :-D

I wound up on the moderators' watch list for baiting a certain other user, so I shan't respond further to that comment.

I voted for the same candidate Oscar did in 1994, FWIW.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 07, 2015, 12:07:35 PM
I realize that some are better targets than others for our resident malcontent, but picking on Oscar? That's territory I don't think anyone has ever entered into. :pan:

Next thing you know, Tom From Ohio (who recently re-emerged on Facebook to slam North Carolina for its propensity to sign interstates) will be asking Oscar to do us all a favor...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on January 07, 2015, 12:22:07 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 07, 2015, 12:07:35 PM
Next thing you know, Tom From Ohio (who recently re-emerged on Facebook to slam North Carolina for its propensity to sign interstates) will be asking Oscar to do us all a favor...

He already did, back on m.t.r.  I complained about how long it took for him to get to me.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 07, 2015, 01:23:20 PM
Quote from: oscar on January 07, 2015, 12:22:07 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 07, 2015, 12:07:35 PM
Next thing you know, Tom From Ohio (who recently re-emerged on Facebook to slam North Carolina for its propensity to sign interstates) will be asking Oscar to do us all a favor...

He already did, back on m.t.r.  I complained about how long it took for him to get to me.

I didn't remember. It took him awhile to get to me, too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on January 07, 2015, 07:21:45 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 10:24:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 06, 2015, 09:25:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 08:27:19 PM
I suppose "Virginia Is for Lovers" was amusing when Maryland used "Maryland Is for Crabs."

Hey, leave the sophomoric comments to a certain other user  :-D

I wound up on the moderators' watch list for baiting a certain other user, so I shan't respond further to that comment.

I voted for the same candidate Oscar did in 1994, FWIW.

Only certain people are given a free pass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on January 07, 2015, 07:23:49 PM
holy crap liberal bias
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2015, 12:05:46 AM
Washington Post: Here's your chance to sound off on the proposed Dulles Greenway toll increase (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/01/07/heres-your-chance-to-sound-off-on-the-proposed-dulles-greenway-toll-increase/)

QuoteThe Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) is seeking input on a request to raise tolls on the Dulles Greenway.

QuoteOwners of the 14-mile toll road that runs between Dulles International Airport and Leesburg are proposing a 2.8 percent increase in tolls. For most drivers that would translate to a 10-cent increase— to $4.30 from the current $4.20. During peak morning and afternoon periods, the toll would increase 15 cents – to $5.25 from $5.10.

QuoteWritten comments should be sent to the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission, Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218-2118 and should refer to case number PUE-2014-00129. People wishing to submit comment electronically should go to the SCC's Web site: www.scc.virginia.gov/case (http://www.scc.virginia.gov/case/). Once there, they should click on the "Public Comments/Notices"  link and then the "˜Submit Comments"  button for case number PUE-2014-00129.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on January 11, 2015, 09:02:52 AM
A reader column in today's Washington Post:  "The Confederacy on Va.'s Roads" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/does-abe-pollin-highway-work-for-you/2015/01/08/90b9ab32-8fa3-11e4-ba53-a477d66580ed_story.html) (title in the print edition)  The author, from Arlington, suggests renaming all the highways in Virginia named for Confederate leaders.

I don't like the idea.  For one thing, highway names like Jefferson Davis Highway and Lee Highway are used in a lot of street addresses, since both highways are long and have lots of businesses and homes along them.  A name change would be painful for them.  But even leaving aside the practicalities, I think it's kind of neat that both of those highways come within spitting distance of D.C. 

The author, as an Arlingtonian, must know how pervasive are Confederate place names off the roads, even in rather Yankee-fied Northern Virginia.  For example, Arlington's own Washington-Lee High School (named in part for Robert E. Lee), and J.E.B. Stuart High School across the border in Fairfax County. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 11, 2015, 09:33:23 AM
Stupid. History includes things you agree with and things you disagree with and it's stupid to try to erase the parts you dislike.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 11, 2015, 11:36:57 AM
Quote from: oscar on January 11, 2015, 09:02:52 AM
A reader column in today's Washington Post:  "The Confederacy on Va.'s Roads" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/does-abe-pollin-highway-work-for-you/2015/01/08/90b9ab32-8fa3-11e4-ba53-a477d66580ed_story.html) (title in the print edition)  The author, from Arlington, suggests renaming all the highways in Virginia named for Confederate leaders.

I don't like the idea.  For one thing, highway names like Jefferson Davis Highway and Lee Highway are used in a lot of street addresses, since both highways are long and have lots of businesses and homes along them.  A name change would be painful for them.  But even leaving aside the practicalities, I think it's kind of neat that both of those highways come within spitting distance of D.C. 

The author, as an Arlingtonian, must know how pervasive are Confederate place names off the roads, even in rather Yankee-fied Northern Virginia.  For example, Arlington's own Washington-Lee High School (named in part for Robert E. Lee), and J.E.B. Stuart High School across the border in Fairfax County.

Using the same logic as that presented in the column, should we then rename all the roads named after Washington, Jefferson, et al, because they wanted to fight against their own government in order to secede?   
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 11, 2015, 11:43:56 AM
Quote from: oscar on January 11, 2015, 09:02:52 AM
A reader column in today's Washington Post:  "The Confederacy on Va.'s Roads" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/does-abe-pollin-highway-work-for-you/2015/01/08/90b9ab32-8fa3-11e4-ba53-a477d66580ed_story.html) (title in the print edition)  The author, from Arlington, suggests renaming all the highways in Virginia named for Confederate leaders.

Well, it's an opinion piece for sure.  Don't agree with the person though and the choices for renaming the entire state routes with people/places from the D.C./Baltimore area is awkward and silly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 11, 2015, 12:19:26 PM
My wife read that column and pointed out that a number of those roads are not usually referred to by name anyway by most local residents. Jefferson Davis Highway is generally called Route 1 because said route changes names several times through Northern Virginia (Jefferson Davis Highway, Patrick/Henry Streets twinned one-way pair, Richmond Highway). Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway is usually just called Route 50. Of the ones the column noted, I've heard "Lee Highway" more often than the others, though I hear it less frequently than I did 30 years ago because people tend just to call it Route 29.

Semi-related funny incident.....back in the days when Lee-Jackson-King Day was celebrated on the third Monday in January, a guy I worked with who wasn't from Virginia asked who "Lee Jackson King" was. He had only heard the holiday referred to verbally and so didn't realize there were hyphens denoting three names. Of course, the same guy was incredulous that a city is named "Lynchburg." He was black and he was picturing a certain racist act from days before our time.....
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 11, 2015, 07:07:27 PM
Quote from: oscar on January 11, 2015, 09:02:52 AM
I don't like the idea.  For one thing, highway names like Jefferson Davis Highway and Lee Highway are used in a lot of street addresses, since both highways are long and have lots of businesses and homes along them.  A name change would be painful for them.  But even leaving aside the practicalities, I think it's kind of neat that both of those highways come within spitting distance of D.C.

This self-identified liberal Democrat from the other side of the Potomac River strongly agrees with you.

Changing street names to remove the names of Confederate heroes at this point smacks of Stalinism, and should not be done.

As I understand it, those roads were given the names they bear when there were still a lot of people in Virginia that had personal memories of the Civil War/War Between the States/Lost Cause.

And there's the practical problem associated with same, as Oscar points out above.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Stephane Dumas on January 12, 2015, 08:46:28 AM
Quote from: oscar on January 11, 2015, 09:02:52 AM
A reader column in today's Washington Post:  "The Confederacy on Va.'s Roads" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/does-abe-pollin-highway-work-for-you/2015/01/08/90b9ab32-8fa3-11e4-ba53-a477d66580ed_story.html) (title in the print edition)  The author, from Arlington, suggests renaming all the highways in Virginia named for Confederate leaders.

I don't like the idea.  For one thing, highway names like Jefferson Davis Highway and Lee Highway are used in a lot of street addresses, since both highways are long and have lots of businesses and homes along them.  A name change would be painful for them.  But even leaving aside the practicalities, I think it's kind of neat that both of those highways come within spitting distance of D.C.   

I don't like that idea either, political correctness run amok. Btw, wasn't some roads names for Jefferson Davis or General Lee in the West?

I guess he might suggest to rename for Martin Luther King but as Chris Rock once mentionned: http://www.hark.com/clips/swxzmbndkj-martin-luther-king-boulevard
Quote"You know what's sad? Martin Luther King stood for non violence. And I don't care where you are in America, if you're on Martin Luther King Boulevard, there's some violence going down."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 12, 2015, 08:53:00 AM
I have nothing against King, but you know, at least Robert E. Lee had a local connection (he lived at what is now Arlington Cemetery).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Henry on January 12, 2015, 01:10:06 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2015, 05:59:06 PM
Hideous. I've always hated that slogan, too.
Wonder if anyone in the Empire State has been accusing them of plagiarism? Apparently, they saw the "I <insert heart here> NY" slogan and decided to one-up it! :sombrero:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 12, 2015, 02:39:03 PM
Virginia has been for lovers since at least the mid to late 1960s. I don't remember the "I (heart) NY" slogan taking flight until the late 70s or early 80s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kkt on January 12, 2015, 04:35:39 PM
I had no idea "Virginia is for lovers" had been around that long.  Learn something every day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Henry on January 15, 2015, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 12, 2015, 02:39:03 PM
Virginia has been for lovers since at least the mid to late 1960s. I don't remember the "I (heart) NY" slogan taking flight until the late 70s or early 80s.
I take it back. In any case, it's a draw, because both slogans have the same meaning to me. Too bad nobody can be in two places at the same time  :)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on January 15, 2015, 06:05:30 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 15, 2015, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 12, 2015, 02:39:03 PM
Virginia has been for lovers since at least the mid to late 1960s. I don't remember the "I (heart) NY" slogan taking flight until the late 70s or early 80s.
I take it back. In any case, it's a draw, because both slogans have the same meaning to me. Too bad nobody can be in two places at the same time  :)
Don't forget I Lovermont!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Henry on January 16, 2015, 11:59:52 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 15, 2015, 06:05:30 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 15, 2015, 12:32:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 12, 2015, 02:39:03 PM
Virginia has been for lovers since at least the mid to late 1960s. I don't remember the "I (heart) NY" slogan taking flight until the late 70s or early 80s.
I take it back. In any case, it's a draw, because both slogans have the same meaning to me. Too bad nobody can be in two places at the same time  :)
Don't forget I Lovermont!
Oh really? Well, that's a horse of a different color!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 18, 2015, 11:45:29 AM
Too cool! A split-screen video from VDOT showing Shirley Highway in 1949 in the left-hand pane versus in 2014 in the right-hand pane.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 18, 2015, 12:07:07 PM
That's just crazy. The original interchanges remind me of the Colonial Parkway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: andrewkbrown on January 18, 2015, 09:30:19 PM
I was hoping the video might have shown the Shirley Highway at-grade railroad crossing that has been mentioned on here several times in the past.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 18, 2015, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: andrewkbrown on January 18, 2015, 09:30:19 PM
I was hoping the video might have shown the Shirley Highway at-grade railroad crossing that has been mentioned on here several times in the past.

Did not get far enough north to pass the grade crossing near Four Mile Run (between Shirlington Circle and Va. 123/South Glebe Road).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 19, 2015, 10:26:07 AM
VDOT has another video online showing Arlington County then and now. I haven't had time to watch it, hence why I didn't link it here. I don't know if it shows the RR crossing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 19, 2015, 11:39:22 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 19, 2015, 10:26:07 AM
VDOT has another video online showing Arlington County then and now. I haven't had time to watch it, hence why I didn't link it here. I don't know if it shows the RR crossing.

Isn't that the one that goes down "29/211," as it was once known - (most of) Lee Highway?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 19, 2015, 12:48:21 PM
http://hamptonroads.com/2015/01/bill-advances-raise-reckless-driving-threshold-va
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 19, 2015, 07:13:10 PM
I'm of two minds about this.

One one hand, I don't think that there should be a set speed at which you're recklessly driving per se. In some instances, 100 mph may be perfectly safe; in others, 35 mph may be reckless.

On the other hand, I don't think reckless driving should be subjective, either. The cop may think you're driving recklessly, but you may be well within your own abilities.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 19, 2015, 07:52:36 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 19, 2015, 11:39:22 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 19, 2015, 10:26:07 AM
VDOT has another video online showing Arlington County then and now. I haven't had time to watch it, hence why I didn't link it here. I don't know if it shows the RR crossing.

Isn't that the one that goes down "29/211," as it was once known - (most of) Lee Highway?

As I said, I haven't watched it, so I don't know. We just got back from a day trip out to a part of the Virginia countryside that is blessedly free of all cellular service (voice or data), so watching it was the furthest thing from my mind.

(I did see something I've never seen before in Virginia: an overhead BGS in advance of a new roundabout on US-522 entering Culpeper. We had visited Linden, Little Washington, and Sperryville, so I decided to take the scenic route home.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on January 20, 2015, 10:09:02 AM
I especially like the earthmover backing up in an active traffic lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 20, 2015, 12:34:48 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 19, 2015, 07:52:36 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 19, 2015, 11:39:22 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 19, 2015, 10:26:07 AM
VDOT has another video online showing Arlington County then and now. I haven't had time to watch it, hence why I didn't link it here. I don't know if it shows the RR crossing.

Isn't that the one that goes down "29/211," as it was once known - (most of) Lee Highway?

As I said, I haven't watched it, so I don't know. We just got back from a day trip out to a part of the Virginia countryside that is blessedly free of all cellular service (voice or data), so watching it was the furthest thing from my mind.

(I did see something I've never seen before in Virginia: an overhead BGS in advance of a new roundabout on US-522 entering Culpeper. We had visited Linden, Little Washington, and Sperryville, so I decided to take the scenic route home.)

I started watching the Arlington video and it is indeed Route 29[/211]. I didn't watch the whole thing, found it much less interesting.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 03, 2015, 04:00:52 PM
Bacon's Rebellion: U.S. 29... The Saga Continues (http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2015/02/u-s-29-the-saga-continues.html)

QuoteThe battle over the Charlottesville Bypass may be over, but the battle over what to do instead is heating up. After pulling the plug on the super-controversial, $240 million bypass early last year, the McAuliffe administration dusted off a plan to upgrade the U.S. 29 commercial corridor north of Charlottesville by investing in a series of spot improvements, parallel roads and grade-separated interchanges. Now the community is up in arms over the proposal to put an $81 million grade-separated interchange at the intersection with Rio Road.

QuoteLast week, "hundreds"  of citizens attended an open house meeting to voice their opposition to the interchange, which would eliminate a major bottleneck along the clogged commercial corridor, which also serves as a U.S. highway. (See WVIR's coverage (http://www.nbc29.com/story/27979454/hundreds-attend-meeting-in-opposition-of-planned-rt-29-gsi-project?clienttype=generic&mobilecgbypass) from last week.)

QuoteThe most steadfast opposition comes from businesses located near the proposed interchange, whose access to major thoroughfares would be diminished by the new configuration of the Rio Road/U.S. 29 intersection. The businesses have been joined by citizens who worry that construction will cause detours and other inconveniences.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 03, 2015, 05:22:17 PM
Having lived in Charlottesville during the previous round of widening from Hydraulic Road up to about Rio Hill Shopping Center, I am sure they are correct about serious inconvenience and detours during construction. But that's true of most projects and is not, by itself, a reason to forego road improvements.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 16, 2015, 09:57:23 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2013, 09:38:52 PMNormally that's what VDOT does. I passed this sign this afternoon in Springfield; it's to be hoisted over the road in the direction I was heading. Maybe the sheer size of the other sign on I-395 was part of the issue? I don't expect to use I-395 again until next weekend, so I don't know when they might finish that one.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F744e73b39a217908acf8fc6777fbcce8_zps8203dace.jpg&hash=ebe2247580e66235542459e719758b89f5b3b38c)

I posted the above on the date shown above. Not only has the sign assembly never been hoisted into place above the road, but when I drove through there this weekend, the sign had been removed altogether! There was a workman's truck nearby and I might have considered stopping to ask about it had I not been on the far side of the road separated by a jersey wall.

Very strange to see a huge sign sitting out for over a year only to be removed without being posted!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on February 16, 2015, 10:02:35 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2015, 09:57:23 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2013, 09:38:52 PMNormally that's what VDOT does. I passed this sign this afternoon in Springfield; it's to be hoisted over the road in the direction I was heading. Maybe the sheer size of the other sign on I-395 was part of the issue? I don't expect to use I-395 again until next weekend, so I don't know when they might finish that one.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F744e73b39a217908acf8fc6777fbcce8_zps8203dace.jpg&hash=ebe2247580e66235542459e719758b89f5b3b38c)

I posted the above on the date shown above. Not only has the sign assembly never been hoisted into place above the road, but when I drove through there this weekend, the sign had been removed altogether! There was a workman's truck nearby and I might have considered stopping to ask about it had I not been on the far side of the road separated by a jersey wall.

Very strange to see a huge sign sitting out for over a year only to be removed without being posted!
Looks like the old signs, really, must have been enough. Anyways, quite a waste of money, eh?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 17, 2015, 04:30:29 PM
Found another interesting short VDOT video - 100 years of the Highway Dept

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FobeyH4f58I

At 1:45 it gets to showing US 1 NB approaching VA 350.  The Overhead signs are clear but the US 1 and VA 350 shields never get clear enough.  not long after it shows US 1 NB at the south end of the Fredericksburg Bypass.  Overheads are perfect and no route shields seem visible at all.  Further in the video it shows tunnel construction from several different ones.


There is also a 27-minute VDOT video on Virginia interstates which has vintage scenes sprinkled throughout and also interviews Scott Kozel.  There are a few snippets of Shirley Highway that are not in the "Then and Now" video during the closing credits including a fuzzy VA 350 cutout.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHJdQ_X1-yk

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2015, 07:06:10 PM
WTOP Radio: Is it time to shut down Virginia speed-trap towns? (http://wtop.com/virginia/2015/02/time-shut-virginia-speed-trap-towns/)

QuoteFor many people, the only souvenir of time spent in tiny Hopewell, Virginia is a paper speeding ticket.

QuoteThe independent city, with a 2010 population of 22,591 is at the center of AAA's latest effort to limit what the not-for-profit auto club calls "policing for profit,"  with targeted speed enforcement.

Quote"There are some communities in Virginia that use money from police tickets to make up a major part of their town's finances,"  says Lon Anderson, director of public and government relations for AAA Mid-Atlantic, which serves more than 3.4 million members from New Jersey to Virginia.

QuoteThe most egregious example is a two-mile stretch of interstate highway that runs along the western side of the 10.8 square mile town.

Quote"We dubbed the part of I-295 that runs through Hopewell a "˜million dollar mile,' because they make almost 2 million dollars a year,"  from revenue raised by speed traps, says Anderson.

QuoteMost law enforcement agencies say targeted speed enforcement is intended to induce drivers to slow down in areas where road design, volume, and conditions would preclude faster driving.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwtop.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2Fhopewell616.jpg&hash=aacc86c14726f31d256904c8662d9b6449d29645)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on February 21, 2015, 08:08:05 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2015, 07:06:10 PM
WTOP Radio: Is it time to shut down Virginia speed-trap towns? (http://wtop.com/virginia/2015/02/time-shut-virginia-speed-trap-towns/)

QuoteFor many people, the only souvenir of time spent in tiny Hopewell, Virginia is a paper speeding ticket.

QuoteThe independent city, with a 2010 population of 22,591 is at the center of AAA's latest effort to limit what the not-for-profit auto club calls "policing for profit,"  with targeted speed enforcement.

Quote"There are some communities in Virginia that use money from police tickets to make up a major part of their town's finances,"  says Lon Anderson, director of public and government relations for AAA Mid-Atlantic, which serves more than 3.4 million members from New Jersey to Virginia.

QuoteThe most egregious example is a two-mile stretch of interstate highway that runs along the western side of the 10.8 square mile town.

Quote"We dubbed the part of I-295 that runs through Hopewell a "˜million dollar mile,' because they make almost 2 million dollars a year,"  from revenue raised by speed traps, says Anderson.

QuoteMost law enforcement agencies say targeted speed enforcement is intended to induce drivers to slow down in areas where road design, volume, and conditions would preclude faster driving.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwtop.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2Fhopewell616.jpg&hash=aacc86c14726f31d256904c8662d9b6449d29645)
Yep. Drove that portion of 295 yesterday and counted 7 (!!!) people who had been pulled over by Hopewell cops. I think that all speeding ticket money should be put into a single state pot and used solely for transportation purposes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 21, 2015, 10:34:17 AM
Once or twice I've seen police cars hiding behind the sound barriers on 295 in the Hopewell area, so if you don't see any out in the open there it doesn't mean they aren't present.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 21, 2015, 05:32:14 PM
Wasn't the Virginia legislation going to deal with this problem a few years ago? If I recall, Hopewell was writing summons based on local ordinances to collect 100% of the fine as opposed to the state statures regarding motor vehicle violations (which mostly go to the state).

Also add Newsoms Virginia to the list of speed trap towns. The town's police department solely exists to catch speeders on SR-670 running through town and is 100% funded by the proceeds.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 21, 2015, 09:05:34 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on February 21, 2015, 08:08:05 AM
Yep. Drove that portion of 295 yesterday and counted 7 (!!!) people who had been pulled over by Hopewell cops. I think that all speeding ticket money should be put into a single state pot and used solely for transportation purposes.

No reason why Virginia's county and municipal governments should be allowed to enact and enforce local traffic ordinances (Maryland law expressly forbids its counties and municipalities from enacting them).

Local traffic laws are an invitation to abuse of the sort that many unfortunate motorists have been experienced in Hopewell. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 22, 2015, 01:54:08 PM
Speaking of Newsoms, the Google Streetview car got pulled over there!

http://goo.gl/maps/2yCO1

Here is the location of the trap, btw there is ALWAYS a patrol car there: http://goo.gl/maps/Ahkmo

Just east of there the speed limit drops from 55 to 35 quite abruptly.

Also did this 2012 law do anything to stop Hopewell? Apparently not: http://wtop.com/news/2012/04/no-more-local-speed-traps-on-va-interstates/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 22, 2015, 02:09:33 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 22, 2015, 01:54:08 PM
Speaking of Newsoms, the Google Streetview car got pulled over there!

http://goo.gl/maps/2yCO1

Here is the location of the trap, btw there is ALWAYS a patrol car there: http://goo.gl/maps/Ahkmo

Just east of there the speed limit drops from 55 to 35 quite abruptly.

Not driven that road (Va. 671), though I may have to if I am down that way - and do to their cops what I did in Bridgeville, Delaware - go about 20 or 25 MPH all the way through their municipality, which really got the Bridgeville police very visibly upset, but what could they do about it?

Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 22, 2015, 01:54:08 PM
Also did this 2012 law do anything to stop Hopewell? Apparently not: http://wtop.com/news/2012/04/no-more-local-speed-traps-on-va-interstates/

I would solve it in a little different way - forbid local government law enforcement from counties and municipalities under certain population thresholds from doing traffic enforcement on Interstates and freeways generally without express approval from the Superintendent of the Virginia State Police.

I recall reading someplace that the VSP are (and have been) very pissed at Hopewell for running their revenue-raising operation on an Interstate highway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 22, 2015, 02:39:04 PM
Color me lucky, but in all my time in the area I've *NEVER* seen a cop in Newsoms.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 22, 2015, 03:08:16 PM
How do we know the cop was pursuing the Street View car and not doing something else?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 22, 2015, 04:07:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 22, 2015, 03:08:16 PM
How do we know the cop was pursuing the Street View car and not doing something else?

(1) Pretty small municipality (estimated population well below 500 in 2014); and
(2) This (http://www.tidewaternews.com/2012/09/07/speeding-motorists-fund-72-of-newsoms-budget/) (from the tidewaternews.com (http://www.tidewaternews.com/) site in 2012).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex4897 on February 22, 2015, 06:50:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 22, 2015, 04:07:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 22, 2015, 03:08:16 PM
How do we know the cop was pursuing the Street View car and not doing something else?

(1) Pretty small municipality (estimated population well below 500 in 2014); and
(2) This (http://www.tidewaternews.com/2012/09/07/speeding-motorists-fund-72-of-newsoms-budget/) (from the tidewaternews.com (http://www.tidewaternews.com/) site in 2012).

Not to mention if you follow the imagery in chronological order you can see him getting pulled into a parking lot.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.628621,-77.129704,3a,75y,66.75h,64.76t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1syAD6POgVWBF6Q_dtfZdYNw!2e0!5s20140601T000000 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.628621,-77.129704,3a,75y,66.75h,64.76t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1syAD6POgVWBF6Q_dtfZdYNw!2e0!5s20140601T000000)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 22, 2015, 07:41:38 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 22, 2015, 01:54:08 PM


Also did this 2012 law do anything to stop Hopewell? Apparently not: http://wtop.com/news/2012/04/no-more-local-speed-traps-on-va-interstates/

What is the definition of a speed trap solely to collect revenue?

Is it to pull people over going 71 mph in a 70 mph zone because you are technically speeding and now you get to pay $ to Hopewell?

In my forays along I-295 there is NO shortage of people going in excess of 80 mph in the Hopewell area.  While I get the VSP would be upset that they don't pull over those that Hopewell gets, if someone is driving recklessly (in the eyes of the law, at >80 mph), how can anybody argue the traffic stops are solely for revenue purposes (even if they are)?

I also don't specifically recall cops in Newsom, though my experiences there were in the early 1990s.  Nearby Branchville and Boykins also have a ridiculous speed limit (25) that I assume is designed to help get $ to the town.


Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 22, 2015, 08:33:31 PM
Green Bay is another example, though I didn't see any patrol cars along US 360 when I was last there. However, the speed limit drops abruptly from 60 to 35 in a very short time for about a mile or so, and increases back to 60 after leaving Green Bay.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 22, 2015, 09:24:36 PM
Quote from: Alex4897 on February 22, 2015, 06:50:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 22, 2015, 04:07:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 22, 2015, 03:08:16 PM
How do we know the cop was pursuing the Street View car and not doing something else?

(1) Pretty small municipality (estimated population well below 500 in 2014); and
(2) This (http://www.tidewaternews.com/2012/09/07/speeding-motorists-fund-72-of-newsoms-budget/) (from the tidewaternews.com (http://www.tidewaternews.com/) site in 2012).

Not to mention if you follow the imagery in chronological order you can see him getting pulled into a parking lot.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.628621,-77.129704,3a,75y,66.75h,64.76t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1syAD6POgVWBF6Q_dtfZdYNw!2e0!5s20140601T000000 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.628621,-77.129704,3a,75y,66.75h,64.76t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1syAD6POgVWBF6Q_dtfZdYNw!2e0!5s20140601T000000)

Fair enough. It wouldn't let me do that on my iPad–when I try to tap to move the vantage point it usually doesn't do anything. My query was more directed at whether the cop was pursuing someone else, rather than whether he was responding to some other call, but you've answered that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 23, 2015, 12:32:23 AM
I think I may stay away from I-295 the next time I drive up. The various speed traps have always scared me about that road, but the very fact that it's used to beat the traffic of I-95 in Richmond and Petersburg, and that VDOT encourages drivers to use it just as much as DelDOT does with I-495 should make the local cops consider laying off.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 23, 2015, 07:36:04 AM
Last time we used I-295 I just set the cruise control at the speed limit and didn't worry about it. There are always plenty of people who think they need to show off how they're faster than you are.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2015, 10:13:35 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 23, 2015, 12:32:23 AM
I think I may stay away from I-295 the next time I drive up. The various speed traps have always scared me about that road, but the very fact that it's used to beat the traffic of I-95 in Richmond and Petersburg, and that VDOT encourages drivers to use it just as much as DelDOT does with I-495 should make the local cops consider laying off.

Virginia's I-295 is a little longer (in terms of distance) than I-95 through Petersburg and Richmond, but is a much better road.  The Hopewell speed trap area runs from U.S. 460 (Exit 3) past Va. 36 (Exit 9, the only interchange (partly) in Hopewell) to Va. 10 (Exit 15 ) to the south landing of the Varina-Enon Bridge over the James River (map here (https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=I-295+N&daddr=I-295+N&hl=en&ll=37.378069,-77.312508&spn=0.219348,0.369759&sll=37.370703,-77.290535&sspn=0.219369,0.369759&geocode=FWODNwId5BFk-w%3BFRBYOgIdJcpj-w&mra=dme&mrsp=1&sz=12&t=m&z=12))).  I am deliberately over-stating the part of I-295 actually within the limits of Hopewell, but remember that Virginia laws allows municipal law enforcement to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction up to (IIRC) 5 miles outside of the city that employs them.


CPZ,
I changed VA 35 to VA 36.  I am sure you intended to type 36, but VA 35 is close enough to the area to confuse me.
-Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 23, 2015, 12:17:11 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2015, 10:13:35 AMVirginia laws allows municipal law enforcement to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction up to (IIRC) 5 miles outside of the city that employs them

This explains why I sometimes see Hopewell police running radar on the segments of I-295 that are actually within Prince George County (along the stretch that jumps in and out of Hopewell).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2015, 06:44:52 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 23, 2015, 12:17:11 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2015, 10:13:35 AMVirginia laws allows municipal law enforcement to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction up to (IIRC) 5 miles outside of the city that employs them

This explains why I sometimes see Hopewell police running radar on the segments of I-295 that are actually within Prince George County (along the stretch that jumps in and out of Hopewell).

Yep.

Emporia too.

I only learned this when I was supervising some of my people along I-395 in Arlington County when a City of Alexandria police officer was shot on a traffic stop on I-395 at Va. 120 (Arlington County). (the suspect was himself shot to death a short time later).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: HTM Duke on February 27, 2015, 03:57:27 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2015, 09:57:23 AM
I posted the above on the date shown above. Not only has the sign assembly never been hoisted into place above the road, but when I drove through there this weekend, the sign had been removed altogether! There was a workman's truck nearby and I might have considered stopping to ask about it had I not been on the far side of the road separated by a jersey wall.

Very strange to see a huge sign sitting out for over a year only to be removed without being posted!

A bit of an update here.  I drove through here last week, and the sign was indeed gone.  Drove through the area again yesterday, and there's what appeared to be a new sign, covered by a blue tarp.  I'll be waiting to see what VDOT plans to do next.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 27, 2015, 11:47:09 AM
Quote
CPZ,
I changed VA 35 to VA 36.  I am sure you intended to type 36, but VA 35 is close enough to the area to confuse me.
-Mark

Yes, of  course, thank you.

Va. 36 is right smack in the heart of the I-295 Hopewell speed trap operation, though the boundary between Hopewell and Prince George County runs through the interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on February 27, 2015, 11:43:33 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2015, 10:13:35 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 23, 2015, 12:32:23 AM
I think I may stay away from I-295 the next time I drive up. The various speed traps have always scared me about that road, but the very fact that it's used to beat the traffic of I-95 in Richmond and Petersburg, and that VDOT encourages drivers to use it just as much as DelDOT does with I-495 should make the local cops consider laying off.

Virginia's I-295 is a little longer (in terms of distance) than I-95 through Petersburg and Richmond, but is a much better road.  The Hopewell speed trap area runs from U.S. 460 (Exit 3) past Va. 36 (Exit 9, the only interchange (partly) in Hopewell) to Va. 10 (Exit 15 ) to the south landing of the Varina-Enon Bridge over the James River (map here (https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=I-295+N&daddr=I-295+N&hl=en&ll=37.378069,-77.312508&spn=0.219348,0.369759&sll=37.370703,-77.290535&sspn=0.219369,0.369759&geocode=FWODNwId5BFk-w%3BFRBYOgIdJcpj-w&mra=dme&mrsp=1&sz=12&t=m&z=12))).  I am deliberately over-stating the part of I-295 actually within the limits of Hopewell, but remember that Virginia laws allows municipal law enforcement to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction up to (IIRC) 5 miles outside of the city that employs them.

But do Hopewell police have the authority to enforce its city's ordinances outside city limits?  I haven't looked it up (just back from Florida), but I doubt it.  Yeah, the Hopewell police can ticket outside city limits, but if they have to ticket for violations of state law rather than local ordinance, that takes away much of the profit motive.  Of course, if they catch someone violating the ordinance within city limits, the pullover can happen outside the limits, and probably not affect what offense gets charged.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 28, 2015, 12:20:28 AM
Quote from: oscar on February 27, 2015, 11:43:33 PM
But do Hopewell police have the authority to enforce its city's ordinances outside city limits?  I haven't looked it up (just back from Florida), but I doubt it.  Yeah, the Hopewell police can ticket outside city limits, but if they have to ticket for violations of state law rather than local ordinance, that takes away much of the profit motive.  Of course, if they catch someone violating the ordinance within city limits, the pullover can happen outside the limits, and probably not affect what offense gets charged.

This is a very good question, and relevant too, since as I understand it, most fine revenue resulting from charges of violations of state laws pertaining to traffic end up in the Commonwealth's Literacy Fund, but fines collected from violations of local traffic ordinances end up in that local government's bank account.

Of course, I-295 crosses the boundary between Hopewell and unincorporated Prince George County several times (from Google maps, it seems that the northbound lanes of I-295 cross the line about seven times; southbound about six times) - and I am willing to wager that some of those alleged violations of the Hopewell speeding ordinance did not happen within city limits on I-295.

IMO, Maryland handles this well by forbidding its local governments from enacting traffic ordinances (they can enact parking ordinances).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 06, 2015, 08:39:21 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 16, 2015, 10:02:35 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 16, 2015, 09:57:23 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2013, 09:38:52 PMNormally that's what VDOT does. I passed this sign this afternoon in Springfield; it's to be hoisted over the road in the direction I was heading. Maybe the sheer size of the other sign on I-395 was part of the issue? I don't expect to use I-395 again until next weekend, so I don't know when they might finish that one.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F744e73b39a217908acf8fc6777fbcce8_zps8203dace.jpg&hash=ebe2247580e66235542459e719758b89f5b3b38c)

I posted the above on the date shown above. Not only has the sign assembly never been hoisted into place above the road, but when I drove through there this weekend, the sign had been removed altogether! There was a workman's truck nearby and I might have considered stopping to ask about it had I not been on the far side of the road separated by a jersey wall.

Very strange to see a huge sign sitting out for over a year only to be removed without being posted!
Looks like the old signs, really, must have been enough. Anyways, quite a waste of money, eh?

On our way through Springfield in the HO/T lanes this afternoon I noticed this sign, or something quite similar, has finally been hoisted into place over westbound Route 644. I could only see the back side of the sign from down below on I-95. So I don't know if it's that exact sign and I won't get over there tomorrow to see, but either way, it's been almost 15 months since they first placed it next to the road there!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: HTM Duke on March 06, 2015, 11:49:16 PM
@1995hoo:
I took the exit from 95 south to 644 east this evening, and the sign in your picture is what they put up.  As of now, the old signage is still hanging around, but I can't see VDOT putting off removing it for very long.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 12, 2015, 04:11:07 PM
I was just digging around a file cabinet looking for something and while I did not find what I needed, I found something I thought had been thrown away years ago: A 1975 Virginia state highway map!

Unfortunately, given its size I don't have a way to scan the entire thing, though maybe this weekend I might be able to use my wife's photo printer to scan it in pieces because the printer has a flatbed scanner. (My scanner is sheet-feed only.) But I did take a couple of pictures of interesting items using my iPhone.

First, the Richmond area. I found it interesting to note the proposed route of I-295 that looped back to I-95 much further to the north than what was built. It's also interesting to note it only shows three of the four toll plazas on the Richmond—Petersburg Turnpike (the one in Richmond is missing, though it appears on an inset), and I think it's funny to see Kings Dominion listed as "Lion Country Safari—Kings Dominion." The Lion Country monorail ride was part of the amusement park on the same admission, but it opened a year earlier (Kings Dominion opened in May 1975), so maybe someone at VDOT thought it was a separate thing.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FAC2FE2BB-39D6-49E8-93A4-181A0F02DB59_zpsdlwho1lo.jpg&hash=2ae1a8a5bfa472885027efccca1bbf85880378e6)


Second, Northern Virginia. The item I find most interesting here is the I-595 shield in Arlington, seeing as how that number was never actually posted. It's also interesting to note the Dulles Access Road Extension is not shown as a proposed route (it opened in 1985 and meets I-66 right where the "Prop. 66" shield is seen here). I see Seminary Road is not shown as Route 420. The number is not posted anywhere even today, so I suppose not showing it on the map makes sense. I have not looked at the current map to see whether it appears on there.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FD9279692-F32F-48ED-94E1-072885F8D0F4_zpshlz8miuz.jpg&hash=61b62b7cf6c6a12ff31ba10a4a4f5d91d9e58d30)


Third, suburban Maryland. This is the legendary map that showed the I-270 Spur as I-470! Sorry it's a little blurry.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F3C77B04B-64D7-4509-9E7C-E70D8695A44B_zpsmjzydaea.jpg&hash=b89414439acf362d96526d4401f799c8f88764e0)


Other notes:

–I-64 was incomplete between I-81 and Clifton Forge. The easternmost part of this segment is shown in blue dashed lines as under construction; the rest is shown as proposed.

–I-66 was discontinuous, featuring completed segments from I-81 to US-340 (about six miles), that weird three-mile segment near Delaplane that opened in isolation, the part from Gainesville to the Beltway, and the eastern end connecting Rosslyn to DC. All the incomplete segments are shown as proposed.

–I-95 was incomplete from Route 156 south of Petersburg on down to just north of Emporia. It isn't even shown as proposed on the map!

–An I-664 shield appears on the main map even though that road didn't exist yet and is not shown as proposed on the main map. It does appear as a proposed route on the inset. It also looks as though the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel had not yet been twinned, as it is shown using the lines that indicate a two-lane tolled highway.

Funny thing is, though, for the most part you could probably still navigate today using this map as long as you're aware of a few points like I-95 inside the Beltway now being I-395.


Somewhere I had an old DC map that showed I-95 through the District with the dashed lines noting a proposed route and also showed the GW Parkway outside the Beltway as a proposed route via a bridge near Great Falls, but I think that map did indeed get thrown out because I have no clue where it may be if I still have it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 12, 2015, 05:06:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 12, 2015, 04:11:07 PM

First, the Richmond area. I found it interesting to note the proposed route of I-295 that looped back to I-95 much further to the north than what was built. It's also interesting to note it only shows three of the four toll plazas on the Richmond—Petersburg Turnpike (the one in Richmond is missing, though it appears on an inset), and I think it's funny to see Kings Dominion listed as "Lion Country Safari—Kings Dominion." The Lion Country monorail ride was part of the amusement park on the same admission, but it opened a year earlier (Kings Dominion opened in May 1975), so maybe someone at VDOT thought it was a separate thing.


Second, Northern Virginia. The item I find most interesting here is the I-595 shield in Arlington, seeing as how that number was never actually posted. It's also interesting to note the Dulles Access Road Extension is not shown as a proposed route (it opened in 1985 and meets I-66 right where the "Prop. 66" shield is seen here). I see Seminary Road is not shown as Route 420. The number is not posted anywhere even today, so I suppose not showing it on the map makes sense. I have not looked at the current map to see whether it appears on there.


VA 420 (http://[url=http://vahighways.com/route-log/va401-420.htm) does appear on the current NoVA inset, but the VA highways Project states that it was not created until 1984 hence why it is not on the inset.

Also I remember Scott Kozel's site mentioning about I-295 and VA 288 originally being proposed as a true beltway before the routing for I-295 was changed.  That change must not have happened yet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 12, 2015, 05:40:58 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 12, 2015, 05:06:21 PM
VA 420 (http://[url=http://vahighways.com/route-log/va401-420.htm) does appear on the current NoVA inset, but the VA highways Project states that it was not created until 1984 hence why it is not on the inset.

Also I remember Scott Kozel's site mentioning about I-295 and VA 288 originally being proposed as a true beltway before the routing for I-295 was changed.  That change must not have happened yet.

Ah, thanks. That would certainly explain it as to the Route 420 marker!

I knew I-295 had been planned to follow a different route, I just found it interesting to see it actually indicated on a map.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 12, 2015, 08:56:19 PM
The use of I-295 on today's VA 288 was requested by Virginia in 1968 but was denied (why didn't Virginia use VA 295 as opposed to VA 288?).  The City of Richmond petitioned the CTB to cancel the Richmond Beltway as a concept in April 1977.

I-295 was changed from its proposed connection to I-95 at VA 150 to where it runs now in 1978 and the 1980 Official was the first to show it...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2F295_1980.jpg&hash=e74d1b60f37fe12c4bdd7e63d4f4ddfa491acf92)

Mapmikey

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: abc2VE on March 12, 2015, 11:24:55 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 12, 2015, 08:56:19 PM
The use of I-295 on today's VA 288 was requested by Virginia in 1968 but was denied (why didn't Virginia use VA 295 as opposed to VA 288?).  The City of Richmond petitioned the CTB to cancel the Richmond Beltway as a concept in April 1977.

I-295 was changed from its proposed connection to I-95 at VA 150 to where it runs now in 1978 and the 1980 Official was the first to show it...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2F295_1980.jpg&hash=e74d1b60f37fe12c4bdd7e63d4f4ddfa491acf92)

Mapmikey



Let me see If I understand this. I-295 was planned to connect where VA 895 currently exists? Didn't it also shift down to where 288 meets 95 before being shifted a third time to prince george? I don't understand the portion of 288 at 95 It is about as old as the southern end of 295 yet the interchange isn't set up as if it were to complete the beltway, was that a later revision as well?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 13, 2015, 08:00:47 AM
The location shown on that 1975 map is a little further south than where Route 895 is today. 895 meets I-95 roughly where the toll plaza just south of the Richmond city limits can be seen on the map–the location where that toll plaza was is inside the 95/895/150 interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 13, 2015, 09:37:17 AM
Left out a step...

I-295's end was originally planned to meet current VA 150/895 interchange, then in 1965 was moved  to the VA 288 interchange as shown in the 1975 official.  No official map shows the original ending because they didn't put dotted lines on a map until 1968.

But it definitely was planned that way.
See this: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1339&context=masters-theses

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 19, 2015, 09:10:46 AM
Slightly off-topic, but residents of Columbia, VA have voted to disband the town, pending approval by the General Assembly.

http://wtop.com/virginia/2015/03/residents-vote-to-disband-tiny-virginia-town/

Columbia is on VA 6 in the southeast corner of Fluvanna County, where the Rivanna River meets the James River.  Both SR 690 to the south and SR 659 to the north were once part of VA 27 #2 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va027.htm) (existed 1940-1953).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 19, 2015, 09:35:54 AM
VDOT celebrates 90 years of the Jamestown-Scotland Ferry...

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2015/vdot_marks_90_years80836.asp

It includes a 3 minute video that does show old pictures/footage of older ferries, but no mention of authorized and abandoned bridge attempts in the 1930s or anything about the Jamestown ferry landing moving. 

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 19, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 26, 2014, 11:26:02 AM


One is at US 460/Southgate Dr (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/southgate_connector_-_blacksburg.asp) near Virginia Tech.  This will get rid of the last traffic signal on the Blacksburg Bypass and complete a freeway segment running from the north end of the bypass to I-81.


VDOT awarded the contract for this DDI on US 460 at VA 314 this week (~$39M).  Construction starts this spring with a scheduled open date of Dec 2018.

VDOT also awarded a contract to widen VA 337 ALT Turnpike Rd from US 17 Frederick Blvd to Constitutional Ave (1 block beyond the permanently closed Harbor Dr that 337 ALT used to follow to reach US 58/VA 141) as a 4-lane plus center turn lane road.  Completion is May 2018.  This in itself does not answer the question where VA 337 ALT now runs with Harbor Dr gone.

VDOT also awarded a contract to redo parts of the I-81/US 220/VA 220 ALT interchange (Exit 150).  Ramp relocations and roundabouts.  Completion June 2018.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2015/ctb_awards_16_contracts80876.asp

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 19, 2015, 03:46:33 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 19, 2015, 12:43:37 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 26, 2014, 11:26:02 AM


One is at US 460/Southgate Dr (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/southgate_connector_-_blacksburg.asp) near Virginia Tech.  This will get rid of the last traffic signal on the Blacksburg Bypass and complete a freeway segment running from the north end of the bypass to I-81.


VDOT awarded the contract for this DDI on US 460 at VA 314 this week (~$39M).  Construction starts this spring with a scheduled open date of Dec 2018.

VDOT also awarded a contract to widen VA 337 ALT Turnpike Rd from US 17 Frederick Blvd to Constitutional Ave (1 block beyond the permanently closed Harbor Dr that 337 ALT used to follow to reach US 58/VA 141) as a 4-lane plus center turn lane road.  Completion is May 2018.  This in itself does not answer the question where VA 337 ALT now runs with Harbor Dr gone.

VDOT also awarded a contract to redo parts of the I-81/US 220/VA 220 ALT interchange (Exit 150).  Ramp relocations and roundabouts.  Completion June 2018.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2015/ctb_awards_16_contracts80876.asp

Mapmikey

I would also highlight the US 360 widening northeast of I-295 to 6 lanes out to Wynbrook Drive (with 6 out to a presumably relocated Bell Creek Road).  I've only been on that portion a couple times, but I am sure it is just as much of a nightmare as the part of US 360 southwest of VA 288 (having been 6-8 lanes for awhile for the most part) out to Woodlake Village Pkwy.

Also I kept hearing about funding issues for the US 460 DDI at VA 314.  I am glad that is taken care of so that US 460 can be a full freeway out to US 460 Business north of Blacksburg (which might be another interchange in the future).

The I-81/US 220/VA 220 ALT interchange was always a trainwreck when going to/from Blacksburg it seemed (except when I drove at night).  I wonder if they will advertise VA 220 ALT to use Exit 150B (which I used to make going through there less of a headache) due to Gateway Crossing connecting to existing VA 220 ALT when this project is over. 


On another note, the CTB has also approved a location for the I-64/High Rise Bridge Study.  Alternative 2 (two new lanes in each direction with a new bridge and an eventual replacement for the old bridge) was chosen for now with the plans to manage it on the table for now  (info in a PDF on the CTB website here (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings.asp).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 25, 2015, 08:38:05 PM
Not really sure where to put this, but one of the Miami BGS's on southbound I-95 in Petersburg was replaced today, in a slightly larger signage update to bring more attention to the second exit lane. The replacement overhead has destinations for Rocky Mount (I-95) and Durham (I-85/US 460) with arrow-per-lane graphics instead of Miami and Atlanta. Advance signage was also updated to say "Use Exit 51" instead of "right lane".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on March 26, 2015, 08:22:19 AM
Quote from: Takumi on March 25, 2015, 08:38:05 PM
Not really sure where to put this, but one of the Miami BGS's on southbound I-95 in Petersburg was replaced today, in a slightly larger signage update to bring more attention to the second exit lane. The replacement overhead has destinations for Rocky Mount (I-95) and Durham (I-85/US 460) with arrow-per-lane graphics instead of Miami and Atlanta. Advance signage was also updated to say "Use Exit 51" instead of "right lane".
How recent is it? I think I remember seeing the APL the last time I went through there (Dec 2014)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 26, 2015, 09:07:43 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on March 26, 2015, 08:22:19 AM
Quote from: Takumi on March 25, 2015, 08:38:05 PM
Not really sure where to put this, but one of the Miami BGS's on southbound I-95 in Petersburg was replaced today, in a slightly larger signage update to bring more attention to the second exit lane. The replacement overhead has destinations for Rocky Mount (I-95) and Durham (I-85/US 460) with arrow-per-lane graphics instead of Miami and Atlanta. Advance signage was also updated to say "Use Exit 51" instead of "right lane".
How recent is it? I think I remember seeing the APL the last time I went through there (Dec 2014)

They have had new signs over there sitting over by the old RTP building at least a couple times recently.  I think I had posted about that a few months ago wondering if those Miami signs were gone due to that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on March 26, 2015, 09:56:41 AM
Would love to see/host pics of the replacements. Those Miami signs were always a neat concept.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 26, 2015, 10:04:53 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on March 26, 2015, 08:22:19 AM
Quote from: Takumi on March 25, 2015, 08:38:05 PM
Not really sure where to put this, but one of the Miami BGS's on southbound I-95 in Petersburg was replaced today, in a slightly larger signage update to bring more attention to the second exit lane. The replacement overhead has destinations for Rocky Mount (I-95) and Durham (I-85/US 460) with arrow-per-lane graphics instead of Miami and Atlanta. Advance signage was also updated to say "Use Exit 51" instead of "right lane".
How recent is it? I think I remember seeing the APL the last time I went through there (Dec 2014)
They just changed it over the past few days. I go by the 95-85 split on the way to work every day. The old signs were removed on Monday, with an empty gantry and a VMS indicating Exit 51 on Tuesday, then the new sign up yesterday. I'm off today, so I'm going to go take pictures of them.

Edit: Diagrammatic was what I meant. I don't think the replacement project is finished yet, so I don't know whether the other Miami signs will be changed. One is just before exit 52 (basically an advance version of the old sign) and the other is at exit 50. One of the Atlanta destinations for I-85 was recently carbon-copied with a Clearview sign, so at least Atlanta will be signed in Virginia for years to come.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2015, 11:16:25 PM
Washington Post: Fairfax receives $8 million for traffic relief on Route 1 and two other roads (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/fairfax-receives-8-million-for-traffic-relief-on-route-1-and-two-other-roads/2015/04/26/5fe39e7a-ea91-11e4-9a6a-c1ab95a0600b_story.html)

QuoteAfter aggressive lobbying, Fairfax County received an additional $8 million in regional transportation funds for congestion relief along Route 1 and two other corridors.

QuoteThe money for a project to widen a three-mile stretch of Route 1 near Fort Belvoir and for improvements to Rolling Road and Frontier Drive comes from about $351 million in regional funds available through the 2013 state transportation law that seeks to alleviate congestion throughout Virginia.

QuoteThe three projects had been left off a list of projects recommended for funding by the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority. But after pressure from Fairfax County that included a packed public hearing this month on the Route 1 road-widening project, the regional authority voted last week to use money it had not previously earmarked.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Zzonkmiles on April 27, 2015, 12:13:35 AM
Quote from: Takumi on March 25, 2015, 08:38:05 PM
Not really sure where to put this, but one of the Miami BGS's on southbound I-95 in Petersburg was replaced today, in a slightly larger signage update to bring more attention to the second exit lane. The replacement overhead has destinations for Rocky Mount (I-95) and Durham (I-85/US 460) with arrow-per-lane graphics instead of Miami and Atlanta. Advance signage was also updated to say "Use Exit 51" instead of "right lane".

I apologize for not consulting this thread first because I posted a separate topic with the exact same observation. Anyway, I do have a picture of the new sign on my smartphone. If I click the "image" button, IMG tags pop up. I thought I would get see a box asking me which photo I want to upload. Anyway, I'd like to post it here, but I don't know how. Any suggestions?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 27, 2015, 06:21:26 AM
Something the WaPo article doesn't make clear (but my former state Delegate did) is that the Route 1 money is to begin studies on the 4 lane gap section between the two VA 235 intersections.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 05, 2015, 05:31:16 PM
[The northbound side of the G.W. Parkway at the Memorial Bridge is on Columbia Island and thus in D.C.  The southbound Parkway under Memorial Drive is in Arlington County, Va. at about the same location on the network. "New" Google Maps here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Arlington+County,+VA/@38.8835864,-77.0643905,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x89b7b69d7ba7a70f:0xe08603603385be34).]

WTOP Radio: Truck wedged under Memorial Bridge now free (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2015/05/truck-wedged-along-george-washington-parkway/slide/1/)

QuoteWASHINGTON — A tractor truck was wedged below the Memorial Bridge along the George Washington Memorial Parkway for several hours Tuesday afternoon.

QuoteThe entire length of the Coca-Cola truck became jammed under the low-clearance bridge about noon Tuesday blocking a southbound lane.

QuoteThe truck, which was damaged, was dislodged and all lanes clear by 3:30 p.m.

QuotePark engineers inspected the bridge and determined it sustained no damage, according to the U.S. Park Police.

QuoteHeight restrictions on the bridge are 12-foot-1 and 12-foot-4. Commercial vehicles are not allowed to travel along the parkway without a permit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Zzonkmiles on May 05, 2015, 09:05:20 PM
Is it just me or are parking spaces in Virginia (at least Nova) a bit smaller than elsewhere? Coming from South Carolina, I've had to fit into a lot more tight squeezes, especially at Metro parking lots.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 12, 2015, 02:17:34 PM
WTOP Radio: Ground breaks on Va. 28 improvements in Northern Virginia (http://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2015/05/ground-breaks-on-route-28-improvements-in-northern-virginia/)

QuoteMillions of dollars are being spent to make the daily commute more tolerable in Northern Virginia. Ground has been broken on new improvements on Va. 28.

Quote"Route 28, as you know, is one of the most congested corridors in Northern Virginia,"  says Gary Garczynski, Northern Virginia district representative of the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

Quote"Traffic jams and congestion are sort of what drive people's stress in Northern Virginia, adds Martin Nohe, Prince William County supervisor and the chairman of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 12, 2015, 02:20:18 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on May 05, 2015, 09:05:20 PM
Is it just me or are parking spaces in Virginia (at least Nova) a bit smaller than elsewhere? Coming from South Carolina, I've had to fit into a lot more tight squeezes, especially at Metro parking lots.

I drive a pretty large pickup truck, and have not had a problem parking it at an assortment of places in Northern Virginia.

As for regulatory requirements for parking spaces, I think that is up to county or municipal governments that do planning and zoning and issue construction permits.

I do believe there are some jurisdictions in the D.C. area where planners and elected officials have rationalized smaller parking spaces by making claims that everyone is driving a small car, which is clearly not always the case.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on May 14, 2015, 07:29:17 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 12, 2015, 02:20:18 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on May 05, 2015, 09:05:20 PM
Is it just me or are parking spaces in Virginia (at least Nova) a bit smaller than elsewhere? Coming from South Carolina, I've had to fit into a lot more tight squeezes, especially at Metro parking lots.

I drive a pretty large pickup truck, and have not had a problem parking it at an assortment of places in Northern Virginia.

As for regulatory requirements for parking spaces, I think that is up to county or municipal governments that do planning and zoning and issue construction permits.

I do believe there are some jurisdictions in the D.C. area where planners and elected officials have rationalized smaller parking spaces by making claims that everyone is driving a small car, which is clearly not always the case.

The average CAR is certainly smaller than it was a few years ago.  Think how long the Chevy Caprice used to be in the 60s and 70s compared with more recent models.  Plus, the imports have very popular small cars as well.

But the real thing is that so many more regular people (as opposed to people who need a truck for their jobs etc.) are driving SUVs and minivans, which are larger than even the old Chevys and Cadillacs were in length, width, and height.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on May 16, 2015, 07:50:26 PM
In my local newsletter I got in the mail yesterday, it's mentioned that VA 144's intersection with the access ramps to I-95 (located here) (http://goo.gl/maps/TgJjw) will be replaced with a roundabout. Construction is slated* to start in March and finish in late 2017.

*although going by how the reconfiguration of about 10 blocks of US 1/301 in the city is going, we'll be lucky to have this done by 2020.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on May 17, 2015, 04:47:56 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 12, 2015, 02:20:18 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on May 05, 2015, 09:05:20 PM
Is it just me or are parking spaces in Virginia (at least Nova) a bit smaller than elsewhere? Coming from South Carolina, I've had to fit into a lot more tight squeezes, especially at Metro parking lots.

I drive a pretty large pickup truck, and have not had a problem parking it at an assortment of places in Northern Virginia.

As for regulatory requirements for parking spaces, I think that is up to county or municipal governments that do planning and zoning and issue construction permits.

I do believe there are some jurisdictions in the D.C. area where planners and elected officials have rationalized smaller parking spaces by making claims that everyone is driving a small car, which is clearly not always the case.

When my apartment complex converted from co-op to condo in the mid-1980s, it had to add parking spaces to meet current county requirements since it would no longer be grandfathered in under the old rules. That was done mainly with re-striping to make parallel-parking spaces shorter. As a result, full-size pickups won't fit in the spaces on the street in front of my apartment (the complex owns those street parking spaces), only in some back lots which kept their pickup-friendly spaces.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 17, 2015, 08:39:23 PM
Quote from: Takumi on May 16, 2015, 07:50:26 PM
In my local newsletter I got in the mail yesterday, it's mentioned that VA 144's intersection with the access ramps to I-95 (located here) (http://goo.gl/maps/TgJjw) will be replaced with a roundabout. Construction is slated* to start in March and finish in late 2017.

*although going by how the reconfiguration of about 10 blocks of US 1/301 in the city is going, we'll be lucky to have this done by 2020.

Is that a VDOT or Colonial Heights (municipal) project?

I thought VDOT usually did projects that involved interchanges with the Interstate system, even within the corporate limits of cities and towns.

Interesting that this is still a trumpet-type interchange (IIRC entering and exiting traffic had to pay), even though the tolls on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike have been gone for over 20 years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on May 17, 2015, 11:40:15 PM
The interchange project is being done by VDOT. It's going to be slightly west of the current intersection, and the notes mention removal of the bridges over the old railroad.

You're right about the interchange being a trumpet and the toll booths present there. I was 6 when they were removed, but I remember going through them several times. There's still leftover signage from the RPT days in each direction on Temple, with covered "Toll" banners over the I-95 shields.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 19, 2015, 09:02:18 PM
Recently a map was posted on this forum of the old routes of the DC area highways.  I also saw it on line someplace when researching the GW Parkway in Virginia that same map.  Also Google maps show that the connector road that leaves the Arlington Memorial Bridge Circle on Columbia Island is Arlington Blvd. 

Also the bridge that carries the ramp from the roads from Columbia Island to the VA mainland is super wide for only a two lane roadway.  That obviously that way because the bridge carried four laned US 50 across the Channel so it can enter the Columbia Island Circle from the North- Northwest.

The exit ramp to the SB GW Parkway from US 50 E Bound (the last VA exit EB on US 50) also tells the story as it starts out concrete and then turns asphalt at the curve.  Back when US 50 crossed on the Memorial Bridge the GW Parkway was not yet built north of the Memorial Bridge nor did its SB carriageway run along the westbank of the Boundary Channel either at the time, so today's ramp defaulted onto the original Arlington Blvd. Bridge across the Channel onto Columbia Island.

I find this find very interesting as much as the grade crossing on I-395 in Shirlington that was also previously posted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2015, 10:04:58 PM
Washington Post: How Virginia paid more than $250 million for a road that never got built (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/how-virginia-paid-more-than-250-million-for-a-road-that-never-got-built/2015/05/30/39a1a222-062d-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html)

QuoteVirginia officials are trying to get back tens of millions of dollars from a private company that was supposed to build a 55-mile toll road in southeastern Virginia.

QuoteState officials had been sending the company multimillion-dollar installments each month to build the road. But the state lacked federal construction permits, so the road wasn't built.

QuoteAnd now the commonwealth is out about $256 million.

QuoteThe problems help explain why top officials in Gov. Terry McAuliffe's administration have recently increased scrutiny of public-private partnership deals, a sharp shift in tone in a state that has for 20 years been a national leader in pushing such projects. The changing views could have a major impact on one of the most important transportation initiatives in the state: a vast project to add toll and carpool lanes along 25 miles of Interstate 66 west of the Capital Beltway in Northern Virginia.

QuoteTransportation Secretary Aubrey Layne said this month that the I-66 project should not be ceded to private investors for "ideological"  reasons, as might have happened in the past. Keeping the construction of toll and carpool lanes under state control could generate hundreds of millions of dollars for additional transportation projects, he said, and avoid a repeat of cases in which the state was left "holding the bag."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2015, 10:17:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 19, 2015, 09:02:18 PM
Recently a map was posted on this forum of the old routes of the DC area highways.  I also saw it on line someplace when researching the GW Parkway in Virginia that same map.  Also Google maps show that the connector road that leaves the Arlington Memorial Bridge Circle on Columbia Island is Arlington Blvd.

According to what a National Park Service staff person told me, it is Memorial Drive, S.W. in D.C. (but I do not think you can find a sign that says that). The NPS map (http://www.nps.gov/gwmp/planyourvisit/upload/George-Washington-Memorial-Parkway-map.pdf) of the George Washington Memorial Parkway says Memorial Avenue, as does the map of the cemetery (http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Portals/0/Web%20Final%20PDF%20of%20Brochure%20March%202015.pdf).

Quote from: roadman65 on May 19, 2015, 09:02:18 PMAlso the bridge that carries the ramp from the roads from Columbia Island to the VA mainland is super wide for only a two lane roadway.  That obviously that way because the bridge carried four laned US 50 across the Channel so it can enter the Columbia Island Circle from the North- Northwest.

If you mean this bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Washington,+DC/@38.8891835,-77.0637978,202m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89b7c6de5af6e45b:0xc2524522d4885d2a!6m1!1e1), I think it is wide because it carried U.S. 50 both ways in the years before the T. Roosevelt Bridge was built.

Quote from: roadman65 on May 19, 2015, 09:02:18 PMThe exit ramp to the SB GW Parkway from US 50 E Bound (the last VA exit EB on US 50) also tells the story as it starts out concrete and then turns asphalt at the curve.  Back when US 50 crossed on the Memorial Bridge the GW Parkway was not yet built north of the Memorial Bridge nor did its SB carriageway run along the westbank of the Boundary Channel either at the time, so today's ramp defaulted onto the original Arlington Blvd. Bridge across the Channel onto Columbia Island.

I believe that is correct.

Quote from: roadman65 on May 19, 2015, 09:02:18 PM
I find this find very interesting as much as the grade crossing on I-395 in Shirlington that was also previously posted.

Since capacity on the Arlington Memorial Bridge just very recently got reduced by 1/3 each way (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=714.msg2067605#msg2067605) (and no vehicles (including buses) over 20,000 pounds gross), we will soon find out how interesting.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 31, 2015, 01:05:52 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2015, 10:04:58 PM
Washington Post: How Virginia paid more than $250 million for a road that never got built (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/how-virginia-paid-more-than-250-million-for-a-road-that-never-got-built/2015/05/30/39a1a222-062d-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html)


To me, the issue isn't the fact that they used a PPP, but it's that so much moved forward without the required environmental permits.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 31, 2015, 11:51:09 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 31, 2015, 01:05:52 AM
To me, the issue isn't the fact that they used a PPP, but it's that so much moved forward without the required environmental permits.

In theory, I am indifferent about PPTA (Virginia's state Public Private Transportation Act) projects, though I think Transurban (495 Express Lanes and 95 Express Lanes) has handled the issue of toll violators (some of which were not toll violators) well at all.  The Dulles Greenway [Va. 267 extension] (private, but not a PPTA project) has not distinguished itself well either when it comes to tolls (in particular, stonewalling on a conversion to distance-based tolling for drivers paying with E-ZPass).

I think some of the blame falls on the Commonwealth for not negotiating a better (including, apparently, toll violation procedures) deal for highway users, at least on those three projects (there are others that have been bashed in the local media, especially the Elizabeth River crossings in Hampton Roads for other reasons).

Putting all of that aside, I think Virginia's Secretary of Transportation at the time Sean Connaughton (who I have some familiarity with, as he was the chair of the board that I work for, and I respect him for his service), and his boss, then-Gov. Bob McDonnell, made some incredibly bad decisions to try and go ahead with the project without getting full sign-off from the the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the form of a Section 404 permit and a final environmental impact statement and record of decision.

In other words, I agree with you.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on June 02, 2015, 03:33:50 PM
Self-driving cars to be tested on Virginia Highways - Richmond Times-Dispatch

QuoteSelf-driving cars soon will be cruising along more than 70 miles of Northern Virginia highways that include some of the country's most congested roads as part of an automated vehicle testing initiative.
The research will be overseen by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute on portions of Interstates 95, 495 and 66 as well as on U.S. 29 and U.S. 50 that are being dubbed Virginia Automated Corridors.

Link: http://www.richmond.com/news/article_b1168b67-3b2b-5274-8914-8a3304f2e417.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 02, 2015, 09:04:09 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 02, 2015, 03:33:50 PM
Self-driving cars to be tested on Virginia Highways - Richmond Times-Dispatch

QuoteSelf-driving cars soon will be cruising along more than 70 miles of Northern Virginia highways that include some of the country's most congested roads as part of an automated vehicle testing initiative.
The research will be overseen by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute on portions of Interstates 95, 495 and 66 as well as on U.S. 29 and U.S. 50 that are being dubbed Virginia Automated Corridors.

I wouldn't want to be on the road while one of those things is being tested. Shouldn't they test them out on the Smart Road first?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on June 02, 2015, 10:35:33 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 02, 2015, 09:04:09 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 02, 2015, 03:33:50 PM
Self-driving cars to be tested on Virginia Highways - Richmond Times-Dispatch

QuoteSelf-driving cars soon will be cruising along more than 70 miles of Northern Virginia highways that include some of the country's most congested roads as part of an automated vehicle testing initiative.
The research will be overseen by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute on portions of Interstates 95, 495 and 66 as well as on U.S. 29 and U.S. 50 that are being dubbed Virginia Automated Corridors.

I wouldn't want to be on the road while one of those things is being tested. Shouldn't they test them out on the Smart Road first?

They are:

QuoteTest tracks at the institute's Smart Road in Montgomery County and the Virginia International Raceway in Halifax County will be used to certify technology as safe before the cars are allowed on the highway.

Link to full article: http://www.richmond.com/news/article_b1168b67-3b2b-5274-8914-8a3304f2e417.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 03, 2015, 12:29:15 PM
Last summer I remember there being old 61 spec I-95 shields on US-1 SB and NB between Dumfries and Spotsylvania, VA. Now I can't find them on GSV.  Anybody know where they are?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on June 03, 2015, 01:23:08 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 03, 2015, 12:29:15 PM
Last summer I remember there being old 61 spec I-95 shields on US-1 SB and NB between Dumfries and Spotsylvania, VA. Now I can't find them on GSV.  Anybody know where they are?

There was one posted along southbound ahead of Garrisonville Road:

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia001/us-001_sb_app_i-095_exit_143_01.jpg)

Still there as of October 2014 per GSV

US 1 & 17 south at I-95 in Fredericksburg, still there as of September 2013 per GSV:

(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/virginia001/us-001_sb_at_i-095_us-017_sb.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Zzonkmiles on June 05, 2015, 07:23:24 PM
There are still several of these old shields for I-66 in the Arlington area streets.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 06, 2015, 09:12:51 AM
We are in Charlottesville for my class reunion. Took US-29 to get here instead of our usual I-95 rote because the radio reported a big wreck near Dale City. As a result, I got to check out the new traffic pattern in Gainesville. Big improvement. The westbound exit from I-66 no longer goes around a hairpin turn after passing under the Interstate; instead, the westbound configuration is now somewhat similar to the exit from westbound Route 50 to Gallows Road just west of the Beltway. ("Similar," not identical.) Huge improvement over how it was as recently as last fall. The light at Linton Hall Road is gone; traffic headed there uses the new interchange, though there's a lot yet to be done before it's in its final configuration.

Of course, while this is a huge improvement in that it eliminates the railroad crossing and the annoying light at Linton Hall, there are still an ever-increasing number of traffic lights south of there that make it a bit of a slog until you're past the light at Vint Hill Road (Route 215). Those, coupled with the increasing traffic, made me wonder if it might be faster nowadays to go out I-66 to Great Meadow and then drop south on Route 17 to Warrenton. Might depend on the time of day and the construction activity at Haymarket, as it is a fair distance out of the way.

I'll try to post some pictures sometime within the next week or so after we get home and I download the dashcam videos.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 06, 2015, 03:08:29 PM
2014 Traffic Logs released on VDOT's website:  http://www.virginiadot.org/info/2014_traffic_data.asp

Perusing through it I did not discover anything new regarding routings...

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 08, 2015, 04:50:47 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 06, 2015, 03:08:29 PM
2014 Traffic Logs released on VDOT's website:  http://www.virginiadot.org/info/2014_traffic_data.asp

Perusing through it I did not discover anything new regarding routings...

Mike

Apparently US 250 has been extended to 23rd Street in Richmond (an unnumbered route) for some reason...

EDIT: Never mind, it was that way last year.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 08, 2015, 07:49:13 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 08, 2015, 04:50:47 PM


Apparently US 250 has been extended to 23rd Street in Richmond (an unnumbered route) for some reason...

EDIT: Never mind, it was that way last year.

This is a left-over vestige from when US 60 was still on Broad.  US 60 WB used 23rd north to Marshall west to 21st south.  Although US 60 EB used Broad from 21st eastward, for some reason VDOT called Broad between 21st and 23rd US 60-250 in the traffic logs up through 2004, then left US 250 on that segment in the log when US 60 was moved.  Official VDOT route logs from (at least) 1979-2001 put US 250's endpoint as 23rd.  The 2003 log moved it to US 360 (18th).

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 11, 2015, 03:59:02 PM
Washington Post: A road named for Confederate leader comes under fire 150 years after war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/a-road-named-for-confederate-leader-comes-under-fire-150-years-after-war/2015/07/10/dc00a05a-2715-11e5-aae2-6c4f59b050aa_story.html)

QuoteMore than 3,000 people have signed online petitions calling for a change in the name of Jefferson Davis Highway in Virginia, buoyed by growing national scrutiny of the Confederate flag and other symbols of the vanquished South.

QuoteThe name applies to the portion of U.S. 1 that runs from the Potomac River through Virginia to the North Carolina border, and to other highways elsewhere in the South. Those roads were named for the president of the Confederacy at the behest of advocates who wanted a Southern equivalent to the coast-to-coast Lincoln Highway, according to a history posted on the Web site of the Federal Highway Administration.

WTOP Radio: Alexandria to debate symbols of its Confederate past (http://wtop.com/alexandria/2015/07/alexandria-to-debate-symbols-of-its-confederate-past/slide/1/)

QuoteThe effort to define the difference between honoring Confederate history and glorifying racism will take place in coming months in a town especially rich in Civil War history: Alexandria.

QuoteWhen city leaders come back from summer break in September they plan a review of policies regarding flying the Confederate flag that also will include a discussion of Confederate statues and street names.

QuoteTwice a year the Confederate "Stars and Bars"  flags, which differ from the controversial battle flag, are hung at the "Appomattox"  monument that depicts a Confederate soldier and remembers the 100 Alexandrians who died fighting for the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 12, 2015, 05:13:49 PM
On our way back from the golf course this afternoon I found a very serious screwup by VDOT with respect to programming the traffic light outside the new Wegmans in Fairfax County. After I got home and showered, I reported the light to VDOT via their website and then sent the following e-mail to our three local elected officials in the hope they can expedite a repair:

QuoteDear Supervisor McKay, Delegate Sickles, and Senator Puller:

I write to advise you of a report I just submitted to VDOT about a problem with a traffic light on Beulah Street outside the new Wegmans and to ask that if you have any clout with VDOT, you urge them to expedite a repair.

The problem is that the traffic light at Beulah and Old Beulah Streets, outside the Hilltop Village Center with the new Wegmans, is giving green turn arrows to both directions at the same time. Southbound traffic on Beulah turning left into Wegmans gets a green left-turn arrow at the same time as northbound traffic on Beulah turning right into Wegmans gets a green right-turn arrow. I discovered the situation this afternoon (Sunday, July 12) on my way home from Hilltop Golf Course. Unfortunately, I don't have any photos; my in-car video camera was in my other car and I couldn't use my phone because I needed to operate the manual transmission. I will note, however, that my wife, who normally rolls her eyes if I grumble about road signs or traffic lights, immediately noticed the conflicting arrows and was appalled. I can ask her to corroborate my report if needed.

I'm sure you can understand why this situation cannot be allowed to exist. A green arrow means you will not encounter opposing traffic: If you have a green left-turn arrow, it's supposed to mean all traffic coming the other way has a red light and is supposed to yield to you. If you have two turns feeding into the same road coming from opposite directions, you cannot give both of them green arrows at the same time because then there is almost certain to be a crash when drivers assume, as they are supposed to do, that the green arrow means they don't have to worry about oncoming traffic.

I submitted a shorter version of this information to VDOT via their website just before I e-mailed you. They assigned it Request #512291. I'm almost positive having conflicting green arrows violates federal traffic control regulations, but even if it doesn't, it's incredibly unsafe, and I hope it can be fixed as soon as possible, hopefully within a week, before someone gets hurt down there. There are a lot of people with little kids shopping at that Wegmans. I cringe at the thought of someone running into our neighbors' minivan with their three kids in the back!

Thanks in advance for considering the issue.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 13, 2015, 04:27:30 PM
I got multiple responses and it seems the light is to be fixed this week.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on July 13, 2015, 09:50:06 PM
For which countless people will thank you without knowing they're doing so...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 14, 2015, 12:32:32 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 12, 2015, 05:13:49 PM
On our way back from the golf course this afternoon I found a very serious screwup by VDOT with respect to programming the traffic light outside the new Wegmans in Fairfax County. After I got home and showered, I reported the light to VDOT via their website and then sent the following e-mail to our three local elected officials in the hope they can expedite a repair:

I found a pretty bad signing mistake on Va. 120 (North Glebe Road) approaching U.S. 29 (Lee Highway) in Arlington and reported it via the VDOT Web site.

The offending signs in error (showing 29 as a state route running east and west) were gong within 48 hours, and a new assembly with the correct shields and signs was up in about a week.  IMO, that's pretty good.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 14, 2015, 07:28:02 AM
That's interesting because there were also some state route 29 shields on eastbound I-66 at Gainesville for the past several years; I don't know if they're still there since I haven't been eastbound through there since April. I assume it was an error as part of the construction since they were marking a detour and that the signs were therefore to be temporary, but either way, it's interesting that this mistake happened in multiple places.

I find VDOT is often quick to address issues, but their response on potholes has slipped badly and lately their pothole repairs are half-arsed. I assume that's simply because of two consecutive bad winters resulting in way more potholes than in other recent years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 14, 2015, 11:59:09 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 14, 2015, 07:28:02 AM
That's interesting because there were also some state route 29 shields on eastbound I-66 at Gainesville for the past several years; I don't know if they're still there since I haven't been eastbound through there since April. I assume it was an error as part of the construction since they were marking a detour and that the signs were therefore to be temporary, but either way, it's interesting that this mistake happened in multiple places.

I find VDOT is often quick to address issues, but their response on potholes has slipped badly and lately their pothole repairs are half-arsed. I assume that's simply because of two consecutive bad winters resulting in way more potholes than in other recent years.

I also think that potholes on the VDOT primary network get attention much more rapidly than those on the secondary network.

Case in point: Fairfax County Parkway. When it was promoted from Va. 7100 to Va. 286, the condition of the pavement got dramatically better in a matter of months (and yes, it was awful the last several years in the secondary system).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 14, 2015, 12:53:12 PM
I do think it's appropriate for primary routes to be the greater priority (recognizing a serious hazard would warrant an exception).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on July 14, 2015, 01:25:06 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 14, 2015, 12:53:12 PM
I do think it's appropriate for primary routes to be the greater priority (recognizing a serious hazard would warrant an exception).

I was about to say that there's a reason why secondary routes are truly "secondary."

Still, it's really not that black-and-white.  In my own opinion, NYSDOT went through a phase where it focused on Interstates at the expense of everything else (over five years ago).  Timing was unfortunate, because of what MAP-21 did to the federal fund sources, focusing more on the NHS.  So, the non-Interstates suffered, the federal fund mix changed and that's what we call a bind.  Luckily, FHWA has allowed flexibility with the states in terms of transferring funding between NHPP and STP-Flex to smooth the transition over.

Anyway, my point is that priorities can be more fluid and subjective than the on-the-surface-strict definitions of functional class or system may imply.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 14, 2015, 01:47:06 PM
I forgot whether I've brought this up before, but this image looks like it might be somewhere along I-81.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Runaway_truck_ramp,_VA.jpg

Am I right, or is it somewhere else?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on July 14, 2015, 02:00:00 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 14, 2015, 01:47:06 PM
I forgot whether I've brought this up before, but this image looks like it might be somewhere along I-81.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Runaway_truck_ramp,_VA.jpg

Am I right, or is it somewhere else?


I-68?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on July 14, 2015, 04:19:32 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 14, 2015, 01:47:06 PM
I forgot whether I've brought this up before, but this image looks like it might be somewhere along I-81.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Runaway_truck_ramp,_VA.jpg

Am I right, or is it somewhere else?

I almost think that's I-64 in West Virginia, east of Beckley, going east toward the New River Gorge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: lordsutch on July 14, 2015, 05:25:11 PM
Possibly I-77 southbound descending into NC.

EDIT: Yep (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.625437,-80.731159,3a,81.2y,228.18h,81.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5XNs3_s8lkde5EW7VQo6mw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Zzonkmiles on July 15, 2015, 06:04:45 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 14, 2015, 04:19:32 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 14, 2015, 01:47:06 PM
I forgot whether I've brought this up before, but this image looks like it might be somewhere along I-81.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Runaway_truck_ramp,_VA.jpg

Am I right, or is it somewhere else?

I almost think that's I-64 in West Virginia, east of Beckley, going east toward the New River Gorge.

I-77 south has those emergency ramps, so I'm pretty sure that's where this picture was taken--around mile marker 2-7.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 21, 2015, 04:33:24 PM
VDOT put out another Here and Now feature:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLMOr9x30Uw&feature=youtu.be

It is a series of then and now photos from southeast Virginia over a number of different years.  No discernible old route shields that I noticed...

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 27, 2015, 01:35:29 PM
Virginian-Pilot editorial via HamptonRoads.com: Lesson learned in public-private deals: Be careful (http://hamptonroads.com/2015/07/lesson-learned-publicprivate-deals-be-careful)

QuoteJust about everyone agrees that the private sector does some things better than government. Just about everyone also agrees that government can do some things more efficiently and effectively.

QuoteThe trouble inevitably comes when ideology forces political leaders to ignore contrary evidence and govern as if private enterprise is always preferable, no matter what. Or that government is.

QuoteOne of the primary differences in governing philosophy between former Gov. Bob McDonnell and current Gov. Terry McAuliffe can be found in their administrations' divergent attitudes toward public-private partnerships.

QuoteMcDonnell's strenuous belief in the absolute supremacy of the private sector led him to some terrible decisions, fiscal debacles so severe that they'll define his legacy as surely as his federal conviction in a gift-giving scandal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: EricJV95 on July 28, 2015, 08:52:51 PM
I just thought of something. Is the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel building a new SOUTHBOUND 2 lane tunnel for southbound traffic only? And if so, When ?  Wouldn't it make sense to call the entire 170 Mile stretch of I-95 the Virginia Turnpike from the VA/NC State Line all the way up to the Beltway in Springfield? Even though part of 95 have the EZ Pass Toll Lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 28, 2015, 09:29:53 PM
Why would it make sense to call it the Virginia Turnpike? It's not a turnpike, although part of it was once tolled as part of the Richmond—Petersburg Turnpike (tolls removed in 1992).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on July 28, 2015, 11:59:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 28, 2015, 09:29:53 PM
Why would it make sense to call it the Virginia Turnpike? It's not a turnpike, although part of it was once tolled as part of the Richmond—Petersburg Turnpike (tolls removed in 1992).
I seem to remember there being a proposal to toll I-95 south of Richmond at one point. Based on the trouble VDOT's been having with recent tolled projects, it must have went nowhere.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 29, 2015, 12:10:26 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on July 28, 2015, 11:59:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 28, 2015, 09:29:53 PM
Why would it make sense to call it the Virginia Turnpike? It's not a turnpike, although part of it was once tolled as part of the Richmond—Petersburg Turnpike (tolls removed in 1992).
I seem to remember there being a proposal to toll I-95 south of Richmond at one point. Based on the trouble VDOT's been having with recent tolled projects, it must have went nowhere.

It was one of Bob McDonnell's ideas to toll I-95 at a spot south of Petersburg (and I think he wanted a toll on I-85 too).  It was dumped in favor of a new tax scheme that raised the sales tax. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 29, 2015, 07:23:55 AM
I believe there were to have been either two or three toll barriers: One near the state line, one shortly south of the southern I-295 interchange, and one somewhere near Fredericksburg.

The proposal went nowhere. I thought the McDonnell administration did a TERRIBLE job explaining it to the public. In fact, a friend of mine ran for state senate in 2013 (he didn't win) and I wound up preparing a four-page explanation for him so he'd understand the proposal if a voter asked!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2015, 10:29:02 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 29, 2015, 07:23:55 AM
I believe there were to have been either two or three toll barriers: One near the state line, one shortly south of the southern I-295 interchange, and one somewhere near Fredericksburg.

That was indeed the original proposal.  It got quickly pruned-back to just one barrier someplace in Southside (between the N.C. border and Petersburg). 

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 29, 2015, 07:23:55 AM
The proposal went nowhere. I thought the McDonnell administration did a TERRIBLE job explaining it to the public. In fact, a friend of mine ran for state senate in 2013 (he didn't win) and I wound up preparing a four-page explanation for him so he'd understand the proposal if a voter asked!

Agreed.  It was not at all well-explained, and making matters worse, more than a few people were confusing this with the Transurban 95 Express project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2015, 04:15:22 PM
Richmond.com: Richmond's air might be muggy, but it's awfully clean (http://www.richmond.com/weather/article_3cd8f8c7-61ef-502d-94d0-2ee02870ec55.html)

QuoteThe Richmond area is enjoying a summer of clean air. And that, state officials say, is part of a long-term trend.

QuoteOzone, the main pollutant in smog, has not hit unsafe levels so far this summer. The region's only violation-free season on record came in 2009.

QuoteBad-air days in the double digits were once common, but that has not happened since ozone was high on 11 days in 2012.

QuoteAntipollution programs and good weather are the main reasons for the cleaner air, experts say.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2015, 04:20:16 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 28, 2015, 09:29:53 PM
Why would it make sense to call it the Virginia Turnpike? It's not a turnpike, although part of it was once tolled as part of the Richmond—Petersburg Turnpike (tolls removed in 1992).

I don't know if you ever drove the RTP when it was still tolled - reminded me a lot of the Garden State Parkway.  Seemed like drivers were forever stopping to drop a quarter in the basket, and many of the ramps were also tolled (including the ones leading to U.S. 250 (East Broad Street) in Richmond, where I think the toll (exact change only, I think) was an odd amount (not a multiple of 25¢, maybe 10¢ or 15¢ or 20¢).

I think the southernmost barrier, on I-85 near the southwest border of Petersburg, was also an "odd" amount.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2015, 04:25:06 PM
Quote from: EricJV95 on July 28, 2015, 08:52:51 PM
I just thought of something. Is the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel building a new SOUTHBOUND 2 lane tunnel for southbound traffic only? And if so, When ?

This (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11915.msg2062421#msg2062421) should point you in the direction of the documents that can answer that.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 30, 2015, 04:32:12 PM
Responding to cpzilliacus–

I never drove on it myself when it was tolled, but I rode on it many times as a passenger. I don't remember the toll plaza once located on I-85 because the first time I was ever on said road was August of 1990 on a trip to go visit Duke when I was applying to colleges and I believe that plaza was gone by then. While I know where the Petersburg plaza was, I don't really remember it either because I was only far enough south to encounter it two times in all the years it was there–once when I was a little kid and then on that trip south to Duke. Didn't encounter it on the way back north from Duke because we went to Williamsburg via the Harrison Bridge and Route 5. (Regarding travel generally, my father did not like to travel south and, except for a couple of trips to Nags Head in the late 1970s, all our family vacations were trips north. But we did take the US-460 route to Nags Head one time. I-295 was not open during the few years we went down there; by the time it opened, my brother and I were old enough that my parents decided longer trips were in order and we headed north towards Maine and Canada.)

I remember the other two toll plazas quite well. On a high school trip to Chester once, we used a county-owned car instead of a school bus and our Latin teacher at the time, a very young guy, had the front-seat passenger try to throw the quarter out the passenger-side window over the roof of the car into the basket. Good thing traffic was lighter back then than it is now!

I recall a ramp toll on the Downtown Expressway (VA-195) being 20¢ sometime in 1996 or 1997. I had bailed off I-95 because I was afraid the cop behind me had seen my radar detector and I got back onto 195, but I didn't have any dimes so threw in a quarter. The light never turned green, so I just went on my way anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 31, 2015, 12:20:35 AM
Regarding tolling I-95, it should be noted that FHWA still considers Virginia as holding one of the three pilot slots for tolling existing Interstates for reconstruction purposes.  VDOT had originally requested the slot for I-81, but a few years ago they asked (and FHWA approved) shifting the slot to I-95.  This coincided with McDonnell's push to toll I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kendancy66 on July 31, 2015, 02:29:28 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2015, 04:20:16 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 28, 2015, 09:29:53 PM
Why would it make sense to call it the Virginia Turnpike? It's not a turnpike, although part of it was once tolled as part of the Richmond—Petersburg Turnpike (tolls removed in 1992).

I don't know if you ever drove the RTP when it was still tolled - reminded me a lot of the Garden State Parkway.  Seemed like drivers were forever stopping to drop a quarter in the basket, and many of the ramps were also tolled (including the ones leading to U.S. 250 (East Broad Street) in Richmond, where I think the toll (exact change only, I think) was an odd amount (not a multiple of 25¢, maybe 10¢ or 15¢ or 20¢).

I think the southernmost barrier, on I-85 near the southwest border of Petersburg, was also an "odd" amount.
The I85 toll was originally 20 cents.  I remember that because that toll and three 25 cent tolls on I95 added up to 95 cents. The other I95 toll south of I85 was 15 cents. Later the three 25 cent tolls were doubled to 50 cents each.  I believe at that point they closed down the I85 toll booths



Just as a reminder, please try not to duplicate posts as it is very frowned upon.

Thanks,
Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 31, 2015, 12:45:05 PM
I was on I-395 yesterday and I got a good look at the new HOV ramp under construction on the south side of the Seminary Road interchange. As cpzilliacus and I had discussed once before, that is one BIG ramp since it's connecting to the top level of the interchange. There's a new pedestrian bridge under construction on the north side–going to be totally separate from the vehicular bridge, unlike the old setup where you walked on essentially a sidewalk. Looks like the ramp ought to be ready by the end of this year and the pedestrian bridge sometime next year.

Downside of this is, since the ramp is being constructed largely to serve the Defense Department monstrosity next to the highway there, it'll almost certainly mean yet another traffic light at the top of the ramp. I suppose that's better than the alternative of forcing people to make multiple left turns to go three-quarters of the way around the gyratory center level of that interchange. But Seminary Road really needs more of a rebuild through there. The current design causes all sorts of problems between I-395 and Beauregard Street because the north-/west-bound thru lanes on Seminary become left-turn-only at Beauregard, while the ramp lanes coming from I-395 become the thru lanes on Seminary. Lots (certainly not all) of the ramp traffic is heading to the Mark Center, but Seminary traffic heading to the Mark Center uses an earlier light not accessible to ramp traffic. So a good percentage of traffic in the Seminary Road lanes wants to stay on that road and they all have to shove right just as traffic exiting I-395 has to shove left in a very short space. Terrible layout. Problem is, unless they completely rebuild that interchange (which isn't happening) there's not much that can be done. Environmental issues with a nearby nature preserve quite properly prevented a direct ramp a bit further south into and out of the BRAC monstrosity. The better solution, but one that's long since sailed away, would have been for the Defense Department to have pulled their head out of their arse, listened to everyone who said that building didn't belong there, and located it somewhere else.




BTW, there is also a new right-turn lane soon to open on northbound Van Dorn Street at Pickett Street in Alexandria. Some new apartments or condos, I'm not sure which, just opened at that intersection. froggie and I had previously discussed how there wasn't much room for a turn lane there due to tight space and traffic light/utility poles. Looks like the city relocated some of said poles to make room for a lane. I was pleasantly surprised to see it on my commute yesterday morning. It's not a very long one because there just isn't room for that, but hopefully it'll help traffic flow a bit because lots of people turn right at that spot.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on August 08, 2015, 10:14:08 PM
I found a bit of an oddity on Google Maps near Fredericksburg: Street View photos of a road that is now (apparently) underwater: https://goo.gl/maps/Z82Lh (https://goo.gl/maps/Z82Lh)

It appears that this area was cleared and then flooded around 2013. Anyone have any more information about this?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: HTM Duke on August 08, 2015, 10:53:28 PM
It looks like the road in question was severed as part of construction of the Lake Mooney Reservoir.  Details here (http://staffordcountyva.gov/index.aspx?NID=987) (reservoir overview) and here (http://plancomm.stafford.va.us/2013/09252013/Item3.pdf) (info pertaining to road).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 10, 2015, 07:34:30 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 08, 2012, 10:29:39 PM
While I cringe at nearly every price tag revealed for projects around Virginia, in defense of the Stafford Interchange project they are acquiring quite a bit of land which is not all that cheap anymore in this corridor.  Other aspects include also building a new road over to US 1; destroying and I would assume removing underground tanks, etc for multiple gas stations; the terrain around this interchange is also challenging...

I think the proposed interchange is more complicated than it needs to be.  630 does need to be multilaned and the off-ramp from 95 SB is way too short for the amount of traffic that now uses it.  Of course, the Stafford Airport interchange was way over-designed (though sensibly not fully built out yet) and SR 8900's junction with US 1 seems comically spacious...so maybe this is just how we roll around here...

Of course less than 10 years ago I believe there weren't even any stoplights at this interchange...


Mapmikey

The proposed SR 630 Stafford Interchange is now envisioned as a DDI instead of the more complicated mess originally proposed, though still a little pricey at $149M

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/DDI_Map,_Exit_140_Courthouse_Road.PDF

VDOT's website puts this project in the "Coming soon" pile...

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 10, 2015, 01:24:02 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2015, 07:34:30 AM
The proposed SR 630 Stafford Interchange is now envisioned as a DDI instead of the more complicated mess originally proposed, though still a little pricey at $149M

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/DDI_Map,_Exit_140_Courthouse_Road.PDF

VDOT's website puts this project in the "Coming soon" pile...

Send. Lots. of. Money. 

I make that assertion because of the land that VDOT will have to purchase for this to happen.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Zzonkmiles on August 11, 2015, 05:41:01 AM
So, one thing I've noticed since moving to Virginia is how aggressively the Highway Patrol is postured in terms of catching speeders. But I regularly see people exceeding the speed limit, especially on high-speed roads. So, how fast is too fast?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 11, 2015, 06:23:05 AM
Absolutely do not drive over 80 mph on any road in Virginia, even ones with a speed limit of 70.  80 mph (along with 20 mph over any speed limit) is reckless driving in Virginia and they can treat this infraction about the same as if one were busted for DUI. 

There is a cottage industry of attorneys willing to help out-of-staters go through the court process to minimize the penalties (usually the point is to avoid a jail sentence and/or license confiscation - you will definitely get pounded with steep fines even with a first offense and a sparkling driving record).

That's not to say I haven't seen plenty of fast drivers in my 19 years living in Virginia.  The beltway (speed limit 55) routinely flows at 70 mph when traffic allows.  Other interstates flow 70-75 outside of the urban areas.

Small incorporated towns are often speed traps, if for no other reason than you have to slow from 55 to 25 and don't always get a ton of notice.

The best known interstate speed trap in Virginia is I-295 in the City of Hopewell.  You run a real risk of a ticket at any amount over the speed limit there.

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 11, 2015, 07:15:25 AM
I've lived in Virginia since 1974 and have had a Virginia driver's license since 1989. Other than the point Mapmikey makes about the reckless driving law, I don't think there's necessarily a hard-and-fast rule about "x miles per hour over the speed limit" being OK in terms of avoiding a ticket. I think it really depends on where you are because some places are known for being stricter than others. Obviously there's Hopewell, as Mapmikey mentioned. US-29 in Madison County is also known for having relatively strict enforcement, especially on the segment just north of the Bavarian Chef German restaurant (speed limit is 60 there), and that's a good place to keep it within 5 mph of the posted limit. The City of Falls Church is known for fairly strict enforcement of the 25-mph limit on Route 7; I keep it to 30 on there and I use my cruise control if needed. But there are plenty of other places where going 10 to 15 over is not a big deal in practice. I keep it to 65 on the Beltway (except in the HO/T lanes, which are posted at 65) and I'm one of the slowest cars on the road there. On I-85 in Mecklenburg County I once passed a cop when I was doing 82 and he didn't bat an eye, though I do not recommend doing this!

In general, I think a lot of the basic rules of thumb you see everywhere tend to apply here with the exception that you must be aware of that "20 over or 80 mph" rule. Don't be the fastest guy on the road. Don't weave in and out trying to force your desired speed on everyone else. When there's MORE traffic on the road, it's often easier to hold a higher speed with less worry (assuming traffic is moving at all) because you don't stand out as much, though of course it's also easier for the cop just to be arbitrary and pick you for a ticket because fill in the blank (doesn't like your car, sees an out-of-state plate, wants to pick on the college student, wants to pick on the black guy, whatever). If there's someone eager to pass to show off how much faster his car is, let him go so he can be the "drone" or the "cop bait."

I have driven long distances at 15 to 19 mph over the speed limit many times in Virginia with no problem and I only have one speeding ticket in my life, incurred on the Beltway in March 1992 on my way to New York when I was doing 68 in a 55 zone. In general I don't drive as fast as I used to, though, in large part because I like our current low insurance premiums!


Edited to add: Forgot to mention radar detectors. As you know, it is illegal to use one in Virginia, though it is not (and, per the federal courts, cannot be) illegal to possess one. There is a rebuttable presumption that if you have one anywhere within the passenger compartment (including in the glovebox, under a seat, or the like) it was in use. Stick it in the trunk if you want to be safe. Also, there is a reported case from the Virginia Court of Appeals from the late 1970s or early 1980s that says that when a cop observes a driver abruptly reducing his speed when the cop activates his radar, it constitutes probable cause to search that driver's car for a radar detector. Whether it's worth using one in Virginia has to be a personal decision. If you want to bomb along a rural Interstate like I-85 at 90 mph, it might be worth using a detector because the penalty for using one is less severe than the reckless driving penalties you'd face. On the other hand, remember cops are not limited to using radar to track your speed; they also use techniques like VASCAR, pacing, laser in at least some Virginia jurisdictions (Fairfax County is one), and probably just plain visual estimates. I have no doubt that if a cop stops you for speeding when you were using a detector, he'll write down a higher speed, whether it's accurate or not, and if you take the ticket to court the judge won't cut you any breaks if you were using a detector.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2015, 11:32:50 AM
[Mapmikey's words below deserve emphasis.]

Quote from: Mapmikey on August 11, 2015, 06:23:05 AM
Absolutely do not drive over 80 mph on any road in Virginia, even ones with a speed limit of 70.  80 mph (along with 20 mph over any speed limit) is reckless driving in Virginia and they can treat this infraction about the same as if one were busted for DUI. 

There is a cottage industry of attorneys willing to help out-of-staters go through the court process to minimize the penalties (usually the point is to avoid a jail sentence and/or license confiscation - you will definitely get pounded with steep fines even with a first offense and a sparkling driving record).

That's not to say I haven't seen plenty of fast drivers in my 19 years living in Virginia.  The beltway (speed limit 55) routinely flows at 70 mph when traffic allows.  Other interstates flow 70-75 outside of the urban areas.

Small incorporated towns are often speed traps, if for no other reason than you have to slow from 55 to 25 and don't always get a ton of notice.

City of Falls Church and Town of Leesburg are two municipalities in Northern Virginia that have tough speed limit enforcement.  City of Fairfax used to be pretty bad too, but I have not heard much about speed enforcement there of late.

Quote from: Mapmikey on August 11, 2015, 06:23:05 AM
The best known interstate speed trap in Virginia is I-295 in the City of Hopewell.  You run a real risk of a ticket at any amount over the speed limit there.

Agreed.  And that is just a revenue collection operation for Hopewell, as I-295 could easily have a speed limit of 80 MPH for the section between I-95 in the south and I-64.

Another speed trap municpality that deserves mention is Emporia along I-95 (as well as U.S. 301 and U.S. 58), just north of North Carolina.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 11, 2015, 11:37:27 AM
QuoteAnother speed trap municpality that deserves mention is Emporia along I-95 (as well as U.S. 301 and U.S. 58), just north of North Carolina.

Mostly reputation these days.  Emporia is far less prevalent at speed enforcement than it was 10-15 years ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 11, 2015, 11:46:54 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 11, 2015, 11:37:27 AM
QuoteAnother speed trap municpality that deserves mention is Emporia along I-95 (as well as U.S. 301 and U.S. 58), just north of North Carolina.

Mostly reputation these days.  Emporia is far less prevalent at speed enforcement than it was 10-15 years ago.


Over the last decade I've seen a ton of cops in the median of I-95 in the Emporia area but don't recall seeing that many cops actually pulling over folks...

The Hopewell City Police traps are especially egregious as the highway pops in and out of the city in a location without exits...

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 11, 2015, 12:40:40 PM
I usually see at least one cop in the I-95 median when I pass through Emporia, but since the speed limit went up to 70 mph they seem to have less to do. I suspect they're focusing on the people doing over 80 mph so they can write reckless driving tickets. I just set the cruise control at 70 and stay in the right lane. I think 70 feels fast enough through that particular area anyway.

Maybe they've shifted their attention to the two US routes instead. That I don't know since I last used US-58 through there sometime in 1996 or 1997 on my way back to Durham after visiting my brother in Williamsburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on August 11, 2015, 12:53:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 11, 2015, 12:40:40 PM
I usually see at least one cop in the I-95 median when I pass through Emporia, but since the speed limit went up to 70 mph they seem to have less to do. I suspect they're focusing on the people doing over 80 mph so they can write reckless driving tickets. I just set the cruise control at 70 and stay in the right lane. I think 70 feels fast enough through that particular area anyway.

Maybe they've shifted their attention to the two US routes instead. That I don't know since I last used US-58 through there sometime in 1996 or 1997 on my way back to Durham after visiting my brother in Williamsburg.

The Emporia cops have mostly shifted their attention to US-58 in recent years. However, they mostly seem to go for out-of-staters, as I've had several extended family members pulled over, but have never gotten a ticket myself.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 11, 2015, 01:06:14 PM
301 through Emporia is mostly used by local traffic these days. I saw a police car or two between the north city limits and US 58 Business last time I was there, but nothing that looked like speed enforcement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 11, 2015, 01:16:37 PM
During my latest stint back in Norfolk (2012-2014), I *NEVER* saw an Emporia cop along 58.  So if they shifted there from 95, either they didn't do much of a shift or I caught the town on quiet days.

In my recent experience, you're more likely to see a Greensville County cop along 58 than an Emporia cop.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2015, 02:08:19 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 11, 2015, 11:37:27 AM
QuoteAnother speed trap municpality that deserves mention is Emporia along I-95 (as well as U.S. 301 and U.S. 58), just north of North Carolina.

Mostly reputation these days.  Emporia is far less prevalent at speed enforcement than it was 10-15 years ago.

Last few times I have been through there (on I-95) I saw the Emporia cops with people stopped. I don't know what the reason for the stop was, nor did I see if the cops had followed them onto the freeway and stopped them for a violation on a road other than I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 11, 2015, 03:27:02 PM
Have I mentioned lately how much I hate Virginia's ban on radar detectors? It was always a PITA to have to take mine down at the state line and then put it back up when I crossed into another state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2015, 04:04:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 11, 2015, 03:27:02 PM
Have I mentioned lately how much I hate Virginia's ban on radar detectors? It was always a PITA to have to take mine down at the state line and then put it back up when I crossed into another state.

Maryland outlaws them as well ... but only in commercial vehicles (which IMO does not make much sense). But the troopers that deal mostly with commercial vehicle enforcement have radar detector detectors in their vehicles and at the weigh/inspection stations.  Woe to the driver of a commercial vehicle that get caught with one - the fine used to be pretty hefty, at $450 or $500.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on August 11, 2015, 05:07:49 PM
Although I've heard of the infamous Hopewell traps, only one Virginia town sticks out in my mind when it comes to just overt ticketing-to-fill-the-coffers:

Waverly.

What a miserable little town with its Taj Mahal courthouse.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 11, 2015, 05:29:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2015, 04:04:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 11, 2015, 03:27:02 PM
Have I mentioned lately how much I hate Virginia's ban on radar detectors? It was always a PITA to have to take mine down at the state line and then put it back up when I crossed into another state.

Maryland outlaws them as well ... but only in commercial vehicles (which IMO does not make much sense). But the troopers that deal mostly with commercial vehicle enforcement have radar detector detectors in their vehicles and at the weigh/inspection stations.  Woe to the driver of a commercial vehicle that get caught with one - the fine used to be pretty hefty, at $450 or $500.

I believe there is also a federal regulation banning radar detectors in all vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2015, 06:29:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 11, 2015, 05:29:55 PM
I believe there is also a federal regulation banning radar detectors in all vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds.

That is quite possible.  Being that the enforcement people are nearly all state employees, they generally enforce state laws and regulations.  In the case of federal motor carrier regulations, at least in Maryland, what the state promulgates is essentially a duplicate of what comes from FMCSA and FHWA.  I believe that's the case in Virginia too.

Only federal law enforcement agency that does commercial vehicle enforcement  that I am aware of is the U.S. Park Police, which routinely inspects buses driving around the Monumental Core of Washington. 

The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia has a small commercial vehicle enforcement unit, but they are constrained by size (and, I suspect, budget).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2015, 06:38:19 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 11, 2015, 05:07:49 PM
Although I've heard of the infamous Hopewell traps, only one Virginia town sticks out in my mind when it comes to just overt ticketing-to-fill-the-coffers:

Waverly.

What a miserable little town with its Taj Mahal courthouse.

Then there is Newsoms, Virginia,  about 40 miles south of Waverly, which was discussed upthread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.msg2045484#msg2045484) some time ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Zzonkmiles on August 12, 2015, 05:53:24 AM
Interesting perspectives. Thanks for the tips.

I've noticed really heavy/strict enforcement/monitoring on US 29. I have yet to be pulled over and I would typically drive 9 over the speed limit. I have heard about the "over 80 rule" before, but I thought it was just a rumor or a scare tactic. Looks like it's legit. Thanks for keeping me out of trouble!

I have driven on 295 around Hopewell many times and typically do 75-79 there but have yet to be ticketed. I don't know if I'm tempting the fates or if my number will be up soon. But typically if I do see cops there, they're already in the process of writing a ticket, not just sitting in the median waiting to catch someone.

Speaking of which, I-85 is really cheap in this regard. It's generally a straight road with low traffic counts and tons of trees in the median. And yet, there are so many of those emergency turnaround lanes in the median where the cops regularly hide and you can't see them because of the trees. That road seriously creeps me out now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 12, 2015, 07:20:25 AM
The "over 80 rule" is set down by statute, Va. Code 46.2-862: http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-862/

There have been efforts to amend the statute to change the "gotcha" aspect of criminalizing the act of driving a mere 11 mph over the speed limit in a 70-mph zone, but so far all such efforts have failed.

But it's important to know that statute is not the sole basis under which you can be charged with reckless driving. There are a number of other statutes declaring other conduct to be reckless (such as, for example, passing on a two-lane road on a blind hill or curve, or driving two abreast in a single lane), and then there is the general rule that says it's reckless driving, regardless of the posted speed limit, if you drive at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person. This latter principle is one of the ones that eviscerate the idiotic argument that you're entitled to drive 65 mph any time you want to do so because the sign says "Speed Limit 65," never mind that the road is covered in snow and ice. (There is also a "driving too fast for highway and traffic conditions" statute.)

If you're interested, here's the list of results when I searched the Code of Virginia for references to reckless driving:
http://legsearch.state.va.us/search?q=Reckless%20driving&site=Code_of_Virginia&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=LAW_COV&client=LAW_COV&filter=0

Note this version of the Code does not have the case notes that follow each section that you can find in the hard-copy version. Those are key, as they are the easiest way to see how the appellate courts have interpreted these statutes.


Edited to add: Regarding I-295, BTW, I'm usually on that road heading southbound, so when I hit the cable-stayed bridge I set my cruise control at 70 if I haven't already done so and I leave it there until I approach the I-95 merge (at which point I usually prefer not to use cruise control while traffic sorts itself out). That's probably a longer stretch than necessary, but it eliminates the need to think about it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 12, 2015, 09:48:18 AM
Perhaps I'm lucky, but I've never had nor seen the issues in Waverly and Newsoms that others have complained about.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 12, 2015, 10:12:09 AM
Well I have heard of people getting pulled over on US 460 between Petersburg and Roanoke quite often on weekends that many college students travel to/from Longwood, Liberty, Virginia Tech, etc.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on August 12, 2015, 01:56:06 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 12, 2015, 09:48:18 AM
Perhaps I'm lucky, but I've never had nor seen the issues in Waverly and Newsoms that others have complained about.


You're lucky (http://www.speedtrap.org/city/12076/Waverly).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 12, 2015, 03:34:55 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 12, 2015, 10:12:09 AM
Well I have heard of people getting pulled over on US 460 between Petersburg and Roanoke quite often on weekends that many college students travel to/from Longwood, Liberty, Virginia Tech, etc.

In years past, I have noticed a similar dynamic along U.S. 29 in Greene County between Charlottesville and Culpeper (either side of Ruckersville), though supposedly that's not as egregious as it used to be.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 12, 2015, 04:17:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 12, 2015, 03:34:55 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 12, 2015, 10:12:09 AM
Well I have heard of people getting pulled over on US 460 between Petersburg and Roanoke quite often on weekends that many college students travel to/from Longwood, Liberty, Virginia Tech, etc.



In years past, I have noticed a similar dynamic along U.S. 29 in Greene County between Charlottesville and Culpeper (either side of Ruckersville), though supposedly that's not as egregious as it used to be.

At least Ruckersville is up front about strict enforcement.  They give 1/2 mile advance signage warnings of the speed limit drop. Also, Ruckersville is more built up now, so 55 actually feels too fast through there.

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on August 12, 2015, 04:41:48 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 12, 2015, 04:17:35 PM
At least Ruckersville is up front about strict enforcement.  They give 1/2 mile advance signage warnings of the speed limit drop. Also, Ruckersville is more built up now, so 55 actually feels too fast through there.
Mike
That's how it should be done. Give some warning about the limit drop.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 13, 2015, 01:08:39 AM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on August 12, 2015, 04:41:48 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 12, 2015, 04:17:35 PM
At least Ruckersville is up front about strict enforcement.  They give 1/2 mile advance signage warnings of the speed limit drop. Also, Ruckersville is more built up now, so 55 actually feels too fast through there.
Mike
That's how it should be done. Give some warning about the limit drop.

The only one I saw on US 460 was on the west end of the Lynchburg bypass.  They have 3/4 advance warning signs for the drop from 65 to 45.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 13, 2015, 11:50:05 AM
Speaking of US 460 and a drop from 65 to 45, I used to hear a lot of complaints about the VA/WV state line for eastbound 460 traffic. Last time I was through there, it seems like WV had done a pretty good job of signing the speed limit drop prior to the state line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 13, 2015, 04:43:32 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 11, 2015, 05:07:49 PM
Although I've heard of the infamous Hopewell traps, only one Virginia town sticks out in my mind when it comes to just overt ticketing-to-fill-the-coffers:

Waverly.

What a miserable little town with its Taj Mahal courthouse.

Green Bay is worse. The speed limit on US 360 drops from 60 to 35 with little warning and there's usually a sheriff's deputy or state trooper just waiting.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 13, 2015, 05:46:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 13, 2015, 11:50:05 AM
Speaking of US 460 and a drop from 65 to 45, I used to hear a lot of complaints about the VA/WV state line for eastbound 460 traffic. Last time I was through there, it seems like WV had done a pretty good job of signing the speed limit drop prior to the state line.

Actually that is 65 to 50 last I checked, that has at least been the case since the Pikeville meet.  A similar situation at the eastern end of the Christiansburg bypass has become 65 to 50(instead of 45) to 35.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 24, 2015, 03:43:41 PM
For those who may be interested but have not been on I-395 recently, here's a video capture of the HOV ramp under construction on the south side of the Seminary Road interchange. I was in slow traffic exiting from northbound I-395 to Seminary. Recall the existing HOV ramp on the interchange's other side connects to the "middle level"–or, put differently, if this ramp were of the same design, it'd connect just to the left of that BGS in the distance above the orange barrels to the left of the car in front of mine.

The ramp looks bigger in person than it does in this image.

I do not have a good picture of the construction on the far side of the interchange where they're building a new bike/pedestrian bridge separate from the Seminary Road overpass.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2FSeminary%2520HOV%2520ramp_zpsvyouq90j.png&hash=f2f3674d82f2945e4dad664f134275297eef0c1a)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: EricJV95 on August 25, 2015, 09:46:32 PM
Oh yes. I know it well in Emporia!! You BETTER keep down your speed there. Those guys don't play. I should know. I was coming EAST on 58 from St. Paul's College in Lawrenceville. Just as I entered Emporia before I-95; There he was!! A Va. State Trooper clocked me at 63 in a 50. Well, He was nice about it. Even though I gotten a ticket. He said if I wanted to, I could stop off at the court house and pay off the ticket (which I did that same day). Only a $63.00 fine. So Folks; Next time you drive thru Emporia, Va. along Rt. 58, 301 or I-95; WATCH YOUR SPEED!! They will catch you.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: EricJV95 on August 25, 2015, 09:56:04 PM
By the way; That $63.00 ticket happened back in 1992. I'm sure it's through the roof now going thru Emporia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 25, 2015, 10:09:01 PM
Quote from: EricJV95 on August 25, 2015, 09:56:04 PM
By the way; That $63.00 ticket happened back in 1992. I'm sure it's through the roof now going thru Emporia.

Fines are prescribed by a state statute unless you're charged under some local ordinance.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on August 26, 2015, 05:01:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 24, 2015, 03:43:41 PM
For those who may be interested but have not been on I-395 recently, here's a video capture of the HOV ramp under construction on the south side of the Seminary Road interchange. I was in slow traffic exiting from northbound I-395 to Seminary. Recall the existing HOV ramp on the interchange's other side connects to the "middle level"–or, put differently, if this ramp were of the same design, it'd connect just to the left of that BGS in the distance above the orange barrels to the left of the car in front of mine.

The ramp looks bigger in person than it does in this image.

I do not have a good picture of the construction on the far side of the interchange where they're building a new bike/pedestrian bridge separate from the Seminary Road overpass.


I also noticed that they removed the stop sign on westbound Seminary road just before you cross over 395, where pedestrians would cross over Seminary to get to the provisional pedestrian bridge (which is right now just part of the roadway reserved for pedestrians). Now it's just a "yield to pedestrians" sign. Some people were complaining about having to come to a stop with no pedestrians around. The new pedestrian bridge should make the issue moot.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2015, 11:05:11 PM
Washington Post: First female Va. trooper killed on duty was 'rebel' who broke racial barriers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/first-female-va-trooper-killed-on-duty-was-rebel-who-broke-racial-barriers/2015/08/29/bba1130c-4cf0-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html)

QuoteVirginia state trooper Charles King III was racing down Interstate 395 one night in 1986 when he radioed for backup.

QuoteHe was pursuing the driver of a stolen Porsche 911, headed to Exit 10, toward the Twin Bridges Marriott in Arlington. King, seeing that the driver was going to bail, called for assistance.

QuoteJacqueline Vernon, one of the first female troopers with the Virginia State Police, answered the call.

QuoteWhen Vernon arrived, the driver had fled on foot, and his female passenger had bolted into the Marriott.

Quote"Go get the girl! She's in the hotel!"  King remembers yelling.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 04, 2015, 01:00:26 AM
WTVR Channel 6: Two Henrico drivers rack up as much as $70,000 in unpaid toll fines (http://wtvr.com/2015/09/01/two-henrico-drivers-rack-up-as-much-as-45000-in-unpaid-toll-fines/)

QuoteHENRICO COUNTY, Va. -- Have you ever seen the big white sign when you drive through toll plazas on RMA toll roads, that warn of up to a $500 fine if you fail to pay the 70-cent toll? Two Henrico County drivers will soon learn not having an EZ-Pass is going to be hard on their wallets.

QuoteDriving from Chesterfield or Henrico to downtown Richmond costs 70-cents at each toll plaza, totaling anywhere from $1.40 to $2.80, round-trip.

Quote"Folks go to work to pay their bills, not to pay tolls, plus fines that can triple or even go as high as fifty times over the original fine," said Cliff Brown, driving in from Chesterfield.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 04, 2015, 07:41:45 AM
That quotation above from Mr. Brown is one of the more irrational quotations I've seen. Seems to me the tolls are part of your bills if you choose to use the toll road. It's not like Richmond's toll roads are new, either, and they've also had electronic tolling for well over ten years, so it's disingenuous for someone to claim ignorance.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 04, 2015, 08:37:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 04, 2015, 07:41:45 AM
That quotation above from Mr. Brown is one of the more irrational quotations I've seen. Seems to me the tolls are part of your bills if you choose to use the toll road. It's not like Richmond's toll roads are new, either, and they've also had electronic tolling for well over ten years, so it's disingenuous for someone to claim ignorance.

Agreed. 

Though I also believe that there should be an absolute cap on penalty charges, fees and interest and collection fees on unpaid tolls.  In relative terms, the tolls on the older Richmond-area toll roads (Va. 195 and Va. 76) are pretty low.  Getting to $70,000 sounds pretty obscene to me.

IMO, much better to allow the state DMV to withhold registration renewals for unpaid tolls.  At least in Maryland, the MVA (our DMV is called MVA) will withhold renewals for parking scofflaws, and I believe that MDTA now has the authority to ask MVA to put a hold on registration renewals for unpaid tolls as well.  All that's missing is interstate holds on registration renewals, which some states in New England now have for unpaid tolls (probably a good idea, since Massachusetts (and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission) have announced plans to eliminate all cash toll collection in the coming years).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 06, 2015, 01:44:54 PM
Why institute a cap? As long as the person who needs to pay the fees is aware of late fees, that's on them to pay up on time. If they need to claim hardship, fine, but there needs to be an incentive for people to actually pay the fees that they owe.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 06, 2015, 04:32:47 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 06, 2015, 01:44:54 PM
Why institute a cap? As long as the person who needs to pay the fees is aware of late fees, that's on them to pay up on time. If they need to claim hardship, fine, but there needs to be an incentive for people to actually pay the fees that they owe.

I don't know how the RMA handles unpaid tolls. The following graphic is from Transurban, the people who run the Northern Virginia HO/T lanes, and it shows why I don't feel a huge amount of sympathy for most violators. Even people who inadvertently experience a violation due to a dead E-ZPass battery will receive a notice, and if I got one of those, I'd definitely fix the problem ASAP! I'm just not sympathetic to people who ignore these things.

Assuming the RMA handles people who don't have E-ZPasses in a similar fashion, I'd have a similar reaction. In other words, there is ample opportunity to fix things before its anywhere close to going to court.

Note the footnote in the graphic–the civil penalties are set by state law.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2F9531ff877ee50a0c947da1b20b4ff5c6_zps144641fe.jpg&hash=d36f05094bf543d06003be94007ea61704cf7cff)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 06, 2015, 04:43:39 PM
You're a lawyer - so long as the fees and conditions are properly displayed, isn't it basically a case of caveat emptor?

I noticed the Transurban/495 website has terms and conditions which dictate how the fee schedule can escalate quickly ("Fees and Penalties", section 34)

https://www.expresslanes.com/terms-and-conditions (https://www.expresslanes.com/terms-and-conditions)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 07, 2015, 08:52:44 PM
You'd think so, but some circuit court judges in Fairfax have been finding excuses to rule against Transurban. I don't know whether the Virginia Supreme Court has heard any appeals in those cases. Note that unlike in most states (and the federal system), there is no right to an appeal in most cases in Virginia–the state supreme court usually has discretion whether to take any given case (there are exceptions, of course).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 07, 2015, 10:45:54 PM
I presume that Transurban factors in these fees etc into their projected revenue. although they would never come out and admit it in public ("Our balance sheets depend on n% of motorists incurring late fees). Not that I'll lose a minute of sleep over it, but I can't imagine they are happy with one of their revenue streams possibly drying up.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 08, 2015, 12:49:49 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 07, 2015, 08:52:44 PM
Note that unlike in most states (and the federal system), there is no right to an appeal in most cases in Virginia–the state supreme court usually has discretion whether to take any given case (there are exceptions, of course).

The Maryland Court of Appeals (our highest appellate court) has significant discretion in what cases it does (and does not) hear.

For most appeals, at least in Maryland's juidical system, the Court of Special Appeals (the intermediate appellate court) is as high as people get.  Getting to the Court of Appeals requires filing petition for a writ of certiorari, and then having the court issue that writ.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 08, 2015, 07:16:49 AM
The difference in Virginia is that our Court of Appeals (the intermediate court) has jurisdiction only in certain types of cases. I learned what they were for the bar exam but I don't remember now. Anything outside their jurisdiction must go to the Supreme Court via a petition.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 08, 2015, 04:05:54 PM
LeesburgToday.com: SCC Closes Dulles Greenway Investigation; Annual Rates Increase Survive Review (http://www.leesburgtoday.com/news/scc-closes-dulles-greenway-investigation-annual-rates-increase-survive-review/article_17d037c8-5347-11e5-9693-dbe220c11afd.html)

QuoteThe State Corporation Commission today announced it was formally closing its investigation requested by Del. David Ramadan (R-87) into toll rates on the Dulles Greenway.

QuoteThe privately owned, 14-mile highway runs between Leesburg and Rt. 28. In February the SCC approved an increase of 10 cents, from $4.20 to $4.30 for two-axle vehicles. During peak morning and afternoon weekday periods, the toll increased from $5.10 to $5.20.

QuoteToll increases of at least 2.8 percent were mandated by the General Assembly in 2008 to be awarded annually between 2013 and 2020. Larger toll hikes are required if the consumer price index or gross domestic product increase are higher. The state law also permits the operator to request still higher increases under some circumstances.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 08, 2015, 04:29:46 PM
Has traffic fallen with the rate increases? If not, then I don't know what the justification for limit rate hikes could possibly be.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on September 09, 2015, 12:13:46 AM
Daily Press - I-64 Widening to Begin this Month http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-nn-64-widening-20150908-story.html (http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-nn-64-widening-20150908-story.html)

So after 14+ years of living in Hampton Roads, they finally start work on this project less than a month after I move out. Excellent.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: lepidopteran on September 11, 2015, 05:30:44 PM
(https://www.arlnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/freedmansvillagebridge.jpg)

http://wtop.com/arlnow-com/2015/09/gov-mcauliffe-dedicates-bridge-over-columbia-pike-in-honor-of-freedmans-village/ (http://wtop.com/arlnow-com/2015/09/gov-mcauliffe-dedicates-bridge-over-columbia-pike-in-honor-of-freedmans-village/)

QuoteGov. Terry McAuliffe has dedicated the bridge that takes Washington Blvd over Columbia Pike as Freedman's Village Bridge, in honor of settlement for freed slaves started in Arlington during the Civil War.

QuoteThe four-lane bridge handles about 80,000 vehicles per day and is wider and taller than the previous bridge, allowing roomier sidewalks and, originally, the potential of a streetcar running underneath. According to Virginia law, bridges can only be named in memory of a deceased person or to recognize an area with historical significance.

Not mentioned in the article is that one of the loop ramps, WB to SB, was eliminated, replaced with a wider, straighter off-ramp.  A "ghost" of the loop may still be present on Google Maps.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 11, 2015, 06:47:38 PM
There are national plans to realign the Pike near the now-razed Navy Annex, I think in tandem with a land swap with Arlington Cemetery, but we'll see when that happens.

One thing which always bugged me is the lack of parallel roadways to the south of the Pike, thanks to the large-block apartment complexes and Army Navy Country Club.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on September 11, 2015, 08:37:54 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on September 09, 2015, 12:13:46 AM
Daily Press - I-64 Widening to Begin this Month http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-nn-64-widening-20150908-story.html (http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-nn-64-widening-20150908-story.html)

So after 14+ years of living in Hampton Roads, they finally start work on this project less than a month after I move out. Excellent.
Simply Virginia people™.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 13, 2015, 09:39:11 AM
The Virginia E-ZPass website is out of order today for maintenance. Does anyone recall what it means if you get a blue light at a toll plaza? Last night on the way out to L'Auberge Chez Francois when I was exiting the Dulles Toll Road at Hunter Mill Road, I got a blue light followed by a green light. I made a point of taking the same route home and the same thing happened at the onramp tollbooth, but notably it did NOT happen at the main toll plaza near Tysons (the light there was a straight green on the way home, and on the way out I can't say as I noticed, but I think I would have noticed the blue light).

I know our E-ZPass account should have a sufficient balance because it just auto-replenished about three weeks ago, so could the blue light be a way of telling me the battery is starting to go? I'm pretty sure the transponder in that car is close to 10 years old and I'm surprised the battery has lasted this long.

(I could just look it up tomorrow when the E-ZPass website is back up, but my Internet access on weekdays is rather restricted right now, so I figured if someone here knew the answer it might make things easier.)

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 09:50:12 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 13, 2015, 09:39:11 AM
The Virginia E-ZPass website is out of order today for maintenance. Does anyone recall what it means if you get a blue light at a toll plaza? Last night on the way out to L'Auberge Chez Francois when I was exiting the Dulles Toll Road at Hunter Mill Road, I got a blue light followed by a green light. I made a point of taking the same route home and the same thing happened at the onramp tollbooth, but notably it did NOT happen at the main toll plaza near Tysons (the light there was a straight green on the way home, and on the way out I can't say as I noticed, but I think I would have noticed the blue light).

I know our E-ZPass account should have a sufficient balance because it just auto-replenished about three weeks ago, so could the blue light be a way of telling me the battery is starting to go? I'm pretty sure the transponder in that car is close to 10 years old and I'm surprised the battery has lasted this long.

(I could just look it up tomorrow when the E-ZPass website is back up, but my Internet access on weekdays is rather restricted right now, so I figured if someone here knew the answer it might make things easier.)

Thanks in advance!

I pulled a cached version of the Virginia EZPass site and it said this,

"A red, blue or white light indicates an unpaid toll. Stop and pay the full toll if you are in a cash lane. This signals that your account is either out of funds or there may be something wrong with your E-ZPass transponder or the way it is mounted. Contact the Customer Service Center for assistance."

It wasn't helpful beyond that though. I do know that a red usually indicates not paid at all and yellow usually means paid but your balance is low but I can't say that I've ever seen a blue light in my life.

https://pocahontas895.com/using_pocahontas_895/make_a_payment.html (https://pocahontas895.com/using_pocahontas_895/make_a_payment.html)

This site seems to indicate a blue light means that it's not picking up your EZPass so it may be a battery issue.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 13, 2015, 09:55:14 AM
Thanks for that. I guess I'll call them tomorrow. The notice about the website being down does give their phone number, so I'll put it in my mobile phone contacts and call them at lunchtime or before I leave for work in the morning.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Zzonkmiles on September 13, 2015, 10:55:08 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 11, 2015, 08:37:54 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on September 09, 2015, 12:13:46 AM
Daily Press - I-64 Widening to Begin this Month http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-nn-64-widening-20150908-story.html (http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-nn-64-widening-20150908-story.html)

So after 14+ years of living in Hampton Roads, they finally start work on this project less than a month after I move out. Excellent.
Simply Virginia people™.

At first I read that news headline as I-66 widening project and then saw it was for I-64 and became thoroughly disappointed. But hey, the Hampton Roads area is super congested and needs all the help it can get too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 13, 2015, 11:01:59 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 13, 2015, 09:55:14 AM
Thanks for that. I guess I'll call them tomorrow. The notice about the website being down does give their phone number, so I'll put it in my mobile phone contacts and call them at lunchtime or before I leave for work in the morning.

Following up, the Virginia E-ZPass site is back online. I confirmed I don't have a low balance (though when yesterday's four trips on the HO/T lanes post this week, it'll trigger an auto-replenishment). Their site says a blue light can mean low balance, a problem with your transponder, or incorrect mounting. I guess it likely means the battery, so I'll call them tomorrow. "The Nature Boy," thanks again for posting the info. It pretty much matches what ezpassva.com says.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 13, 2015, 01:18:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 13, 2015, 11:01:59 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 13, 2015, 09:55:14 AM
Thanks for that. I guess I'll call them tomorrow. The notice about the website being down does give their phone number, so I'll put it in my mobile phone contacts and call them at lunchtime or before I leave for work in the morning.

Following up, the Virginia E-ZPass site is back online. I confirmed I don't have a low balance (though when yesterday's four trips on the HO/T lanes post this week, it'll trigger an auto-replenishment). Their site says a blue light can mean low balance, a problem with your transponder, or incorrect mounting. I guess it likely means the battery, so I'll call them tomorrow. "The Nature Boy," thanks again for posting the info. It pretty much matches what ezpassva.com says.

The "original" Mark IV transponders (including the ones that were issued by VDOT when they had the stand-along SmarTag brand) seem to die after 5 or 6 years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 13, 2015, 02:39:21 PM
Yeah, my Smart Tag is long gone, and I never found out how long my original New Jersey E-ZPass would last because I cancelled it when Virginia joined the consortium. New Jersey charged a monthly fee, Virginia didn't.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 13, 2015, 05:38:04 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 13, 2015, 02:39:21 PM
Yeah, my Smart Tag is long gone, and I never found out how long my original New Jersey E-ZPass would last because I cancelled it when Virginia joined the consortium. New Jersey charged a monthly fee, Virginia didn't.

I started with a SmarTag, and held it until Virginia joined the E-ZPass consortium on orders from then-Gov. Mark Warner (at the time, I had a big argument with someone who claimed that there was no need for the Commonwealth to join E-ZPass because all of its toll roads were "isolated" from the E-ZPass world, and besides if it was a good idea, the previous administration would have done it).

In retrospect, I did not get that much of a better deal with a transponder from MDTA, though with the (modest) discount given to Maryland residents with MDTA transponders (and no more fee for Maryland residents), I suppose I will stay with them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 14, 2015, 07:29:30 AM
Called E-ZPass first thing this morning. The guy found no problem on the account. Both tolls posted properly, which of course I already knew from checking the account online, and he thinks there should be no battery issue. He said if it occurs again, call back and ask to swap the device.

So entirely unhelpful. My concern, of course, is that it would malfunction in the express lanes on the Beltway or I-95, because supposedly Transurban does not query the E-ZPass database with your license plate number and instead just sends a bill. I guess I'll monitor the account this week to make sure those tolls post properly since I had four express lane trips on Saturday and two on Friday!

I wonder what else could cause the blue light to come on. I haven't removed the transponder in ages, not even when we were on the Auto Train in December. (Sometimes when I leave the car in someone else's care, like the mechanic or some such, I might remove that sort of device and lock it in the glovebox and give them the "valet key.") So I know it's mounted properly. This is the first time I've ever gotten the blue light and I've had a Smart Tag and or E-ZPass since sometime in 2001.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 14, 2015, 11:22:38 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 14, 2015, 07:29:30 AM
I wonder what else could cause the blue light to come on. I haven't removed the transponder in ages, not even when we were on the Auto Train in December. (Sometimes when I leave the car in someone else's care, like the mechanic or some such, I might remove that sort of device and lock it in the glovebox and give them the "valet key.") So I know it's mounted properly. This is the first time I've ever gotten the blue light and I've had a Smart Tag and or E-ZPass since sometime in 2001.

I have gotten a blue light on the DTR once or maybe twice if drove it on the day that the account was being auto-replenished (it appears on my statement as "MDTA Rebill").
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: HTM Duke on September 14, 2015, 05:05:52 PM
Washington Post: Virginia to launch I-66 lane management system Wednesday (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/09/14/virginia-to-launch-i-66-lane-management-system-wednesday/)

I was wondering lately if go time for activation was getting close.  My second-to-last trip on I-66, I saw that VDOT had posted explanatory signage for the new system and had removed most of the old X/arrow signals.  Today VDOT was testing the new VMS gantry between US-50 and VA-123.  I'm hoping for some improvement along the corridor, but given that any improvement lies with how drivers adapt to and utilize the new system, said hope is sadly restrained a bit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 21, 2015, 03:32:53 PM
Washington Post: Critics of Dulles Greenway tolls vow to keep fighting, appeal SCC's ruling (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-battle-over-greenway-tolls-is-likely-to-head-to-a-higher-court/2015/09/18/9867d714-5d48-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html)

QuoteA years-long legal effort to force the Dulles Greenway to lower its tolls could be heading to the Virginia Supreme Court.

QuoteThe Virginia State Corporation Commission announced Sept. 4 that it had ruled in favor of the Dulles Greenway's owners and operators in a complaint that was brought by Del. David I. Ramadan (R-Loudoun) and Loudoun County over the road's steadily rising toll costs.

Quote"We have considered all of the evidence,"  the SCC said in its opinion, adding that the privately owned road's benefits "are sufficient to support a finding that the Company's tolls are reasonable to the user."

QuoteRamadan, one of the toll road's most vocal opponents, said that he was disappointed but not surprised by the outcome.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on September 30, 2015, 04:31:02 PM
The second phase of "spot improvements" on westbound I-66 inside the Beltway, to add an auxiliary lane between the Washington Blvd. on-ramp and VA 267/Dulles Access Road, seems near completion. Still some finishing work requiring lane closures, as well as incomplete overhead sign changes and landscaping. But the basic new traffic pattern is in place, still with two through lanes, but now with two lanes entering the freeway from Washington Blvd., which quickly become a pair of exit-only lanes to VA 267.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 01, 2015, 07:18:10 AM
The major upgrade to the Falmouth intersection (US 1, US 17 Bus, VA 218) across the Rappahannock River from Fredericksburg was completed and fully opened Sunday night.

So far traffic is flowing better and there are few lines in the limited sample size I've seen so far.

The signals now operate like a standard 4-way intersection with protected left turns, instead of each leg of the intersection having its own dedicated cycle for all movements.  Also there are double left turn lanes on US 1 NB and VA 218 WB.

Oddly, they installed route signage on US 1 north that says 17 Business and 17 NORTH (i.e. without a TO banner) both turn left and there is no US 1 shield at all (though you can easily see the US 1 reassurance just beyond the intersection).  The BGS approaching this intersection at the north end of the Rappahannock Bridge remains with the correct signage.

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Zzonkmiles on October 02, 2015, 10:04:48 PM
Is there any reason why Virginia state route numbers don't follow the "odd for north/south routes" and "even for east/west routes" numbering convention? It's very distracting to drive on the Fairfax County Parkway and Franconia Parkway and see "Hwy 286 North" and "Hwy 289 East."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on October 02, 2015, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on October 02, 2015, 10:04:48 PM
Is there any reason why Virginia state route numbers don't follow the "odd for north/south routes" and "even for east/west routes" numbering convention? It's very distracting to drive on the Fairfax County Parkway and Franconia Parkway and see "Hwy 286 North" and "Hwy 289 East."

Lots of states don't. For the most part, West Virginia is the opposite -- even numbers are N/S, odd numbers are E/W, but that's not set in stone.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 03, 2015, 01:19:38 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 02, 2015, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on October 02, 2015, 10:04:48 PM
Is there any reason why Virginia state route numbers don't follow the "odd for north/south routes" and "even for east/west routes" numbering convention? It's very distracting to drive on the Fairfax County Parkway and Franconia Parkway and see "Hwy 286 North" and "Hwy 289 East."

Lots of states don't. For the most part, West Virginia is the opposite -- even numbers are N/S, odd numbers are E/W, but that's not set in stone.

H.B. is correct. 

There is no mandate that odd-numbered state roads must run north and south, any more than even ones must run east-west.

Consider also that the Commonwealth of Virginia has a massive secondary highway system. It would be difficult and probably very expensive to try and get them to conform to  rule where the odd numbered routes ran N-S and the even ones E-W.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 03, 2015, 10:16:39 AM
Virginia's primary system has always had patterns regarding route number assignment up through the 1940s (many of those routes are still around).  New route assignments generally are haphazard in choosing the number.

1918-23 Routes were legislatively defined in terms of connecting county seats, etc. with no regard to direction.

1923-28 routes were generally defined as increasing number chronologically (2 digit) or the next available spur off a 2-digit route (3 and 4 digit).

1928-33 routes were assigned by Congressional district (3 digit), in order of creation by the Highway Commission, and generally in order of county name sorted alphabetically within a district.  New 2 digit routes were assigned sequentially as they came along regardless of orientation.

1933-1940 routes were simple renumberings of the 1928-33 system, often in the same numerical order as the old system.

1940 Virginia changed a pile of numbers to match across state lines.  Up through the 1940s Virginia would then assign sequentially (1st available non-used number) as created regardless of district.

Once the mass decommissioning of state routes was finished by the early 1950s, route assignment has not followed any real patterns.

For what it is worth, Virginia did not post direction banners on its route shields until the mid 1950s.

The secondary route system had a pattern of how route numbers were assigned in 1933.  i have deciphered some but not all of it but it involved sequential numbering along the county lines, starting with the lowest 6xx number not already assigned along a county line somewhere (I haven't yet figured out how they decided which county they started at 600 for).  You can still see this county line sequentially numbering in many, many locations.  Numbering of secondary routes not across a line appears to be in clusters but there could have been a pattern with that as well.  It does appear that the 1933-present system did not seem to correspond in any way with the 1932-33 system that briefly existed and had never been posted in the field. 

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ekt8750 on October 03, 2015, 11:06:50 AM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on October 02, 2015, 10:04:48 PM
Is there any reason why Virginia state route numbers don't follow the "odd for north/south routes" and "even for east/west routes" numbering convention? It's very distracting to drive on the Fairfax County Parkway and Franconia Parkway and see "Hwy 286 North" and "Hwy 289 East."

PA is the opposite. Odd East/West, Even North/South (for the most part).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ixnay on October 04, 2015, 08:21:36 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 03, 2015, 01:19:38 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 02, 2015, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on October 02, 2015, 10:04:48 PM
Is there any reason why Virginia state route numbers don't follow the "odd for north/south routes" and "even for east/west routes" numbering convention? It's very distracting to drive on the Fairfax County Parkway and Franconia Parkway and see "Hwy 286 North" and "Hwy 289 East."

Lots of states don't. For the most part, West Virginia is the opposite -- even numbers are N/S, odd numbers are E/W, but that's not set in stone.

H.B. is correct. 

There is no mandate that odd-numbered state roads must run north and south, any more than even ones must run east-west.

I've never lost sleep (or become disoriented) over the state highway numbering conumdrum, Zzonk.  Maybe it's distracting to *you*.

Although I heard my father wonder out loud one time why PA 291 is marked east-west although it's odd-numbered.  I remember telling him, "That's just for the interstates and U.S. routes".

ixnay
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Zzonkmiles on October 11, 2015, 12:35:10 AM
Quote from: ixnay on October 04, 2015, 08:21:36 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 03, 2015, 01:19:38 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 02, 2015, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on October 02, 2015, 10:04:48 PM
Is there any reason why Virginia state route numbers don't follow the "odd for north/south routes" and "even for east/west routes" numbering convention? It's very distracting to drive on the Fairfax County Parkway and Franconia Parkway and see "Hwy 286 North" and "Hwy 289 East."

Lots of states don't. For the most part, West Virginia is the opposite -- even numbers are N/S, odd numbers are E/W, but that's not set in stone.

H.B. is correct. 

There is no mandate that odd-numbered state roads must run north and south, any more than even ones must run east-west.

I've never lost sleep (or become disoriented) over the state highway numbering conumdrum, Zzonk.  Maybe it's distracting to *you*.

Although I heard my father wonder out loud one time why PA 291 is marked east-west although it's odd-numbered.  I remember telling him, "That's just for the interstates and U.S. routes".

ixnay

It's probably because I'm more familiar with US routes and interstates than I am with state highways. So whenever I drive on unfamiliar roads, I look at the road numbers carefully so I can figure out alternate ways of getting places. "Oh, this is an east-west route? I guess this will take me closer to I-95 then." But now that I know this is not the case, I'll have to be more careful on these state roads.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 28, 2015, 12:33:42 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 11, 2015, 05:07:49 PM
Although I've heard of the infamous Hopewell traps,

Speaking of Hopewell, there may have been a highly immoral angle to the I-295 speed trap there.

Richmond.com: Hopewell prosecutor launches probe into extramarital affair between vice mayor and ex-sheriff (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/central-virginia/article_acef0507-45b0-5bab-a527-5b00442e7480.html)

QuoteHopewell's top prosecutor is investigating potential conflicts of interest stemming from allegations of an extramarital affair between the city's then-sheriff and the current vice mayor, who has voted on the budget for the Hopewell Sheriff's Office numerous times without disclosing a personal relationship.

QuoteCommonwealth's Attorney Richard K. Newman said his office received a complaint last week about issues arising from a relationship between Councilwoman Christina Luman-Bailey, 49, and Greg Anderson, 66, who served as sheriff from 2005 to 2013.

Quote"At this point, it's an ongoing investigation,"  Newman said Tuesday ahead of a closed session of the Hopewell City Council, during which the potential violation was slated for discussion.

QuoteReached by phone, Luman-Bailey called the allegations politically motivated and denied having a sexual relationship with Anderson, whom she described as a family friend.

Then comes the part that is relevant to our topic here (with emphasis added):

QuoteOn the City Council, Luman-Bailey voted on budget matters alongside Hopewell's current mayor, Brenda Pelham, who in 2011 was indicted on 13 counts of violating the same conflict-of-interest act on votes involving her employer – Hopewell Public Schools – from June 2008 to July 2010. The charges ultimately were dismissed.

QuoteAnderson, a Vietnam War veteran, served 28 years as a juvenile probation officer before his two-term stint as sheriff. His Interstate 295 Safety Program, which he launched in 2007, gained national notoriety as Hopewell's "Million-Dollar-Mile (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/traffic/article_66bf69c2-1f1e-5d7e-a1da-5b4dabf973e9.html)"  and almost made him a reality TV star.

QuoteThe program has netted up to $2 million in revenues every year from speeding tickets. Luman-Bailey has backed the initiative publicly several times.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 28, 2015, 01:58:38 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 28, 2015, 12:33:42 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 11, 2015, 05:07:49 PM
Although I've heard of the infamous Hopewell traps,

Speaking of Hopewell, there may have been a highly immoral angle to the I-295 speed trap there.

Richmond.com: Hopewell prosecutor launches probe into extramarital affair between vice mayor and ex-sheriff (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/central-virginia/article_acef0507-45b0-5bab-a527-5b00442e7480.html)

QuoteHopewell's top prosecutor is investigating potential conflicts of interest stemming from allegations of an extramarital affair between the city's then-sheriff and the current vice mayor, who has voted on the budget for the Hopewell Sheriff's Office numerous times without disclosing a personal relationship.

QuoteCommonwealth's Attorney Richard K. Newman said his office received a complaint last week about issues arising from a relationship between Councilwoman Christina Luman-Bailey, 49, and Greg Anderson, 66, who served as sheriff from 2005 to 2013.

Quote"At this point, it's an ongoing investigation,"  Newman said Tuesday ahead of a closed session of the Hopewell City Council, during which the potential violation was slated for discussion.

QuoteReached by phone, Luman-Bailey called the allegations politically motivated and denied having a sexual relationship with Anderson, whom she described as a family friend.

Then the part that is relevant here (with emphasis added):

QuoteOn the City Council, Luman-Bailey voted on budget matters alongside Hopewell's current mayor, Brenda Pelham, who in 2011 was indicted on 13 counts of violating the same conflict-of-interest act on votes involving her employer – Hopewell Public Schools – from June 2008 to July 2010. The charges ultimately were dismissed.

QuoteAnderson, a Vietnam War veteran, served 28 years as a juvenile probation officer before his two-term stint as sheriff. His Interstate 295 Safety Program, which he launched in 2007, gained national notoriety as Hopewell's "Million-Dollar-Mile (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/traffic/article_66bf69c2-1f1e-5d7e-a1da-5b4dabf973e9.html)"  and almost made him a reality TV star.

QuoteThe program has netted up to $2 million in revenues every year from speeding tickets. Luman-Bailey has backed the initiative publicly several times.


...huh. Interesting, although I don't expect Hopewell City Council to change anything, seeing as they're about as ineffective as a city government can get.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 28, 2015, 02:06:36 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 28, 2015, 01:58:38 PM
...huh. Interesting, although I don't expect Hopewell City Council to change anything, seeing as they're about as ineffective as a city government can get.

Agreed.

But the Virginia General Assembly can step in and forbid local governments from across the Commonwealth from enacting their own traffic ordinances and repealing those on the books which would instantly put the Hopewell speed trap out of business.

My state of Maryland, where our General Assembly is usually happy to delegate powers to the counties and even the municipalities, expressly forbids them from enacting local traffic laws (they can enact parking ordinances if they wish).  As a result, all revenue from "moving" traffic infractions goes to the state, and there is no incentive for places similar to Emporia, Hopewell and Falls Church to engage in abusive traffic law enforcement. 

Unfortunately, Maryland still allows the locals to do automated speed and red light enforcement (but that is not as abusive as the Virginia municipal speed traps).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on October 28, 2015, 03:09:01 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 28, 2015, 02:06:36 PM
Unfortunately, Maryland still allows the locals to do automated speed and red light enforcement (but that is not as abusive as the Virginia municipal speed traps).

Funny...I've driven through Maryland countless times and I've never gotten a speeding ticket or red light violation ticket. Of course, I wasn't speeding or running red lights. The choice in the hands of the driver. And I choose not to break the laws. QED.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 28, 2015, 03:33:36 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 28, 2015, 03:09:01 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 28, 2015, 02:06:36 PM
Unfortunately, Maryland still allows the locals to do automated speed and red light enforcement (but that is not as abusive as the Virginia municipal speed traps).
Funny...I've driven through Maryland countless times and I've never gotten a speeding ticket or red light violation ticket. Of course, I wasn't speeding or running red lights. The choice in the hands of the driver. And I choose not to break the laws. QED.

There are obviously no red light cameras on the state's freeway system, and local governments may not install speed cameras on state-maintained freeways, with the possible exception of I-83 Baltimore City (a road I seldom drive, though I have not noticed any cameras along it in the city).

I am sure that Baltimore City could pull down a small fortune in speed camera revenue along its sections of I-95, I-695 and I-895, were it allowed to do so.  The only places where there are speed cameras on Maryland freeways are in construction zones, and they tend to be very well-advertised ahead of time (revenue goes to the state).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on October 28, 2015, 04:07:02 PM
I'm talking about local roads in MD on which I drive...more than freeways you know!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2015, 09:49:26 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 28, 2015, 04:07:02 PM
I'm talking about local roads in MD on which I drive...more than freeways you know!

As long as the signals are timed correctly (especially the yellow change interval and to a lesser extent the red clearance interval), I have no problem with red light cameras, because they do prevent crashes. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 02, 2015, 03:36:01 PM
The Virginian-Pilot: Eight things we learned at the transportation conference (http://hamptonroads.com/2015/11/seven-things-we-learned-transportation-conference)

QuoteLast week's annual Virginia Governor's Transportation Conference, with nearly two dozen presentations by government and industry experts, dished out enough information and tidbits to fill the entire paper. The governor, the U.S. secretary of transportation and the state secretary of transportation all spoke. Instead of covering every issue, let's pull out eight things we learned from the three-day event:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cl94 on November 02, 2015, 04:29:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2015, 09:49:26 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 28, 2015, 04:07:02 PM
I'm talking about local roads in MD on which I drive...more than freeways you know!

As long as the signals are timed correctly (especially the yellow change interval and to a lesser extent the red clearance interval), I have no problem with red light cameras, because they do prevent crashes.

I agree. I remember when Columbus first put them in. Rear-end crashes increased for a short time, but T-bone and injury crashes dropped immediately. If it stops people from running red lights, it's worth it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on November 02, 2015, 09:23:06 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 02, 2015, 04:29:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2015, 09:49:26 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 28, 2015, 04:07:02 PM
I'm talking about local roads in MD on which I drive...more than freeways you know!

As long as the signals are timed correctly (especially the yellow change interval and to a lesser extent the red clearance interval), I have no problem with red light cameras, because they do prevent crashes.

I agree. I remember when Columbus first put them in. Rear-end crashes increased for a short time, but T-bone and injury crashes dropped immediately. If it stops people from running red lights, it's worth it.

I always like the people who cite an increase in rear-end collisions as reasons not to install speed cameras/red light cameras. It's basically an admission that people are very poor drivers and can't obey fundamental driving practices.

You also see this argument from state-level DOT's when it comes to installing crosswalks ("there's too much speeding on this road to allow for a crosswalk").
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 06, 2015, 02:21:11 PM
WTOP reports I-66 has been named the "worst damn freeway in America":

http://wtop.com/local/2015/11/interstate-66-worst-damn-freeway-america/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 06, 2015, 02:28:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 06, 2015, 02:21:11 PM
WTOP reports I-66 has been named the "worst damn freeway in America":

http://wtop.com/local/2015/11/interstate-66-worst-damn-freeway-america/

I strongly disagree with that assertion.

While I-66 between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks and I-495 suffers from bad design (in large part by the on-the-cheap HOV lane addition in the early 1990's), between I-495 and Rosslyn, the design is fine.

What is not fine are the policies by which the road operates.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 06, 2015, 03:04:48 PM
I felt it might have some validity if they limited the scope to the portion between the Beltway and Fair Oaks. West of there, it's an excellent road (heavy traffic notwithstanding). Inside the Beltway is underbuilt for the traffic demand, but otherwise it has no fundamental flaws per se.

But between the Beltway and Fair Oaks it's bad. I haven't been on that segment since August and thus I haven't seen the new traffic-management system in operation, but I hope to see it tomorrow since we're going to our favorite winery near Linden (Fox Meadow Vineyards).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 06, 2015, 05:00:24 PM
Interstate 66 may not be the worst freeway, but from what I've read about it, it's far from the best.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on November 06, 2015, 06:01:33 PM
A way to fix I-66's woes - dig down, or build up. Make it double decker to hold double capacity. It can all be built on the existing ROW.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 06, 2015, 06:16:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 06, 2015, 03:04:48 PM
I felt it might have some validity if they limited the scope to the portion between the Beltway and Fair Oaks. West of there, it's an excellent road (heavy traffic notwithstanding). Inside the Beltway is underbuilt for the traffic demand, but otherwise it has no fundamental flaws per se.

But between the Beltway and Fair Oaks it's bad. I haven't been on that segment since August and thus I haven't seen the new traffic-management system in operation, but I hope to see it tomorrow since we're going to our favorite winery near Linden (Fox Meadow Vineyards).

The section between U.S. 50 and I-495 suffers from many operational and design problems.

From west to east here are some:

. The routing of much of I-66 means that drivers get blinding sunshine in their eyes for several months in both directions, which reduces capacity when demand is high (this is a problem inside and outside I-495).

. Tremendous volume of traffic entering the freeway from eastbound U.S. 50, at a point where I-66 used to narrow from four lanes to three, except during morning "green arrow" periods.  Even with four lanes, the two lanes entering from U.S. 50 still puts a huge burden on eastbound I-66.

. The use of shoulders for active traffic (and emergency pull-off areas instead of shoulders) means that small incidents can rapidly become large incidents.

. The interchange at Va. 123 dates to the mid-1960's, and it shows. The need to rebuild this interchange to provide full-time HOV lanes may have been one of the reasons that VDOT went with HOV "on the cheap" in the early 1990's, when the concurrent-flow HOV lane was being designed and engineered. 

. In the afternoons, tremendous volumes of traffic exit the parking decks at Vienna and a lot of that traffic tried to cram onto an already congested I-66.

. In the mornings, the transition from three conventional (general purpose) lanes and one HOV lane at I-495 to two HOV lanes was terrible for many years, leading to long queues of traffic every morning, even when the "inside the Beltway" section of I-66 was HOV-2. 

. "Friction" from the adjoining conventional lanes has caused the HOV lanes to not work well at all.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 06, 2015, 08:54:28 PM
QuoteThe routing of much of I-66 means that drivers get blinding sunshine in their eyes for several months in both directions, which reduces capacity when demand is high (this is a problem inside and outside I-495).

This is something that would happen to ANY general eastward-westward running freeway.  What are you gonna do, not have east-west freeways or full-circle beltlines?  It's also a problem somewhere on the Beltway regardless of the time of year.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 06, 2015, 09:01:27 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 06, 2015, 08:54:28 PM
QuoteThe routing of much of I-66 means that drivers get blinding sunshine in their eyes for several months in both directions, which reduces capacity when demand is high (this is a problem inside and outside I-495).

This is something that would happen to ANY general eastward-westward running freeway.  What are you gonna do, not have east-west freeways or full-circle beltlines?  It's also a problem somewhere on the Beltway regardless of the time of year.

Yes, it is a problem on more than one freeway that runs east and west.  I-66 is hurt by the "sunshine factor" more than most others in the Washington area because of its extremely heavy traffic volumes.  More, IMO, eastbound in the mornings than westbound in the afternoons, though it can be bad on sunny afternoons too.

There are also places on the Capital Beltway where it is a problem.  Perhaps the worst is in Prince George's County, on the Inner Loop between U.S. 1 and Md. 201 in the mornings, and on the Outer Loop from U.S. 1 to Md. 650 in the afternoons. 

I-395 seems to suffer more in the afternoons, southbound from the Pentagon to Va. 236. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on November 06, 2015, 09:06:19 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 06, 2015, 08:54:28 PM
QuoteThe routing of much of I-66 means that drivers get blinding sunshine in their eyes for several months in both directions, which reduces capacity when demand is high (this is a problem inside and outside I-495).

This is something that would happen to ANY general eastward-westward running freeway.  What are you gonna do, not have east-west freeways or full-circle beltlines?  It's also a problem somewhere on the Beltway regardless of the time of year.

A lot of tall trees would've helped, at least for part of the year. But all the trees that might help block the sun glare are long gone, and there's no place to plant new ones.

There was opposition to wiping out trees as part of the recent Beltway widening. While the opponents were in the tree-hugger crowd, maybe some motorists could've spoken up too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 06, 2015, 10:15:49 PM
Quote from: oscar on November 06, 2015, 09:06:19 PM

There was opposition to wiping out trees as part of the recent Beltway widening. While the opponents were in the tree-hugger crowd, maybe some motorists could've spoken up too.

If you are talking about the Beltway north of I-66, the trees there weren't preventing any glare issues as the biggest problem areas on that part of the Beltway are the outer loop leaving the American Legion Br in the afternoon (not widened) or through Tysons Corner (glare off high rise glass buildings).

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 07, 2015, 04:53:57 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 06, 2015, 03:04:48 PM
....

But between the Beltway and Fair Oaks it's bad. I haven't been on that segment since August and thus I haven't seen the new traffic-management system in operation, but I hope to see it tomorrow since we're going to our favorite winery near Linden (Fox Meadow Vineyards).

Nothing to report on the new system–the signs weren't on because traffic was as light as I've seen it in years. But, oddly, the green arrows were on in both directions for the shoulder lanes even though we were going a steady 65 mph. Can't say I approve of frivolous opening of the shoulder lanes. Strikes me as dangerous if someone's car breaks down at the wrong place.

We stopped at the Haymarket Sheetz for gas ($2.55 a gallon for 93 octane....20¢ a gallon MORE than the Hess on Telegraph Road!) and to drain off excess wine consumption. I noted the DDI construction is moving along nicely. Framework for the pillars for the new northbound overpass are taking shape.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 07, 2015, 09:22:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 07, 2015, 04:53:57 PM
We stopped at the Haymarket Sheetz for gas ($2.55 a gallon for 93 octane....20¢ a gallon MORE than the Hess on Telegraph Road!) and to drain off excess wine consumption. I noted the DDI construction is moving along nicely. Framework for the pillars for the new northbound overpass are taking shape.

I think that Sheetz in Haymarket gets away with (relatively) higher motor fuel prices in part because there is so little in the way of fuel availability on I-66 between Front Royal and U.S. 15; and not much along U.S. 15 between I-66 and Leesburg either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 07, 2015, 10:23:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 07, 2015, 09:22:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 07, 2015, 04:53:57 PM
We stopped at the Haymarket Sheetz for gas ($2.55 a gallon for 93 octane....20¢ a gallon MORE than the Hess on Telegraph Road!) and to drain off excess wine consumption. I noted the DDI construction is moving along nicely. Framework for the pillars for the new northbound overpass are taking shape.

I think that Sheetz in Haymarket gets away with (relatively) higher motor fuel prices in part because there is so little in the way of fuel availability on I-66 between Front Royal and U.S. 15; and not much along U.S. 15 between I-66 and Leesburg either.

I don't have to buy 93 octane, but I'm guessing that there's a 20-cent differential in octane levels. That would put the price of regular at $2.15. I seem to recall it being cheaper than that when I stopped to top off the tank of my state vehicle the day I drove to Annapolis. Not sure what would have caused prices to increase over the past seven weeks.

That Sheetz was doing quite a bit of business early on a Sunday afternoon that day, not only at the gas pumps but inside at the register. I'm glad I was able to pay at the pump with a FleetOne card and only went inside to use the restroom.

I was super-glad to see that Sheetz on a winter morning back in 2004. I had driven to a conference at the Renaissance in downtown DC and my fuel tank was getting lower than I like as I approached DC on I-270. I kept looking for a gas station to be listed on a blue services sign as I got closer to the Beltway, but saw none. I also didn't see any fuel on the short segment of the Beltway I drove into Virginia, nor on the parkway as I headed toward the Key Bridge. That meant I had to wait until I left town several days later to gas up, and didn't remember seeing any signs westbound on I-66 until I got to the US 15 exit, where I saw the Sheetz listed. My gas gauge needle was a lot closer to "E" than I like for it to get when I'm in unfamiliar territory.
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 07, 2015, 10:28:41 PM
It was $2.05/$2.25/$2.55 for the three grades and $2.25 for diesel. It didn't much matter. I needed to fill the car's tank, but more importantly I needed to drain my own tank ASAP and since I had to stop for that....
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: CVski on November 08, 2015, 12:04:39 PM
If you're driving I-66 all the way from Nova to I-81, the best gas prices are almost always at Exit 6 Front Royal.   Either on 340 right there at the exit, or else you can usually do a little better going south for a mile or so across the bridge.  Best of all is a few miles up 340/522 near Stephens City, but that's a bit out of the way unless that's your destination or you are rejoining I-81N anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on November 08, 2015, 12:10:56 PM
Quote from: CVski on November 08, 2015, 12:04:39 PM
If you're driving I-66 all the way from Nova to I-81, the best gas prices are almost always at Exit 6 Front Royal.   Either on 340 right there at the exit, or else you can usually do a little better going south for a mile or so across the bridge.  Best of all is a few miles up 340/522 near Stephens City, but that's a bit out of the way unless that's your destination or you are rejoining I-81N anyway.
I've seen that gas is also cheaper in Fauquier County. Until you reach Prince William County, that's where it gets more and more expensive until I-66 is put out in downtown D.C.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 08, 2015, 02:37:32 PM
It was down to $1.84 in the Fredericksburg area and in the upper $1.70s  west of Richmond before the very recent price increases...

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2015, 02:40:59 PM
Lowest I have seen in Virginia was several weeks ago, $1.99 9/10 per gallon on U.S. 48/Va. 55 west of I-81.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 08, 2015, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2015, 02:40:59 PM
Lowest I have seen in Virginia was several weeks ago, $1.99 9/10 per gallon on U.S. 48/Va. 55 west of I-81.

Earlier this week the Liberty on Franconia Road near the DMV was at $1.979 for 87 octane, but yesterday when we passed there it was back above $2.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on November 09, 2015, 10:04:48 AM
Lowest I've seen in the past few weeks was $1.72 in Norton. I paid $1.82 yesterday at the Kroger in Tabb, VA.

Nexus 6

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 09, 2015, 10:52:17 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on November 09, 2015, 10:04:48 AM
Lowest I've seen in the past few weeks was $1.72 in Norton. I paid $1.82 yesterday at the Kroger in Tabb, VA.

Nexus 6

Northern Virginia drivers pay a "stealth" 2.1% sales tax (note: not per-gallon tax) on motor fuels ("stealth" because the vast majority of Northern Virginia drivers are not aware of it) to partially subsidize operating losses of WMATA buses and trains. 

You can read more about it here (http://www.novatransit.org/resources/motor-fuels-tax/).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on November 09, 2015, 03:36:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 09, 2015, 10:52:17 AM

Northern Virginia drivers pay a "stealth" 2.1% sales tax (note: not per-gallon tax) on motor fuels ("stealth" because the vast majority of Northern Virginia drivers are not aware of it) to partially subsidize operating losses expenses of WMATA buses and trains. 

You can read more about it here (http://www.novatransit.org/resources/motor-fuels-tax/).


Fixed that for you. WMATA was never made to turn a profit, or even break even for that matter.

QuoteThe Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro) was created by an interstate compact in 1967 to plan, develop, build, finance, and operate a balanced regional transportation system in the national capital area.

You really never fail to insert an aside about how WMATA is not self-sufficient. Last time I checked, the Highway Trust Fund is an annual recipient of general fund monies.

How the local governments party to the Compact fund the authority is up to WMATA and the parties.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 09, 2015, 05:52:54 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 09, 2015, 03:36:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 09, 2015, 10:52:17 AM

Northern Virginia drivers pay a "stealth" 2.1% sales tax (note: not per-gallon tax) on motor fuels ("stealth" because the vast majority of Northern Virginia drivers are not aware of it) to partially subsidize operating losses expenses of WMATA buses and trains. 

You can read more about it here (http://www.novatransit.org/resources/motor-fuels-tax/).

Fixed that for you. WMATA was never made to turn a profit, or even break even for that matter.

Incorrect. 

When the rail system was being built (and before the first section opened in 1976), the WMATA public relations machine was churning out happy talk to the news media and in newsletters to the public about how the system was going to return a "profit" to its local government owners once the system was completed in 1981 (the states were at that point not especially involved in WMATA governance).

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 09, 2015, 03:36:35 PM
QuoteThe Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro) was created by an interstate compact in 1967 to plan, develop, build, finance, and operate a balanced regional transportation system in the national capital area.

You really never fail to insert an aside about how WMATA is not self-sufficient. Last time I checked, the Highway Trust Fund is an annual recipient of general fund monies.

What you are saying is that highways should not get federal general fund revenues, and I agree with you in general terms (there may be some relatively small exceptions where it would be appropriate to use general fund dollars, though I cannot think of one right now).

It is only because there are many Members of Congress that are terrified of doing the right thing, which is to increase motor fuel tax rates.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 09, 2015, 03:36:35 PM
How the local governments party to the Compact fund the authority is up to WMATA and the parties.

That is correct.  Maryland funds its share almost entirely out of motor fuel taxes and other highway-oriented revenues - collected statewide.  The MTA-Maryland capital and operating subsides come from those same sources.  At least the diversion of toll revenues to transit, which got going around 2000 under then-Gov. Parris Nelson Glendening, was stopped about 2009 or 2010, though I expect that the very same groups that were so loudly opposed to Md. 200 (ICC) will at some point raise demands that some of its toll revenues be diverted to transit.

Virginia funds it partially from motor fuel taxes imposed on purchases of gasoline and Diesel in the Virginia counties and cities that are part of the WMATA compact, and partly from local government general funds.  Capital subsidies for the line to Dulles are funded by Dulles Toll Road patrons, and by commercial property owners with land near and somewhat near the stations.

D.C. funds its share from motor fuel taxes, parking taxes, parking meter revenues and parking fines. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on November 09, 2015, 07:06:17 PM
QuoteWhat you are saying is that highways should not get federal general fund revenues, and I agree with you in general terms

Didn't say that. Going back to the National Road and land grants to the railroads, transportation in the country has almost always had some sort of government subsidy, direct or indirect. That roads or transit don't "pay for themselves" is as much as a problem that parks, schools, or the police don't "pay for themselves". In other words, I'm fine with major public goods being funded by public monies, regardless if you use it or not.

Quotethe WMATA public relations machine was churning out happy talk to the news media and in newsletters to the public about how the system was going to return a "profit" to its local government owners once the system was completed in 1981

PR is just that, PR. If you find breaking even or turning a profit to be a goal in WMATA's charter, I'll concede the point. Otherwise I stand by it.

QuoteIt is only because there are many Members of Congress that are terrified of doing the right thing, which is to increase motor fuel tax rates.

And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. Clearly Congress isn't going to raise the gas tax for quite some time (ever?) so for the indefinite future, road projects will be "losing money" and drawing funding from the general fund.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 09, 2015, 07:48:07 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 09, 2015, 07:06:17 PM
QuoteWhat you are saying is that highways should not get federal general fund revenues, and I agree with you in general terms

Didn't say that. Going back to the National Road and land grants to the railroads, transportation in the country has almost always had some sort of government subsidy, direct or indirect. That roads or transit don't "pay for themselves" is as much as a problem that parks, schools, or the police don't "pay for themselves". In other words, I'm fine with major public goods being funded by public monies, regardless if you use it or not.

The National Road was a turnpike (some of its toll houses still stand), and federal bonds were sold to fund its construction, to be paid by toll revenues.

I do not consider highways funded by user fees [mostly fuel taxes and tolls] (which is traditionally how they have been funded since the early days of the automobile) to be tax-subsidized.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 09, 2015, 07:06:17 PM
Quotethe WMATA public relations machine was churning out happy talk to the news media and in newsletters to the public about how the system was going to return a "profit" to its local government owners once the system was completed in 1981

PR is just that, PR. If you find breaking even or turning a profit to be a goal in WMATA's charter, I'll concede the point. Otherwise I stand by it.

I call it dishonesty, along with promises that the entire Adopted Regional System would be built for not more than $2.55 billion. 

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 09, 2015, 07:06:17 PM
QuoteIt is only because there are many Members of Congress that are terrified of doing the right thing, which is to increase motor fuel tax rates.

And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. Clearly Congress isn't going to raise the gas tax for quite some time (ever?) so for the indefinite future, road projects will be "losing money" and drawing funding from the general fund.

As I see it, there are four choices.

(1) Do nothing, and let a very large capital asset deteriorate, Congo-style, until it is unusable.
(2) Turn the entire system over to private concession companies, and impose tolls on what has largely been a "free" system - this assures that transit will get little or nothing from highway users, at least at the federal level.
(3) Start tolling with milage-based user fees, and get rid of the motor fuel tax system - expensive to administer, and potential for abuse exists.
(4) Increase the motor fuel tax (maybe after one or several bridges fail because of inadequate inspection and maintenance).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 09, 2015, 09:03:39 PM
What amazes me is how many transit system fares are less the the cost of gas only if I was to drive it myself.  I think any fare structure should be at least the price of fuel if driven solo.  Some examples:

The Breeze bus in North County San Diego charges $2.25 to go one way from Ramona CA to Escondido, a 22 mile run.

Friday I am taking Amtrak from San Diego to Burbank for only $33 AND it will be an hour less in transit time than driving.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on November 16, 2015, 08:18:41 PM
I was wondering about the Seven Corners Interchange near Falls Church, VA where US 50, VA 7, and Wilson Blvd. all intersect.  It seems like a very complicated interchange and signal arrangement as there are many different intersections within the intersection.  However, it all functions as one intersection and all the different signals operate as one.

From when I was there decades ago, I distinctly remember that on VA 7 there was a long wait time to pass across the intersection and that both the WB and EB US 50 ramps had their signals all turn green at one time.  In addition the left turns onto US 50 were fully protected but not individually as it seemed as long as the light, lets say, for VA 7 EB was green left turns could be made protected from WB traffic as long as the duration of the green.

I must assume that all takes place on all sides EB VA 7, WB US 50, EB US 50, and WB VA 7 where there are four separate phases for each allowing full protected turns.  However, there is the matter of Wilson Blvd. which ties into the WB US 50 offramp and has a signalized intersection with that ramp.  So in essence that would add another challenge to the mix.

I was wondering if anyone in the area knows how the Wilson Boulevard ties in as if there was a fifth phase in the timing of the overall signals, how would EB US 50 get across VA 7 to make their left as if it did the left turn from WB Wilson Blvd to EB VA 7 would be compromised?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2015, 08:51:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 16, 2015, 08:18:41 PM
I was wondering about the Seven Corners Interchange near Falls Church, VA where US 50, VA 7, and Wilson Blvd. all intersect.  It seems like a very complicated interchange and signal arrangement as there are many different intersections within the intersection.  However, it all functions as one intersection and all the different signals operate as one.

From when I was there decades ago, I distinctly remember that on VA 7 there was a long wait time to pass across the intersection and that both the WB and EB US 50 ramps had their signals all turn green at one time.  In addition the left turns onto US 50 were fully protected but not individually as it seemed as long as the light, lets say, for VA 7 EB was green left turns could be made protected from WB traffic as long as the duration of the green.

I must assume that all takes place on all sides EB VA 7, WB US 50, EB US 50, and WB VA 7 where there are four separate phases for each allowing full protected turns.  However, there is the matter of Wilson Blvd. which ties into the WB US 50 offramp and has a signalized intersection with that ramp.  So in essence that would add another challenge to the mix.

I was wondering if anyone in the area knows how the Wilson Boulevard ties in as if there was a fifth phase in the timing of the overall signals, how would EB US 50 get across VA 7 to make their left as if it did the left turn from WB Wilson Blvd to EB VA 7 would be compromised?

I do not remember the phasing, as I did not go through there that often when I first became licensed in 1974 at age 16 (and we always lived in Maryland), but I do not believe that things have changed much since then (though the signal system has been upgraded since then and is now presumably part of VDOT's Northern Virginia signals system).

I do remember the long waits to get through there on Va. 7 (Leesburg Pike), which seemed strange at the time, given that the at-grade intersection with U.S. 50 (Arlington Boulevard) was long gone (I think it may have been removed in the 1950's, before I was born).

Do not forget about Va. 338 (Hillwood Avenue), the easternmost tip of which is part of the Seven Corners intersection (the rest of it is within the City of Falls Church) - it has a signal so that westbound Va. 338 traffic can cross eastbound Va. 7; and Va. 613 Sleepy Hollow Road (right off/right on connection to the eastbound side of Va. 7)

Consider also that U.S. 50 was even more of an important street before the opening of I-66 inside the Capital Beltway in 1982.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 16, 2015, 09:25:07 PM
I make it a point to avoid that intersection when possible, unless I'm just passing underneath on Route 50, because it simply takes too long to get through and there's too much traffic having to change lanes in too confined an area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2015, 10:35:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2015, 09:25:07 PM
I make it a point to avoid that intersection when possible, unless I'm just passing underneath on Route 50, because it simply takes too long to get through and there's too much traffic having to change lanes in too confined an area.

Added bonus on Va. 7  - the speed limit enforcement just to the west of Seven Corners across the longest axis of the City of Falls Church.

I have found there to be more enforcement by the municipal Falls Church police on the westbound side of 7 (Broad Street within the city) than eastbound for reasons not clear to me.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on November 16, 2015, 11:26:58 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2015, 10:35:11 PM
Added bonus on Va. 7  - the speed limit enforcement just to the west of Seven Corners across the longest axis of the City of Falls Church.

I have found there to be more enforcement by the municipal Falls Church police on the westbound side of 7 (Broad Street within the city) than eastbound for reasons not clear to me.

I just treat the entire city as one big speed trap, and try to avoid it as much as possible (alas, most of my doctors have their offices in the city, so I can't completely avoid it). Fortunately, the city is only about 2.2 square miles, so unless you take route 7 along the city's long northwest-southeast axis, you're not there for long.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 17, 2015, 07:37:53 AM
My brother lives in the City of Falls Church off Maple near where the duckpin bowling alley used to be, so I can't avoid the place entirely. I seldom have reason to use Route 7 between Seven Corners and Route 29, though. When I do, I get in the right lane and set my cruise control for about 26 or 27 mph (why not 25? It only works above 25 mph). There's always somebody eager to show me that I'm too slow.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 17, 2015, 07:41:00 AM
Quote from: oscar on November 16, 2015, 11:26:58 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2015, 10:35:11 PM
Added bonus on Va. 7  - the speed limit enforcement just to the west of Seven Corners across the longest axis of the City of Falls Church.

I have found there to be more enforcement by the municipal Falls Church police on the westbound side of 7 (Broad Street within the city) than eastbound for reasons not clear to me.

I just treat the entire city as one big speed trap, and try to avoid it as much as possible (alas, most of my doctors have their offices in the city, so I can't completely avoid it). Fortunately, the city is only about 2.2 square miles, so unless you take route 7 along the city's long northwest-southeast axis, you're not there for long.

An excellent way to thoroughly annoy the cops there is to drive somewhat less than the citywide 25 MPH posted limit.  I have found that 20 MPH is fine, since it is not possible to make better time by speeding anyway.   Seeing non-Virginia tags on city streets makes some of them believe they have an easy mark for a speeding ticket, which they do not with me, and after a block or two at 20 MPH, they go someplace else.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2015, 08:41:34 AM
Given the frequency that pedestrians are struck and killed on the Bailey's side of Route 7 in the Kenmore area, I think that Falls Church is more than fine having Route 7 be 25 MPH.

If you want to go fast out west, take 66 or 50. Once the HOT lanes open, you won't have the HOV-2 excuse anymore either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 17, 2015, 11:21:38 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2015, 08:41:34 AM
Given the frequency that pedestrians are struck and killed on the Bailey's side of Route 7 in the Kenmore area, I think that Falls Church is more than fine having Route 7 be 25 MPH.

If you want to go fast out west, take 66 or 50. Once the HOT lanes open, you won't have the HOV-2 excuse anymore either.

Kenmore?

I think you mean Culmore, right?

That area of Va. 7 (Leesburg Pike) is IMO not especially pedestrian-friendly, I agree (and Va. 7 there is built more to VDOT rural or exurban standards (wide, no median, no pedestrian refuges - for the most part, though there are sidewalks and marked crosswalks), not the narrower profile that road has through the City of Falls Church).  Lot of immigrants from Latin America in that area of Bailey's Crossroads.

In another area with a lot of immigrants, the Langley Park and Takoma/Langley Crossroads area of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, the state has hardened the medians of Md. 193 and Md. 650 by building a barrier to discourage  mid-block pedestrian crossings, which are associated with pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes. 

As for using I-66 instead of Va. 7, I am sure there are some that will, but the two highways serve somewhat different travel markets.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2015, 12:10:29 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 17, 2015, 11:21:38 AM

Kenmore?

I think you mean Culmore, right?

Guilty as charged

Quote
That area of Va. 7 (Leesburg Pike) is IMO not especially pedestrian-friendly, I agree (and Va. 7 there is built more to VDOT rural or exurban standards (wide, no median, no pedestrian refuges - for the most part, though there are sidewalks and marked crosswalks), not the narrower profile that road has through the City of Falls Church).  Lot of immigrants from Latin America in that area of Bailey's Crossroads.

In another area with a lot of immigrants, the Langley Park and Takoma/Langley Crossroads area of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, the state has hardened the medians of Md. 193 and Md. 650 by building a barrier to discourage  mid-block pedestrian crossings, which are associated with pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes. 

The issue isn't immigrants or not. It's the fact that roads are fundamentally unsafe to cross. Columbia Pike corridor in Arlington has a lot of immigrants too, but the road is relatively narrow and has ample opportunities to cross safely and pedestrian accidents don't occur like they do in the other areas. Goes to show the benefits of when local government control major local roadways instead of indifferent State DOTs, which are usually only concerned with vehicles levels of service.

Quote
As for using I-66 instead of Va. 7, I am sure there are some that will, but the two highways serve somewhat different travel markets.

My point there is that if you're going from the core of the region to the western suburbs and you want go fast, find a carpooler or pay a toll (in the future) and take I-66. If you need to take the Beltway, FFX Parkway or VA-28 to get to where you need to go, you'll survive. Having VA-7 as a quasi-highway through the Bailey's is yet another example of VDOT valuing western Fairfax commuters more than Arlington, Alexandria and local residents.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on November 17, 2015, 12:35:26 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2015, 08:41:34 AM
Given the frequency that pedestrians are struck and killed on the Bailey's side of Route 7 in the Kenmore area, I think that Falls Church is more than fine having Route 7 be 25 MPH.

The Falls Church part of VA 7 is much different from the Bailey's Crossroad part. VA 7 in Falls Church east of US 29 is mostly residential, with not much pedestrian traffic, but lots of driveways which are the excuse for keeping that segment at 25mph. West of US 29, narrow with lots of businesses and some apartments, with the businesses and red lights (many with red-light cameras) slowing down traffic.

The Bailey's Crossroads part of VA 7 includes a mosque, with many worshipers living in the apartment complexes across the highway. Every Friday afternoon, I see county police out there stopping traffic to let crowds of pedestrians safely cross the highway to the mosque.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2015, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: oscar on November 17, 2015, 12:35:26 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2015, 08:41:34 AM
Given the frequency that pedestrians are struck and killed on the Bailey's side of Route 7 in the Kenmore area, I think that Falls Church is more than fine having Route 7 be 25 MPH.

The Falls Church part of VA 7 is much different from the Bailey's Crossroad part. VA 7 in Falls Church east of US 29 is mostly residential, with not much pedestrian traffic, but lots of driveways which are the excuse for keeping that segment at 25mph. West of US 29, narrow with lots of businesses and some apartments, with the businesses and red lights (many with red-light cameras) slowing down traffic.

The Bailey's Crossroads part of VA 7 includes a mosque, with many worshipers living in the apartment complexes across the highway. Every Friday afternoon, I see county police out there stopping traffic to let crowds of pedestrians safely cross the highway to the mosque.

Well at least there's pedestrian safety one day a week.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 17, 2015, 01:08:34 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2015, 12:10:29 PM
My point there is that if you're going from the core of the region to the western suburbs and you want go fast, find a carpooler or pay a toll (in the future) and take I-66. If you need to take the Beltway, FFX Parkway or VA-28 to get to where you need to go, you'll survive. Having VA-7 as a quasi-highway through the Bailey's is yet another example of VDOT valuing western Fairfax commuters more than Arlington, Alexandria and local residents.

In VDOT's defense, the Va. 7 corridor was a major state highway running between Alexandria, Falls Church, Leesburg, Purcellville and Winchester years before the growth of the 20th Century happened (and when VDOT did not exist, and things were done by the VDH (Virginia Department of Highways)).

Note that I deliberately did not mention Tysons Corner, which was just a rural crossloads when the Va. 7 was first routed along what is now signed that way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2015, 02:41:42 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 17, 2015, 01:08:34 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2015, 12:10:29 PM
My point there is that if you're going from the core of the region to the western suburbs and you want go fast, find a carpooler or pay a toll (in the future) and take I-66. If you need to take the Beltway, FFX Parkway or VA-28 to get to where you need to go, you'll survive. Having VA-7 as a quasi-highway through the Bailey's is yet another example of VDOT valuing western Fairfax commuters more than Arlington, Alexandria and local residents.

In VDOT's defense, the Va. 7 corridor was a major state highway running between Alexandria, Falls Church, Leesburg, Purcellville and Winchester years before the growth of the 20th Century happened (and when VDOT did not exist, and things were done by the VDH (Virginia Department of Highways)).

Note that I deliberately did not mention Tysons Corner, which was just a rural crossloads when the Va. 7 was first routed along what is now signed that way.

So how long before they make changes to correct the situation? It's been going on about 70 years since WWII and the explosive growth took off in this area. 70 years and they still don't even have a bus that runs from King Street Station to Tysons Corner all the way on Route 7.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on November 17, 2015, 05:12:19 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2015, 02:41:42 PM
So how long before they make changes to correct the situation? It's been going on about 70 years since WWII and the explosive growth took off in this area. 70 years and they still don't even have a bus that runs from King Street Station to Tysons Corner all the way on Route 7.

Metrobus route 28A comes pretty close to that, a straight shot (except for a few short detours) from the King Street station to Tysons Corner.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2015, 07:15:39 PM
Quote from: oscar on November 17, 2015, 05:12:19 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2015, 02:41:42 PM
So how long before they make changes to correct the situation? It's been going on about 70 years since WWII and the explosive growth took off in this area. 70 years and they still don't even have a bus that runs from King Street Station to Tysons Corner all the way on Route 7.

Metrobus route 28A comes pretty close to that, a straight shot (except for a few short detours) from the King Street station to Tysons Corner.

28A is no good if you live on King between Bradlee and Bailey's. There are plenty of us who live there.

And there isn't even a lesser-frequency bus than the 28A to fill in the gap. Just nothing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 18, 2015, 08:26:50 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 17, 2015, 02:41:42 PM
So how long before they make changes to correct the situation? It's been going on about 70 years since WWII and the explosive growth took off in this area. 70 years and they still don't even have a bus that runs from King Street Station to Tysons Corner all the way on Route 7.

That part of Va. 7 (around Baileys Crossroads) is little changed since I first saw it, in the 1960's (we had an aunt and uncle that lived west of there in Fairfax County (mail address was Falls Church)).

Even then, I think the intersection of Va. 7 and Va. 244 was grade-separated (note that I am not 100% certain).

As for who to talk with, I would think that the Fairfax County planning staff would be a good place to start. 

A lot of what VDOT does on its primary highway network happens as a result of requests from county governments, even though the road is owned and maintained by VDOT and not by the county.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 19, 2015, 07:39:16 AM
QuoteEven then, I think the intersection of Va. 7 and Va. 244 was grade-separated (note that I am not 100% certain).

Grade separation at Leesburg/Columbia Pike happened sometime after 1964, as 1964 aerial imagery shows an at-grade intersection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ixnay on November 19, 2015, 07:46:33 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 19, 2015, 07:39:16 AM
QuoteEven then, I think the intersection of Va. 7 and Va. 244 was grade-separated (note that I am not 100% certain).

Grade separation at Leesburg/Columbia Pike happened sometime after 1964, as 1964 aerial imagery shows an at-grade intersection.

Got a link?

ixnay
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 19, 2015, 08:11:41 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 19, 2015, 07:39:16 AM
QuoteEven then, I think the intersection of Va. 7 and Va. 244 was grade-separated (note that I am not 100% certain).

Grade separation at Leesburg/Columbia Pike happened sometime after 1964, as 1964 aerial imagery shows an at-grade intersection.

This interchange was built in the mid-to-late 1970s (after 1975).

Page 150 of this pdf from April 1972 has this interchange on a 10-year wish list... http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-04-1972-01.pdf


Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 19, 2015, 09:18:25 AM
QuoteGot a link?

Sorry, no...it's aerial imagery that I use in my GIS projects.

Related to what Mapmikey posted, the interchange appears to have been completed by 1979 (my next aerial imagery set).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 19, 2015, 09:43:24 AM
http://www.historicaerials.com/ has 1964 and 1979 images available, which show VA 7 was shifted slightly northeast to build the interchange and at least a couple buildings were removed.

1971 topo still shows at-grade...

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on November 19, 2015, 07:56:50 PM
King at Beauregard/Walter Reed was also supposed be widened and get a grade-separated interchange treatment in the early 1990s (Slide 5).

https://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/tes/info/King-Beauregard%20Improvement%20Project%20Presentation.pdf

My how things have changed. Instead, they're removing the slip lanes, widening the sidewalks into side paths, and putting development on the southwest corner of the intersection (the old hospital site).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 19, 2015, 09:25:32 PM
They were.  Still hasn't happened yet.  Was supposed to go to bid last month but I haven't heard anything more.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on November 20, 2015, 12:01:59 AM
Quote from: ixnay on November 19, 2015, 07:55:37 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 19, 2015, 09:43:24 AM
http://www.historicaerials.com/ has 1964 and 1979 images available, which show VA 7 was shifted slightly northeast to build the interchange and at least a couple buildings were removed.

1971 topo still shows at-grade...

Mike

Indeed it does, thanks.

ixnay
I have found the topo files to vary widely from the given dates. I've seen them switch back and forth between 1920s and 1950s maps as I progress through years. I've seen topos slotted between aerials that aren't up to date with the earlier aerial. So don't go by that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ixnay on November 20, 2015, 07:04:58 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 20, 2015, 12:01:59 AM
I have found the topo files [of historicaerials.com] to vary widely from the given dates. I've seen them switch back and forth between 1920s and 1950s maps as I progress through years. I've seen topos slotted between aerials that aren't up to date with the earlier aerial. So don't go by that.

How reliable is uglybridges.com?  It shows the VA 7/VA 244 junction's bridge to be built in 1977.

ixnay
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 20, 2015, 10:09:49 AM
Quote from: ixnay on November 20, 2015, 07:04:58 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 20, 2015, 12:01:59 AM
I have found the topo files [of historicaerials.com] to vary widely from the given dates. I've seen them switch back and forth between 1920s and 1950s maps as I progress through years. I've seen topos slotted between aerials that aren't up to date with the earlier aerial. So don't go by that.

How reliable is uglybridges.com?  It shows the VA 7/VA 244 junction's bridge to be built in 1977.

ixnay

That site apparently uses the nationalbridges.com data set which I view to be pretty reliable.

Also in GMSV the bridge is clearly of the 1970s style in Virginia and its date plate is not the state shield, meaning it must be 1976 or later.  This style of bridge railing wasn't used much past 1979.

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 20, 2015, 02:47:29 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey
Quote from: ixnayHow reliable is uglybridges.com?  It shows the VA 7/VA 244 junction's bridge to be built in 1977.

That site apparently uses the nationalbridges.com data set which I view to be pretty reliable.

...which itself appears to use the National Bridge Inventory from US DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics.  So I'd say the 1977 date for the Leesburg Pike overpass is pretty solid.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: HTM Duke on November 27, 2015, 10:06:28 PM
I went on my annual fall mini-roadtrip this month, and thought I'd bring up a couple points of interest:

1) The US-58 four-laning project has started its third phase (Laurel Fork) between Meadows of Dan and Hillsville.  The old alignment has been pretty much abandoned, having been chopped up to serve as driveways to various properties along the route.

2) VA-8 has been rerouted in the town of Stuart.  It now utilizes new construction (Woods Brothers Dr) from W Blue Ridge St (https://goo.gl/maps/KrnbrW6tYFH2),  then picks up S Main St (intersection of N/S Main St & Dobbins Rd), before rejoining its established route on the south end of town at Patrick Ave (https://goo.gl/maps/FytxvxfxSk72).  The old Patrick Ave alignment has now become VA-8 BUS.  Given that a TRUCK ROUTE is posted on the new alignment headed north into Stuart (along with an UPTOWN LGS below the assembly), I would say this was done to route trucks away from downtown.




A bit of an aside here, does anyone what was patched over on the exit signs from I-66 to VA-286 south (https://goo.gl/maps/ScGvuFEusU42)?  Thanks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 27, 2015, 11:22:20 PM
Quote from: HTM Duke on November 27, 2015, 10:06:28 PM
A bit of an aside here, does anyone what was patched over on the exit signs from I-66 to VA-286 south (https://goo.gl/maps/ScGvuFEusU42)?  Thanks.

It has to be SR 7100, which was the old number for VA 286 before being put into the primary system in early 2012.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on November 27, 2015, 11:49:14 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 27, 2015, 11:22:20 PM
Quote from: HTM Duke on November 27, 2015, 10:06:28 PM
A bit of an aside here, does anyone what was patched over on the exit signs from I-66 to VA-286 south (https://goo.gl/maps/ScGvuFEusU42)?  Thanks.

It has to be SR 7100, which was the old number for VA 286 before being put into the primary system in early 2012.
You can see this if you pan right.  (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8559608,-77.3831481,3a,15y,286.54h,94.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEVgf7t1pIkOx5GhNAgaIlg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) It's hard to make out, but it says OLD 7100 (circle shield).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: HTM Duke on November 28, 2015, 12:16:30 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 27, 2015, 11:49:14 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 27, 2015, 11:22:20 PM
Quote from: HTM Duke on November 27, 2015, 10:06:28 PM
A bit of an aside here, does anyone what was patched over on the exit signs from I-66 to VA-286 south (https://goo.gl/maps/ScGvuFEusU42)?  Thanks.

It has to be SR 7100, which was the old number for VA 286 before being put into the primary system in early 2012.
You can see this if you pan right.  (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8559608,-77.3831481,3a,15y,286.54h,94.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEVgf7t1pIkOx5GhNAgaIlg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) It's hard to make out, but it says OLD 7100 (circle shield).

My apologies for not being more specific, but I meant the Springfield text on the exit 55A sign.  It's not as noticeable as the 286 shield (I actually didn't notice it until earlier this year), but there is a slight indentation between it and the sign itself.  Here's another shot of it from I-66 E (https://goo.gl/maps/HQyy66uoHPt) (and an under-the-sign shot (https://goo.gl/maps/PMxJ3Shiu322) as well).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 28, 2015, 10:40:02 AM
SR 7100 south of I-66 ended at VA 123 for a fair amount of time.  I want to say it used to say To Ox Rd but I honestly don't recall.  It could also have said To US 29 or Lee Hwy.

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Zzonkmiles on November 28, 2015, 11:10:17 AM
Does anyone know what the construction is for where the Franconia-Springfield Parkway (VA-289) and Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286) meet? I really can't tell if they are trying to add a lane or improve drainage or what.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 28, 2015, 11:59:00 AM

Quote from: Zzonkmiles on November 28, 2015, 11:10:17 AM
Does anyone know what the construction is for where the Franconia-Springfield Parkway (VA-289) and Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286) meet? I really can't tell if they are trying to add a lane or improve drainage or what.

The loop-around ramp used by northbound 286 is being widened, among a few other things:

http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/projects/northernvirginia/parkway_north-rolling_road_loop.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 28, 2015, 12:49:41 PM
Quote from: HTM Duke on November 27, 2015, 10:06:28 PM
I went on my annual fall mini-roadtrip this month, and thought I'd bring up a couple points of interest:



2) VA-8 has been rerouted in the town of Stuart.  It now utilizes new construction (Woods Brothers Dr) from W Blue Ridge St (https://goo.gl/maps/KrnbrW6tYFH2),  then picks up S Main St (intersection of N/S Main St & Dobbins Rd), before rejoining its established route on the south end of town at Patrick Ave (https://goo.gl/maps/FytxvxfxSk72).  The old Patrick Ave alignment has now become VA-8 BUS.  Given that a TRUCK ROUTE is posted on the new alignment headed north into Stuart (along with an UPTOWN LGS below the assembly), I would say this was done to route trucks away from downtown.



Thanks for this information.  The Virginia Hwys Project has been updated - VA 8 Bus (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va008.htm#va8b)

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on November 28, 2015, 01:14:44 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2015, 10:40:02 AM
SR 7100 south of I-66 ended at VA 123 for a fair amount of time.  I want to say it used to say To Ox Rd but I honestly don't recall.  It could also have said To US 29 or Lee Hwy.

Mike
Could've been Tysons Corner IMO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 28, 2015, 05:19:09 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 28, 2015, 01:14:44 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2015, 10:40:02 AM
SR 7100 south of I-66 ended at VA 123 for a fair amount of time.  I want to say it used to say To Ox Rd but I honestly don't recall.  It could also have said To US 29 or Lee Hwy.

Mike
Could've been Tysons Corner IMO.

Not going southbound from I-66. Tysons is to the north, although the road in question goes nowhere near it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2015, 07:38:25 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2015, 10:40:02 AM
SR 7100 south of I-66 ended at VA 123 for a fair amount of time.  I want to say it used to say To Ox Rd but I honestly don't recall.  It could also have said To US 29 or Lee Hwy.

The absolute first section of the Fairfax County Parkway (f/k/a 7100, now 286) ran south from I-66, perhaps to U.S. 29 (I do not remember).

The site of the I-66 interchange used to be a truck weigh station.  The scalehouse was on the eastbound side, but in typical Virginia style, there were platform scales on both sides.  As the construction started, the scales on the eastbound side were permanently closed, but the weigh enforcement activities continued on the westbound side for a while.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2015, 07:46:02 PM
Richmond.com: Pocahontas Parkway increasing tolls (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/article_8cddbdf0-4435-5deb-8953-22024d7c57cf.html)

QuoteTolls on the privately operated Pocahontas Parkway are increasing to $4 at the main plaza and to $2.25 at the Laburnum/New Market and Airport Drive ramps, a spokeswoman said Friday.

QuoteThe new tolls take effect Jan. 4.

QuoteTolls were last increased in January 2013 to a top price of $3.25 and $1.50, parkway spokeswoman Mary Ellin Arch said.

Quote"The revenue will fund operations, maintenance, and finance debt payments,"  Arch said.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 28, 2015, 08:16:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2015, 07:38:25 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2015, 10:40:02 AM
SR 7100 south of I-66 ended at VA 123 for a fair amount of time.  I want to say it used to say To Ox Rd but I honestly don't recall.  It could also have said To US 29 or Lee Hwy.

The absolute first section of the Fairfax County Parkway (f/k/a 7100, now 286) ran south from I-66, perhaps to U.S. 29 (I do not remember).

The site of the I-66 interchange used to be a truck weigh station.  The scalehouse was on the eastbound side, but in typical Virginia style, there were platform scales on both sides.  As the construction started, the scales on the eastbound side were permanently closed, but the weigh enforcement activities continued on the westbound side for a while.



I have to quibble as to the first section to open. I am positive I remember the first section of the Parkway running northbound from I-66 to US-50 because it had a trumpet interchange with I-66 that required reconfiguration when the next segment to the south eventually opened. I believe that segment opened around 1987 and I seem to recall newspaper reports still calling it the Springfield Bypass (and it had not yet been renamed to "Fairfax County Parkway" at that time). I remember the segments north of Route 50 gradually opening around 1989 because that part opened when I was in high school and there were no speed limit signs posted at first, so in typical idiotic high-school-kid fashion I would take my '77 Granada on that road to see how fast it would go.

Wikipedia says the portion from I-66 to Braddock Road opened in 1995 (citing to a newspaper article that is not online). That would not surprise me because I remember the years from about 1991 to 1995 were the period when I-66 was reconstructed between Fair Oaks and Manassas (not coincidentally for my memory, that was when I was attending UVA and more often than not I found alternate routes to avoid I-66). It would not surprise me one bit to find that the Parkway interchange underwent reconstruction at that same time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 28, 2015, 08:41:55 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 28, 2015, 08:16:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2015, 07:38:25 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2015, 10:40:02 AM
SR 7100 south of I-66 ended at VA 123 for a fair amount of time.  I want to say it used to say To Ox Rd but I honestly don't recall.  It could also have said To US 29 or Lee Hwy.

The absolute first section of the Fairfax County Parkway (f/k/a 7100, now 286) ran south from I-66, perhaps to U.S. 29 (I do not remember).

The site of the I-66 interchange used to be a truck weigh station.  The scalehouse was on the eastbound side, but in typical Virginia style, there were platform scales on both sides.  As the construction started, the scales on the eastbound side were permanently closed, but the weigh enforcement activities continued on the westbound side for a while.



I have to quibble as to the first section to open. I am positive I remember the first section of the Parkway running northbound from I-66 to US-50 because it had a trumpet interchange with I-66 that required reconfiguration when the next segment to the south eventually opened. I believe that segment opened around 1987 and I seem to recall newspaper reports still calling it the Springfield Bypass (and it had not yet been renamed to "Fairfax County Parkway" at that time). I remember the segments north of Route 50 gradually opening around 1989 because that part opened when I was in high school and there were no speed limit signs posted at first, so in typical idiotic high-school-kid fashion I would take my '77 Granada on that road to see how fast it would go.


The 1990 Historic Aerial confirms the trumpet interchange and the road only going northward...

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 28, 2015, 09:33:21 PM
Thanks. I didn't even think of checking their images, but then we're watching HNIC anyway so my attention is more on that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2015, 09:40:24 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2015, 08:41:55 PM

The 1990 Historic Aerial confirms the trumpet interchange and the road only going northward...


I must have had my scalehouse directions mixed-up.  The scalehouse on the westbound side, but eastbound trucks had to stop to be weighed.

Thinking back, it makes sense that Va. 286 north of I-66, because the owner of much of the land in the Fair Lakes are was owned and developed by Til Hazel who (again from memory) wrote a check to pay for the construction north to U.S. 50.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 28, 2015, 09:57:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2015, 09:40:24 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2015, 08:41:55 PM

The 1990 Historic Aerial confirms the trumpet interchange and the road only going northward...


I must have had my scalehouse directions mixed-up.  The scalehouse on the westbound side, but eastbound trucks had to stop to be weighed.

Thinking back, it makes sense that Va. 286 north of I-66, because the owner of much of the land in the Fair Lakes are was owned and developed by Til Hazel who (again from memory) wrote a check to pay for the construction north to U.S. 50.

Aerials show you were originally correct about the scale house - on the EB side (1974 shows it clearest, plus topos put a building only on the EB side).

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on November 29, 2015, 08:14:32 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2015, 07:46:02 PM
Richmond.com: Pocahontas Parkway increasing tolls (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/article_8cddbdf0-4435-5deb-8953-22024d7c57cf.html)

QuoteTolls on the privately operated Pocahontas Parkway are increasing to $4 at the main plaza and to $2.25 at the Laburnum/New Market and Airport Drive ramps, a spokeswoman said Friday.

QuoteThe new tolls take effect Jan. 4.

QuoteTolls were last increased in January 2013 to a top price of $3.25 and $1.50, parkway spokeswoman Mary Ellin Arch said.

Quote“The revenue will fund operations, maintenance, and finance debt payments,” Arch said.
This road was already overpriced. Increasing the toll makes sense how?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 01, 2015, 02:55:01 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on November 29, 2015, 08:14:32 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2015, 07:46:02 PM
Richmond.com: Pocahontas Parkway increasing tolls (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/article_8cddbdf0-4435-5deb-8953-22024d7c57cf.html)

QuoteTolls on the privately operated Pocahontas Parkway are increasing to $4 at the main plaza and to $2.25 at the Laburnum/New Market and Airport Drive ramps, a spokeswoman said Friday.

QuoteThe new tolls take effect Jan. 4.

QuoteTolls were last increased in January 2013 to a top price of $3.25 and $1.50, parkway spokeswoman Mary Ellin Arch said.

Quote"The revenue will fund operations, maintenance, and finance debt payments,"  Arch said.
This road was already overpriced. Increasing the toll makes sense how?

If people continue to use the toll road, then by definition it's not overpriced. Plus why wouldn't the operator try to maximize revenue?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on December 01, 2015, 03:05:04 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 01, 2015, 02:55:01 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on November 29, 2015, 08:14:32 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2015, 07:46:02 PM
Richmond.com: Pocahontas Parkway increasing tolls (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/article_8cddbdf0-4435-5deb-8953-22024d7c57cf.html)

QuoteTolls on the privately operated Pocahontas Parkway are increasing to $4 at the main plaza and to $2.25 at the Laburnum/New Market and Airport Drive ramps, a spokeswoman said Friday.

QuoteThe new tolls take effect Jan. 4.

QuoteTolls were last increased in January 2013 to a top price of $3.25 and $1.50, parkway spokeswoman Mary Ellin Arch said.

Quote"The revenue will fund operations, maintenance, and finance debt payments,"  Arch said.
This road was already overpriced. Increasing the toll makes sense how?

If people continue to use the toll road, then by definition it's not overpriced. Plus why wouldn't the operator try to maximize revenue?
Common sense would to make tolls cheaper. Cheaper tolls means more people use it. More people use it, more money. It helps more than hurts more, but people don't get that simple concept.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 01, 2015, 03:20:27 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 01, 2015, 03:05:04 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 01, 2015, 02:55:01 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on November 29, 2015, 08:14:32 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2015, 07:46:02 PM
Richmond.com: Pocahontas Parkway increasing tolls (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/article_8cddbdf0-4435-5deb-8953-22024d7c57cf.html)

QuoteTolls on the privately operated Pocahontas Parkway are increasing to $4 at the main plaza and to $2.25 at the Laburnum/New Market and Airport Drive ramps, a spokeswoman said Friday.

QuoteThe new tolls take effect Jan. 4.

QuoteTolls were last increased in January 2013 to a top price of $3.25 and $1.50, parkway spokeswoman Mary Ellin Arch said.

Quote"The revenue will fund operations, maintenance, and finance debt payments,"  Arch said.
This road was already overpriced. Increasing the toll makes sense how?

If people continue to use the toll road, then by definition it's not overpriced. Plus why wouldn't the operator try to maximize revenue?
Common sense would to make tolls cheaper. Cheaper tolls means more people use it. More people use it, more money. It helps more than hurts more, but people don't get that simple concept.

It's not always that simple. Utility monopolists (in this case the toll road) will price as high as they can before people leave that said utility. It's the same principle as to why cable/telecom rates always rise, regardless of cost tot he utiltiy provider.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 05, 2015, 12:20:30 PM
Just as a thing to wonder: Now that VDOT has upgraded most of the existing flip-dot DMS in the Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia districts with SES America's LED retrofit package using the existing flip-dot housings, some of the older Ledstar DMS in the Hampton Roads district show their age, in particular the ones on the HRBT which were installed around 1997 (among the first LED DMS installed in the Hampton Roads district).  According to SES America's website, they have retrofitted Ledstar products before.  This would be much cheaper than installing completely new DMS on the HRBT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on December 16, 2015, 08:26:35 PM
Anybody know why the US-58 bypass of Stuart has a speed limit of 45? It seems like it was designed for 55 at least.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on December 16, 2015, 11:46:40 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 16, 2015, 08:26:35 PM
Anybody know why the US-58 bypass of Stuart has a speed limit of 45? It seems like it was designed for 55 at least.
Higher speeding ticket revenue??
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 17, 2015, 01:15:33 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on December 16, 2015, 11:46:40 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 16, 2015, 08:26:35 PM
Anybody know why the US-58 bypass of Stuart has a speed limit of 45? It seems like it was designed for 55 at least.
Higher speeding ticket revenue??

If I remember right there was an odd-shaped hill just east of the west end of the bypass.  It may be a sight distance issue.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Zzonkmiles on January 05, 2016, 11:02:44 PM
What's the story with I-85 being resurfaced? It seems that half of the rough patches have been totally repaved while the other half is full of dangerous craters and cracks. Even worse, there are few signs indicating road construction. Did they run out of money? Surely they're not going to leave the road in its current condition, right? Right?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on January 06, 2016, 08:41:14 AM
Low volume probably means it doesn't get very high on the repaving priority list. Use US-1
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 06, 2016, 11:52:31 AM
Quote from: Zzonkmiles on January 05, 2016, 11:02:44 PM
What's the story with I-85 being resurfaced? It seems that half of the rough patches have been totally repaved while the other half is full of dangerous craters and cracks. Even worse, there are few signs indicating road construction. Did they run out of money? Surely they're not going to leave the road in its current condition, right? Right?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 06, 2016, 08:41:14 AM
Low volume probably means it doesn't get very high on the repaving priority list. Use US-1

The project is probably just on hold due to the winter.  It should continue later this year as one of the projects is scheduled to finish in July.

The following link is from the Street Beat article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on August 15th when a question was answered about it.


http://www.richmond.com/news/local/traffic/street-beat/article_ee7dca51-e803-533e-bb9a-d224f3977901.html (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/traffic/street-beat/article_ee7dca51-e803-533e-bb9a-d224f3977901.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 08, 2016, 06:43:08 PM
Took a trip down to Chesapeake the other day to get a good look at the ongoing construction on US-17. Construction has really progressed since I was last down there around 2014. Here's some pictures:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi766.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx304%2FThing342%2Fdominion1_zpsbk53bsl1.png&hash=c440864b105f32875fbda8817c4ff3a12db45a6f) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/Thing342/media/dominion1_zpsbk53bsl1.png.html)
Heading NB, right about where construction starts.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi766.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx304%2FThing342%2Fdominion2_zpsbfztuhwx.png&hash=64a8550defce2d20442cab6823a78c61ebaf71f8) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/Thing342/media/dominion2_zpsbfztuhwx.png.html)
Not much work going on south of the Scenic Pkwy intersection except some slight grading work.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi766.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx304%2FThing342%2Fdominion3_zpsms03s11j.png&hash=9fa49c7fb0911b05d747ca6923f1f7487cd778ef) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/Thing342/media/dominion3_zpsms03s11j.png.html)
Taken just south of the Grassfield Pkwy light. Pavement work here seems mostly complete.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi766.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx304%2FThing342%2Fdominion4_zpsosrhiwh3.png&hash=9e60534881633499b0927068ce328f4183183bdc) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/Thing342/media/dominion4_zpsosrhiwh3.png.html)
Continuing NB, we find bridge work going on at the future interchange with VA-165. This will eventually be entrance/exit ramps for the southbound lanes as part of a SPUI.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi766.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx304%2FThing342%2Fdominion5_zpsx92zt6j4.png&hash=4bb3d609eaf2581094dc5b2f8ecd7f9a53caa5c8) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/Thing342/media/dominion5_zpsx92zt6j4.png.html)
Just past VA-165, US-17 takes a sharp curve over to the future northbound lanes to cross the new Veterans Bridge (formerly known as the Steel Bridge). Most of the girders for the southbound span have been placed, however none of the road deck has been built.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi766.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx304%2FThing342%2Fdominion6_zpsv3qrjnyh.png&hash=31ff0ce99c5a26962b9317c96dcc9a78445ad6e0) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/Thing342/media/dominion6_zpsv3qrjnyh.png.html)
Coming down the Veterans Bridge, we see what will eventually become ORT gantries.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi766.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx304%2FThing342%2Fdominion7_zpscdvglmua.png&hash=c76f5bcd5dd6a3d729060e6704bd8c960f45a063) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/Thing342/media/dominion7_zpscdvglmua.png.html)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi766.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx304%2FThing342%2Fdominion8_zpsa4xnhijs.png&hash=4aa9268fcd8b2e33b5dd14b917b15cac149a068d) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/Thing342/media/dominion8_zpsa4xnhijs.png.html)
Shortly after the gantry, we approach the interchange with VA-166. The future northbound side of this interchange is finished, with the current southbound lanes using the new bridge and the northbound lanes using the exit ramps. The BGS appear to have already been finished.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi766.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx304%2FThing342%2Fdominion9_zpssrmgk35w.png&hash=e0e5d576b4f0d3beb49a848c71311df2bebfb3d2) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/Thing342/media/dominion9_zpssrmgk35w.png.html)
Continuing northbound on US-17, nearing the future interchange with VA-190. The southbound lanes look mostly finished, with BGS being posted.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi766.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx304%2FThing342%2Fdominion10_zpsqx7qippc.png&hash=4eaeb556294482b4c6220fe266cd21582f12a0df) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/Thing342/media/dominion10_zpsqx7qippc.png.html)
US-17 uses the future exit lanes at what will eventually become an interchange at VA-190 / Great Bridge Blvd.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi766.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx304%2FThing342%2Fdominion11_zpss6tliqya.png&hash=fa526152a0a60e3461a10b21422fa5ade2a82e73) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/Thing342/media/dominion11_zpss6tliqya.png.html)
US-17 merges with VA-168 / I-464, and we get to see I-64 signage with directions. No mention of VA-168 headed northbound.

Sorry for the low quality of the imagery, as I didn't have my normal camera mount, making all of imagery blurry.





Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 08, 2016, 09:41:59 PM
"West I-64 to Va Beach?"

I know in the greater scheme of things, that's accurate, but still...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on January 08, 2016, 09:45:14 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 08, 2016, 06:43:08 PM
Took a trip down to Chesapeake the other day to get a good look at the ongoing construction on US-17. Construction has really progressed since I was last down there around 2014. Here's some pictures:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi766.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx304%2FThing342%2Fdominion11_zpss6tliqya.png&hash=fa526152a0a60e3461a10b21422fa5ade2a82e73) (http://s766.photobucket.com/user/Thing342/media/dominion11_zpss6tliqya.png.html)
US-17 merges with VA-168 / I-464, and we get to see I-64 signage with directions. No mention of VA-168 headed northbound.

Sorry for the low quality of the imagery, as I didn't have my normal camera mount, making all of imagery blurry.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 08, 2016, 09:41:59 PM

"West I-64 to Va Beach?"

I know in the greater scheme of things, that's accurate, but still...

I was also going to post on this. Are they using cardinal direction banners on the stretch of I-64 between Bowers Hill and I-264 at Va Beach now?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 08, 2016, 09:48:47 PM
This would be the first use of directional banners past Indian River Rd...

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 08, 2016, 10:41:51 PM
Quote from: Alex on January 08, 2016, 09:45:14 PM
I was also going to post on this. Are they using cardinal direction banners on the stretch of I-64 between Bowers Hill and I-264 at Va Beach now?

That is going to confuse out-of-town folks a lot!

Quote from: Mapmikey on January 08, 2016, 09:48:47 PM
This would be the first use of directional banners past Indian River Rd...

A symptom of loss of institutional memory at VDOT's Hampton Roads District perhaps?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 08, 2016, 11:08:56 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 08, 2016, 10:41:51 PM
Quote from: Alex on January 08, 2016, 09:45:14 PM
I was also going to post on this. Are they using cardinal direction banners on the stretch of I-64 between Bowers Hill and I-264 at Va Beach now?

That is going to confuse out-of-town folks a lot!

Quote from: Mapmikey on January 08, 2016, 09:48:47 PM
This would be the first use of directional banners past Indian River Rd...

A symptom of loss of institutional memory at VDOT's Hampton Roads District perhaps?
The lack of any signage showing VA-168 heading northbound seems to tell me that it's just an error, but I haven't been looking at signing plans for this stretch. I don't think there were any mentions of the Hampton Roads Beltway, either.

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: akotchi on January 09, 2016, 02:24:39 PM
Existing signing on U.S. 17 did not have direction to Va. 168 NB, either.  Signing on Va. 168 NB itself does have signing for the continuation of the route along I-64 (outer).

I am also surprised to see cardinal directions for I-64.  I actually did an early review of the signing plans for this project, and (since my father lives in that area) was familiar with the signing convention.  I did not see the final signing plans that went to bid, but my review did not recommend the cardinal directions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 10, 2016, 11:41:37 PM
QuoteA symptom of loss of institutional memory at VDOT's Hampton Roads District perhaps?

FYI (and for others who have commented on it), this is a City of Chesapeake project, not a VDOT project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on January 11, 2016, 11:51:00 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 10, 2016, 11:41:37 PM
QuoteA symptom of loss of institutional memory at VDOT's Hampton Roads District perhaps?

FYI (and for others who have commented on it), this is a City of Chesapeake project, not a VDOT project.


Weird.  I've always heard that VDOT has a much broader mandate in terms of road ownership or maintenance than other DOTs (say, NYSDOT).  I've heard it expressed that VDOT "owns most roads in VA," but I don't know if that's really true.  Anyway, given that perception, I would have thought construction on US 17 would have fallen under VDOT's purview.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 11, 2016, 12:10:29 PM
VDOT generally only owns interstates within Independent Cities within Virginia...

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: qguy on January 11, 2016, 02:43:59 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 01, 2015, 03:20:27 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 01, 2015, 03:05:04 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 01, 2015, 02:55:01 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on November 29, 2015, 08:14:32 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2015, 07:46:02 PM
Richmond.com: Pocahontas Parkway increasing tolls (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/article_8cddbdf0-4435-5deb-8953-22024d7c57cf.html)

QuoteTolls on the privately operated Pocahontas Parkway are increasing to $4 at the main plaza and to $2.25 at the Laburnum/New Market and Airport Drive ramps, a spokeswoman said Friday.

QuoteThe new tolls take effect Jan. 4.

QuoteTolls were last increased in January 2013 to a top price of $3.25 and $1.50, parkway spokeswoman Mary Ellin Arch said.

Quote"The revenue will fund operations, maintenance, and finance debt payments,"  Arch said.
This road was already overpriced. Increasing the toll makes sense how?

If people continue to use the toll road, then by definition it's not overpriced. Plus why wouldn't the operator try to maximize revenue?
Common sense would to make tolls cheaper. Cheaper tolls means more people use it. More people use it, more money. It helps more than hurts more, but people don't get that simple concept.

It's not always that simple. Utility monopolists (in this case the toll road) will price as high as they can before people leave that said utility. It's the same principle as to why cable/telecom rates always rise, regardless of cost tot he utiltiy provider.

Apologies for the late reply.

Presumably the goal is maximum revenue, not maximum usage. So the owner would attempt to set the unit price in the "sweet spot," below which the result would be reduced revenue (because the decreased unit price overwhelms the increased usage) and above which the result would also be reduced revenue (because the decreased usage overwhelms the increased unit price).

If you graph this out, it produces a curve with the shape of an upside-down U. At the right price, either reducing or increasing the unit price results in decreased revenue. The trick is finding where the top of that curve is, and where on the curve the current unit price is, which isn't always easy.

This principle can also be applied to tax rates. If the goal is to increase tax revenue, simply increasing tax rates is often not the answer. Lowering tax rates often increases tax revenue. (When applied to taxation, the curve is sometimes referred to as a Laffer Curve.)

As with price point marketing, the trick is to determine where on the curve the current tax rate is.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 11, 2016, 02:44:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 10, 2016, 11:41:37 PM
QuoteA symptom of loss of institutional memory at VDOT's Hampton Roads District perhaps?

FYI (and for others who have commented on it), this is a City of Chesapeake project, not a VDOT project.


I recall you saying that, and it makes sense - but I would think that VDOT would want to review things of this nature anyway, since it involves Interstate and non-Interstate primary system signage.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 11, 2016, 03:07:14 PM
VDOT's review would be to check that things are within standards.  And if we're strictly looking at standards, there is nothing against having the cardinal direction along a route being a little "off the actual direction of travel" if it's consistent with the cardinal direction for the route as a whole.  In other words, there is nothing specifically wrong or against standards by signing it as "West I-64" there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 11, 2016, 10:09:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 11, 2016, 03:07:14 PM
VDOT's review would be to check that things are within standards.  And if we're strictly looking at standards, there is nothing against having the cardinal direction along a route being a little "off the actual direction of travel" if it's consistent with the cardinal direction for the route as a whole.  In other words, there is nothing specifically wrong or against standards by signing it as "West I-64" there.

It is certainly not wrong, but a thoughtful review of the plans by VDOT staff might have motivated someone to point out that directional banners there might be confusing for many drivers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on January 13, 2016, 12:03:35 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 11, 2016, 10:09:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 11, 2016, 03:07:14 PM
VDOT's review would be to check that things are within standards.  And if we're strictly looking at standards, there is nothing against having the cardinal direction along a route being a little "off the actual direction of travel" if it's consistent with the cardinal direction for the route as a whole.  In other words, there is nothing specifically wrong or against standards by signing it as "West I-64" there.

It is certainly not wrong, but a thoughtful review of the plans by VDOT staff might have motivated someone to point out that directional banners there might be confusing for many drivers.

Correct.  It is one thing to have a west direction on a road that goes a short distance north or south, but going in the opposite direction is very confusing.  Thankfully, when I was there in late December, I found the control city usage to be so good that I didn't even focus on the directions and did not find the area confusing at all.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on January 13, 2016, 02:57:06 PM
The cardinal directions were tried in places in the early 1990's.  This , of course, did lead to motorist confusion.  The only place I remember seeing cardinal directions after this was on Military Hwy at Exit 297.  The signs could still be posted AFAIK.

These cardinal directions could be posted because this is a main highway from NE North Carolina so as to have motorists know which way I-64 ultimately goes.  It also could be part of the grander plan of the Raleigh-Norfolk interstate highway.

With hindsight being 20/20, what should have happened is that the cardinal direction for I-64 should have been changed from east-west to south-north when exiting the HRBT in Norfolk.  That could have solved some of the "cardinal direction" problem.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 13, 2016, 05:05:48 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 13, 2016, 02:57:06 PM
With hindsight being 20/20, what should have happened is that the cardinal direction for I-64 should have been changed from east-west to south-north when exiting the HRBT in Norfolk.  That could have solved some of the "cardinal direction" problem.

Putting aside future highway projects for the moment, I would re-route I-64 to follow present-day I-664 all the way to Bower's Hill. then have I-64 follow I-264 east through Portsmouth and Norfolk along its entire path to the end near Oceanfront Virginia Beach. 

"Old" I-64 would become I-664, and be signed as "Inner Loop" and "Outer Loop" - or North and South.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 25, 2016, 09:27:25 PM
Now that Clearview is being rescinded, it will be interesting to see what VDOT does with new sign specifications.  Since 2014 VDOT has attempted to take corrective action on its past mistakes with Clearview by limiting it only to mixed case legend on positive contrast signs, only allowing Clearview 5-W (or Clearview 5-W-R if sign width is an issue), and prohibiting the use of Clearview numerals or fractions except if part of a destination name.  Will VDOT revert to Series E Modified or will they follow a similar route to ADOT by using plain Series E or some other variant of FHWA?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 26, 2016, 03:19:14 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 25, 2016, 09:27:25 PM
Now that Clearview is being rescinded, it will be interesting to see what VDOT does with new sign specifications.  Since 2014 VDOT has attempted to take corrective action on its past mistakes with Clearview by limiting it only to mixed case legend on positive contrast signs, only allowing Clearview 5-W (or Clearview 5-W-R if sign width is an issue), and prohibiting the use of Clearview numerals or fractions except if part of a destination name.  Will VDOT revert to Series E Modified or will they follow a similar route to ADOT by using plain Series E or some other variant of FHWA?
I doubt that any of the effects from the FHWA's decision will be widespread for a while, given the number of recent sign replacements around Richmond and Hampton Roads in order to comply with VDOT's new Clearview standards.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 26, 2016, 03:39:23 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 26, 2016, 03:19:14 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 25, 2016, 09:27:25 PM
Now that Clearview is being rescinded, it will be interesting to see what VDOT does with new sign specifications.  Since 2014 VDOT has attempted to take corrective action on its past mistakes with Clearview by limiting it only to mixed case legend on positive contrast signs, only allowing Clearview 5-W (or Clearview 5-W-R if sign width is an issue), and prohibiting the use of Clearview numerals or fractions except if part of a destination name.  Will VDOT revert to Series E Modified or will they follow a similar route to ADOT by using plain Series E or some other variant of FHWA?
I doubt that any of the effects from the FHWA's decision will be widespread for a while, given the number of recent sign replacements around Richmond and Hampton Roads in order to comply with VDOT's new Clearview standards.

A lot of (relatively) new Clearview in VDOT's Northern Virginia District as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 26, 2016, 09:41:48 PM
So, VDOT is actually replacing existing the existing Clearview signs where it was used as a drop-in replacement for FHWA with new signs that only use Clearview for mixed case positive contrast text?  If the existing signs were in good condition, why replace them?  Was there a severe decrease in legibility with the old Clearview signs?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 26, 2016, 09:44:42 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 26, 2016, 09:41:48 PM
So, VDOT is actually replacing existing the existing Clearview signs where it was used as a drop-in replacement for FHWA with new signs that only use Clearview for mixed case positive contrast text?  If the existing signs were in good condition, why replace them?  Was there a severe decrease in legibility with the old Clearview signs?

FHWA has rescinded the interim approval of Clearview.  I do not believe that they will have to remove any Clearview signs already installed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on January 26, 2016, 09:52:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 26, 2016, 09:44:42 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 26, 2016, 09:41:48 PM
So, VDOT is actually replacing existing the existing Clearview signs where it was used as a drop-in replacement for FHWA with new signs that only use Clearview for mixed case positive contrast text?  If the existing signs were in good condition, why replace them?  Was there a severe decrease in legibility with the old Clearview signs?

FHWA has rescinded the interim approval of Clearview.  I do not believe that they will have to remove any Cleatview signs already installed.

I meant prior to this week.  The two previous posts state that VDOT has been replacing a lot of signs to comply with their most recent standard for Clearview, which was adopted in 2014.  Prior to 2014, VDOT essentially was using Clearview as a drop-in replacement for FHWA.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 27, 2016, 12:11:10 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 26, 2016, 09:52:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 26, 2016, 09:44:42 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 26, 2016, 09:41:48 PM
So, VDOT is actually replacing existing the existing Clearview signs where it was used as a drop-in replacement for FHWA with new signs that only use Clearview for mixed case positive contrast text?  If the existing signs were in good condition, why replace them?  Was there a severe decrease in legibility with the old Clearview signs?

FHWA has rescinded the interim approval of Clearview.  I do not believe that they will have to remove any Cleatview signs already installed.

I meant prior to this week.  The two previous posts state that VDOT has been replacing a lot of signs to comply with their most recent standard for Clearview, which was adopted in 2014.  Prior to 2014, VDOT essentially was using Clearview as a drop-in replacement for FHWA.
I can't remember offhand, but I believe most of these replacements were of old FHWA signs, rather than replacements of improper uses of Clearview.

Nexus 6P

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 27, 2016, 07:39:12 AM
There were definitely some replacements of Clearview signs; the ones I've noted most often, due to my travel patterns, are along I-395. A few of those replacements were part of the HO/T project but others weren't.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 27, 2016, 11:10:28 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 27, 2016, 07:39:12 AM
There were definitely some replacements of Clearview signs; the ones I've noted most often, due to my travel patterns, are along I-395. A few of those replacements were part of the HO/T project but others weren't.

There was a slew of BGS panel replacements on I-395 in the vicinity of the Pentagon/Va. 27/Va. 110/U.S. 1/George Washington Memorial Parkway within the past five or ten years.  At the time, it was rather unusual, because VDOT went away from the riveted-together panels with round corners (long seen on Interstates and other high-speed roads around the Commonwealth) to  signs that looked very "Maryland," using the extruded aluminum "strips" instead, which have 90° unrounded corners.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 11, 2016, 09:24:11 AM
First I've heard of this:  WBOC (a station on the Delmarva) is reporting that the Virginia Senate has passed a bill which would change the speeds (http://www.wboc.com/story/31189883/va-senate-votes-to-raise-speed-limit-for-reckless-driving) at which a speeding driver could be charged with reckless driving.

As most of us know, current law allows police to charge reckless driving against drivers going 20+ mph over the limit or over 80mph, whichever is lower.  This bill, Senate Bill 768 (http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+ful+SB768+pdf), would change the 80mph requirement to 85mph, leaving the rest of the law intact.

In short, this bill has no impact on roadways with a speed limit of 60mph or less.

No clue how the House of Delegates will address the bill.  The bill's sponsor in the Senate is from a district that covers from Salem and just south of Roanoke south towards Rocky Mount, eastward into Bedford County near the reservoir, and west through Floyd to Wytheville.  It includes parts of I-77 and I-81.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 11, 2016, 10:20:34 AM
Thanks for that info. I hadn't heard about it either. I've always felt that giving a reckless for 81 in a 70 zone is sort of a "gotcha" law, though of course ignorance of the law is no excuse. Raising it to 85 doesn't mean you CAN'T get a reckless ticket for lower than 85, of course, since this is not the sole reckless statute on the books.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 11, 2016, 01:14:04 PM
Now only if Arizona would change its equivalent law of speeds above 85 mph being criminal to 95 mph, that way we can have 80 mph freeways in rural areas where appropriate with a 15 mph buffer.  This law has killed every single effort to increase the AZ speed limit above 75 mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 11, 2016, 04:44:01 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2016, 09:24:11 AM
First I've heard of this:  WBOC (a station on the Delmarva) is reporting that the Virginia Senate has passed a bill which would change the speeds (http://www.wboc.com/story/31189883/va-senate-votes-to-raise-speed-limit-for-reckless-driving) at which a speeding driver could be charged with reckless driving.

As most of us know, current law allows police to charge reckless driving against drivers going 20+ mph over the limit or over 80mph, whichever is lower.  This bill, Senate Bill 768 (http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+ful+SB768+pdf), would change the 80mph requirement to 85mph, leaving the rest of the law intact.

In short, this bill has no impact on roadways with a speed limit of 60mph or less.

No clue how the House of Delegates will address the bill.  The bill's sponsor in the Senate is from a district that covers from Salem and just south of Roanoke south towards Rocky Mount, eastward into Bedford County near the reservoir, and west through Floyd to Wytheville.  It includes parts of I-77 and I-81.


You'd better believe Hopewell will be opposed to this...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 11, 2016, 05:44:18 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2016, 09:24:11 AM
First I've heard of this:  WBOC (a station on the Delmarva) is reporting that the Virginia Senate has passed a bill which would change the speeds (http://www.wboc.com/story/31189883/va-senate-votes-to-raise-speed-limit-for-reckless-driving) at which a speeding driver could be charged with reckless driving.

As most of us know, current law allows police to charge reckless driving against drivers going 20+ mph over the limit or over 80mph, whichever is lower.  This bill, Senate Bill 768 (http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+ful+SB768+pdf), would change the 80mph requirement to 85mph, leaving the rest of the law intact.

In short, this bill has no impact on roadways with a speed limit of 60mph or less.

No clue how the House of Delegates will address the bill.  The bill's sponsor in the Senate is from a district that covers from Salem and just south of Roanoke south towards Rocky Mount, eastward into Bedford County near the reservoir, and west through Floyd to Wytheville.  It includes parts of I-77 and I-81.

I know a few people that have gotten banged with a reckless driving ticket on I-81 in southwest Virginia (not sure if it is in that district or not).

I also know a parent of a friend of my stepson who got deservedly got nailed in Fairfax County for 65 in a posted 25 or maybe 35 (one of the streets around Tysons Corner).  When I was asked what to do, I suggested it was time to retain the services a good lawyer admitted to the Bar in Virginia to avoid a jail sentence.

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 11, 2016, 04:44:01 PM
You'd better believe Hopewell will be opposed to this...

Hopewell might not care.  As I understand it, the Hopewell speed trap on I-295 is about ticketing people for violating city law, not the Code of Virginia's reckless driving provisions (though the city's deputy sheriffs working the speed trap do cite drivers for reckless driving rather frequently).

As I understand it, violations of local government traffic laws result in payments of fines which go to the treasury of that local government.  Most summonses issued for violations of Virginia state traffic laws (unless reckless driving violates a city law) go to the Commonwealth's Literacy Fund.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cl94 on February 11, 2016, 06:10:19 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 11, 2016, 05:44:18 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 11, 2016, 04:44:01 PM
You'd better believe Hopewell will be opposed to this...

Hopewell might not care.  As I understand it, the Hopewell speed trap on I-295 is about ticketing people for violating city law, not the Code of Virginia's reckless driving provisions (though the city's deputy sheriffs working the speed trap do cite drivers for reckless driving rather frequently).

As I understand it, violations of local government traffic laws result in payments of fines which go to the treasury of that local government.  Most summonses issued for violations of Virginia state traffic laws (unless reckless driving violates a city law) go to the Commonwealth's Literacy Fund.

That's common in a lot of states. New York breaks it up even further, with violations that earn points going to the state and those that don't staying local. For that reason, the courts are often very willing to reduce the violation to something without points, and you should take it even if the cost is the same.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 29, 2016, 05:18:14 PM
Put here since this bill relates to the entire state of VA:

From The Washington Post (Dr. Gridlock): Virginia bill would regulate tolling (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/02/29/virginia-bill-would-regulate-tolling/)

QuoteHouse Bill 1069, scheduled to be considered by the Senate Transportation Committee, would limit the types of highways that could be tolled without legislative approval and it creates new limits on the size of fines imposed when drivers fail to pay tolls.

QuoteThe bill would bar tolling on highways, bridges and tunnels unless the General Assembly approved, but it would not block the Virginia Department of Transportation from opening HOT lanes on Interstate 66, inside or outside the Capital Beltway. That's because the bill exempts projects that involve new construction and projects that involve conversion of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes into HOT lanes.

QuoteSo the bill would do several things in response:

Require VDOT to notify Virginia E-ZPass holders by text or email of potential problems and require toll road operators, like Transurban, to try to collect a toll several times over a 10-day period.

Civil penalties and administrative fees would be legally capped for first time offenders at $2,200.

The time period for raising administrative fees from $25 to $100 would be legally raised from 30 to 60 days.

I do wonder if an addendum might be added for those not having EZPASS that must get a bill in the mail for the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels.  Also I do wonder how this would affect any potential expansion of the HRBT or the MMMBT (as in I guess the expansion of these facilities would almost have to be done with HOT lanes now).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on February 29, 2016, 08:52:50 PM
VDOT's use of mixed Clearview is very well-done.  I was with my wife in the Richmond and Tidewater areas of Virginia last August and admired (silently) the newer signage type.  Kinda NC-ish with Clearview mixed in properly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on March 01, 2016, 05:54:06 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 29, 2016, 05:18:14 PM
Put here since this bill relates to the entire state of VA:

From The Washington Post (Dr. Gridlock): Virginia bill would regulate tolling (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/02/29/virginia-bill-would-regulate-tolling/)

QuoteHouse Bill 1069, scheduled to be considered by the Senate Transportation Committee, would limit the types of highways that could be tolled without legislative approval and it creates new limits on the size of fines imposed when drivers fail to pay tolls.

QuoteThe bill would bar tolling on highways, bridges and tunnels unless the General Assembly approved, but it would not block the Virginia Department of Transportation from opening HOT lanes on Interstate 66, inside or outside the Capital Beltway. That's because the bill exempts projects that involve new construction and projects that involve conversion of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes into HOT lanes.

QuoteSo the bill would do several things in response:

Require VDOT to notify Virginia E-ZPass holders by text or email of potential problems and require toll road operators, like Transurban, to try to collect a toll several times over a 10-day period.

Civil penalties and administrative fees would be legally capped for first time offenders at $2,200.

The time period for raising administrative fees from $25 to $100 would be legally raised from 30 to 60 days.

I do wonder if an addendum might be added for those not having EZPASS that must get a bill in the mail for the Midtown and Downtown Tunnels.  Also I do wonder how this would affect any potential expansion of the HRBT or the MMMBT (as in I guess the expansion of these facilities would almost have to be done with HOT lanes now).

I read an article about this and it seems that Hampton Roads area legislators are behind this primarily.  It seems to me as a way to mainly prevent new tolls on the HRBT or the MMMBT, unless they are new lanes.  I agree with this, as tolling the existing HRBT or the MMMBT would impose a mandatory new toll for the region with no conceivable way around.  But it will not prevent the addition of new toll lanes or converting HOV to HOT or toll lanes.  So if there were plans to widen the HRBT by adding 2 HOT lanes, that would still be permissible under the bill.

It seems that it also adds tollpayer "bill of rights" provisions.  The authors may not be aware of any difficulties for those crossing the Midtown and DOwntown tunnels without EZ-=PAss (it appears to be a small number of people who would be affected by it).  BUt I'm sure tthat a new driver-friendly provision can be added if needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 01, 2016, 10:43:50 AM
I heard that their were possible plans to convert the existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes on I-64 on the Peninsula and in Norfolk and I-264 in Virginia Beach. This would not add any new lanes. Would this still be allowed under the new bill?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2016, 01:02:27 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 01, 2016, 10:43:50 AM
I heard that their were possible plans to convert the existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes on I-64 on the Peninsula and in Norfolk and I-264 in Virginia Beach. This would not add any new lanes. Would this still be allowed under the new bill?

If I am reading it correctly, no.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 01, 2016, 01:21:05 PM
Does anyone support or oppose this bill?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 01, 2016, 02:44:25 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2016, 01:02:27 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 01, 2016, 10:43:50 AM
I heard that their were possible plans to convert the existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes on I-64 on the Peninsula and in Norfolk and I-264 in Virginia Beach. This would not add any new lanes. Would this still be allowed under the new bill?

If I am reading it correctly, no.

According to the quotation in your post above, the bill would not prohibit conversion of HOV lanes to HO/T lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2016, 03:13:47 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 01, 2016, 02:44:25 PM
According to the quotation in your post above, the bill would not prohibit conversion of HOV lanes to HO/T lanes.

But approval of the Virginia General Assembly would be required, as I read it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 01, 2016, 05:48:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2016, 03:13:47 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 01, 2016, 02:44:25 PM
According to the quotation in your post above, the bill would not prohibit conversion of HOV lanes to HO/T lanes.

But approval of the Virginia General Assembly would be required, as I read it.

From the WaPo article:

QuoteThat's because the bill exempts projects that involve new construction and projects that involve conversion of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes into HOT lanes.

In short, conversion of the Hampton Roads area HOV lanes to HOT lanes would NOT require General Assembly approval.  I double-checked the text of the bill to verify this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2016, 09:27:52 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2016, 05:48:21 PM
In short, conversion of the Hampton Roads area HOV lanes to HOT lanes would NOT require General Assembly approval.  I double-checked the text of the bill to verify this.

From reading previous media reports, it was explained that the exemption was for Northern Virginia HOV lanes only. 

There is apparently much more resistance to toll projects in Hampton Roads than there is in Northern Virginia, one reason why the Patriot's Crossing project is not going anywhere for now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 01, 2016, 10:05:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacusFrom reading previous media reports, it was explained that the exemption was for Northern Virginia HOV lanes only.

The bill makes no distinction between Northern Virginia and other areas.  Except for two specified entities (non-limited-access roads and I-81), the exemptions can be anywhere statewide.

QuoteThere is apparently much more resistance to toll projects in Hampton Roads than there is in Northern Virginia, one reason why the Patriot's Crossing project is not going anywhere for now.

Part of the recent angst with Hampton Roads tolls is the reintroduction of tolls on the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels, and the politics and decisions made for that.  But it's odd you say this because the General Assembly bill would not block the Patriots Crossing as it would be considered "new construction".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2016, 11:32:18 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2016, 10:05:23 PM
Part of the recent angst with Hampton Roads tolls is the reintroduction of tolls on the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels, and the politics and decisions made for that.  But it's odd you say this because the General Assembly bill would not block the Patriots Crossing as it would be considered "new construction".

But people down that way seem to be adamant that they want new highway capacity across Hampton Roads but do not want to pay for it with tolls - in Virginia these days, that usually means no new capacity.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 02, 2016, 07:52:04 AM
People down that way also want that new capacity to be an expanded HRBT, whereas the port and the state want Patriot's Crossing instead.  The issue is deeper and more complicated than what's being discussed here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 02, 2016, 10:48:12 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 02, 2016, 07:52:04 AM
People down that way also want that new capacity to be an expanded HRBT, whereas the port and the state want Patriot's Crossing instead.  The issue is deeper and more complicated than what's being discussed here.

If I was asking for the port, I would not be especially concerned with where the added capacity goes (and I gladly concede that Patriot's is closer to most of their seaport operations and the Naval Station), but much more interested in getting crossings in both directions that complies with VDOT standards for overhead clearance on freeways (IIRC, it is between 16' (488 cm) and 17' (519 cm) - and having a little more than standard clearance is not a bad thing for a tunnel). That to me should be what matters the most, and given that Patriot's is presumably much more expensive than building new parallel trestles and tunnels at the HRBT (or even an all-overwater crossing, which I dislike for strategic national security reasons).

From the port perspective, I also think that traffic congestion on I-64 (and network redundancy - remember the U.S. 460 project?) matters more than having to pay tolls to cross.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 02, 2016, 11:53:14 AM
The reality is that the Port is more interested in projects that would enable them to develop Craney Island.  Patriot's Crossing does that.  HRBT widening doesn't.  HRBT widening is on the table because that's what most drivers want, what Hampton wants, and past third crossing studies have demonstrated that it does far more for I-64 congestion than a third crossing (i.e. today's Patriot's Crossing) does.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 02, 2016, 07:19:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 02, 2016, 11:53:14 AM
The reality is that the Port is more interested in projects that would enable them to develop Craney Island.

I thought that was (mostly) a place where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dumped spoil from dredging operations?

Is it full?

Quote from: froggie on March 02, 2016, 11:53:14 AM
Patriot's Crossing does that.  HRBT widening doesn't.  HRBT widening is on the table because that's what most drivers want, what Hampton wants, and past third crossing studies have demonstrated that it does far more for I-64 congestion than a third crossing (i.e. today's Patriot's Crossing) does.

The HRBT clearly needs to be more than four lanes wide.  Either one works in terms of network redundancy, though Patriot's Crossing spreads  the demand out more. 

I suppose that Hampton does not want another landing on its shore facing Hampton Roads?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 05, 2016, 05:17:18 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 11, 2016, 09:24:11 AM
First I've heard of this:  WBOC (a station on the Delmarva) is reporting that the Virginia Senate has passed a bill which would change the speeds (http://www.wboc.com/story/31189883/va-senate-votes-to-raise-speed-limit-for-reckless-driving) at which a speeding driver could be charged with reckless driving.

As most of us know, current law allows police to charge reckless driving against drivers going 20+ mph over the limit or over 80mph, whichever is lower.  This bill, Senate Bill 768 (http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+ful+SB768+pdf), would change the 80mph requirement to 85mph, leaving the rest of the law intact.

In short, this bill has no impact on roadways with a speed limit of 60mph or less.

No clue how the House of Delegates will address the bill.  The bill's sponsor in the Senate is from a district that covers from Salem and just south of Roanoke south towards Rocky Mount, eastward into Bedford County near the reservoir, and west through Floyd to Wytheville.  It includes parts of I-77 and I-81.


The bill froggie mentions above was killed by a House committee. Not a huge surprise: It turns out two similar bills were introduced in the House and the same committee killed both of those as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 05, 2016, 05:27:19 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 05, 2016, 05:17:18 PM
The bill froggie mentions above was killed by a House committee. Not a huge surprise: It turns out two similar bills were introduced in the House and the same committee killed both of those as well.
No $urpri$e there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 05, 2016, 07:36:41 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 05, 2016, 05:27:19 PM
No $urpri$e there.

There are unfortunately a lot of people (including elected officials) that do not wish to concede that highways are not "free," and at least in the United States, maintenance and improvements of same are generally funded by motor fuel tax revenue (and to a lesser extent by excise taxes on things like tires, and vehicle registration fees in some places) - or by tolls. 

Hampton Roads has plenty of highway traffic congestion (which users pay for with delays, wasted time and wasted fuel, and usually increased crashes), and unfortunately, being on the Hampton Roads, Elizabeth River and Chesapeake Bay, that means a lot of long and expensive crossings to get between places. To cross those large bodies of water, a toll is frequently charged.  Not sure why Hampton Roads should expect to be different - and the members of the Virginia General Assembly from rural and exurban areas absolutely do not want their constituents paying fuel taxes for anything new or anything improved (be it highways or transit) in the (sub)urban crescent of Virginia from Hampton Roads to Richmond to Northern Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cl94 on March 05, 2016, 08:47:05 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 05, 2016, 07:36:41 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 05, 2016, 05:27:19 PM
No $urpri$e there.

There are unfortunately a lot of people (including elected officials) that do not wish to concede that highways are not "free," and at least in the United States, maintenance and improvements of same are generally funded by motor fuel tax revenue (and to a lesser extent by excise taxes on things like tires, and vehicle registration fees in some places) - or by tolls. 

Hampton Roads has plenty of highway traffic congestion (which users pay for with delays, wasted time and wasted fuel, and usually increased crashes), and unfortunately, being on the Hampton Roads, Elizabeth River and Chesapeake Bay, that means a lot of long and expensive crossings to get between places. To cross those large bodies of water, a toll is frequently charged.  Not sure why Hampton Roads should expect to be different - and the members of the Virginia General Assembly from rural and exurban areas absolutely do not want their constituents paying fuel taxes for anything new or anything improved (be it highways or transit) in the (sub)urban crescent of Virginia from Hampton Roads to Richmond to Northern Virginia.

Couldn't an extra fuel tax be added on the county level, as is done in some other states? Such a "suburbia tax" would only be charged in congested areas and would be used to fund improvements in developed areas. Would also have the added benefit of (possibly) providing an incentive to use mass transit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 05, 2016, 10:02:09 PM
To be clear, I was referring to the post that said the recless driving threshold increase proposal is dead. I edited my OP as such.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 06, 2016, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacusI thought that was (mostly) a place where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dumped spoil from dredging operations?

Is it full?

The island's not full, but that hasn't stopped the Port from desiring or planning for building another marine terminal there.

QuoteI suppose that Hampton does not want another landing on its shore facing Hampton Roads?

It's not that.  Patriot's Crossing would connect to the Monitor-Merrimac, so technically it wouldn't be a TRUE "third crossing".  Hampton's opposition to Patriot's Crossing is that (as I noted upthread) the crossing's own environmental and traffic studies have shown that it won't do much to relieve HRBT congestion and adjacent impacts along I-64.  Given that either project will run 10-digits, Hampton would far prefer that money be spent on an expanded HRBT.  According to earlier studies, most drivers agree.

Quote from: cl94Couldn't an extra fuel tax be added on the county level, as is done in some other states? Such a "suburbia tax" would only be charged in congested areas and would be used to fund improvements in developed areas. Would also have the added benefit of (possibly) providing an incentive to use mass transit.

Such would still have to be approved by the General Assembly.  There are enough Grover Norquist-esque Republicans in the GA that would see such a vote as a tax increase, even if it didn't affect their districts.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on March 06, 2016, 12:09:18 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 06, 2016, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacusI thought that was (mostly) a place where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dumped spoil from dredging operations?

Is it full?

The island's not full, but that hasn't stopped the Port from desiring or planning for building another marine terminal there.

QuoteI suppose that Hampton does not want another landing on its shore facing Hampton Roads?

It's not that.  Patriot's Crossing would connect to the Monitor-Merrimac, so technically it wouldn't be a TRUE "third crossing".  Hampton's opposition to Patriot's Crossing is that (as I noted upthread) the crossing's own environmental and traffic studies have shown that it won't do much to relieve HRBT congestion and adjacent impacts along I-64.  Given that either project will run 10-digits, Hampton would far prefer that money be spent on an expanded HRBT.  According to earlier studies, most drivers agree.

Quote from: cl94Couldn't an extra fuel tax be added on the county level, as is done in some other states? Such a "suburbia tax" would only be charged in congested areas and would be used to fund improvements in developed areas. Would also have the added benefit of (possibly) providing an incentive to use mass transit.

Such would still have to be approved by the General Assembly.  There are enough Grover Norquist-esque Republicans in the GA that would see such a vote as a tax increase, even if it didn't affect their districts.

It seems to me that crossings over the Hampton Roads (64 and 664)  should remain free, but any crossings over the Elizabeth River should be toll (I-264, Midtown Tunnel, Third Crossing, South Norfolk-Jordan Bridge). 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 06, 2016, 12:49:28 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 06, 2016, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacusI thought that was (mostly) a place where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dumped spoil from dredging operations?

Is it full?

The island's not full, but that hasn't stopped the Port from desiring or planning for building another marine terminal there.

That's reasonable.  Though it begs the question - where does the spoil go when Craney Island is full?

Quote
QuoteI suppose that Hampton does not want another landing on its shore facing Hampton Roads?

It's not that.  Patriot's Crossing would connect to the Monitor-Merrimac, so technically it wouldn't be a TRUE "third crossing".  Hampton's opposition to Patriot's Crossing is that (as I noted upthread) the crossing's own environmental and traffic studies have shown that it won't do much to relieve HRBT congestion and adjacent impacts along I-64.  Given that either project will run 10-digits, Hampton would far prefer that money be spent on an expanded HRBT.  According to earlier studies, most drivers agree.

Yeah, I think added capacity at the HRBT makes more sense.  Least impact on the Hampton and Norfolk sides, and allows the existing tubes to be totally shut-down for a through renovation (which I understand that they need).

Quote
Quote from: cl94Couldn't an extra fuel tax be added on the county level, as is done in some other states? Such a "suburbia tax" would only be charged in congested areas and would be used to fund improvements in developed areas. Would also have the added benefit of (possibly) providing an incentive to use mass transit.

Such would still have to be approved by the General Assembly.  There are enough Grover Norquist-esque Republicans in the GA that would see such a vote as a tax increase, even if it didn't affect their districts.

Agree with Adam.  There are taxes of this kind to provide transit operating subsidies in two parts of Virginia along I-95 from the City of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County north to the Potomac River, and an effort to increase same has been repeatedly killed in the General Assembly.

Speaking of which, there is an article in the [Fredericksburg] Free Lance Star about it just this weekend.  Because those taxes are effectively a form of sales tax (not a flat rate per gallon of fuel sold) on motor fuel, and the price of gasoline and Diesel has gone down enormously of late, much less money for those transit subsidies is being collected by both transit districts (PRTC (http://www.prtctransit.org/index.html) in the south, NVTC (http://www.novatransit.org/) in the north).  You can read the article here: Localities to lose millions in tax revenues due to low gas prices - TRANSPORTATION EFFORT TO CREATE TAX FLOOR FAILS (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/localities-to-lose-millions-in-tax-revenues-due-to-low/article_66d7aefe-79f2-5398-995b-a1dc2185f9d8.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 06, 2016, 12:54:12 PM
Quote from: mrsman on March 06, 2016, 12:09:18 PM
It seems to me that crossings over the Hampton Roads (64 and 664)  should remain free, but any crossings over the Elizabeth River should be toll (I-264, Midtown Tunnel, Third Crossing, South Norfolk-Jordan Bridge).

I must respectfully and vigorously disagree.

All of those crossings that involve long overwater sections or tunnels (or both) should be toll crossings, and ideally should have time-of-day tolling too. 

Such crossings are expensive to build and expensive to operate and expensive to maintain. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on March 07, 2016, 01:11:21 PM
I know that under the Patriot's Crossing proposal, tolls would have been added to the HRBT and MMMBT, but not the James River Bridge.  The expanded HRBT proposal on the other hand would have added tolls to all three crossings under the old rules.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 07, 2016, 04:01:44 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 07, 2016, 01:11:21 PM
I know that under the Patriot's Crossing proposal, tolls would have been added to the HRBT and MMMBT, but not the James River Bridge.  The expanded HRBT proposal on the other hand would have added tolls to all three crossings under the old rules.

IMO, the James River Bridge (U.S. 17) should definitely be tolled, to prevent shunpiking by trucks if the I-64 and I-664 crossings are tolled.

Owners of autos, motorcycles and trucks with GVW under 10,001 pounds living on the Peninsula or in  Isle of Wight County and the City of Suffolk should be offered deep discount E-ZPass plans.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 08, 2016, 07:08:19 AM
Posting here since it is unrelated to HOT Lanes, I-95 NB was closed between VA 3 and the north interchange with US 17 for emergency sign removal midday yesterday due to a driver crashing into the overhead sign at the exit for US 17 (http://wjla.com/news/local/emergency-repairs-held-along-i-95-after-driver-crashes-into-sign-during-police-pursuit).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2016, 10:14:40 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 08, 2016, 07:08:19 AM
Posting here since it is unrelated to HOT Lanes, I-95 NB was closed between VA 3 and the north interchange with US 17 for emergency sign removal midday yesterday due to a driver crashing into the overhead sign at the exit for US 17 (http://wjla.com/news/local/emergency-repairs-held-along-i-95-after-driver-crashes-into-sign-during-police-pursuit).

Yeah, that got a mention on the WTOP traffic reports yesterday, even after the festivities had wrapped-up.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 15, 2016, 01:19:47 PM
As another positive testimonial about the effectiveness of VDOT's support request page, I decided to submit a bunch of requests regarding the improvement of signage for VA 161 and VA 356 in Henrico County. The result is that VA 356 is now fully posted (complete with an END sign eastbound at VA 161), and no longer seems to "disappear". The movements for VA 161 and VA 356 are also fully posted at that intersection (VA 161 turns onto Hilliard Road from Lakeside Avenue). There is also now a reassurance shield at the western end of VA 356.

Maybe I should use this feature to have VDOT finally properly sign some poorly signed routes...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 15, 2016, 02:07:03 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 15, 2016, 01:19:47 PM
As another positive testimonial about the effectiveness of VDOT's support request page, I decided to submit a bunch of requests regarding the improvement of signage for VA 161 and VA 356 in Henrico County. The result is that VA 356 is now fully posted (complete with an END sign eastbound at VA 161), and no longer seems to "disappear". The movements for VA 161 and VA 356 are also fully posted at that intersection (VA 161 turns onto Hilliard Road from Lakeside Avenue). There is also now a reassurance shield at the western end of VA 356.

Maybe I should use this feature to have VDOT finally properly sign some poorly signed routes...

Excellent...

Speaking of this intersection, around the 0:31 mark of this frenetic video about vintage Richmond signage (mostly commercial signage) there is a very clear photo of VA 161 NB approaching VA 356 in white border signs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBLGvGQWoFs

The video itself is pretty neat but I had to play it at a slower speed to not lose my mind...

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 17, 2016, 09:39:52 AM
VDOT tweeted out a link to a "Then and Now" gallery. Note they arranged them vertically rather than side-by-side.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/sets/72157665456278465/with/25203056670/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 17, 2016, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 15, 2016, 01:19:47 PM
Maybe I should use this feature to have VDOT finally properly sign some poorly signed routes...

Would that it would be possible to alert VDOT to sign horrors by municipal governments that either do not sign Virginia primary and U.S. routes within their corporate limits - or - do a terrible job of same (yes, Falls Church, I am looking at you).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 17, 2016, 12:25:39 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 17, 2016, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 15, 2016, 01:19:47 PM
Maybe I should use this feature to have VDOT finally properly sign some poorly signed routes...

Would that it would be possible to alert VDOT to sign horrors by municipal governments that either do not sign Virginia primary and U.S. routes within their corporate limits - or - do a terrible job of same (yes, Falls Church, I am looking at you).

OTOH, I'd hate to see the remaining cutouts in Falls Church vanish.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 17, 2016, 12:50:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 17, 2016, 12:25:39 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 17, 2016, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 15, 2016, 01:19:47 PM
Maybe I should use this feature to have VDOT finally properly sign some poorly signed routes...

Would that it would be possible to alert VDOT to sign horrors by municipal governments that either do not sign Virginia primary and U.S. routes within their corporate limits - or - do a terrible job of same (yes, Falls Church, I am looking at you).

OTOH, I'd hate to see the remaining cutouts in Falls Church vanish.

I agree - but there are no more state route signs along 338 in Falls Church, and there was no signing at all
of Va. 7 (Broad Street) when driving north on U.S. 29 (Washington Street) approaching that intersection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 17, 2016, 03:37:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 17, 2016, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 15, 2016, 01:19:47 PM
Maybe I should use this feature to have VDOT finally properly sign some poorly signed routes...

Would that it would be possible to alert VDOT to sign horrors by municipal governments that either do not sign Virginia primary and U.S. routes within their corporate limits - or - do a terrible job of same (yes, Falls Church, I am looking at you).

Sadly I tried to make a request for signs on streets in Richmond and the interface is able to determine that VDOT doesn't maintain the streets I made the request for.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 17, 2016, 03:47:27 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 17, 2016, 03:37:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 17, 2016, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 15, 2016, 01:19:47 PM
Maybe I should use this feature to have VDOT finally properly sign some poorly signed routes...

Would that it would be possible to alert VDOT to sign horrors by municipal governments that either do not sign Virginia primary and U.S. routes within their corporate limits - or - do a terrible job of same (yes, Falls Church, I am looking at you).

Sadly I tried to make a request for signs on streets in Richmond and the interface is able to determine that VDOT doesn't maintain the streets I made the request for.

Same thing happened when I tried to get some lumpy asphalt fixed in Alexandria. Problem extends onto a section I know is VDOT-maintained in Fairfax County, but neither jurisdiction seems to care.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 17, 2016, 04:00:01 PM
In other words, don't bother.  The likely answer from VDOT would also be that those streets/roads are under city jurisdiction, not VDOT jurisdiction, so you should take it up with the city.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 17, 2016, 04:14:09 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2016, 04:00:01 PM
In other words, don't bother.  The likely answer from VDOT would also be that those streets/roads are under city jurisdiction, not VDOT jurisdiction, so you should take it up with the city.


To be sure, cpzilliacus began his comment with "would that," indicating he wishes one could do this. I certainly understand that wish.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 17, 2016, 04:36:55 PM
I saw that...but my response was moreso after reading everyone else's response to his question.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 18, 2016, 02:52:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 17, 2016, 04:14:09 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2016, 04:00:01 PM
In other words, don't bother.  The likely answer from VDOT would also be that those streets/roads are under city jurisdiction, not VDOT jurisdiction, so you should take it up with the city.


To be sure, cpzilliacus began his comment with "would that," indicating he wishes one could do this. I certainly understand that wish.

Thank you and agreed.

I think it is important to note that even on streets and roads maintained by towns and cities across Virginia, the Commonwealth still plays a major role in funding those public roadways, even when maintained by a municipal department outside of VDOT through the Urban Program, though there is nothing on the VDOT Web site that provides guidance for maintaining signage on streets and roads that are part of the primary system.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 18, 2016, 07:09:06 PM
I don't see any technical reason why VDOT couldn't simply refer reports to the appropriate jurisdiction. They just don't want to do it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jwolfer on March 18, 2016, 07:26:52 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 17, 2016, 04:14:09 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2016, 04:00:01 PM
In other words, don't bother.  The likely answer from VDOT would also be that those streets/roads are under city jurisdiction, not VDOT jurisdiction, so you should take it up with the city.


To be sure, cpzilliacus began his comment with "would that," indicating he wishes one could do this. I certainly understand that wish.
Wonderful use of the subjunctive mood! Most English speakers don't use it.. They say " if I was you.." Instead of " if I were you.."

I don't understand why some states don't maintain state routes through cites. Just to keep same quality of road and signage. It makes sense for maintenance on a signed route to be all on the state.. Florida maintaines the roads inside city limits.. I guess other states like Delaware the state maintains everything
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 18, 2016, 09:11:12 PM
Virginia's situation has always been complicated.  The independent city concept goes back a long ways to 1871.
Even incorporated towns in Virginia can make it complicated:  all primary routes through incorporated towns were removed from state highway maintenance in 1929 after a legal interpretation involving Ashland and its desire to put certain signs up along a primary route that the CTB didn't want.  In 1930 the General Assembly passed a law outlining what needed to happen for a town to have their primary routes put back in the state highway maintenance system.  Most towns complied and had their routes restored to the system in 1930-31.

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 20, 2016, 09:50:39 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 18, 2016, 09:11:12 PM
Virginia's situation has always been complicated.  The independent city concept goes back a long ways to 1871.
Even incorporated towns in Virginia can make it complicated:  all primary routes through incorporated towns were removed from state highway maintenance in 1929 after a legal interpretation involving Ashland and its desire to put certain signs up along a primary route that the CTB didn't want.  In 1930 the General Assembly passed a law outlining what needed to happen for a town to have their primary routes put back in the state highway maintenance system.  Most towns complied and had their routes restored to the system in 1930-31.

Though even now, the cities maintain all or very nearly all arterial roads inside their limits.  Most (maybe all) Interstate and urban freeway/expressways in cities are maintained by VDOT.

Towns under a certain population threshold (3,500?) can have their roads and streets maintained by VDOT.

Above that, and the towns need to maintain their own streets.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 20, 2016, 02:57:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 18, 2016, 07:09:06 PM
I don't see any technical reason why VDOT couldn't simply refer reports to the appropriate jurisdiction. They just don't want to do it.

They do...if it's a VDOT jurisdiction. I don't think most of the independent cities are concerned.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 25, 2016, 12:29:07 PM
WTOP Radio: Prince William Co. pulls plug, for now, on controversial parkway route (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2016/03/prince-william-co-pulls-plug-now-controversial-parkway-route/)

QuoteThe Bi-County Parkway that would directly connect Interstate 95 to Interstate 66 and the area near Dulles Airport is no longer part of Prince William County's long-range plans after a Board of Supervisors vote this week.

QuoteAlthough the board had said it would not act Tuesday since Chairman Corey Stewart was out of town, the board voted 4-3 to remove the Bi-County Parkway route from the county's comprehensive plan.

QuoteThe route on the west side of Manassas National Battlefield had been chosen by the state more than a decade ago, but opposition from some neighbors eventually led to it being put on hold.

QuoteWhile Board Vice-Chair Pete Candland agrees with Virginia Department of Transportation plans that eventually call for some type of north-south connection through the county, he says removing the exact route from the comprehensive plan will allow for more negotiations in the future, rather than "getting slapped across the face, saying "˜this is in your comprehensive plan.'"
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on March 25, 2016, 12:57:19 PM
Quick question: who maintains US 29 and VA 234 inside Manassas' battlefield? There's still green distance signs (probably VDOT spec), but there's also NPS signs (some signs on US 29 point to the Stone Bridge using the Rawlinson font).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 25, 2016, 01:03:49 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 25, 2016, 12:57:19 PM
Quick question: who maintains US 29 and VA 234 inside Manassas' battlefield? There's still green distance signs (probably VDOT spec), but there's also NPS signs (some signs on US 29 point to the Stone Bridge using the Rawlinson font).

VDOT maintains these routes...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 26, 2016, 06:41:03 PM
Speaking of VDOT, the preliminary versions of the 2015 traffic data reports are available on the VDOT website (they seem to be dated late February 2016):

http://www.virginiadot.org/info/2015_traffic_data_by_jurisdiction.asp

I haven't looked through them all to see if there's anything noteworthy in them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 28, 2016, 05:32:40 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 10, 2015, 01:24:02 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 10, 2015, 07:34:30 AM
The proposed SR 630 Stafford Interchange is now envisioned as a DDI instead of the more complicated mess originally proposed, though still a little pricey at $149M

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/DDI_Map,_Exit_140_Courthouse_Road.PDF

VDOT's website puts this project in the "Coming soon" pile...

Send. Lots. of. Money. 

I make that assertion because of the land that VDOT will have to purchase for this to happen.

This project is now set for contract award in fall 2016 (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/fredericksburg/interstate_95-route_630_courthouse_road_interchange_relocation_and_route_630_widening.asp).  The interchange price remains $149M; widening/relocating SR 630 is $36M.

They also have this as part of this project:
Quote
I-95 Southbound Fourth Lane Construction Option

VDOT has proposed constructing a fourth lane on Interstate 95 southbound as part of this project. It will be included as a bid option when the I-95 Exit 140 interchange and Route 630 widening project is advertised.

Design and construction of a fourth I-95 travel lane will be contingent on available funding after bids are submitted and reviewed.

Construction of a fourth southbound I-95 lane is proposed to be built in Stafford between I-95 mile marker 143 and 2,250 feet south of the new, relocated I-95 interchange at Exit 140 (Route 630/Courthouse Road).

The fourth lane would begin at the end of the southbound exit from the 95 Express Lanes Southern Terminus Extension project. This project will construct an approximate 2.2 miles of reversible extension of the Express Lanes.

The fourth lane would be open to all traffic in the general purpose lanes of I-95 southbound.

The estimated cost of the 4th lane is $17M.

Mike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 19, 2016, 07:35:38 PM
Residents on the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck seem to be concerned with the safety with the  VA 3 Robert O. Norris Bridge (http://www.nbc12.com/story/31763487/drivers-concerned-about-safety-of-norris-bridge) over the Rappahannock River, though VDOT says it is structurally safe.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 22, 2016, 04:49:44 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 19, 2016, 07:35:38 PM
Residents on the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck seem to be concerned with the safety with the  VA 3 Robert O. Norris Bridge (http://www.nbc12.com/story/31763487/drivers-concerned-about-safety-of-norris-bridge) over the Rappahannock River, though VDOT says it is structurally safe.

I recall the deck of the Norris Bridge getting some sort of a pretty thorough rehabilitation job in the 1990's.  Might even have been a deck replacement.  It was a very bumpy ride, and "lowboy" tractor-trailers were prohibited from crossing. 

First time I crossed the Norris Bridge in the 1960's, it was still a toll bridge.  There was a toll plaza at the north end of the crossing.  The building and wide spot in Va. 3 are still there:  https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6378997,-76.4094374,3a,75y,72.98h,66.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9lnd29bC4MtGV3ejPPB8VQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on April 22, 2016, 06:53:56 PM
It "looks" alright, just a bit narrow (10 ft. lanes instead of 12 ft. lanes).  The problem is more than likely due to temperature and weather variations.  There seems to be a lot more snow and colder temperatures in this area than there was in the 1980's and 1990's.  The bridge is probably "structurally safe" but "functionally obsolete."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on April 26, 2016, 09:29:38 AM
In Arlington, two occasions where pedestrians were struck while in a crosswalk:

https://www.arlnow.com/2016/04/21/teen-struck-by-car-in-ballston/

https://www.arlnow.com/2016/04/25/woman-struck-by-car-in-clarendon/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2016, 11:02:03 AM
Daily Press: Regional long-range transportation plan ensures cash for I-64, other Peninsula projects (http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-nws-long-range-plan-0426-20160426-story.html)

QuoteA regional blueprint meant to address bottlenecks, congestion and mass transit needs during the next 24 years could include nearly $4.2 billion in bonds issued by the area's primary road financier.

QuoteOfficials with the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization are putting their final touches on the region's 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan.

QuoteThe long-range plan helps regional transportation leaders prioritize significant transportation projects needed to improve congestion and traffic woes on the Peninsula and across the region, said Dale M. Stith, HRTPO principal transportation engineer.

QuoteThe plan, which is mostly finalized by members of the transportation planning organization and Hampton Roads Transit, is typically updated every four to five years, Stith said.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on April 28, 2016, 08:30:28 PM
I was on the Peninsula on Tuesday (visiting Buckroe and a local brewery). US 17's widening/repaving/whatever in York County is progressing pretty nicely.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 28, 2016, 09:31:34 PM
Quote from: Takumi on April 28, 2016, 08:30:28 PM
I was on the Peninsula on Tuesday (visiting Buckroe and a local brewery). US 17's widening/repaving/whatever in York County is progressing pretty nicely.

I will have to remind myself to revisit that area after it is finished (not as easy for me to do since I live in PA now), my friend's wife is from that area and told me that the project has basically made US 17 a parking lot for large portions of the day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on April 29, 2016, 09:09:17 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 28, 2016, 09:31:34 PM
Quote from: Takumi on April 28, 2016, 08:30:28 PM
I was on the Peninsula on Tuesday (visiting Buckroe and a local brewery). US 17's widening/repaving/whatever in York County is progressing pretty nicely.

I will have to remind myself to revisit that area after it is finished (not as easy for me to do since I live in PA now), my friend's wife is from that area and told me that the project has basically made US 17 a parking lot for large portions of the day.
I was on it during afternoon rush hour. Once I got to SR 634 I bailed out and took the back way to the Colonial Parkway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 03, 2016, 07:10:39 PM
The new pedestrian bridge over I-395 at Seminary Road is to open tomorrow, per a tweet from Dr. Gridlock.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 04, 2016, 04:33:01 PM
The signals put on the ramps at the I-95 interchange at SR 606 (Exit 118) in Thornburg are going into flashing mode (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/vdot-adjusting-traffic-lights-at-thornburg-interchange-to-ease-congestion/article_7458ea5e-1178-11e6-9dc7-b70a24409992.html) until the planned widening project is done.  Apparently the new signals created back ups on the ramps and SR 606 that were not there before.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 06, 2016, 06:26:08 AM
Quote from: Takumi on April 29, 2016, 09:09:17 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 28, 2016, 09:31:34 PM
Quote from: Takumi on April 28, 2016, 08:30:28 PM
I was on the Peninsula on Tuesday (visiting Buckroe and a local brewery). US 17's widening/repaving/whatever in York County is progressing pretty nicely.

I will have to remind myself to revisit that area after it is finished (not as easy for me to do since I live in PA now), my friend's wife is from that area and told me that the project has basically made US 17 a parking lot for large portions of the day.
I was on it during afternoon rush hour. Once I got to SR 634 I bailed out and took the back way to the Colonial Parkway.

Apparently Phase 1 (http://wydaily.com/2016/05/06/local-news-phase-i-of-york-route-17-widening-project-nearing-completion/) of the US 17 widening is nearing completion, the new lanes should open in a few weeks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on May 13, 2016, 11:37:53 AM
Drove along US-17 the other day and got some photos of the ongoing widening project between SR-630 and VA-134 in York County.
Sorry about the shite picture quality, as I only had my dashcam to get photos from. (I try not to take photos from behind the wheel for safety reasons)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17a.png&hash=1178052d680bf429132807853ee9088b584f6aa8)
Heading NB, the new third lane starts as an added lane from VA-134. It's mostly complete between here and SR-620 (Oriana Rd), but is blocked off for some reason.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17b.png&hash=71fb94465a89ea127944d8bb6829d82264e7490a)
Just past SR-620, traffic shifts over to the right, where the new inside lane needs paving work.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17c.png&hash=2c369360ba40a6f79d960d89d6feb759937396c8)
Some asphalt trucks working on resurfacing the southbound side. The northbound side will likely be next.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17d.png&hash=e471aed4bb16f9fb46307c6390bd34d8a0f33e00)
Heading back southbound now, one lane has been blocked off between SR-630 and SR-621 to lay new asphalt. The third lane has been graded somewhat, but not paved.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17e.png&hash=eb56f4e2b2479f73c2ee5d1b1a966fc982bfe75d)
A better look at the new lane, headed southbound just past SR-620.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fus17_widening_2016%2F17f.png&hash=2a9efa357ea769385390e07d54613cc19d37f982)
A look at the recently reconstructed bridge over the Poquoson River near the dam for Harwood's Mill Reservoir.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on May 19, 2016, 02:32:19 PM
VDOT announced the completion of a roundabout at Braddock Rd (western portion) and Pleasant Valley Road:

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/braddock_and_pleasant_valley.asp

Since it is settled that roundabouts are safer and more efficient, there is nothing much needed to discuss about the peformance improvements of the intersection.

I don't get out that way and may never drive the intersection, but I was wondering why there is a right-turn slip lane on the roundabount?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 19, 2016, 03:26:43 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on May 19, 2016, 02:32:19 PM
VDOT announced the completion of a roundabout at Braddock Rd (western portion) and Pleasant Valley Road:

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/braddock_and_pleasant_valley.asp

Since it is settled that roundabouts are safer and more efficient, there is nothing much needed to discuss about the peformance improvements of the intersection.

I don't get out that way and may never drive the intersection, but I was wondering why there is a right-turn slip lane on the roundabount?

Read pg. 46 (pdf pg 52) here - http://www.virginiadot.org/VDOT/Projects/Northern_Virginia/asset_upload_file820_64596.pdf

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 19, 2016, 05:26:31 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on May 19, 2016, 02:32:19 PM
Since it is settled that roundabouts are safer and more efficient, there is nothing much needed to discuss about the peformance improvements of the intersection.

Settled like global warming?  :bigass:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 19, 2016, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on September 09, 2015, 12:13:46 AM
Daily Press - I-64 Widening to Begin this Month http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-nn-64-widening-20150908-story.html (http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-nn-64-widening-20150908-story.html)

So after 14+ years of living in Hampton Roads, they finally start work on this project less than a month after I move out. Excellent.

VDOT is airing radio ads in Northern Virginia advising drivers heading for the beach to use I-295 and US 460 this summer to avoid the I-64 widening construction
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on May 25, 2016, 08:48:25 PM
Cross-posted from The Clearview Thread:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fi64_va255.png&hash=c2f2d5baad1a169901cfccd400254e55970e6375)
I spotted this on my way to work this morning, just east of Exit 255. As far as I know, it was installed within the past month (I don't remember it being there last week, and it's not on street view imagery from March 2016). All of the other signs of this type are in Clearview. Now, the lack of rounded corners and 18" shield numerals (the standard for these signs is 16") suggest that this is a contractor error, but it could be a sign that VA is thinking of moving away from Clearview.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 25, 2016, 08:51:28 PM
Quotebut it could be a sign that VA is thinking of moving away from Clearview.

Given that FHWA has rescinded their interim approval of Clearview, it's clear (pun intended) that this sign is one of the first offshoots of that recision.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 26, 2016, 11:52:02 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 25, 2016, 08:51:28 PM
Quotebut it could be a sign that VA is thinking of moving away from Clearview.

Given that FHWA has rescinded their interim approval of Clearview, it's clear (pun intended) that this sign is one of the first offshoots of that recision.

Yeah, VDOT was very quick to react to FHWA's decision. I've seen some street name signs (the ones mounted on traffic signal mast arms) and a few temporary signs posted in the past few weeks that were not Clearview.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 29, 2016, 07:12:45 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 13, 2016, 11:37:53 AM
Heading NB, the new third lane starts as an added lane from VA-134. It's mostly complete between here and SR-620 (Oriana Rd), but is blocked off for some reason.
The new third lanes on US 17  (http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-nws-us17-widening-0528-20160527-story.html) up to the bowling alley (before SR 620) are open now in both directions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on June 01, 2016, 12:14:25 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 25, 2016, 08:48:25 PM
Cross-posted from The Clearview Thread:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fi64_va255.png&hash=c2f2d5baad1a169901cfccd400254e55970e6375)
I spotted this on my way to work this morning, just east of Exit 255. As far as I know, it was installed within the past month (I don't remember it being there last week, and it's not on street view imagery from March 2016). All of the other signs of this type are in Clearview. Now, the lack of rounded corners and 18" shield numerals (the standard for these signs is 16") suggest that this is a contractor error, but it could be a sign that VA is thinking of moving away from Clearview.
A quick update on this: Another one of these new signs has gone up, a mast-mounted version showing travel times to Exit 291 / VA-168 around MM 257 on I-64. It's also in FHWA, with the shields in a similar style. Apparently, this is all apart of a larger replacement project of the existing ground-mounted ones with overhead versions.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froads.wesj.org%2Fphotos%2Fi64_va257.png&hash=1b1d6b867ff5431fb88bae8e15f6dda1ffa69c65)
Not a huge fan of the right-side placement of the mast.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ixnay on June 04, 2016, 03:24:43 PM
Thing 342, that sign for VA 168 ought to show the driving time to the OBX themselves (Kitty Hawk at least, and maybe Buxton).  :)

Let us know when those signs are activated!

ixnay
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 04, 2016, 03:37:42 PM
Quote from: ixnay on June 04, 2016, 03:24:43 PM
Thing 342, that sign for VA 168 ought to show the driving time to the OBX themselves (Kitty Hawk at least, and maybe Buxton).  :)

Let us know when those signs are activated!

ixnay

Unless VDOT and NCDOT coordinate with each other to place these signs on VA/NC 168 and US 158, I doubt that you will see actual travel times to the Outer Banks... (maybe the VA/NC Line at best if the city of Chesapeake gets involved)

Also I found an update on the planned US 60 Relocation Project (http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-newport-news-us-60-20160604-story.html) from VA 105 at Fort Eustis into James City County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 04, 2016, 09:05:38 PM
Related to that US 60 relocation article is this bit of news (http://www.dailypress.com/news/traffic/dp-nws-highway-widening-0521-20160520-story.html) about how cost savings elsewhere have resulted in the CTB funding most of another widening project on I-64, from I-295 to VA 33/VA 249/Bottoms Bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 04, 2016, 09:56:30 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 04, 2016, 03:37:42 PM
Unless VDOT and NCDOT coordinate with each other to place these signs on VA/NC 168 and US 158, I doubt that you will see actual travel times to the Outer Banks... (maybe the VA/NC Line at best if the city of Chesapeake gets involved)

They presumably use vehicle probe data to compute those speeds, and it would be very easy for VDOT to post the estimated travel time to the Outer Banks. 

Maryland SHA is routinely posting the estimated travel time "to Va." on southbound I-95 approaching I-495, and I wish they would post that travel time to the Springfield interchange instead.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 04, 2016, 10:42:10 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 04, 2016, 09:56:30 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 04, 2016, 03:37:42 PM
Unless VDOT and NCDOT coordinate with each other to place these signs on VA/NC 168 and US 158, I doubt that you will see actual travel times to the Outer Banks... (maybe the VA/NC Line at best if the city of Chesapeake gets involved)

They presumably use vehicle probe data to compute those speeds, and it would be vary easy for VDOT to post the estimated travel time to the Outer Banks. 

Maryland SHA is routinely posting the estimated travel time "to Va." on southbound I-95 approaching I-495, and I wish they would post that travel time to the Springfield interchange instead.

I agree, for example, on I-76 WB heading to US 202 in King of Prussia they only show the travel time to US 30 in Exton via US 202 SB.  The PTC and PennDOT, if willing, should have the resources to post travel times to Reading via both the I-76 and I-176 corridor (majority on the PA Turnpike-all interstate freeway) and US 422 (http://www.422improvements.com/) (arterial from Reading to Pottstown, freeway from Pottstown east, but with only two lanes on the west side of PA 100 due to the current construction of the Schuylkill River bridges (with the one on the east side of PA 100 having four lanes but with trucks limited to the left lane and no shoulders), heavy congestion during both the morning (PA 29 to PA 23 in Valley Forge) and afternoon rush hours (definitely from US 202 to past PA 363), and more construction to help alleviate the congestion just mentioned (at the PA 23 and PA 363 interchanges-including the replacement/widening of the Schuylkill River Bridge here as well, currently the main choking point).

IMO, considering the tolls are still continually increasing on the PA Turnpike system yearly, I feel that anything the PTC could do to convince more traffic to use their roads would only be a benefit to them.  I would want to believe that the idea for the Scranton Beltway (https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2016/20160428142143.htm) would include travel times via I-81 and I-476, otherwise I do not understand how the PTC would otherwise try to convince motorists to bypass Scranton.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Zzonkmiles on June 05, 2016, 10:22:38 AM
I just checked the VDOT page and was pleasantly surprised. It's good to see I-64 being widened west of Newport News. But I wonder if there are any projects in the works to decrease congestion further east where the two-lane tunnels are. I'm not sure how feasible it even is to widen these tunnels or create new ones, but I hope they're looking at it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 05, 2016, 10:41:24 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 04, 2016, 10:42:10 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 04, 2016, 09:56:30 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 04, 2016, 03:37:42 PM
Unless VDOT and NCDOT coordinate with each other to place these signs on VA/NC 168 and US 158, I doubt that you will see actual travel times to the Outer Banks... (maybe the VA/NC Line at best if the city of Chesapeake gets involved)

They presumably use vehicle probe data to compute those speeds, and it would be vary easy for VDOT to post the estimated travel time to the Outer Banks. 

Maryland SHA is routinely posting the estimated travel time "to Va." on southbound I-95 approaching I-495, and I wish they would post that travel time to the Springfield interchange instead.

I agree, for example, on I-76 WB heading to US 202 in King of Prussia they only show the travel time to US 30 in Exton via US 202 SB.  The PTC and PennDOT, if willing, should have the resources to post travel times to Reading via both the I-76 and I-176 corridor (majority on the PA Turnpike-all interstate freeway) and US 422 (http://www.422improvements.com/) (arterial from Reading to Pottstown, freeway from Pottstown east, but with only two lanes on the west side of PA 100 due to the current construction of the Schuylkill River bridges (with the one on the east side of PA 100 having four lanes but with trucks limited to the left lane and no shoulders), heavy congestion during both the morning (PA 29 to PA 23 in Valley Forge) and afternoon rush hours (definitely from US 202 to past PA 363), and more construction to help alleviate the congestion just mentioned (at the PA 23 and PA 363 interchanges-including the replacement/widening of the Schuylkill River Bridge here as well, currently the main choking point).

IMO, considering the tolls are still continually increasing on the PA Turnpike system yearly, I feel that anything the PTC could do to convince more traffic to use their roads would only be a benefit to them.  I would want to believe that the idea for the Scranton Beltway (https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2016/20160428142143.htm) would include travel times via I-81 and I-476, otherwise I do not understand how the PTC would otherwise try to convince motorists to bypass Scranton.

Maryland has only recently started to post the travel times on Md. 200/I-370 at the approaches to same on I-95 and on I-270.

For those drivers that to not have such information in their vehicles, this is helpful to them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 05, 2016, 12:58:42 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 05, 2016, 10:41:24 AM
For those drivers that to not have such information in their vehicles, this is helpful to them.

I definitely agree that it is useful.  (For example, I would rather not be continuously checking traffic throughout my trips.)  When it comes down to it though, the states would probably have to be forced to coordinate by the feds for them to do travel times beyond their own borders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on June 05, 2016, 03:16:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 04, 2016, 09:56:30 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 04, 2016, 03:37:42 PM
Unless VDOT and NCDOT coordinate with each other to place these signs on VA/NC 168 and US 158, I doubt that you will see actual travel times to the Outer Banks... (maybe the VA/NC Line at best if the city of Chesapeake gets involved)

They presumably use vehicle probe data to compute those speeds, and it would be very easy for VDOT to post the estimated travel time to the Outer Banks. 

Maryland SHA is routinely posting the estimated travel time "to Va." on southbound I-95 approaching I-495, and I wish they would post that travel time to the Springfield interchange instead.
Having worked on the OpenTMS system that VDOT uses to calculate and display the travel times on those signs, I can tell you that showing travel times across state lines is impossible, or at least would require some very hacky workaround.

The point of these signs is to inform drivers as to which path is best to take to get to a common destination, and adding an arbitrary amount of time would only obfuscate that information. It would also make the sign somewhat less useful for those who don't plan on going all the way to the Wright Bros. Bridge after getting on 168 SB, (like myself, who commutes to Great Bridge).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 05, 2016, 08:58:49 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 05, 2016, 03:16:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 04, 2016, 09:56:30 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 04, 2016, 03:37:42 PM
Unless VDOT and NCDOT coordinate with each other to place these signs on VA/NC 168 and US 158, I doubt that you will see actual travel times to the Outer Banks... (maybe the VA/NC Line at best if the city of Chesapeake gets involved)

They presumably use vehicle probe data to compute those speeds, and it would be very easy for VDOT to post the estimated travel time to the Outer Banks. 

Maryland SHA is routinely posting the estimated travel time "to Va." on southbound I-95 approaching I-495, and I wish they would post that travel time to the Springfield interchange instead.
Having worked on the OpenTMS system that VDOT uses to calculate and display the travel times on those signs, I can tell you that showing travel times across state lines is impossible, or at least would require some very hacky workaround.

I work with similar data, and have easy access to vehicle probe data from Maryland, D.C., Virginia and Pennsylvania.  Note that's not real-time, since that is not what I do.

Quote from: Thing 342 on June 05, 2016, 03:16:00 PM
The point of these signs is to inform drivers as to which path is best to take to get to a common destination, and adding an arbitrary amount of time would only obfuscate that information. It would also make the sign somewhat less useful for those who don't plan on going all the way to the Wright Bros. Bridge after getting on 168 SB, (like myself, who commutes to Great Bridge).

Adding an arbitrary amount of data would be bad, and possibly misleading and even unethical. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cl94 on June 05, 2016, 09:08:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 05, 2016, 08:58:49 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 05, 2016, 03:16:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 04, 2016, 09:56:30 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 04, 2016, 03:37:42 PM
Unless VDOT and NCDOT coordinate with each other to place these signs on VA/NC 168 and US 158, I doubt that you will see actual travel times to the Outer Banks... (maybe the VA/NC Line at best if the city of Chesapeake gets involved)

They presumably use vehicle probe data to compute those speeds, and it would be very easy for VDOT to post the estimated travel time to the Outer Banks. 

Maryland SHA is routinely posting the estimated travel time "to Va." on southbound I-95 approaching I-495, and I wish they would post that travel time to the Springfield interchange instead.
Having worked on the OpenTMS system that VDOT uses to calculate and display the travel times on those signs, I can tell you that showing travel times across state lines is impossible, or at least would require some very hacky workaround.

I work with similar data, and have easy access to vehicle probe data from Maryland, D.C., Virginia and Pennsylvania.  Note that's not real-time, since that is not what I do.

Quote from: Thing 342 on June 05, 2016, 03:16:00 PM
The point of these signs is to inform drivers as to which path is best to take to get to a common destination, and adding an arbitrary amount of time would only obfuscate that information. It would also make the sign somewhat less useful for those who don't plan on going all the way to the Wright Bros. Bridge after getting on 168 SB, (like myself, who commutes to Great Bridge).

Adding an arbitrary amount of data would be bad, and possibly misleading and even unethical.

Now that NC has E-ZPass, they could do like NYSTA and NYSDOT and install E-ZPass readers to measure travel times. As E-ZPass is in multiple states, they could theoretically combine and share the data.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on June 05, 2016, 11:50:30 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 05, 2016, 08:58:49 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 05, 2016, 03:16:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 04, 2016, 09:56:30 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 04, 2016, 03:37:42 PM
Unless VDOT and NCDOT coordinate with each other to place these signs on VA/NC 168 and US 158, I doubt that you will see actual travel times to the Outer Banks... (maybe the VA/NC Line at best if the city of Chesapeake gets involved)

They presumably use vehicle probe data to compute those speeds, and it would be very easy for VDOT to post the estimated travel time to the Outer Banks. 

Maryland SHA is routinely posting the estimated travel time "to Va." on southbound I-95 approaching I-495, and I wish they would post that travel time to the Springfield interchange instead.
Having worked on the OpenTMS system that VDOT uses to calculate and display the travel times on those signs, I can tell you that showing travel times across state lines is impossible, or at least would require some very hacky workaround.

I work with similar data, and have easy access to vehicle probe data from Maryland, D.C., Virginia and Pennsylvania.  Note that's not real-time, since that is not what I do.
It's not an issue of collecting or retrieving the probe data from Inrix, it's an issue with making it properly integrate with the rest of the system. The travel time system uses segments to build paths to calculate and display travel times. These segments are restricted to a single state's route waypoint set, else you would need to import another state's entire set of road waypoints. Unless you hard-coded something to get NC time data from Inrix or hacked something together using the alert system, it's pretty much impossible to do without significant software changes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: JacobNC on June 06, 2016, 07:18:17 PM
Does anyone know what VDOT is planning on building for the new interchange in Norfolk with Brambleton Ave/Hampton Blvd/Midtown Tunnel?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 06, 2016, 07:55:29 PM
Quote from: JacobNC on June 06, 2016, 07:18:17 PM
Does anyone know what VDOT is planning on building for the new interchange in Norfolk with Brambleton Ave/Hampton Blvd/Midtown Tunnel?

Per the video clip at 5:45 here - https://www.driveert.com/project-info/about-the-project/ - they are not really doing anything to this interchange...instead of WB US 58 merging into the tunnel it will just continue straight into the new tube.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: JacobNC on June 06, 2016, 11:57:53 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 06, 2016, 07:55:29 PM
Quote from: JacobNC on June 06, 2016, 07:18:17 PM
Does anyone know what VDOT is planning on building for the new interchange in Norfolk with Brambleton Ave/Hampton Blvd/Midtown Tunnel?

Per the video clip at 5:45 here - https://www.driveert.com/project-info/about-the-project/ - they are not really doing anything to this interchange...instead of WB US 58 merging into the tunnel it will just continue straight into the new tube.
Hopefully they make it so two lanes of traffic can flow straight in from Hampton Blvd to prevent backups.  That and the MLK extension will make my trip out of Norfolk much faster
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 07, 2016, 09:37:32 AM
It'll likely be a single lane from Hampton Blvd...the reason being is that there is also a lot of traffic going to the tunnel from Brambleton.  Giving Brambleton traffic their own lane would do more to "prevent backups" than giving both lanes to Hampton Blvd and forcing traffic coming from Brambleton to merge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 07, 2016, 10:22:00 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 05, 2016, 11:50:30 PM
It's not an issue of collecting or retrieving the probe data from Inrix, it's an issue with making it properly integrate with the rest of the system. The travel time system uses segments to build paths to calculate and display travel times. These segments are restricted to a single state's route waypoint set, else you would need to import another state's entire set of road waypoints. Unless you hard-coded something to get NC time data from Inrix or hacked something together using the alert system, it's pretty much impossible to do without significant software changes.

Agreed.  The TMC networks are very clumsy to work with, and often their bounds seem to make little or no sense.  Cording a TMC network is a lot of work - and annoyingly, there are a lor of busy streets (secondary highways) in Northern Virginia that are entirely missing from the TMC network.
Title: [VA] New Midtown Tunnel to open several months ahead of schedule
Post by: Thing 342 on June 09, 2016, 02:11:47 PM
Not sure why I forgot to post this: http://wavy.com/2016/05/31/new-midtown-tunnel-to-open-several-months-ahead-of-schedule/ (http://wavy.com/2016/05/31/new-midtown-tunnel-to-open-several-months-ahead-of-schedule/)
Quote from: WAVY-10
PORTSMOUTH, Va. (WAVY) – Construction on the new Midtown Tunnel (U.S. 58) is ahead of schedule, and now appears set to open several months before its original completion date.
Elizabeth River Crossings' (ERC) Construction Director Dan Norman says the public will be able to drive through the new tunnel in the early summer, which is about six months before the scheduled opening of December 2016.
...
Norman said crews must finish up safety inspections before the westbound side can open up. When it does, the new tunnel will only have one lane open. The existing tunnel will also go down to one lane, which is when the rehabilitation will start on the eastbound tube.
...
While ERC says the westbound tunnel will open up in early summer, there is no set date for the opening. Norman said that will depend on the safety inspections.
Not entirely sure why they can't just redirect both lanes to the new tube if they needed to rehab the old one.

EDIT: Here's the first picture of the completed inside of the new  tunnel that I've seen:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 09, 2016, 03:14:30 PM
QuoteNot entirely sure why they can't just redirect both lanes to the new tube if they needed to rehab the old one.

My hunch is that A) the rehab work needed is not significant, and B) it's easier for outside-the-tunnel traffic control not to shift everything over to the new tube.  The downside is that it would be a lot safer for workers inside the tunnel if there wasn't regular traffic running through it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on June 09, 2016, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 09, 2016, 03:14:30 PM
QuoteNot entirely sure why they can't just redirect both lanes to the new tube if they needed to rehab the old one.

My hunch is that A) the rehab work needed is not significant, and B) it's easier for outside-the-tunnel traffic control not to shift everything over to the new tube.  The downside is that it would be a lot safer for workers inside the tunnel if there wasn't regular traffic running through it.
I wonder if they're trying to ease the new tube into service by only diverting half of the current load when it opens.
That being said, I'm also skeptical about how much rehab work they can do with the emissions buildup in an active tunnel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: JacobNC on June 09, 2016, 05:21:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 07, 2016, 09:37:32 AM
It'll likely be a single lane from Hampton Blvd...the reason being is that there is also a lot of traffic going to the tunnel from Brambleton.  Giving Brambleton traffic their own lane would do more to "prevent backups" than giving both lanes to Hampton Blvd and forcing traffic coming from Brambleton to merge.

I think the traffic is disproportionately coming from Hampton Blvd.  But maybe you're right that giving one lane each to Hampton and Brambleton would be easier than having Brambleton merge in.

Here's a topic of discussion while we're on the subject of tunnels:  What should be done to ease congestion on I-64 between Norfolk and Hampton?  I would opt for building two new tubes parallel to the current two and then widening I-64 to eight lanes between I-564 in Norfolk and I-664 in Hampton.  So it would be like the Fort McHenry tunnel in Baltimore with eight lanes of traffic split over four tunnels.  The idea of extending I-564 westward to 664 (over water) sounds pretty silly by comparison in my opinion.  Would they really save that much money by doing that?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on June 10, 2016, 08:12:23 AM
Quote from: JacobNC on June 09, 2016, 05:21:21 PM
What should be done to ease congestion on I-64 between Norfolk and Hampton? 

Heh.  When I was an intern at FHWA over a decade ago, they concluded the problem was intractable. :D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on June 16, 2016, 01:04:41 PM
The new Midtown Tunnel tube will open to traffic tomorrow: http://wavy.com/2016/06/16/new-midtown-tunnel-lane-to-open-friday/ (http://wavy.com/2016/06/16/new-midtown-tunnel-lane-to-open-friday/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 27, 2016, 08:34:16 AM
Have any of you ever explored this tunnel under I-395 at the Boundary Channel Drive interchange? I've seen it online but have never gotten a great look at it in person, in part because of where it is. We passed it last week one morning when I decided to try a different route to work (US-1 through Old Town to Slaters Lane, then the GW Parkway to southbound I-395, then an immediate exit to Boundary Channel Drive up to Memorial Bridge). It was obviously hard to get a good look at it going past at ramp speed, but I did note several white signs advising it no longer goes anywhere. From what I can gather, once upon a time it connected to the trail along the GW Parkway but was severed when they improved the merge lane onto the northbound 14th Street Bridge.

I'm just curious what it looks like inside, whether it's something to try to explore sometime, etc. Of course the difficulty is figuring out a good place to park and walk to it, given the proximity of restricted Pentagon lots.

(Link is from the Google Maps app and is supposed to be to a satellite view of the loop ramp at the northwest corner of the I-395/Boundary Channel Drive interchange. It may not display properly, hence the detailed information. There's a pedestrian tunnel bellmouth between that ramp and the exit ramp adjacent to the loop.)

https://goo.gl/maps/2MatB7HcYPx
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 27, 2016, 09:22:16 AM
Pretty sure it's an emergency exit tunnel for the Yellow Line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 27, 2016, 09:29:53 AM
Looks like the closest place to park that is not Pentagon related is on Long Bridge Dr by the soccer field just east of I-395.

It appears via Historic Aerials that the sidewalk was removed from within the clover ramp btw GW Pkwy SB and 395 NB in the 1980s.

The tunnels were built between 1952-63 and the west end of the sidewalk changed drastically to where it headed sometime after 1964.  There also used to be a building in the 395 median between Boundary Channel and the GW Pkwy interchanges that I'm guessing the sidewalk was intended to serve originally...

Skeptical about the yellow line theory...the sidewalk does not look connected in between the 395 tunnels.  Unless the SB tunnel is connected underground to the yellow line tunnel nearby...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 27, 2016, 09:37:23 AM
I'm still thinking it's the emergency exit for the Virginia-bound Yellow Line.  Would not require crossing the tracks to access the more-visible emergency exit that's located next to the Yellow Line tunnel portal.

Could also be some sort of air exhaust for the Yellow Line tunnel.  Look how nicely the tunnels line up with the Yellow Line tunnel portal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 27, 2016, 09:57:31 AM
Found this which is not any help to see if these two pedestrian tunnels were later incorporated into the yellow line tunnel ventilation or evacuation

http://www.metroped.org/sp/boundry_channel_sidewalk.htm
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 27, 2016, 10:59:16 AM
To me it looks like a rudimentary pedestrian/bike connection between Mt Vernon Trail and Boundary Channel which was never improved upon. In other words, I'm invoking Occam's Razor here.

That said, there is a long-standing goal in the local bike community (the 'bike lobby', if you believe certain local media), that wants an improved connection between Long Bridge Drive and the Mt. Vernon Trail. Such a connection would join the same fundamental areas.

Froggie-

If it were an evacuation route, then I would expect to see WMATA markings or posted routes, along with signage.

Ventilation is here: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8706608,-77.0491487,3a,75y,75.77h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sE9i8EK7-88EPlUF9CcyQbA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DE9i8EK7-88EPlUF9CcyQbA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D71.959465%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 27, 2016, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2016, 08:34:16 AM
I'm just curious what it looks like inside, whether it's something to try to explore sometime, etc. Of course the difficulty is figuring out a good place to park and walk to it, given the proximity of restricted Pentagon lots.

I'd caution on your last point. I've been stopped before for walking on the sidewalk in a town (granted in the Western US where I guess people don't walk) on the grounds that I looked "suspicious". There had been apparently been a bar fight nearby, and I guess out west, you only walk if you're poor or drunk. Police might be suspicious why you're walking around, even if it isn't restricted. That said, on one of the tunnel portals, there looked to be a "no trespassing" sign.

PS - I enjoyed your latest video.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 27, 2016, 12:01:35 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 27, 2016, 10:59:16 AM
To me it looks like a rudimentary pedestrian/bike connection between Mt Vernon Trail and Boundary Channel which was never improved upon. In other words, I'm invoking Occam's Razor here.

That said, there is a long-standing goal in the local bike community (the 'bike lobby', if you believe certain local media), that wants an improved connection between Long Bridge Drive and the Mt. Vernon Trail. Such a connection would join the same fundamental areas.

Froggie-

If it were an evacuation route, then I would expect to see WMATA markings or posted routes, along with signage.

Ventilation is here: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8706608,-77.0491487,3a,75y,75.77h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sE9i8EK7-88EPlUF9CcyQbA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DE9i8EK7-88EPlUF9CcyQbA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D71.959465%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656



The original path was the SB 14th St Bridge then underneath 395 SB to the mystery facility (built between 1935-49 and had a parking lot with the building and had ramps to and from Shirley Hwy in the 1950s but only car access by 1963 was road that is Long Bridge Dr north of Boundary Channel which used to pass under 395 NB lanes) that is gone in the median then under 395 NB to head over to GW Pkwy.  The west side of the path was diverted away from the 14th St bridge and instead down to Boundary Channel Dr under 395 after 1964.  There is a gap of 15 years in the satellite images, so it is possible the west side did both of those things for a while.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2016, 01:00:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2016, 08:34:16 AM
Have any of you ever explored this tunnel under I-395 at the Boundary Channel Drive interchange?

Yes, but not recently.  At one time there were buses that stopped on the mainline of I-95 (I-395 now) to allow alighting northbound and boarding southbound - without the bus having to go through the Pentagon bus terminal (the bus stops are still there, used mostly by VDOT and the Virginia State Police southbound and the DDOT roadway assistance patrol people northbound).  I think the regular use of the  bus stops ended in the early 1970's when the I-95 Busway project (I-395 HOV lanes now) was opened.  I have never seen a transit bus stop there myself (I believe they were used by the "Mom and Pop" commuter buses that ran between Prince William County (maybe Stafford County too) and D.C. back in the  day, Colonial Transit (Colonial went bankrupt and out of business after a serious crash involving one of their buses, and it was determined that the bus was in poor mechanical condition).

In order to provide walk access from (and maybe to) the stop on the northbound side of I-95 (I-395 today) and the Pentagon Reservation, a pair of tunnels under everything was built.  It had a pretty nice hard surface (terrazzo, I believe, rather like what is inside the Pentagon), and a concrete sidewalk between the tunnel that went under the northbound conventional lanes and a different tunnel that went under the express lanes and the southbound conventional lanes.  The stairs leading to and from the tunnels were extremely deteriorated, but the surfaces in the tunnel seemed dry and in good condition. However, the last time I walked there (on official business) there was a homeless encampment in the longer tunnel (I believe the Virginia State Police would come every once in a while and shoo them away and with help from VDOT and maybe a social worker from Arlington County, dismantle their living arrangements). 

Last time I looked (this was a few years after I walked through them) VDOT had put barriers in place to prevent homeless people (or anyone else) from walking there or setting up living arrangements in the tunnels.

These tunnels have nothing to do with the Metrorail Yellow Line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 27, 2016, 01:15:46 PM
cp's comments probably help explain what that odd single separate lane is just north of the inbound exit to Reagan Airport and Boundary Channel drive. It's been unused for as long as I can remember but I've always thought it looked like a bus pull-off. Maybe this is the answer. Thanks for the info.

Regarding a new ped/bike connection to the trail, I saw a proposal to rebuild the Boundary Channel Drive interchange as two roundabouts with a trail connection as part of it. I'm not sure that would work. I usually like roundabouts, but the inbound traffic in the morning backs up far enough that it would lock up the proposed roundabout on that side unless there were bypass lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2016, 01:17:48 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 27, 2016, 09:22:16 AM
I'm just curious what it looks like inside, whether it's something to try to explore sometime, etc. Of course the difficulty is figuring out a good place to park and walk to it, given the proximity of restricted Pentagon lots.

Parking anywhere near there will draw pretty immediate attention from the Pentagon Police, and sometimes the Virginia State Police (only rarely have I seen  the Arlington County Police in this area). Unless you have official business there, I would refrain from any urban exploration in those tunnels.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2016, 01:24:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2016, 01:15:46 PM
Regarding a new ped/bike connection to the trail, I saw a proposal to rebuild the Boundary Channel Drive interchange as two roundabouts with a trail connection as part of it. I'm not sure that would work. I usually like roundabouts, but the inbound traffic in the morning backs up far enough that it would lock up the proposed roundabout on that side unless there were bypass lanes.

The challenge is getting from the portal on the northbound side to the Mount Vernon Trail without having to cross live and heavy traffic of the G.W. Parkway mainline, and the ramps at the interchange between the GWMP and I-395.  The portals would need to be rebuilt (starting with demolition of the three sets of stairs - the portal on the median between the express lanes and  the northbound mainline lanes has no stairs) to be compliant with ADA and to allow easy bike access, and a new lighting system would need to be installed.  But I think the tunnels themselves are in good condition still, so this should not be an especially expensive project as far as the tunnels are concerned. But again, getting from the portal on the northbound side to the Mount Vernon Trail will almost certainly require an expensive new bike and pedestrian bridge.  Maybe spanning the ramps as well.  And it would need approval from the National Park Service (including a design that is appropriate for spanning the GWMP).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 27, 2016, 01:57:10 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear–the plan I saw had a new connection running along Boundary Channel itself and over towards the Humpback Bridge. It wouldn't use those tunnels.

I asked about the tunnels because passing the one the other day reminded me of them and piqued my curiosity.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 27, 2016, 04:30:26 PM
Another abandoned ped tunnel under I-395 just north of VA 120...

https://www.arlnow.com/2013/05/30/county-no-plan-to-reopen-abandoned-tunnel-under-i-395/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2016, 04:32:36 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2016, 01:57:10 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear–the plan I saw had a new connection running along Boundary Channel itself and over towards the Humpback Bridge. It wouldn't use those tunnels.

I asked about the tunnels because passing the one the other day reminded me of them and piqued my curiosity.

No problem.  Though re-use of the tunnels like that would make it easier for bicycles and maybe even pedestrians to get from the Mount Vernon Trail to the Pentagon.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2016, 04:43:45 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2016, 04:30:26 PM
Another abandoned ped tunnel under I-395 just north of VA 120...

https://www.arlnow.com/2013/05/30/county-no-plan-to-reopen-abandoned-tunnel-under-i-395/

There used to be one just south of Va. 642 in  Lorton, but I could not find evidence of it on Google.

Then there's the mother-of-all-pedestrian tunnels in the Dumfries/Dale City area, at the weigh/inspection station.  It runs under I-95 from the southbound overweight truck parking lot to the scalehouse on the northbound side of I-95. 

There are only rarely enforcement personnel on the southbound side, so drivers of overweight or overheight or overlength vehicles must park their trucks, bring their credentials and other paperwork and enter that tunnel (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dumfries,+VA/@38.5961168,-77.3161156,228m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b6f55756f49c45:0x62aea5d4be61635a!8m2!3d38.5676202!4d-77.3280382) and walk over to the scalehouse on the northbound side (the mouth of the tunnel on the northbound side is in the scalehouse) to have paperwork checked (and in many  cases be issued a ticket). 

It may not seem that far from Google, but  it is a long  walk in a pretty confined tunnel to cross over.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 27, 2016, 08:31:08 PM
There's also the still-open (as far as I know) tunnel along Holmes Run just north of Landmark. I believe I read somewhere (for some reason I'm thinking it may have been a comment here from froggie) that it's to be cleaned up and improved, especially given how it apparently floods when it rains. I keep meaning to park and look at it some day, I just never get around to it.

If I went to check out the one near Boundary Channel Drive, I'd probably park down Long Bridge Drive, as has been suggested. (For some reason I seem to recall that street being called Old Jeff Davis Highway, though the BGS on southbound I-395 refers to Clark Street.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2016, 08:45:36 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2016, 08:31:08 PM
There's also the still-open (as far as I know) tunnel along Holmes Run just north of Landmark. I believe I read somewhere (for some reason I'm thinking it may have been a comment here from froggie) that it's to be cleaned up and improved, especially given how it apparently floods when it rains. I keep meaning to park and look at it some day, I just never get around to it.

If I went to check out the one near Boundary Channel Drive, I'd probably park down Long Bridge Drive, as has been suggested. (For some reason I seem to recall that street being called Old Jeff Davis Highway, though the BGS on southbound I-395  refers to Clark Street.)

Yes, I think at least some of that was formerly S. Clark Street.

Because the tunnel entrances were barriered off, there is not much to see, unless they have been broken down.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 27, 2016, 09:01:20 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2016, 04:43:45 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2016, 04:30:26 PM
Another abandoned ped tunnel under I-395 just north of VA 120...

https://www.arlnow.com/2013/05/30/county-no-plan-to-reopen-abandoned-tunnel-under-i-395/

There used to be one just south of Va. 642 in  Lorton, but I could not find evidence of it on Google.

Then there's the mother-of-all-pedestrian tunnels in the Dumfries/Dale City area, at the weigh/inspection station.  It runs under I-95 from the southbound overweight truck parking lot to the scalehouse on the northbound side of I-95. 

There are only rarely enforcement personnel on the southbound side, so drivers of overweight or overheight or overlength vehicles must park their trucks, bring their credentials and other paperwork and enter that tunnel (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dumfries,+VA/@38.5961168,-77.3161156,228m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b6f55756f49c45:0x62aea5d4be61635a!8m2!3d38.5676202!4d-77.3280382) and walk over to the scalehouse on the northbound side (the mouth of the tunnel on the northbound side is in the scalehouse) to have paperwork checked (and in many  cases be issued a ticket). 

It may not seem that far from Google, but  it is a long  walk in a pretty confined tunnel to cross over.

The Lorton tunnel (along original SR 642 alignment prior to VA 350 construction) is here: https://goo.gl/maps/yM6fg7SH9d82
This was covered up when the HOV lanes were constructed (by building what is now the NB lanes of I-95).

There are a few Virginia weigh stations with a tunnel like the one in Dale City.

Also, from the original tunnel question, the sidewalk/ped tunnel system also connected to a 3rd bus stop on GW Pkwy SB (thanks to CPZ for the bus stop analysis).  The system connected all 3 bus stops to the mystery facility (now figured out this was a Hot Shoppes Restaurant) in the median plus via an underpass used by Long Bridge Dr under the NB lanes of the freeway, over to the Twin Bridges Marriott which opened in 1957 and billed itself as one of the earliest airport parking hotels, and perhaps the sidewalk system (partially existed without any tunnels in 1951) was beefed up so folks could take the bus to the airport...?.

When Shirley Hwy was greatly expanded in the early 1970s, the Hot Shoppes Restaurant and the Long Bridge Dr underpass (which was not original to the highway construction - it is not in the 1951 aerial) were removed and the westernmost tunnel had a new sidewalk built to curl around underneath 395 on Boundary Channel Drive to be able to reach the Marriott, which closed in 1988 and was demolished in 1990.

1964 and 1979 screen shots follow:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2F1964dcaerial.jpg&hash=e3df3a30cb3290d1fae527f2ce9f02c466a0cd56)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2F1979dcaerial.jpg&hash=ecfa55752d31b512302033d93f36e7b12f9a95f2)

edit was that I figured out what the mystery facility was...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 27, 2016, 09:46:44 PM
Thanks for those. Looking at the current satellite view on Apple Maps (which is loading faster for me tonight than Google), I see it appears the stub end of that sidewalk is still now near the Metro (Fenwick) bridge. I'd try to look for it from the train except we've been driving during the current SafeTrack phase and will absolutely drive during the next two phases.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 27, 2016, 10:57:25 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacusNo problem.  Though re-use of the tunnels like that would make it easier for bicycles and maybe even pedestrians to get from the Mount Vernon Trail to the Pentagon.

Not really...one would still have to get over a loop ramp and the GW Pkwy to access the MVT from those tunnels.  And the stairs to the tunnels would be a problem for bikes.  The Humpback Bridge project got half of a trail between MVT and the Pentagon area built...just need to get the other half along the south side of the Boundary Channel finished.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 28, 2016, 08:48:25 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 27, 2016, 10:57:25 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacusNo problem.  Though re-use of the tunnels like that would make it easier for bicycles and maybe even pedestrians to get from the Mount Vernon Trail to the Pentagon.

Not really...one would still have to get over a loop ramp and the GW Pkwy to access the MVT from those tunnels.  And the stairs to the tunnels would be a problem for bikes.  The Humpback Bridge project got half of a trail between MVT and the Pentagon area built...just need to get the other half along the south side of the Boundary Channel finished.

I covered those issues above.  There would probably need to be a bridge from the portal next to the northbound lanes of I-395 to connect to the MVT.

The tunnels need to have the stairs entering them demolished anyway, and could be re-built with more bike-friendly (and ADA-compliant) ramps with a reasonably gentle grades. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 28, 2016, 10:51:42 AM
Would still be cheaper to finish the path from the Humpback Bridge over to Boundary Channel Dr.  More direct connection to the Pentagon too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 28, 2016, 11:37:30 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 28, 2016, 10:51:42 AM
Would still be cheaper to finish the path from the Humpback Bridge over to Boundary Channel Dr.  More direct connection to the Pentagon too.

I am not disputing that.  But having a connection to those old tunnels (and at that point, from the tunnel portal on the northbound side of 395 over to the Long Bridge Drive (formerly S. Clark Street) still seems like a winner. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 28, 2016, 11:58:15 AM
Given that Arlington County has plans to extend Long Bridge Park to the river (and hopefully tie it into a bike/ped path on any new Long Bridge that gets built), I doubt it'd get any traction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 28, 2016, 12:28:20 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 28, 2016, 11:58:15 AM
Given that Arlington County has plans to extend Long Bridge Park to the river (and hopefully tie it into a bike/ped path on any new Long Bridge that gets built), I doubt it'd get any traction.

Wonder if the Arlington County staff people even know that the tunnels exist.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on June 28, 2016, 03:01:50 PM
Gilmerton Bridge stuck open; to be closed for "several days" (WAVY): http://wavy.com/2016/06/28/gilmerton-bridge-stuck-open-due-to-major-malfunction/ (http://wavy.com/2016/06/28/gilmerton-bridge-stuck-open-due-to-major-malfunction/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 30, 2016, 06:07:31 PM
Washington Post: McAuliffe hoping to lock in federal grant for big road, rail projects (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/06/29/mcauliffe-hoping-to-lock-in-federal-grant-for-big-road-rail-projects/)

QuoteVirginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) said Wednesday that he hopes to hear very soon that the federal government will grant as much as $200 million to the commonwealth to advance the Atlantic Gateway transportation projects. The projects include an extension of the 95 Express Lanes south to Fredericksburg, a new Interstate 95 bridge over the Rappahannock River and a fix for the aging Long Bridge over the Potomac River, as well as other rail improvements in Northern Virginia.

Quote"I think we'll know in the next few days,"  McAuliffe said during his "Ask the Governor"  show on WTOP radio. McAuliffe was buoyant in describing the potential impact of this set of transportation projects, not only on travel along the I-95 corridor in Northern Virginia but also on long-range travel through the southeastern United States.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2016, 11:55:49 AM
Washington Post:  Virginia looks for a breakthrough on East Coast congestion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/virginia-looks-for-a-breakthrough-on-east-coast-congestion/2016/07/02/3d8a8f62-3ede-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html)

QuoteWhile the Metro transit system struggles to find its way and Democrats squabble with Republicans over Maryland's transportation program, Virginia is on a pretty good roll.

QuoteIn fact, when Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) addresses commuter issues, he sounds like a guy stoking up for a reelection bid. That is, if you could run for a second term in Virginia.

Quote"We've done everything we promised to do"  for Northern Virginia, he told the Commonwealth Transportation Board in early June. He was referring to, among other things, his administration's plan to "Transform 66,"  the interstate where so many of his constituents spend precious hours.

QuoteBy next summer, the Virginia Department of Transportation plans to change the experience of commuting inside the Capital Beltway by turning on system of high-occupancy toll lanes at rush hours and launching a set of programs that will make it easier for commuters to leave their cars behind before they reach those toll gantries.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 05, 2016, 08:49:55 PM
2016-18 Virginia Official Map is now available:

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/maps-default.asp

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 06, 2016, 12:43:55 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 05, 2016, 08:49:55 PM
2016-18 Virginia Official Map is now available:

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/maps-default.asp



Good to see they have US 250 ending at...uh, "Twenty-Oneth Street" in downtown Richmond...

Also, VA 337 ALT is mislabeled as "ALT VA 334" in the Norfolk Downtown inset...and it looks like VA 167's ghost has yet to be exorcised from the Hampton/Newport News inset.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 06, 2016, 04:27:40 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 06, 2016, 12:43:55 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 05, 2016, 08:49:55 PM
2016-18 Virginia Official Map is now available:

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/maps-default.asp



Good to see they have US 250 ending at...uh, "Twenty-Oneth Street" in downtown Richmond...

Also, VA 337 ALT is mislabeled as "ALT VA 334" in the Norfolk Downtown inset...and it looks like VA 167's ghost has yet to be exorcised from the Hampton/Newport News inset.

The insets might still be the previous edition...VDOT does not always change these promptly (or sometimes at all)...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 06, 2016, 04:29:39 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 06, 2016, 12:43:55 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 05, 2016, 08:49:55 PM
2016-18 Virginia Official Map is now available:

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/maps-default.asp



Good to see they have US 250 ending at...uh, "Twenty-Oneth Street" in downtown Richmond...

Also, VA 337 ALT is mislabeled as "ALT VA 334" in the Norfolk Downtown inset...and it looks like VA 167's ghost has yet to be exorcised from the Hampton/Newport News inset.
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 06, 2016, 04:27:40 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 06, 2016, 12:43:55 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 05, 2016, 08:49:55 PM
2016-18 Virginia Official Map is now available:

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/maps-default.asp



Good to see they have US 250 ending at...uh, "Twenty-Oneth Street" in downtown Richmond...

Also, VA 337 ALT is mislabeled as "ALT VA 334" in the Norfolk Downtown inset...and it looks like VA 167's ghost has yet to be exorcised from the Hampton/Newport News inset.

The insets might still be the previous edition...VDOT does not always change these promptly (or sometimes at all)...

The errors are in the previous edition as I just checked mine.  The VA 5/VA 156 error as VA 6/VA 156 in the Richmond inset from before is somehow cut off on the online insets though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 06, 2016, 04:45:30 PM
Ooh, gotcha.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on July 06, 2016, 10:48:26 PM
My travels in Virginia two weeks ago also consisted of roadgeeking, and here's some things I noted:

Richmond is HORRIBLE at signing turns. I tried to follow US 360 into the city and wound up on another street, simply because the turn wasn't signed.

For some reason, the connection from VA 150 to River Road is signed as VA 147. Is it actually 147/River Road or is it something else? I also missed the left turn on River Road to head back to Richmond, because VA 147 was not signed and wound up on VA 6 instead.

Wait, US 250 ends at 21st Street (or 21th Street)? There's no end sign.

Up near Fredericksburg, we tried to get away from a traffic jam on I-95.  We took US 1 and wanted to return to I-95 (assuming the jam was over north of there) after entering Fredericksburg. At VA 3, there was a sign to I-95 pointing onto VA 3 East. It was then completely unsigned, and apparently we had to take VA 3 West. Why is the TO I-95 pointing along VA 3 East if West is the correct way? Also, Fredericksburg is a pretty place.

Up near D.C., the Springfield Interchange is pretty cool.



Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 06, 2016, 12:43:55 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 05, 2016, 08:49:55 PM
2016-18 Virginia Official Map is now available:

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/maps-default.asp



Good to see they have US 250 ending at...uh, "Twenty-Oneth Street" in downtown Richmond...

Also, VA 337 ALT is mislabeled as "ALT VA 334" in the Norfolk Downtown inset...and it looks like VA 167's ghost has yet to be exorcised from the Hampton/Newport News inset.
VA 167 was decommissioned? I have a state map from 2014 or so that still shows it. If I go there next year I'll see if I can't find any route markers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on July 06, 2016, 11:11:00 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 06, 2016, 10:48:26 PM
My travels in Virginia two weeks ago also consisted of roadgeeking, and here's some things I noted:

Richmond is HORRIBLE at signing turns. I tried to follow US 360 into the city and wound up on another street, simply because the turn wasn't signed.

For some reason, the connection from VA 150 to River Road is signed as VA 147. Is it actually 147/River Road or is it something else? I also missed the left turn on River Road to head back to Richmond, because VA 147 was not signed and wound up on VA 6 instead.

Wait, US 250 ends at 21st Street (or 21th Street)? There's no end sign.

Up near Fredericksburg, we tried to get away from a traffic jam on I-95.  We took US 1 and wanted to return to I-95 (assuming the jam was over north of there) after entering Fredericksburg. At VA 3, there was a sign to I-95 pointing onto VA 3 East. It was then completely unsigned, and apparently we had to take VA 3 West. Why is the TO I-95 pointing along VA 3 East if West is the correct way? Also, Fredericksburg is a pretty place.

Up near D.C., the Springfield Interchange is pretty cool.



Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 06, 2016, 12:43:55 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 05, 2016, 08:49:55 PM
2016-18 Virginia Official Map is now available:

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/maps-default.asp



Good to see they have US 250 ending at...uh, "Twenty-Oneth Street" in downtown Richmond...

Also, VA 337 ALT is mislabeled as "ALT VA 334" in the Norfolk Downtown inset...and it looks like VA 167's ghost has yet to be exorcised from the Hampton/Newport News inset.
VA 167 was decommissioned? I have a state map from 2014 or so that still shows it. If I go there next year I'll see if I can't find any route markers.
VA 167 was decommissioned in 1995 and AFAIK was completely deposted by 1999. Having lived on the Peninsula for 15 years, I can safely say that I have never seen a VA 167 shield, yet it inexplicably remains on official maps and pops up on Google Maps from time to time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on July 06, 2016, 11:33:41 PM
Speaking of the VA Beach area, does signs of VA 44 still exist? I know it was decommissioned in the 90's to I-264, but since it wasn't that long ago, I'm curious if any signs of it exist.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 07, 2016, 06:44:57 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 06, 2016, 11:33:41 PM
Speaking of the VA Beach area, does signs of VA 44 still exist? I know it was decommissioned in the 90's to I-264, but since it wasn't that long ago, I'm curious if any signs of it exist.

No there are no VA 44 signs anywhere that I know of.  I believe they were all gone as soon as 2001.  Knowing VA Beach though, I would not be surprised to find a circle VA 44 sign on a side street somewhere.

Quote from: noelbotevera on July 06, 2016, 10:48:26 PM
Wait, US 250 ends at 21st Street (or 21th Street)? There's no end sign.

Up near D.C., the Springfield Interchange is pretty cool.


US 250 actually ends at US 360 (18th St) since 2003 (I believe).  It had ended at US 60 (21st St) but US 60 was rerouted onto Main St and the western portion of VA 5 around that time so US 250 was cut back.  Also US 250 is barely posted in downtown Richmond (especially east of US 1/US 301-Belvidere St).

Also the Springfield Interchange is one of my favorite interchanges to drive through (especially via the I-95 flyovers).  Though I never go that way anymore as I usually avoid NoVA when going to/from the Petersburg area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 07, 2016, 06:46:55 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 06, 2016, 10:48:26 PM
My travels in Virginia two weeks ago also consisted of roadgeeking, and here's some things I noted:

Richmond is HORRIBLE at signing turns. I tried to follow US 360 into the city and wound up on another street, simply because the turn wasn't signed.

For some reason, the connection from VA 150 to River Road is signed as VA 147. Is it actually 147/River Road or is it something else? I also missed the left turn on River Road to head back to Richmond, because VA 147 was not signed and wound up on VA 6 instead.

Wait, US 250 ends at 21st Street (or 21th Street)? There's no end sign.

Up near Fredericksburg, we tried to get away from a traffic jam on I-95.  We took US 1 and wanted to return to I-95 (assuming the jam was over north of there) after entering Fredericksburg. At VA 3, there was a sign to I-95 pointing onto VA 3 East. It was then completely unsigned, and apparently we had to take VA 3 West. Why is the TO I-95 pointing along VA 3 East if West is the correct way? Also, Fredericksburg is a pretty place.

Up near D.C., the Springfield Interchange is pretty cool.




VA 167 was decommissioned? I have a state map from 2014 or so that still shows it. If I go there next year I'll see if I can't find any route markers.


The I-95 sign on US 1 NB approaching VA 3 is poorly placed (should be on the far left of this assembly) but it is accurate - https://goo.gl/maps/kZJSRDVm5nS2.  It has the same arrow as the VA 3 West marker and not the VA 3 East Marker.  There should also be one at the VA 3 East ramp showing that 95 is straight with VA 3 west.

US 250 currently ends at 18th (US 360).  From 1974-2003 it ended at 21st which used to be US 60.  US 250 has never been posted east of I-95 and currently is not posted east of US 1-301 other than on 95 BGSs.

No VA 44 or VA 167 signage is known to still exist.  At least RMcN finally dropped VA 167...

I'm confused about your VA 150 and VA 147 stuff.  VA 147 does not run on River Rd as far out as VA 150.  VA 147 leaves River Rd at the Huguenot Bridge to cross the James River.  VA 150 and VA 147 intersect on the southside of the James River.  If you miss a left turn onto River Rd to head for Richmond (meaning you are heading south), how do you end up at VA 6?  Unless you used the connection between VA 150 and River Rd (no VA 147 signage in Aug 2015 GMSV and none in my experience though I haven't been by there lately) and turned right onto River Rd which does run into VA 6 out in Goochland County...

GMSV does show the US 360 WB posting from 18th to Main as removed between 7/14 and 7/15.  It's a good thing you didn't try to follow US 33-VA 33 through which is much more poorly posted.

Fredericksburg is where the I-95 jams start, not where they abate.  But Fredericksburg itself is a lovely place to live...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on July 07, 2016, 07:07:01 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 07, 2016, 06:46:55 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 06, 2016, 10:48:26 PM
My travels in Virginia two weeks ago also consisted of roadgeeking, and here's some things I noted:

Richmond is HORRIBLE at signing turns. I tried to follow US 360 into the city and wound up on another street, simply because the turn wasn't signed.

For some reason, the connection from VA 150 to River Road is signed as VA 147. Is it actually 147/River Road or is it something else? I also missed the left turn on River Road to head back to Richmond, because VA 147 was not signed and wound up on VA 6 instead.

Wait, US 250 ends at 21st Street (or 21th Street)? There's no end sign.

Up near Fredericksburg, we tried to get away from a traffic jam on I-95.  We took US 1 and wanted to return to I-95 (assuming the jam was over north of there) after entering Fredericksburg. At VA 3, there was a sign to I-95 pointing onto VA 3 East. It was then completely unsigned, and apparently we had to take VA 3 West. Why is the TO I-95 pointing along VA 3 East if West is the correct way? Also, Fredericksburg is a pretty place.

Up near D.C., the Springfield Interchange is pretty cool.




VA 167 was decommissioned? I have a state map from 2014 or so that still shows it. If I go there next year I'll see if I can't find any route markers.


The I-95 sign on US 1 NB approaching VA 3 is poorly placed (should be on the far left of this assembly) but it is accurate - https://goo.gl/maps/kZJSRDVm5nS2.  It has the same arrow as the VA 3 West marker and not the VA 3 East Marker.  There should also be one at the VA 3 East ramp showing that 95 is straight with VA 3 west.

US 250 currently ends at 18th (US 360).  From 1974-2003 it ended at 21st which used to be US 60.  US 250 has never been posted east of I-95 and currently is not posted east of US 1-301 other than on 95 BGSs.

No VA 44 or VA 167 signage is known to still exist.  At least RMcN finally dropped VA 167...

I'm confused about your VA 150 and VA 147 stuff.  VA 147 does not run on River Rd as far out as VA 150.  VA 147 leaves River Rd at the Huguenot Bridge to cross the James River.  VA 150 and VA 147 intersect on the southside of the James River.  If you miss a left turn onto River Rd to head for Richmond (meaning you are heading south), how do you end up at VA 6?  Unless you used the connection between VA 150 and River Rd (no VA 147 signage in Aug 2015 GMSV and none in my experience though I haven't been by there lately) and turned right onto River Rd which does run into VA 6 out in Goochland County...

GMSV does show the US 360 WB posting from 18th to Main as removed between 7/14 and 7/15.  It's a good thing you didn't try to follow US 33-VA 33 through which is much more poorly posted.

Fredericksburg is where the I-95 jams start, not where they abate.  But Fredericksburg itself is a lovely place to live...
That assembly is with VA 3 is what caused us to detour through Fredericksburg.

We used the connector from the end of VA 150 to River Road, and unknowingly entered Goochland County.

I actually missed this turn (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5492254,-77.41428,3a,17.1y,231.87h,90.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sooyazN5u4RKcc-UxGbVvYg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DooyazN5u4RKcc-UxGbVvYg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D223.32539%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656). I wasn't able to catch the sign in time and lost US 360 WB from there. That was the last sign I saw up until the signs near the Exxon at 17th and Broad Streets.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 07, 2016, 09:55:09 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 07, 2016, 06:46:55 AM
US 250 currently ends at 18th (US 360).  From 1974-2003 it ended at 21st which used to be US 60.  US 250 has never been posted east of I-95 and currently is not posted east of US 1-301 other than on 95 BGSs.

There is one (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5455067,-77.4418409,3a,25.6y,157.13h,84.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX-uiPXLtVNYRgzZoyykD5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) US 250 reassurance marker on eastbound Broad St just past Foushee St, but that's the last one.

Following pretty much any Virginia primary route that isn't VA 6, VA 161, or VA 147 through Richmond is an exercise in futility because of how poorly the city signs primary routes. There are *new* US 33 unisigns on Leigh St between Harrison and Belvidere (this part of Leigh is VA 33). Attempting to contact Richmond Public Works, even with help from VDOT, has proven useless over the past 10 or so years I've tried. Recommendations were made but not actually followed through. When 17th and 18th Sts became two-way south of Broad, VDOT actually had to go in and install new US 360, I-95, and I-64 trailblazers because the city still had erroneous signage up.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 07, 2016, 09:29:28 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 07, 2016, 09:55:09 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 07, 2016, 06:46:55 AM
US 250 currently ends at 18th (US 360).  From 1974-2003 it ended at 21st which used to be US 60.  US 250 has never been posted east of I-95 and currently is not posted east of US 1-301 other than on 95 BGSs.

There is one (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5455067,-77.4418409,3a,25.6y,157.13h,84.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX-uiPXLtVNYRgzZoyykD5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) US 250 reassurance marker on eastbound Broad St just past Foushee St, but that's the last one.


I remember that one now that you bring it up.  For some reason, I have a thing with traveling US 250 through downtown Richmond when I get a chance.

Looking at GSV, this old assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5476655,-77.4454302,3a,75y,205.26h,80.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sc4U1PB3B37IW0VMmszGKhA!2e0!5s20160301T000000!7i13312!8i6656) (extremely faded) assembly still exists.  (From N Monroe St just east of US 1-301, bonus on that GSV refers to Broad as just US 33.)

I still have an older photo of that (from 2009):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FNMONROESTATUS250.jpg&hash=0a8d707f214336fa91781c82099c80e5a892a8b6)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 11, 2016, 10:09:18 PM
I was just doing some research and I discovered that the Virginia statute regarding turning on red has been amended. Several of us have noted that Virginia law long did not prohibit turning right on a red arrow. Now it does. Here's the current statute. Key provision bolded. Of course, I don't doubt if you obey this law, other drivers will go ballistic.

Frankly, having a red arrow mean "no turn in this direction" makes perfect sense to me, and I always thought allowing turns on red arrows seemed a bit odd.

http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-835/

QuoteNotwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed prohibiting turns on steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red circular signal, after coming to a full stop, may cautiously enter the intersection and make a right turn.

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed permitting turns on a steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow, after coming to a full stop, shall remain standing until a signal to proceed is shown.

Such turning traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic using the intersection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on July 12, 2016, 09:03:36 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 11, 2016, 10:09:18 PM
I was just doing some research and I discovered that the Virginia statute regarding turning on red has been amended. Several of us have noted that Virginia law long did not prohibit turning right on a red arrow. Now it does. Here's the current statute. Key provision bolded. Of course, I don't doubt if you obey this law, other drivers will go ballistic.

Frankly, having a red arrow mean "no turn in this direction" makes perfect sense to me, and I always thought allowing turns on red arrows seemed a bit odd.

http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-835/

QuoteNotwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed prohibiting turns on steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red circular signal, after coming to a full stop, may cautiously enter the intersection and make a right turn.

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed permitting turns on a steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow, after coming to a full stop, shall remain standing until a signal to proceed is shown.

Such turning traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic using the intersection.

Looks like they also codified a flashing red arrow like Maryland and Delaware use.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 15, 2016, 11:02:14 AM
https://wamu.org/news/16/07/14/safetrack_shuttles_cant_use_alexandria_express_bus_lanes_despite_complaints

QuoteWMATA shuttles bridging the gap in rail service in Northern Virginia through July 18 will not receive access to express bus lanes in Alexandria so they can bypass Route 1 gridlock, city officials said.

Quote"In Alexandria, the signal timing at the congested intersection of East Glebe and Route 1 allows very little time for buses to exit the transitway traveling eastbound onto East Glebe Road en route to Crystal City,"  said Albert. "While we were able to modify the timing to better accommodate buses, the sheer volume of shuttles (40+ shuttles are in operation and in many cases they are arriving bunched) compared to normal transitway operations creates a choke point at this location that ultimately limits capacity and would hinder the effectiveness of the shuttle service."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 16, 2016, 06:37:45 AM
The interchange (technically grade-separated intersection) on US 29 at SR 631/Rio Road (http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/u-s--rio-road-intersection-to-open-next-week/article_cb730cc0-4ad5-11e6-88ff-13e7a28768c9.html) could open as early as Monday.

I drove through this and the six-lane widening north of SR 643 (Polo Grounds Road) to SR 1719 (Towncenter Drive) Sunday when taking an alternate route back to PA.

(The link to the Route 29 Solutions website (http://www.route29solutions.org/learn_more/3._route_29_widening_page.asp) as I am unsure via the search bar that we have really talked about these projects on here.)

Update:  The grade-separated intersection opens tonight (http://www.nbc29.com/story/32468289/route-29-and-rio-road-intersection-construction-ahead-of-schedule). (July 18th)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 16, 2016, 07:24:02 PM
Thanks for that info about Cville. Gives me a reason to consider going through there to see it in two weeks. What a change from the overloaded old road they had when I was at UVA.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 16, 2016, 08:06:35 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 16, 2016, 07:24:02 PM
Thanks for that info about Cville. Gives me a reason to consider going through there to see it in two weeks. What a change from the overloaded old road they had when I was at UVA.

On a side note, I saw very quickly why you do not always take US 29 there (though I-66 may be part of it as well).  Obviously not an exact count, I think there had to have been at least 20-25 traffic signals between US 250 and the north end of Madison.   (This part of US 29 had been on my bucket list since 2004, when I rode on the US 29 and US 250 bypasses of Charlottesville during a middle school field trip to Monticello and UVA, and I recently did US 15 and US 522 north of I-64.  I may not have even done it Sunday if I-95 was not congested south of Fredericksburg.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on July 16, 2016, 09:23:12 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 16, 2016, 08:06:35 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 16, 2016, 07:24:02 PM
Thanks for that info about Cville. Gives me a reason to consider going through there to see it in two weeks. What a change from the overloaded old road they had when I was at UVA.

On a side note, I saw very quickly why you do not always take US 29 there (though I-66 may be part of it as well).  Obviously not an exact count, I think there had to have been at least 20-25 traffic signals between US 250 and the north end of Madison.   (This part of US 29 had been on my bucket list since 2004, when I rode on the US 29 and US 250 bypasses of Charlottesville during a middle school field trip to Monticello and UVA, and I recently did US 15 and US 522 north of I-64.  I may not have even done it Sunday if I-95 was not congested south of Fredericksburg.)

I did US 29 back in December between Charlottesville and I-66 and didn't find it to be congested at all.  The signal flow seemed to be very good north of Charlottesville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 17, 2016, 07:08:36 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 16, 2016, 08:06:35 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 16, 2016, 07:24:02 PM
Thanks for that info about Cville. Gives me a reason to consider going through there to see it in two weeks. What a change from the overloaded old road they had when I was at UVA.

On a side note, I saw very quickly why you do not always take US 29 there (though I-66 may be part of it as well).  Obviously not an exact count, I think there had to have been at least 20-25 traffic signals between US 250 and the north end of Madison.   (This part of US 29 had been on my bucket list since 2004, when I rode on the US 29 and US 250 bypasses of Charlottesville during a middle school field trip to Monticello and UVA, and I recently did US 15 and US 522 north of I-64.  I may not have even done it Sunday if I-95 was not congested south of Fredericksburg.)

Another reason is that with where I live in Fairfax County, it's more direct (but not always faster!) not to take 29 at all. My usual route home from Charlottesville is:

US-250 east to Shadwell
VA-22 through Keswick, becomes VA-231 near Cismont
VA-231 to Gordonsville
Take second exit from roundabout onto US-15 to Orange
Turn right onto VA-20 and follow to its end
Turn right onto VA-3 and follow to I-95 or US-1 (which depends on I-95 traffic)
Follow either of those rest of way

The US-29/I-66 route is out of the way to the north, though depending on what day of the week and time of day it is, it can be faster if it's a bad time for I-95 traffic. The HO/T lanes help northbound but are not necessarily a help southbound because they back up at the end.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 17, 2016, 07:40:00 AM
Speaking of Fredericksburg, there is a public hearing Tuesday about improvements to the I-95 interchange at VA 3 (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/fredericksburg/interstate_95,_exit_130-route_3_safety_improvements.asp).

The major changes would be the elimination of the current loop from VA 3 EB to I-95 NB (instead having three left turn lanes for I-95 NB at a new traffic signal).  There would also be three right turn lanes from I-95 SB to VA 3 WB at a new signal (with a separate lane that goes straight to Carl D Silver Parkway).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jcn on July 17, 2016, 12:23:11 PM
QuoteThe HO/T lanes help northbound but are not necessarily a help southbound because they back up at the end.

This is because the lanes end right before a busy interchange, and it creates weaving issues.  They plan to extends the lanes south past the interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 29, 2016, 11:13:04 AM
Has anybody here ever been on US 301 in Carson, VA? I say that divided section near the on and off-ramps of I-95 at Exit 37 needs more left-turn lanes for the gas stations across from them, as well as Rowanty Road.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 29, 2016, 01:59:09 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 29, 2016, 11:13:04 AM
Has anybody here ever been on US 301 in Carson, VA? I say that divided section near the on and off-ramps of I-95 at Exit 37 needs more left-turn lanes for the gas stations across from them, as well as Rowanty Road.



I definitely know what you're talking about. I guess VDOT figures traffic volumes are so low on US 301 here that left turn lanes aren't warranted?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 29, 2016, 02:19:49 PM
They're not.  Daily traffic volumes on 301 in that area are 1500 or less.  Absolutely no need for a turn lane with volumes that light and VDOT maintaining the divided section.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 31, 2016, 07:45:32 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 16, 2016, 06:37:45 AM
The interchange (technically grade-separated intersection) on US 29 at SR 631/Rio Road (http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/u-s--rio-road-intersection-to-open-next-week/article_cb730cc0-4ad5-11e6-88ff-13e7a28768c9.html) could open as early as Monday.

I drove through this and the six-lane widening north of SR 643 (Polo Grounds Road) to SR 1719 (Towncenter Drive) Sunday when taking an alternate route back to PA.

(The link to the Route 29 Solutions website (http://www.route29solutions.org/learn_more/3._route_29_widening_page.asp) as I am unsure via the search bar that we have really talked about these projects on here.)

Update:  The grade-separated intersection opens tonight (http://www.nbc29.com/story/32468289/route-29-and-rio-road-intersection-construction-ahead-of-schedule). (July 18th)

We drove through the Rio Road interchange today on northbound Route 29. Should be a nice change once people get used to it. But it was somewhat frustrating today because there weren't enough advance overhead signs telling people which lanes to use, just one set of signs right at the interchange. Led to a lot of extremely slow driving and last-minute lane-changing. Charlottesville drivers have never seemed to deal very well with new traffic patterns anyway, and this is a big change. It was apparent to me from a portable VMS that if you "exit" up the ramp to Rio Road, you can continue on 29, seeing as how the ramp is marked as "LOCAL." The portable VMS said to use the "LOCAL" route to go to Albemarle Square. But people naturally panicked when they saw the new underpass to the left.

Be interesting to hear how it is on football Saturdays this fall!

The traffic lights on 29 north of Charlottesville were far more frustrating than I ever remember in the past. Very nerve-wracking drive because the traffic today was heavy and there was an excessive amount of tailgating going on. We went that way today because I understandably didn't want to fight I-95 on a summer Sunday afternoon. It made the final two hours of our drive back from Florida by far the least pleasant part of what was otherwise largely a very easy trip! (Aside from a brief scare in Georgia when some guy ahead of us on a two-lane road was either drunk, senile, or distracted....he was driving on the wrong side of the road multiple times and ran oncoming cars off the road. I was hanging WAY back and couldn't get his plate number to call the police.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 31, 2016, 08:52:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2016, 07:45:32 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 16, 2016, 06:37:45 AM
The interchange (technically grade-separated intersection) on US 29 at SR 631/Rio Road (http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/u-s--rio-road-intersection-to-open-next-week/article_cb730cc0-4ad5-11e6-88ff-13e7a28768c9.html) could open as early as Monday.

I drove through this and the six-lane widening north of SR 643 (Polo Grounds Road) to SR 1719 (Towncenter Drive) Sunday when taking an alternate route back to PA.

(The link to the Route 29 Solutions website (http://www.route29solutions.org/learn_more/3._route_29_widening_page.asp) as I am unsure via the search bar that we have really talked about these projects on here.)

Update:  The grade-separated intersection opens tonight (http://www.nbc29.com/story/32468289/route-29-and-rio-road-intersection-construction-ahead-of-schedule). (July 18th)

We drove through the Rio Road interchange today on northbound Route 29. Should be a nice change once people get used to it. But it was somewhat frustrating today because there weren't enough advance overhead signs telling people which lanes to use, just one set of signs right at the interchange. Led to a lot of extremely slow driving and last-minute lane-changing. Charlottesville drivers have never seemed to deal very well with new traffic patterns anyway, and this is a big change. It was apparent to me from a portable VMS that if you "exit" up the ramp to Rio Road, you can continue on 29, seeing as how the ramp is marked as "LOCAL." The portable VMS said to use the "LOCAL" route to go to Albemarle Square. But people naturally panicked when they saw the new underpass to the left.

Be interesting to hear how it is on football Saturdays this fall!

I agree the lack of advance-signage is a problem.  I think the last minute lane changing will hopefully reduce somewhat once the locals realize that they can stay on US 29 easily via the ramp (and really only have to deal with one more traffic light around a whole bunch of them that have been around for years).  Obviously long-distance travelers will probably continue to do last-minute lane changing due to the lack of knowledge of the area and the odd configuration.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on July 31, 2016, 08:55:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2016, 07:45:32 PMThe traffic lights on 29 north of Charlottesville were far more frustrating than I ever remember in the past. Very nerve-wracking drive because the traffic today was heavy and there was an excessive amount of tailgating going on.

Too bad the I-83 extension proposal from Baltimore to Greensboro, NC wasn't given the time of day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 31, 2016, 09:31:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 31, 2016, 08:55:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2016, 07:45:32 PMThe traffic lights on 29 north of Charlottesville were far more frustrating than I ever remember in the past. Very nerve-wracking drive because the traffic today was heavy and there was an excessive amount of tailgating going on.

Too bad the I-83 extension proposal from Baltimore to Greensboro, NC wasn't given the time of day.

I don't know, I kind of like the part south of Charlottesville the way it is, though I'd prefer a consistent 65- to 70-mph speed limit (depending on what stretch of road). I suppose some parts north of Lynchburg are appropriate at 60 due to poor sight lines, though. Anyway, as a non-Interstate it's not particularly busy (except near Lynchburg) and it's a relatively relaxing drive that's fairly scenic. Making it an Interstate would make it much busier.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on August 01, 2016, 10:34:47 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2016, 09:31:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 31, 2016, 08:55:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2016, 07:45:32 PMThe traffic lights on 29 north of Charlottesville were far more frustrating than I ever remember in the past. Very nerve-wracking drive because the traffic today was heavy and there was an excessive amount of tailgating going on.

Too bad the I-83 extension proposal from Baltimore to Greensboro, NC wasn't given the time of day.

I don't know, I kind of like the part south of Charlottesville the way it is, though I'd prefer a consistent 65- to 70-mph speed limit (depending on what stretch of road). I suppose some parts north of Lynchburg are appropriate at 60 due to poor sight lines, though. Anyway, as a non-Interstate it's not particularly busy (except near Lynchburg) and it's a relatively relaxing drive that's fairly scenic. Making it an Interstate would make it much busier.

Oh man, don't remind me of Lynchburg. :ded: Coming into Lynchburg from the south on US-29 is a real pain in the ass. US-29 between the US-460/US-29 Business (Wards Road) junction and about 2, maybe 3 miles south of it was a parking lot every time I've came up that way (which isn't often), not to mention the constant speed limit changes. When I lived in Farmville from 2009-2011, going into Lynchburg on US-460 was easy, but coming from the south on US-29? No...just no. Going to Greensboro is much easier, and it's roughly about the same mileage from my house as Lynchburg and I've made better time. I've never driven US-29 any further north than Lynchburg, but I agree that US-29 isn't that bad once you leave Lynchburg heading south towards Danville and Greensboro. If I'm not mistaken, there was supposed to be a southern freeway bypass of Lynchburg built to connect US-29 south of US-460 to the existing US-29 freeway from US-460 to Amherst, but I don't know what happened to it. It definitely would've helped.

Speaking of Danville, I never understood why VDOT never raised the speed limit from 65mph to 70mph on the US-29 freeway from Blairs to NC. It could easily handle it since that seems to be the average speed there whenever I'm on it, and NC recently raised the speed limit their part of the US-29 freeway between Danville and Reidsville from 65mph to 70mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 01, 2016, 11:24:39 AM
QuoteSpeaking of Danville, I never understood why VDOT never raised the speed limit from 65mph to 70mph on the US-29 freeway from Blairs to NC. It could easily handle it since that seems to be the average speed there whenever I'm on it, and NC recently raised the speed limit their part of the US-29 freeway between Danville and Reidsville from 65mph to 70mph.

Likely because the "ramp junctions" at the Elizabeth St "interchange" are substandard for a 70 MPH mainline speed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on August 01, 2016, 12:38:23 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 01, 2016, 11:24:39 AM
QuoteSpeaking of Danville, I never understood why VDOT never raised the speed limit from 65mph to 70mph on the US-29 freeway from Blairs to NC. It could easily handle it since that seems to be the average speed there whenever I'm on it, and NC recently raised the speed limit their part of the US-29 freeway between Danville and Reidsville from 65mph to 70mph.

Likely because the "ramp junctions" at the Elizabeth St "interchange" are substandard for a 70 MPH mainline speed.

I forgot about Elizabeth Street. Wouldn't VDOT need to close off that access or build a grade separation in order for US-29 around Danville to become part of I-785 once NC upgrades the remaining substandard section of US-29 between Reidsville and the future Greensboro Urban Loop?
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2016, 02:05:44 PM
When we went through there yesterday I noted the Elizabeth Street ramps, but I didn't think they ought to be a bar to a 70-mph limit from a point east of there on up to Blairs. The speed limit is already reduced around the interchange that straddles the state line, isn't it? Why would it be a problem to post 70 mph only on the segments east of the Elizabeth Street ramps? (I set my cruise control at 70 yesterday after I passed the first 65-mph sign and I found myself wondering why the speed limit wasn't 70.)

Edited: I checked Street View and I see I misremembered and that it is posted at 65 through the Elizabeth Street "interchange." It seems to me posting 70 east of there would more or less comply with VDOT's normal method of gradually reducing or increasing speed limits off a 70-mph zone (that is, notice on Interstates how they'll go 70-65-60-55). What am I missing?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 01, 2016, 04:01:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2016, 02:05:44 PM
When we went through there yesterday I noted the Elizabeth Street ramps, but I didn't think they ought to be a bar to a 70-mph limit from a point east of there on up to Blairs. The speed limit is already reduced around the interchange that straddles the state line, isn't it? Why would it be a problem to post 70 mph only on the segments east of the Elizabeth Street ramps? (I set my cruise control at 70 yesterday after I passed the first 65-mph sign and I found myself wondering why the speed limit wasn't 70.)

Edited: I checked Street View and I see I misremembered and that it is posted at 65 through the Elizabeth Street "interchange." It seems to me posting 70 east of there would more or less comply with VDOT's normal method of gradually reducing or increasing speed limits off a 70-mph zone (that is, notice on Interstates how they'll go 70-65-60-55). What am I missing?

VDOT has no problem with going 70 to 60 directly.  I-81 at Roanoke does this north of Exit 150.

AFAIK (or remember) the US 29 Madison Heights Bypass is the only non-interstate designated road with a 70 mph speed limit in Virginia.  All other limited access non-interstates max out at 65 mph.  Don't know what makes Madison Heights special in the eyes of VDOT or a statute.  Is it really the only rural interstate-standard piece of freeway in Virginia without a red and blue shield?
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2016, 05:00:48 PM
It's not the statute, it's VDOT. I'll find the exact language later tonight, but the statute allows 70-mph limits, after a traffic and engineering study, on essentially anything that doesn't have at-grade intersections and has at least two lanes in each direction. (It's not worded quite like that, though. It says "limited-access," but VDOT construes that to mean full access control.)

Edited to add–Here it is.

Quote§ 46.2-870. Maximum speed limits generally.

Except as otherwise provided in this article, the maximum speed limit shall be 55 miles per hour on interstate highways or other limited access highways with divided roadways, nonlimited access highways having four or more lanes, and all state primary highways.

The maximum speed limit on all other highways shall be 55 miles per hour if the vehicle is a passenger motor vehicle, bus, pickup or panel truck, or a motorcycle, but 45 miles per hour on such highways if the vehicle is a truck, tractor truck, or combination of vehicles designed to transport property, or is a motor vehicle being used to tow a vehicle designed for self-propulsion, or a house trailer.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the maximum speed limit shall be 70 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on: (i) interstate highways, (ii) multilane, divided, limited access highways, and (iii) high-occupancy vehicle lanes if such lanes are physically separated from regular travel lanes. The maximum speed limit shall be 60 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on U.S. Route 23, U.S. Route 29, U.S. Route 58, U.S. Alternate Route 58, U.S. Route 360, U.S. Route 460, and on U.S. Route 17 between the Town of Port Royal and Saluda where they are nonlimited access, multilane, divided highways.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 01, 2016, 09:24:39 PM
Maybe they don't find the Danville Bypass sufficiently rural or they haven't done the study...?

Thinking about another part of your thread, VDOT also has no trouble going from 60 mph to 45 mph on highways...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2016, 09:26:50 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 31, 2016, 08:55:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2016, 07:45:32 PMThe traffic lights on 29 north of Charlottesville were far more frustrating than I ever remember in the past. Very nerve-wracking drive because the traffic today was heavy and there was an excessive amount of tailgating going on.

Too bad the I-83 extension proposal from Baltimore to Greensboro, NC wasn't given the time of day.

It was never studied at any level by Maryland DOT or Virginia DOT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on August 01, 2016, 10:08:29 PM
A recent drop of new Google Maps imagery shows a nice view of the new crash-prone modern roundabout at Braddock and Pleasant Valley in Fairfax County:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8817435,-77.485472,288m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2016, 10:40:09 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 01, 2016, 09:24:39 PM
Maybe they don't find the Danville Bypass sufficiently rural or they haven't done the study...?

....

Or they did the study and just decided to post 65. The study for the Beltway HO/T lanes determined that a 70-mph speed limit would be appropriate, but they posted 65 instead and said they never considered posting 70 (this per media reports back when they raised those lanes' limit to 65). So it's not unprecedented for VDOT to keep it lower than a study might say is justified.

I recall back in 1995, when the NSML repeal was pending, then-Gov. Allen wanted to post the Fairfax County Parkway at 65! I'm pretty sure there is still no road with at-grade intersections posted above 60 mph in Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2016, 07:55:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2016, 10:40:09 PM
I recall back in 1995, when the NSML repeal was pending, then-Gov. Allen wanted to post the Fairfax County Parkway at 65! I'm pretty sure there is still no road with at-grade intersections posted above 60 mph in Virginia.

That would have been a bad idea. The Fairfax County Parkway is definitely not engineered for   that much speed.  There have been plenty of horrendous crashes at its at-grade intersections, and I suspect that speed was a factor in many of them.

I have gotten dirty looks more than once for having the temerity to drive at or near the posted limit (in the right lane) there, perhaps especially between Va. 123 and Hooes Road, where there are sections that are little more than a wide subdivision street.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on August 02, 2016, 07:56:13 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2016, 09:26:50 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 31, 2016, 08:55:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2016, 07:45:32 PMThe traffic lights on 29 north of Charlottesville were far more frustrating than I ever remember in the past. Very nerve-wracking drive because the traffic today was heavy and there was an excessive amount of tailgating going on.

Too bad the I-83 extension proposal from Baltimore to Greensboro, NC wasn't given the time of day.

It was never studied at any level by Maryland DOT or Virginia DOT.

I never said they did. I read about it here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_83#Future (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_83#Future)

QuoteAs Congress worked toward reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act, the Greater Lynchburg Chamber of Commerce and other groups in Virginia wanted I-83 extended southward to provide bypasses for Charlottesville, Lynchburg, and Danville, and to link those cities to Greensboro, North Carolina. By June 1991, Robert LaLone, director of programs for the Lynchburg Chamber, admitted that an interstate was unlikely, but upgrading of US 29, with bypasses included, is more likely.

...which is why I said that it was too bad that it never got the time of day. It would've been a great alternative to the parking lot I-95 for those going to DC, Baltimore and the Northeast from Greensboro and points south on I-85 and vice-versa.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 02, 2016, 09:30:25 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2016, 07:55:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2016, 10:40:09 PM
I recall back in 1995, when the NSML repeal was pending, then-Gov. Allen wanted to post the Fairfax County Parkway at 65! I'm pretty sure there is still no road with at-grade intersections posted above 60 mph in Virginia.

That would have been a bad idea. The Fairfax County Parkway is definitely not engineered for   that much speed.  There have been plenty of horrendous crashes at its at-grade intersections, and I suspect that speed was a factor in many of them.

I have gotten dirty looks more than once for having the temerity to drive at or near the posted limit (in the right lane) there, perhaps especially between Va. 123 and Hooes Road, where there are sections that are little more than a wide subdivision street.

I usually do 55 in the right lane, using cruise control if possible so as to keep my speed down. Last year some idiot who was going at least 75 passed me (and other people) by whipping over into a right-turn lane and then going straight. I have it on video somewhere.

The segment between Huntsman Boulevard and the Hooes Road exit feels like the narrowest part to me.

On Sunday there was a cop ahead of us and people were still tailgating and driving aggressively.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 02, 2016, 10:42:42 AM
Quote from: 1995hooIt says "limited-access," but VDOT construes that to mean full access control.

That's not a construing, that's how the state of Virginia terms full access control.  In Virginia-speak, "limited access" = full access control, and "controlled access" = partial access control.

QuoteThe study for the Beltway HO/T lanes determined that a 70-mph speed limit would be appropriate, but they posted 65 instead and said they never considered posting 70 (this per media reports back when they raised those lanes' limit to 65).

This is likely because the Beltway HO/T lanes are not fully separated from the mainline.
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 02, 2016, 11:54:38 AM
I believe I read the number of left-side exits was also a factor.

Regarding "limited access," you're right, there is another statute defining "limited access," so technically it's not VDOT construing it. I forgot about that when I made my prior comment. Not going to edit it now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2016, 12:44:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2016, 09:30:25 AM
I usually do 55 in the right lane, using cruise control if possible so as to keep my speed down. Last year some idiot who was going at least 75 passed me (and other people) by whipping over into a right-turn lane and then going straight. I have it on video somewhere.

Yeah, people think that 286 is the Capital Beltway, which  it is definitely not.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2016, 09:30:25 AM
The segment between Huntsman Boulevard and the Hooes Road exit feels like the narrowest part to me.

Yeah, that's about right. Though there have been a fair number of crashes with  injury at Old Keene Mill Road, an intersection that I always approach with caution (the sight lines for Old Keene Mill Road traffic approaching are not very  good).

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2016, 09:30:25 AM
On Sunday there was a cop ahead of us and people were still tailgating and driving aggressively.

It is a road that really cries out for more and aggressive traffic enforcement by the Fairfax County Police.  I have seen them doing radar/laser speed limit enforcement at places, but they should do more, and be visible about it.  I suspect that they could reel in more than a few reckless drivers (and going 20+ MPH over the limit on that road is reckless).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 02, 2016, 01:08:29 PM
They do stage those periodic "50 means 50" campaigns. But the place where I've most often seen enforcement is just east of the Pohick Road interchange at the Hooes Road intersection, I assume because it's easy for them to set up and get a view of traffic some distance away. Makes sense, but the more problematic areas are further west.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 02, 2016, 05:34:56 PM
The Continuous Flow Intersection (http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/construction-begins-on-first-of-its-kind-intersection-at-military/article_23908272-f6d8-5203-8259-9f400b1af65f.html) being constructed on US 13 at VA 165/VA 166 (where US 13 turns on/off Military Hwy onto Northampton Blvd) has practically begun.

Of note is that there are also plans to put one on VA 190 (Kempsville Rd) at Indian River Rd.  (mentioned in the last sentence of the linked article)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2016, 08:02:58 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2016, 01:08:29 PM
They do stage those periodic "50 means 50" campaigns.

IMO not enough.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2016, 01:08:29 PM
But the place where I've most often seen enforcement is just east of the Pohick Road interchange at the Hooes Road intersection, I assume because it's easy for them to set up and get a view of traffic some distance away. Makes sense, but the more problematic areas are further west.

I have seen them on the southbound side just south of Va. 620 (Braddock Road) interchange where they can be pretty far to the right of passing traffic; and at a point south of Va. 654 (Popes Head Road) at Ladues End Lane (probably because there is almost no traffic on this little dead-end street). 

But there always seems to be  a good supply of speeding cars on this road, many apparently close to or above 70 MPH (I suppose there are Virginia drivers that are not (!) familiar with § 46.2-862 (http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-862/) of the Code of Virginia) - a road where too much speed is dangerous and by golly reckless.  It is a road that cries out to have been tolled and designed to the same (high) standards as Maryland Route 200 (and I do give VDOT and Fairfax County credit for having a reasonably continuous multi-use trail along its entire length, something Montgomery County and Prince George's County failed to do with Route 200).

Obviously, I do not drive the Fairfax County Parkway nearly as much as people that live in or near Fairfax County, so my sample size is small, though I can say that I have clinched all of it from U.S. 1 at Fort Belvoir in the south to Va. 7 near the Loudoun County border in the north.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 04, 2016, 10:30:55 PM
Regarding the reconstruction of the welcome centers and rest areas along I-95; Who here has seen the plans for those? Is this going to be anything like what they did to the Maryland House (I hope not), even if on a smaller scale?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on August 05, 2016, 06:11:55 PM
Spotted another new Travel Time sign on Thursday, this one on I-64 WB a few miles east of I-295, and again in all-FHWA. Will have to check to see if it has an eastbound partner west of town on Monday.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/6MXfZRo0wGmztw8c810oyGXDiqtfm-TVXqryWRpBZB42APC8XLi1cpy3PbgmCSGYoughRWqgiBAhNcZBD5fwzph9aVNpyZaESSwXGP9WVwFOMxpqf5KSDh5MCmwCRD-Tcqp_farbmNI2G8ZQVe4VRIAGocpznycstn5t2dtHPEUIRuzjzJYiclA-1Zlrt3K8U3-3usxL5S78o-LFWtz5nvnuhuvbcbOLZOExb_5hkgn9mElyj6HF3NbkhJzHpQSJKq7lcwvjFqu-7SXdRvreu5AOhgNrxDRDjjvXmRwlm3zk3QBkP0LblNEjBp5_n0VeqSWw0W2aH1nSuEVVgV52bhrJB9Dz3YrXDQqGpRjvn9NXo1jYELjP7jn2qldf4zZQ4UbKTKj4seC05jBwqzQnI7IV-JDd5jE8zTWcbwQ0ScVkbYVlUQyHuUUMCN_rUWZLhcqPnLChD1FvkZT1M21pWI8Qjg6fRE_CgzbEJ0iR3fl_XGifd0aE7NRLUDYKzrRnyFFeSVNcIQEu1OH3EqvmhjoafjsCEcBKkymZbUnRnD7xU0AADBQRt6Q9vvB1slNRGIEAzTp2jdrH971Z4wRSkBncvJaUg4A=w615-h346-no)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 05, 2016, 09:44:29 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 05, 2016, 06:11:55 PM
Spotted another new Travel Time sign on Thursday, this one on I-64 WB a few miles east of I-295, and again in all-FHWA. Will have to check to see if it has an eastbound partner west of town on Monday.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/6MXfZRo0wGmztw8c810oyGXDiqtfm-TVXqryWRpBZB42APC8XLi1cpy3PbgmCSGYoughRWqgiBAhNcZBD5fwzph9aVNpyZaESSwXGP9WVwFOMxpqf5KSDh5MCmwCRD-Tcqp_farbmNI2G8ZQVe4VRIAGocpznycstn5t2dtHPEUIRuzjzJYiclA-1Zlrt3K8U3-3usxL5S78o-LFWtz5nvnuhuvbcbOLZOExb_5hkgn9mElyj6HF3NbkhJzHpQSJKq7lcwvjFqu-7SXdRvreu5AOhgNrxDRDjjvXmRwlm3zk3QBkP0LblNEjBp5_n0VeqSWw0W2aH1nSuEVVgV52bhrJB9Dz3YrXDQqGpRjvn9NXo1jYELjP7jn2qldf4zZQ4UbKTKj4seC05jBwqzQnI7IV-JDd5jE8zTWcbwQ0ScVkbYVlUQyHuUUMCN_rUWZLhcqPnLChD1FvkZT1M21pWI8Qjg6fRE_CgzbEJ0iR3fl_XGifd0aE7NRLUDYKzrRnyFFeSVNcIQEu1OH3EqvmhjoafjsCEcBKkymZbUnRnD7xU0AADBQRt6Q9vvB1slNRGIEAzTp2jdrH971Z4wRSkBncvJaUg4A=w615-h346-no)

"West of Richmond" seems a little weird, and the sign itself reads kind of strangely (take I-64 to...I-64?). Maybe "Short Pump" (or "Sandston" for the EB one).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 05, 2016, 11:13:30 PM
Given that Short Pump requires backtracking, I would go with "Time to Exit 175" (or 173 or what have you) instead.  Eastbound could be labeled/marked to Exit 205.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on August 05, 2016, 11:59:32 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 05, 2016, 09:44:29 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 05, 2016, 06:11:55 PM
Spotted another new Travel Time sign on Thursday, this one on I-64 WB a few miles east of I-295, and again in all-FHWA. Will have to check to see if it has an eastbound partner west of town on Monday.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/6MXfZRo0wGmztw8c810oyGXDiqtfm-TVXqryWRpBZB42APC8XLi1cpy3PbgmCSGYoughRWqgiBAhNcZBD5fwzph9aVNpyZaESSwXGP9WVwFOMxpqf5KSDh5MCmwCRD-Tcqp_farbmNI2G8ZQVe4VRIAGocpznycstn5t2dtHPEUIRuzjzJYiclA-1Zlrt3K8U3-3usxL5S78o-LFWtz5nvnuhuvbcbOLZOExb_5hkgn9mElyj6HF3NbkhJzHpQSJKq7lcwvjFqu-7SXdRvreu5AOhgNrxDRDjjvXmRwlm3zk3QBkP0LblNEjBp5_n0VeqSWw0W2aH1nSuEVVgV52bhrJB9Dz3YrXDQqGpRjvn9NXo1jYELjP7jn2qldf4zZQ4UbKTKj4seC05jBwqzQnI7IV-JDd5jE8zTWcbwQ0ScVkbYVlUQyHuUUMCN_rUWZLhcqPnLChD1FvkZT1M21pWI8Qjg6fRE_CgzbEJ0iR3fl_XGifd0aE7NRLUDYKzrRnyFFeSVNcIQEu1OH3EqvmhjoafjsCEcBKkymZbUnRnD7xU0AADBQRt6Q9vvB1slNRGIEAzTp2jdrH971Z4wRSkBncvJaUg4A=w615-h346-no)

"West of Richmond" seems a little weird, and the sign itself reads kind of strangely (take I-64 to...I-64?). Maybe "Short Pump" (or "Sandston" for the EB one).
I kind of agree. One of the things that has always annoyed me about these signs is that it's hard to tell what point the travel time is actually to unless your're rather familiar with the area. Examples include the sign for "I-295 / Richmond" with times for US-460 and I-664 to I-64 to Exit 28 (I think) that's located just past the High Rise Bridge on I-64 EB, or the VA-168 / OUTER BANKS sign which shows times to Exit 291, not the Wright Bros. Bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jwolfer on August 06, 2016, 12:36:57 AM
There is a similar sign on 95.. it's to let thru traffic know they have options
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 06, 2016, 08:45:30 AM
Southbound 95 approaching 295 has had a sign for years, but did not include travel times.  Does it now?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 06, 2016, 09:03:35 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 06, 2016, 08:45:30 AM
Southbound 95 approaching 295 has had a sign for years, but did not include travel times.  Does it now?

Checking GSV from February of this year (if you are referring to this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.689055,-77.4518764,3a,75y,172.14h,72.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seRjHYZMB8NpLU3RPF593HA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)), the answer seems to be no.  I do not remember seeing travel times there when I drove that way about a month ago.  I do remember travel times on this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6387632,-77.4062889,3a,75y,164.94h,81.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swTh_0ksGvt4gP59C8_MGVg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for VA Beach via I-64 and US 460 (no diagram) on I-295 SB just past US 301/VA 2(Exit 41).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 06, 2016, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 06, 2016, 09:03:35 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 06, 2016, 08:45:30 AM
Southbound 95 approaching 295 has had a sign for years, but did not include travel times.  Does it now?

Checking GSV from February of this year (if you are referring to this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.689055,-77.4518764,3a,75y,172.14h,72.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seRjHYZMB8NpLU3RPF593HA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)), the answer seems to be no.  I do not remember seeing travel times there when I drove that way about a month ago.  I do remember travel times on this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6387632,-77.4062889,3a,75y,164.94h,81.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swTh_0ksGvt4gP59C8_MGVg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for VA Beach via I-64 and US 460 (no diagram) on I-295 SB just past US 301/VA 2(Exit 41).

There is also one for I-64 vs. US 60 to Williamsburg located on I-295 SB just past the US 360 interchange - https://goo.gl/maps/cXivaEjTJf22

Seems to me the one for I-64 vs. I-295 should either say I-64/295 Jct west of Richmond or just Charlottesville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 06, 2016, 12:06:58 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 05, 2016, 11:59:32 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 05, 2016, 09:44:29 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 05, 2016, 06:11:55 PM
Spotted another new Travel Time sign on Thursday, this one on I-64 WB a few miles east of I-295, and again in all-FHWA. Will have to check to see if it has an eastbound partner west of town on Monday.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/6MXfZRo0wGmztw8c810oyGXDiqtfm-TVXqryWRpBZB42APC8XLi1cpy3PbgmCSGYoughRWqgiBAhNcZBD5fwzph9aVNpyZaESSwXGP9WVwFOMxpqf5KSDh5MCmwCRD-Tcqp_farbmNI2G8ZQVe4VRIAGocpznycstn5t2dtHPEUIRuzjzJYiclA-1Zlrt3K8U3-3usxL5S78o-LFWtz5nvnuhuvbcbOLZOExb_5hkgn9mElyj6HF3NbkhJzHpQSJKq7lcwvjFqu-7SXdRvreu5AOhgNrxDRDjjvXmRwlm3zk3QBkP0LblNEjBp5_n0VeqSWw0W2aH1nSuEVVgV52bhrJB9Dz3YrXDQqGpRjvn9NXo1jYELjP7jn2qldf4zZQ4UbKTKj4seC05jBwqzQnI7IV-JDd5jE8zTWcbwQ0ScVkbYVlUQyHuUUMCN_rUWZLhcqPnLChD1FvkZT1M21pWI8Qjg6fRE_CgzbEJ0iR3fl_XGifd0aE7NRLUDYKzrRnyFFeSVNcIQEu1OH3EqvmhjoafjsCEcBKkymZbUnRnD7xU0AADBQRt6Q9vvB1slNRGIEAzTp2jdrH971Z4wRSkBncvJaUg4A=w615-h346-no)

"West of Richmond" seems a little weird, and the sign itself reads kind of strangely (take I-64 to...I-64?). Maybe "Short Pump" (or "Sandston" for the EB one).
I kind of agree. One of the things that has always annoyed me about these signs is that it's hard to tell what point the travel time is actually to unless your're rather familiar with the area. Examples include the sign for "I-295 / Richmond" with times for US-460 and I-664 to I-64 to Exit 28 (I think) that's located just past the High Rise Bridge on I-64 EB, or the VA-168 / OUTER BANKS sign which shows times to Exit 291, not the Wright Bros. Bridge.

For that reason, I don't think I'd use an exit number as froggie suggests, simply because drivers unfamiliar with the area aren't likely to know where the exit number is. Or, to put that differently, someone who makes that drive on a regular basis is likely to be familiar enough with the area to have a general sense for which route is going to be quicker at a particular time of day or day of the week (that is, you might see something different on a Sunday afternoon with long-distance beach traffic heading home compared to on a Wednesday afternoon with Richmond commuters, right?). That person might be familiar with the exit numbers, but he's less likely to need the sign in the first place unless there's some significant traffic event screwing up one of the routes. A person from out of the area who doesn't know the roads well enough to have a sense for the traffic patterns is also less likely to be helped by a simple exit number.

With all that said, I don't know what the right way to word it is. I don't think "Charlottesville" by itself is sufficient because it's potentially misleading in that it's not giving you the time to Charlottesville but rather to the road leading to Charlottesville. Perhaps "[I-64] West to Charlottesville" or "Thru Traffic TO [I-64] West to Charlottesville" might work, although the latter might be too long to fit on one line.

The travel-time signs are a noble idea, though. The ones on southbound I-95 north of Richmond are intended to help unfamiliar motorists understand they can bypass Richmond and still return to I-95, but in my admittedly unscientific observation there are still plenty of people who stay on I-95. No doubt in some cases that's because they see it's a shorter distance. (We took I-95 instead of I-295 three weeks ago due to a greater selection of breakfast stops and not having been that way in 14 years, but that's a different consideration.) Perhaps the travel-time signs would help divert more people onto I-295. I can confirm that as of three weeks ago the signs froggie asks about on southbound I-95 did not list travel times.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 06, 2016, 04:36:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hooFor that reason, I don't think I'd use an exit number as froggie suggests, simply because drivers unfamiliar with the area aren't likely to know where the exit number is.

I'll make the counter argument that out-of-region drivers are more likely to figure out an exit number location (given that Virginia uses mile-base exit numbers) than they are a small village or hamlet that few outside the region would be familiar with (i.e. the above-mentioned "Sandston").  The problem with I-64 in the Richmond area is that there are few (if any) placenames that would be easily understood that could be used for such signs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 06, 2016, 05:11:07 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 06, 2016, 04:36:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hooFor that reason, I don't think I'd use an exit number as froggie suggests, simply because drivers unfamiliar with the area aren't likely to know where the exit number is.

I'll make the counter argument that out-of-region drivers are more likely to figure out an exit number location (given that Virginia uses mile-base exit numbers) than they are a small village or hamlet that few outside the region would be familiar with (i.e. the above-mentioned "Sandston").  The problem with I-64 in the Richmond area is that there are few (if any) placenames that would be easily understood that could be used for such signs.


The boldfaced sentence underscores why we're having this discussion!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 07, 2016, 04:26:01 AM
Why not use "I-64 Corridor Thru Traffic?"
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 07, 2016, 10:30:42 AM
It could also make sense to put no destination at all.

People would have to interpret the times as how long it took before the routes met again, yes...?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 07, 2016, 11:54:53 AM
Or perhaps put a distance. Maybe something like "I-64/I-295 western junction" with the diagram underneath, then "Via I-64/X miles, Y minutes" and the same for I-295. Obviously the distances would be permanent numbers since they don't change. Might not tell you exactly where the western junction is, but the exact location isn't necessarily the point anyway.

The potential problem with this notion is that it might encourage too many people to go through the city if the travel times don't differ significantly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 07, 2016, 12:41:01 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 07, 2016, 11:54:53 AM
The potential problem with this notion is that it might encourage too many people to go through the city if the travel times don't differ significantly.

I seldom use the I-95 alignment through Richmond (the old RTP), unless I am going to a meeting in Richmond (fairly rare) or am taking a trip that has me headed toward I-85 in Petersburg.  Otherwise, the I-295 alignment is so much better and easier to drive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 07, 2016, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 07, 2016, 12:41:01 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 07, 2016, 11:54:53 AM
The potential problem with this notion is that it might encourage too many people to go through the city if the travel times don't differ significantly.

I seldom use the I-95 alignment through Richmond (the old RTP), unless I am going to a meeting in Richmond (fairly rare) or am taking a trip that has me headed toward I-85 in Petersburg.  Otherwise, the I-295 alignment is so much better and easier to drive.

Sure, but the members of this forum are probably not the primary target audience for that sort of sign!

I've actually taken I-295 after coming north on I-85. I turned south on I-95 and used it to connect to I-295. This was back in the late 1990s when I was moving out of my apartment at Duke and I had enough stuff crammed into the car that my view through the mirrors was somewhat obstructed, so I felt I-295 would be a considerably easier and safer option compared to going through downtown Richmond's twisty segment. Going that way actually worked pretty well and it's not really that far between I-85 and the southern end of I-295.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on August 07, 2016, 02:29:57 PM
I'll be honest, while in Richmond for a week, I found I-295 to be quicker, but I-95 was just as quick. I could clear the area in about 30 minutes.

I was thinking of using an interstate junction, such as using Staunton or To I-81.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 07, 2016, 02:48:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 07, 2016, 11:54:53 AM
Or perhaps put a distance. Maybe something like "I-64/I-295 western junction" with the diagram underneath, then "Via I-64/X miles, Y minutes" and the same for I-295. Obviously the distances would be permanent numbers since they don't change. Might not tell you exactly where the western junction is, but the exact location isn't necessarily the point anyway.

The potential problem with this notion is that it might encourage too many people to go through the city if the travel times don't differ significantly.

That is practically what PA does on all VMSes that show travel times.  The main on with separate roads that I have seen is one showing the distance to New Jersey on I-78/US 22 EB (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5754809,-75.659091,3a,75y,65.65h,86.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOduv1faQqHd8zmF-FNRjZQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) a couple miles west of its split at Exit 51.  (The GSV link from November 2015 shows distances to exits via US 22 instead though but it is at this location.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 15, 2016, 05:58:58 PM
The US 17 widening northwest of Fredericksburg to 6 lanes from I-95 to Stafford Lakes Parkway (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2016/route_17_widening_project106757.asp) is complete.

This may not help that much when it comes to traffic heading from US 17 SB onto I-95 SB though, at least for now.  (I-95 traffic would still be for me the predetermining factor on how to proceed towards Richmond from the Warrenton area for the record.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2016, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 15, 2016, 05:58:58 PM
The US 17 widening northwest of Fredericksburg to 6 lanes from I-95 to Stafford Lakes Parkway (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2016/route_17_widening_project106757.asp) is complete.

This may not help that much when it comes to traffic heading from US 17 SB onto I-95 SB though, at least for now.  (I-95 traffic would still be the predetermining factor on how to proceed towards Richmond from the Warrenton area for the record.)

I was in that area on Sunday. Traffic was still a little messy but this is likely due to the remaining "cleanup" construction going on - work zone speed limits are still in place. I imagine once that's done things will be a little smoother. I can remember traffic being a nightmare on this stretch at times when I was younger and lived in that area (though not to the extent of US 1 and US 17 BUSINESS near the Falmouth Bridge...which hasn't improved much despite that project being completed).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 16, 2016, 03:49:08 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2016, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 15, 2016, 05:58:58 PM
The US 17 widening northwest of Fredericksburg to 6 lanes from I-95 to Stafford Lakes Parkway (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2016/route_17_widening_project106757.asp) is complete.

This may not help that much when it comes to traffic heading from US 17 SB onto I-95 SB though, at least for now.  (I-95 traffic would still be the predetermining factor on how to proceed towards Richmond from the Warrenton area for the record.)

I was in that area on Sunday. Traffic was still a little messy but this is likely due to the remaining "cleanup" construction going on - work zone speed limits are still in place. I imagine once that's done things will be a little smoother. I can remember traffic being a nightmare on this stretch at times when I was younger and lived in that area (though not to the extent of US 1 and US 17 BUSINESS near the Falmouth Bridge...which hasn't improved much despite that project being completed).

I only saw it once or twice (so I may be completely in the wrong here), but I thought the problem with the intersection in Falmouth had to do with split phases in all directions.    (I remember a couple of lights on US 1 including the SR 630 intersection in Stafford CH phased this way.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2016, 04:46:04 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 16, 2016, 03:49:08 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2016, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 15, 2016, 05:58:58 PM
The US 17 widening northwest of Fredericksburg to 6 lanes from I-95 to Stafford Lakes Parkway (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2016/route_17_widening_project106757.asp) is complete.

This may not help that much when it comes to traffic heading from US 17 SB onto I-95 SB though, at least for now.  (I-95 traffic would still be the predetermining factor on how to proceed towards Richmond from the Warrenton area for the record.)

I was in that area on Sunday. Traffic was still a little messy but this is likely due to the remaining "cleanup" construction going on - work zone speed limits are still in place. I imagine once that's done things will be a little smoother. I can remember traffic being a nightmare on this stretch at times when I was younger and lived in that area (though not to the extent of US 1 and US 17 BUSINESS near the Falmouth Bridge...which hasn't improved much despite that project being completed).

I only saw it once or twice (so I may be completely in the wrong here), but I thought the problem with the intersection in Falmouth had to do with split phases in all directions.    (I remember a couple of lights on US 1 including the SR 630 intersection in Stafford CH phased this way.)

That was part of the problem. The other part was the complete lack of dedicated turn lanes in all directions, resulting in extremely long queues over the Falmouth Bridge and up US 17 BUSINESS. The project improved this somewhat, but the queues are still fairly long and slow to clear.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 18, 2016, 03:50:02 PM
US 17 Business Drawbridge Replacement (http://wavy.com/2016/08/18/new-deep-creek-bridge-project-takes-step-forward/) in Deep Creek (part of Chesapeake) is to officially be signed off on tomorrow.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 18, 2016, 11:03:44 PM
Washington Post:  Should Alexandria rename Jefferson Davis Highway, keep other Confederate symbols? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/should-alexandria-rename-jefferson-davis-highway-keep-other-confederate-symbols/2016/08/18/c413a4a2-6584-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html)

QuoteThe Jefferson Davis Highway in Alexandria should be renamed and the Confederate memorial statue in Old Town should stay, a group convened to address vestiges of the Civil War is recommending to the city council.

QuoteThe recommendations in a report released Thursday come almost a year after Alexandria officials began grappling with how the suburb honors its legacy of fighting to keep African-Americans enslaved.

QuoteCity councilors considered the matter in September, setting up a task force of community leaders to examine Confederate memorials and street names by studying history and gathering comments from the public.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 19, 2016, 08:45:37 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2016, 04:46:04 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 16, 2016, 03:49:08 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2016, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 15, 2016, 05:58:58 PM
The US 17 widening northwest of Fredericksburg to 6 lanes from I-95 to Stafford Lakes Parkway (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2016/route_17_widening_project106757.asp) is complete.

This may not help that much when it comes to traffic heading from US 17 SB onto I-95 SB though, at least for now.  (I-95 traffic would still be the predetermining factor on how to proceed towards Richmond from the Warrenton area for the record.)

I was in that area on Sunday. Traffic was still a little messy but this is likely due to the remaining "cleanup" construction going on - work zone speed limits are still in place. I imagine once that's done things will be a little smoother. I can remember traffic being a nightmare on this stretch at times when I was younger and lived in that area (though not to the extent of US 1 and US 17 BUSINESS near the Falmouth Bridge...which hasn't improved much despite that project being completed).

I only saw it once or twice (so I may be completely in the wrong here), but I thought the problem with the intersection in Falmouth had to do with split phases in all directions.    (I remember a couple of lights on US 1 including the SR 630 intersection in Stafford CH phased this way.)

That was part of the problem. The other part was the complete lack of dedicated turn lanes in all directions, resulting in extremely long queues over the Falmouth Bridge and up US 17 BUSINESS. The project improved this somewhat, but the queues are still fairly long and slow to clear.

I respectfully disagree

This intersection is much much better based on driving through it on a daily basis.

Mike
Off the coast of Denmark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 20, 2016, 10:58:45 PM
I noticed I-295/Va288 and the Richmond Beltway concept being discussed in this thread. I've been thinking about this for a while now. I'm pretty sure some of you know about one of VDOT's old plans to extend 295 (which much of it of course was to be a rerouted 95) to I-85... which brings me back to the beltway thing: instead of just stopping at 85, how about this..

(https://scontent.forf1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13987645_1237330622964314_5092493176689104826_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9)

I think this would serve both local and interstate traffic better than all of the old proposals suggested, plus it would make one hell of a beltway/twin bypass
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on August 20, 2016, 11:18:28 PM
Quote from: plain on August 20, 2016, 10:58:45 PM
I noticed I-295/Va288 and the Richmond Beltway concept being discussed in this thread. I've been thinking about this for a while now. I'm pretty sure some of you know about one of VDOT's old plans to extend 295 (which much of it of course was to be a rerouted 95) to I-85... which brings me back to the beltway thing: instead of just stopping at 85, how about this..

(https://scontent.forf1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13987645_1237330622964314_5092493176689104826_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9)

I think this would serve both local and interstate traffic better than all of the old proposals suggested, plus it would make one hell of a beltway/twin bypass
Not totally familiar with that part of Chesterfield, but IIRC it's not particularly developed. I don't think Richmond really needs a second bypass, as I-295 and VA-288 handle most traffic fairly well. A freeway connection between I-295 and I-85 would be useful, but I don't see it in the cards.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on August 21, 2016, 03:05:36 AM
^ Anyone notice VA 156 is likely the most convoluted state highway in Virginia?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 21, 2016, 05:07:31 AM
I nominate va 337

There was once a proposal to have I195 go to Petersburg. Don't recall if a routing had been suggested
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 21, 2016, 05:50:48 AM
Quote from: plain on August 20, 2016, 10:58:45 PM
I noticed I-295/Va288 and the Richmond Beltway concept being discussed in this thread. I've been thinking about this for a while now. I'm pretty sure some of you know about one of VDOT's old plans to extend 295 (which much of it of course was to be a rerouted 95) to I-85... which brings me back to the beltway thing: instead of just stopping at 85, how about this..

I think this would serve both local and interstate traffic better than all of the old proposals suggested, plus it would make one hell of a beltway/twin bypass

Well Chesterfield wants to ultimately have the East-West Freeway (http://www.chesterfield.gov/uploadedImages/Department_Information/Community_Development/Transportation/Images/thoroughfare-plan(1).png) (see the freeway line that goes to US 360 as the Powhite Pkwy Extension and curves to the east paralleling VA 288 to the south) built at some point.  I also remembering reading about a North-South Freeway to I-85 somewhere in the distant future.

Personally, I would prefer a 6-laned VA 288 and improvements at the I-95/VA 288 interchange before the East-West Freeway.  Also Chesterfield County is currently planning improvements at the I-95 interchange with VA 10 and the VA 288 interchange at Commonwealth Centre Pkwy (SR 2055) (http://chesterfieldva.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=1250&meta_id=129157).


Quote from: Mapmikey on August 21, 2016, 05:07:31 AM
There was once a proposal to have I-195 go to Petersburg. Don't recall if a routing had been suggested

Does the North-South Freeway have anything to do with that?

Quote from: amroad17 on August 21, 2016, 03:05:36 AM
^ Anyone notice VA 156 is likely the most convoluted state highway in Virginia?
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 21, 2016, 05:07:31 AM
I nominate VA 337

I want to say VA 165 despite it being in a mostly northwest-southeast orientation from VA 337 in Norfolk to VA 149.  The main convolution comes on the east-west part from US 17 Bus to VA 149 obviously.  I will agree that I am not fond of the routing of VA 156 north of the James River.  (Personally I would have it end in Hopewell and delete the VA 156 Bypass Route.  I may be biased since VA 156 in Prince George was practically the most important road in my life as a child.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 21, 2016, 08:08:08 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 20, 2016, 11:18:28 PM
Quote from: plain on August 20, 2016, 10:58:45 PM
I noticed I-295/Va288 and the Richmond Beltway concept being discussed in this thread. I've been thinking about this for a while now. I'm pretty sure some of you know about one of VDOT's old plans to extend 295 (which much of it of course was to be a rerouted 95) to I-85... which brings me back to the beltway thing: instead of just stopping at 85, how about this..

(https://scontent.forf1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13987645_1237330622964314_5092493176689104826_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9)

I think this would serve both local and interstate traffic better than all of the old proposals suggested, plus it would make one hell of a beltway/twin bypass
Not totally familiar with that part of Chesterfield, but IIRC it's not particularly developed. I don't think Richmond really needs a second bypass, as I-295 and VA-288 handle most traffic fairly well. A freeway connection between I-295 and I-85 would be useful, but I don't see it in the cards.

I'm thinking about future growth in the metro (it's already growing in a pretty fast clip now) plus 288 between I-95 and VA10 already sees a high volume of traffic, especially during rush hours
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 21, 2016, 08:29:08 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 21, 2016, 05:50:48 AM
Quote from: plain on August 20, 2016, 10:58:45 PM
I noticed I-295/Va288 and the Richmond Beltway concept being discussed in this thread. I've been thinking about this for a while now. I'm pretty sure some of you know about one of VDOT's old plans to extend 295 (which much of it of course was to be a rerouted 95) to I-85... which brings me back to the beltway thing: instead of just stopping at 85, how about this..

I think this would serve both local and interstate traffic better than all of the old proposals suggested, plus it would make one hell of a beltway/twin bypass

Well Chesterfield wants to ultimately have the East-West Freeway (http://www.chesterfield.gov/uploadedImages/Department_Information/Community_Development/Transportation/Images/thoroughfare-plan(1).png) (see the freeway line that goes to US 360 as the Powhite Pkwy Extension and curves to the east paralleling VA 288 to the south) built at some point.  I also remembering reading about a North-South Freeway to I-85 somewhere in the distant future.

Personally, I would prefer a 6-laned VA 288 and improvements at the I-95/VA 288 interchange before the East-West Freeway.  Also Chesterfield County is currently planning improvements at the I-95 interchange with VA 10 and the VA 288 interchange at Commonwealth Centre Pkwy (SR 2055) (http://chesterfieldva.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=1250&meta_id=129157).


Quote from: Mapmikey on August 21, 2016, 05:07:31 AM
There was once a proposal to have I-195 go to Petersburg. Don't recall if a routing had been suggested

Does the North-South Freeway have anything to do with that?

Quote from: amroad17 on August 21, 2016, 03:05:36 AM
^ Anyone notice VA 156 is likely the most convoluted state highway in Virginia?
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 21, 2016, 05:07:31 AM
I nominate VA 337

I want to say VA 165 despite it being in a mostly northwest-southeast orientation from VA 337 in Norfolk to VA 149.  The main convolution comes on the east-west part from US 17 Bus to VA 149 obviously.  I will agree that I am not fond of the routing of VA 156 north of the James River.  (Personally I would have it end in Hopewell and delete the VA 156 Bypass Route.  I may be biased since VA 156 in Prince George was practically the most important road in my life as a child.)

Yes I remember the proposal to extend the Powhite in a loop back to 95. I think that would be silly given the fact that such an east-west expressway would be only 5 or so miles south of 288 by the time it reaches southern chesterfield. I think the Powhite should be extended to US 360 and that's it. And if VDOT is even going to do that then they should get a move on it before Chesterfield let developers block the path... remember the whole 295/288/John Rolfe Parkway fiasco? Lol

Oh and yes, VA 165 is definitely the weirdest running route in Virginia. Not sure what the state was thinking with that one
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on August 21, 2016, 08:40:06 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 20, 2016, 11:18:28 PMA freeway connection between I-295 and I-85 would be useful, but I don't see it in the cards.

I agree. An extension of I-295 to I-85 would allow northbound I-85 traffic heading towards DC and points north and vice-versa to avoid Petersburg altogether. I remember living in Farmville (2009-2011) and taking US-460/I-85 to I-95 south when I would visit a couple of friends in Goldsboro, NC. I definitely would've put that I-295 extension to good use if it had been built. Let's just say that I'm not a fan of the I-85/I-95 interchange.

I'm also surprised VA-288 hasn't become an I-x95 or I-x64. It would make sense, IMO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 21, 2016, 10:24:35 AM
The Powhite extension corridor is pretty close to some development right where it would split from Old Hundred, but otherwise from what I can tell it would be mostly going through undeveloped areas. The East-West Freeway seems superfluous right now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2016, 11:54:06 AM
Quote from: plain on August 21, 2016, 08:29:08 AM
Oh and yes, VA 165 is definitely the weirdest running route in Virginia. Not sure what the state was thinking with that one

There are other strange state routes in Virginia.  One is Va. 237 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_State_Route_237), which runs from the City of Fairfax almost to Washington, D.C.

Fixed link for you.  -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 21, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: LM117 on August 21, 2016, 08:40:06 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 20, 2016, 11:18:28 PMA freeway connection between I-295 and I-85 would be useful, but I don't see it in the cards.


I'm also surprised VA-288 hasn't become an I-x95 or I-x64. It would make sense, IMO.

It's so interesting how different VA is on building and designating new interstates compared to say NC. If VA was anything like NC, then VA-288, VA-895, VA-164 in Hampton Roads, and VA-28 in Northern Virginia would all be interstate highways. Lol NC will call a road not even up to interstate standards an interstate(I-295), while VA is perfectly fine not changing anything to avoid even remote confusion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 21, 2016, 02:21:41 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2016, 11:54:06 AM
Quote from: plain on August 21, 2016, 08:29:08 AM
Oh and yes, VA 165 is definitely the weirdest running route in Virginia. Not sure what the state was thinking with that one

There are other strange state routes in Virginia.  One is Va. 237 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_State_Route_237), which runs from the City of Fairfax almost to Washington, D.C.


When it comes to weird for me, it would be a tie between VA 189 and VA 237 since both follow unneeded decently-long concurrencies between with US 58 and US 29 respectively for their intentions (VA 189 is debatably unnecessary as discussed before).  VA 2 does more despite its long concurrency with US 301.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 21, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Lol NC will call a road not even up to interstate standards an interstate(I-295), while VA is perfectly fine not changing anything to avoid even remote confusion.

See here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8390.msg2167985#msg2167985).  It was only a prop since NC 295 is still planned to ultimately be I-295.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on August 21, 2016, 02:41:54 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 21, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: LM117 on August 21, 2016, 08:40:06 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 20, 2016, 11:18:28 PMA freeway connection between I-295 and I-85 would be useful, but I don't see it in the cards.


I'm also surprised VA-288 hasn't become an I-x95 or I-x64. It would make sense, IMO.

It's so interesting how different VA is on building and designating new interstates compared to say NC. If VA was anything like NC, then VA-288, VA-895, VA-164 in Hampton Roads, and VA-28 in Northern Virginia would all be interstate highways.

VDOT actually intended for VA-895 to become I-895, but tolls prevented that since federal funds was used to build the road. It's the same reason NC-540 around Raleigh isn't I-540.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on August 21, 2016, 03:02:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 18, 2016, 11:03:44 PM
Washington Post:  Should Alexandria rename Jefferson Davis Highway, keep other Confederate symbols? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/should-alexandria-rename-jefferson-davis-highway-keep-other-confederate-symbols/2016/08/18/c413a4a2-6584-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html)

QuoteThe Jefferson Davis Highway in Alexandria should be renamed and the Confederate memorial statue in Old Town should stay, a group convened to address vestiges of the Civil War is recommending to the city council.

As shown in the full article, this is a fairly moderate recommendation. But I hope the "case-by-case" consideration of renaming streets with less obvious Confederate associations (some of them really tenuous, IMO) results in no further name changes.

Jefferson Davis Highway is a special case -- the Confederate association is really obvious, and Jefferson Davis wasn't a Virginian anyway. It helps also that JDH is also U.S. 1, which helps a lot with giving and revising directions to businesses along the highway. Indeed, it could be named "US 1", to avoid the confusion of giving it a brand-new name.

There would still be some confusion with Jefferson Davis Highway in Arlington County, which Arlington officials would like to rename but would need (and failed so far to obtain) approval from the state legislature. Other major thoroughfares with less blatant Confederate associations, like Lee Highway (part of U.S. 29). which is named for a former Arlington resident and also is used in a lot of street addresses, could be left intact.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 21, 2016, 04:23:57 PM
I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it by its name. Everyone calls it "Route 1."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 21, 2016, 04:44:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on August 21, 2016, 02:41:54 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 21, 2016, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: LM117 on August 21, 2016, 08:40:06 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 20, 2016, 11:18:28 PMA freeway connection between I-295 and I-85 would be useful, but I don't see it in the cards.


I'm also surprised VA-288 hasn't become an I-x95 or I-x64. It would make sense, IMO.

It's so interesting how different VA is on building and designating new interstates compared to say NC. If VA was anything like NC, then VA-288, VA-895, VA-164 in Hampton Roads, and VA-28 in Northern Virginia would all be interstate highways.

VDOT actually intended for VA-895 to become I-895, but tolls prevented that since federal funds was used to build the road. It's the same reason NC-540 around Raleigh isn't I-540.

Plus VA 28 still as a couple intersections at-grade.

VA 895 can't become an interstate until the feds are paid the $9m (out of the total $300m+ that was spent to build it) they are owed and the operators can't even afford to pay that back smdh.

VA 288 and VA 164 can definitely be interstates though. Matter of fact VA 150 could've been one too all the way up to Forest Hill Ave, but I guess they can't do that because of the 2 right-in/right-out junctions on the expressway  between Jeff Davis Hwy and Hopkins Rd
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 21, 2016, 04:55:33 PM
QuoteI don't think I've ever heard anyone call it by its name. Everyone calls it "Route 1."

North of Old Town, yes.  But through Old Town the streetnames are occasionally heard, and "Richmond Hwy" is regularly used through Fairfax County.

QuoteMatter of fact VA 150 could've been one too all the way up to Forest Hill Ave, but I guess they can't do that because of the 2 right-in/right-out junctions on the expressway  between Jeff Davis Hwy and Hopkins Rd

VA 150 also has some substandard shoulders and bridges.  Good enough for a 6-lane freeway.  Not good enough for Interstate designation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2016, 04:59:12 PM
Quote from: oscar on August 21, 2016, 03:02:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 18, 2016, 11:03:44 PM
Washington Post:  Should Alexandria rename Jefferson Davis Highway, keep other Confederate symbols? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/should-alexandria-rename-jefferson-davis-highway-keep-other-confederate-symbols/2016/08/18/c413a4a2-6584-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html)

QuoteThe Jefferson Davis Highway in Alexandria should be renamed and the Confederate memorial statue in Old Town should stay, a group convened to address vestiges of the Civil War is recommending to the city council.

As shown in the full article, this is a fairly moderate recommendation. But I hope the "case-by-case" consideration of renaming streets with less obvious Confederate associations (some of them really tenuous, IMO) results in no further name changes.

I am no fan of Jefferson Davis or the treasonous and illegal Confederate "government" that he headed. However, his name has been on long sections of U.S. 1 in Virginia for much longer than I have been alive, and it does not especially bother me that the name remains. 

While we are on the subject of named highways in Virginia, what bothers me much more is the total disappearance of Henry G. Shirley's name from I-95 and I-395 from the Occoquan River to the 14th Street Bridge.

Quote from: oscar on August 21, 2016, 03:02:15 PM
Jefferson Davis Highway is a special case -- the Confederate association is really obvious, and Jefferson Davis wasn't a Virginian anyway. It helps also that JDH is also U.S. 1, which helps a lot with giving and revising directions to businesses along the highway. Indeed, it could be named "US 1", to avoid the confusion of giving it a brand-new name.

Though the far north end of Jefferson Davis Highway is Va. 110, not U.S. 1.  Admittedly, it's not a big deal, since I do not believe there are any buildings that have a street address on the Va. 110 part of Jeff Davis.

Quote from: oscar on August 21, 2016, 03:02:15 PM
There would still be some confusion with Jefferson Davis Highway in Arlington County, which Arlington officials would like to rename but would need (and failed so far to obtain) approval from the state legislature. Other major thoroughfares with less blatant Confederate associations, like Lee Highway (part of U.S. 29). which is named for a former Arlington resident and also is used in a lot of street addresses, could be left intact.

Wonder how Fairfax County was able to name their section of U.S. 1 as Richmond Highway instead of Jefferson Davis Highway.   It's been Richmond Highway for as long as I can remember.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 21, 2016, 05:02:04 PM
QuoteWonder how Fairfax County was able to name their section of U.S. 1 as Richmond Highway instead of Jefferson Davis Highway.   It's been Richmond Highway for as long as I can remember.

Mike and I have found evidence that suggests the Richmond Hwy designation in Fairfax County predates the Jefferson Davis Hwy designation statewide.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2016, 05:17:59 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 21, 2016, 02:21:41 PM
When it comes to weird for me, it would be a tie between VA 189 and VA 237 since both follow unneeded decently-long concurrencies between with US 58 and US 29 respectively for their intentions (VA 189 is debatably unnecessary as discussed before).  VA 2 does more despite its long concurrency with US 301.

Agreed about Va. 2.

I think I have been on Va. 189 once, and not recently, but it could probably go away without much damage.

The eastern part of 237, from Va. 120 to U.S. 50, is not very well signed (I don't think the relatively new signs on U.S. 50 westbound mention it at all), but it is IMO a worthy state highway. 

The "western" part of 237 on Pickett Road in the City of Fairfax, is mostly or entirely  unsigned.

Maybe VDOT is planning to decommission it entirely?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on August 21, 2016, 05:30:58 PM
There is a lot of weirdness in VA when it comes to route endpoints (I believe that this is mostly due to maintenance funding - secondaries receive less than primaries do), but there are examples that still confound me. For example, why does VA-35 end at a bunch of secondary routes, rather than at I-95 (or even US-301) less than a quarter mile away?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 21, 2016, 06:42:13 PM
I think VA 189 is like VA 2, where it predates its US route concurrency. VA 35's end is pretty odd, but I have a couple of (most likely wrong) theories. There was a VDOT building on the part past 95/301 (I think it's been repurposed now), and the place where it ends was the original routing of US 301's predecessor, US 17-1, and it could have been routed there by mistake when the interchange was being built there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 21, 2016, 06:44:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2016, 04:55:33 PM
QuoteMatter of fact VA 150 could've been one too all the way up to Forest Hill Ave, but I guess they can't do that because of the 2 right-in/right-out junctions on the expressway  between Jeff Davis Hwy and Hopkins Rd

VA 150 also has some substandard shoulders and bridges.  Good enough for a 6-lane freeway.  Not good enough for Interstate designation.

Good Point.

Quote from: Thing 342 on August 21, 2016, 05:30:58 PM
There is a lot of weirdness in VA when it comes to route endpoints (I believe that this is mostly due to maintenance funding - secondaries receive less than primaries do), but there are examples that still confound me. For example, why does VA-35 end at a bunch of secondary routes, rather than at I-95 (or even US-301) less than a quarter mile away?

Yep. Virginia has always had primary highways that ended at secondary roads... At one point I used to live about 5 miles from the end of VA 271, which also ends at secondaries. Matter of fact look at the eastern shore smh. And if the state is going to do that then US 33 (instead of "VA 33") might as well terminate at the bay like US 360 does.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on August 22, 2016, 03:16:15 AM
I agree with VA 165 and VA 337 being more convoluted than even VA 156.  At least VA 156 has a general north/south direction.  VA 165 has an east/west direction through Chesapeake, heads northeast/southwest in Virginia Beach until it reaches the courthouse area, turns northwest/southeast there to Norfolk, where in its final miles goes west/east.  It runs for nearly 40 miles, but endpoint to endpoint is around 15 miles apart.  As for VA 337, it really should have been signed a north/south route instead of east/west.  Yes, it goes east/west basically from Driver in Suffolk to the other side of the Jordan Bridge but overall it goes more north/south than east/west.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 22, 2016, 07:40:55 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2016, 05:17:59 PM
....

The eastern part of 237, from Va. 120 to U.S. 50, is not very well signed (I don't think the relatively new signs on U.S. 50 westbound mention it at all), but it is IMO a worthy state highway. 

The "western" part of 237 on Pickett Road in the City of Fairfax, is mostly or entirely  unsigned.

Maybe VDOT is planning to decommission it entirely?

I seem to recall that 237 used to run on Old Lee Highway from central Fairfax City past St. Leo's to Fairfax Circle. Is that memory correct? If so, I doubt it was ever signed when they moved it to Pickett.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 22, 2016, 09:19:24 AM
Va 165 has always had the loop out to Princess Anne and for a time also extended via ferry to Newport News. Its predecessor Va 502 also did the loop but then also zigzagged northeast to Shore Dr

I never found a citation for Va 35's extension past its original US 301 endpoint.

The plan to extend I195 to Petersburg came from the city of Richmond in 1977 (See the apr 77 CTB or the i195 entry at vahighways.com

The random end points of va routes goes back to how they divvied up mileage prior to 1943 and there used to be way more stubs

Mike
Olden Norway
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2016, 11:57:46 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2016, 07:40:55 AM
I seem to recall that 237 used to run on Old Lee Highway from central Fairfax City past St. Leo's to Fairfax Circle. Is that memory correct? If so, I doubt it was ever signed when they moved it to Pickett.

I trust Mapmikey and Adam (Froggie here) on such matters, and their Virginia Highways Project entry for 237 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va221-240.htm) does indeed show it using Old Lee Highway.

IMO that made more sense than the routing down Pickett Road, though the routing on Pickett may have been motivated by the presence of the large tank farm and associated petroleum pipeline-to-truck intermodal facility there.
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 22, 2016, 12:24:10 PM
Recall Pickett also followed a different route until the late 1980s or 1990–it was a two-lane road once you passed the tank farm and it hooked around via what is now Old Pickett. It got discovered as a shortcut and was widened when I was in high school. The 1988 rerouting noted at that link would have been at about that time. I think, if memory serves, the widening and rerouting was finished a year or two before Blake Lane was extended from Route 29 to Route 50, because I know that opened in 1990 or 1991 (I recall this because at the time I worked near that intersection). Perhaps the widening was the impetus for making Pickett a primary route.

(My parents have lived off 236 about two miles east of the intersection with Pickett since 1983, and my brother and I attended Woodson HS, so I've spent a lot of time on Pickett Road over the years.)


Edited to add: BTW, the fact that Blake Lane used to end at the light where the IHOP is now located is probably one major reason why 237's current routing has that odd jog west to the circle–when the number was assigned to Pickett, you couldn't go straight through to Route 29 yet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2016, 11:49:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2016, 12:24:10 PM
Recall Pickett also followed a different route until the late 1980s or 1990–it was a two-lane road once you passed the tank farm and it hooked around via what is now Old Pickett. It got discovered as a shortcut and was widened when I was in high school. The 1988 rerouting noted at that link would have been at about that time. I think, if memory serves, the widening and rerouting was finished a year or two before Blake Lane was extended from Route 29 to Route 50, because I know that opened in 1990 or 1991 (I recall this because at the time I worked near that intersection). Perhaps the widening was the impetus for making Pickett a primary route.

I suspect the presence of the tank farm, and the City of Fairfax not wanting HAZMAT carriers to head west on 236 through the downtown area.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2016, 12:24:10 PM
(My parents have lived off 236 about two miles east of the intersection with Pickett since 1983, and my brother and I attended Woodson HS, so I've spent a lot of time on Pickett Road over the years.)

Never lived in the Commonwealth, but  I  have done traffic studies there, especially involving the tank farm, so I know it pretty well.  Not sure what year I drove it first.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 22, 2016, 12:24:10 PM
Edited to add: BTW, the fact that Blake Lane used to end at the light where the IHOP is now located is probably one major reason why 237's current routing has that odd jog west to the circle–when the number was assigned to Pickett, you couldn't go straight through to Route 29 yet.

I suspect that the HAZMAT transports may have something to do with the screwball routing of 237 - and perhaps because someone did not want those trucks on Blake Lane  (Va. 655) (IIRC, the trucks may legally go east [north] on U.S. 29/Va. 237 toward Va. 243 (Nutley Street) and Falls Church; or west [south] on U.S. 29/U.S. 50 toward Va. 123.

They  may not go east on U.S. 50 because of the 8 ton gross weight limit east of Fairfax Circle.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 23, 2016, 09:41:27 AM
Regarding the Confederate names thing, this morning when we were stopped at a red light we were looking at a Jeff Davis Highway* sign and we were talking about how there doesn't seem to be any movement to rename Lee Highway or Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway. Setting aside that both Lee and Jackson were from Virginia and that Lee lived at what is now Arlington Cemetery, I couldn't help but wonder whether the use of Davis's full name might be part of the difference. It "feels" more obvious a connotation than if it were simply "Davis Highway." I wonder how many people don't necessarily realize "Lee Highway" refers to Robert E. Lee. I'm sure it's more than many of us suspect. Back when Virginia observed Lee-Jackson-King Day on the third Monday in January, I knew quite a few people (most of them transplants from elsewhere) who asked, in complete sincerity, "Who is Lee Jackson King?"

I was somewhat amused when my wife commented that she never hears anyone refer to Jefferson Davis Highway as such because everyone we know calls it "Route 1," in part because of how it changes names as you move through Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax County. It made me think of froggie's purported "correction" to my prior comment. No doubt his statement about there being people who call the Fairfax part "Richmond Highway" is accurate, but it doesn't make my comment "wrong" when I said everyone I know calls it "Route 1." It's definitely kind of odd how some roads get called by name and others by number and there doesn't seem to be a lot of logic as to which ones get which treatment. My unscientific observation is that the older the person speaking, the more likely it is that they'll say "Arlington Boulevard" or "Lee Highway" instead of "50" or "29," respectively. I have no idea whether use of names, rather than numbers, was more prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s (I was not yet born), but I do recall in the late 1970s/early 1980s people tended to use the names more often. That's definitely shifted over time, and I'm not just referring to Confederate-named streets when I say that. (Then you have Bob Marbourg, who often calls the Beltway "495." I think that seemed to become less common in general during the era when the eastern side was just I-95. Saying "the Beltway" avoids any ambiguity or risk of giving bad information, much like saying "Route 1" means you don't need to worry about whether that segment is technically Patrick Street or Jeff Davis Highway or whatever.)

My general feeling on the current renaming fad is that it's a poor use of public funds that could be better spent elsewhere.


*The signs on Alexandria's portion say "Jeff Davis" and the signs on Arlington's say "Jefferson Davis."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on August 23, 2016, 01:02:09 PM
You can't ignore the fact that Davis was the head of state for the Confederacy. That is a class unto itself, at least symbolically.

I say rename it Richmond Highway. It's accurate and useful, as serves much more of a purpose than commemorating someone who wasn't even a Virginian.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 23, 2016, 02:46:41 PM
That's irrelevant to my feeling that the renaming fad is a waste of money that could be better used for other purposes (by way of example only, fixing potholes).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on August 23, 2016, 02:55:42 PM
Wouldn't this cost be borne by Alexandria taxpayers?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 23, 2016, 02:58:46 PM
Still a waste of money.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on August 23, 2016, 03:05:51 PM
I think we can all agree that the unenforced HOV lanes on "US Highway 1" in Old Town are a waste of money.  :sombrero:
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 23, 2016, 03:12:25 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 23, 2016, 03:05:51 PM
I think we can all agree that the unenforced HOV lanes on "US Highway 1" in Old Town are a waste of money.  :sombrero:
I saw HOV enforcement on there last week, actually. Seen it a fair number of times this summer. The guy in front of us got pulled over the most recent time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on August 23, 2016, 03:13:46 PM
VSP or Alexandria police?
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 23, 2016, 03:21:50 PM
Alexandria. Don't think I've ever seen VSP on there. Might have been nice to see ANY cop last Friday morning when a woman was going the wrong way on the northbound one-way portion just below Duke Street.

My understanding is that HOV lane (and the one on Washington Street) is different from the other Northern Virginia HOV lanes and that, among other things, the Clean Special Fuel exemption doesn't apply.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 23, 2016, 03:52:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 23, 2016, 03:21:50 PM
Alexandria. Don't think I've ever seen VSP on there. Might have been nice to see ANY cop last Friday morning when a woman was going the wrong way on the northbound one-way portion just below Duke Street.

Only place I see the VSP in the City of Alexandria is on the short section of the Capital Beltway within city limits, and on  I-395 between Turkeycock Run and Shirlington Circle.  I have never seen them doing HOV enforcement on the arterial HOV lanes on U.S. 1 and Va. 400.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 23, 2016, 03:21:50 PM
My understanding is that HOV lane (and the one on Washington Street) is different from the other Northern Virginia HOV lanes and that, among other things, the Clean Special Fuel exemption doesn't apply.

The Clean Special Fuel exemption is going to be gone from all HOV lanes in Northern Virginia with the possible exception of the Dulles Toll Road in the next few years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 23, 2016, 05:04:05 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 23, 2016, 03:52:28 PM
....

The Clean Special Fuel exemption is going to be gone from all HOV lanes in Northern Virginia with the possible exception of the Dulles Toll Road in the next few years.

I know. Last night on the way home I was speculating on how many people who have those license plates will drop them once the exemption is gone. No reason to pay $25 a year extra then. For now, the HOV exemption is worth it (if you qualify, obviously; they capped the number of eligible plates for I-395 and later for I-66).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 23, 2016, 06:11:48 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 23, 2016, 05:04:05 PM
I know. Last night on the way home I was speculating on how many people who have those license plates will drop them once the exemption is gone. No reason to pay $25 a year extra then. For now, the HOV exemption is worth it (if you qualify, obviously; they capped the number of eligible plates for I-395 and later for I-66).

From a transportation perspective, these exemptions are a bad idea.  I give Virginia credit for going away from giving capacity away to owners of Prius cars and instead requiring drivers that do not comply with the HOV requirement to pay a toll (note that I am somewhat indifferent about using a private concession partner like Transurban instead of having VDOT in charge of the HOV/Toll lanes).

The "Clean Fuel" vehicles have degraded the performance of the HOV lanes (probably more on I-66 than on I-95/I-395) and thus reduced the incentive to car-pool or take public transit. 

Nor is it just a problem in the U.S. 

Back in 2013, Norway allowed zero-emission vehicles (mostly Teslas, and Nissan Leafs from what I understand) to use the bus-only lanes, and it led to a significant degradation in bus service.  But they have since cancelled that exemption.

Wall Street Journal article from 2014: In Oslo, Electric Cars Drive Bus Operators Crazy - Government Incentives Fuel Sales of EVs in Norway, but Transit Workers Gripe About Vehicles in Their Lane (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304101504579545760417742286)

TheLocal.No (2015): Electric cars lose right to drive in Oslo bus lanes (http://www.thelocal.no/20150506/norway-strips-electric-cars-of-ke)

QuoteNorway is to strip electric cars of their nationwide right to drive in bus lanes, removing a key incentive that has helped turn the Nordic country into the world's leader for electric vehicles.

QuoteAccording to Norway's NRK, the Conservative, Liberal and Christian Democrat parties agreed  in a meeting on Tuesday night to end the nationwide right for electric vehicles to drive in bus lanes, and also to end their exemptions from road tolls and parking charges.

QuoteThe agreement instead gives local authorities the right to decide whether electric cars can hold onto these incentives, a change likely to mean that they are stripped away in major cities such as Oslo and Bergen.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on August 24, 2016, 09:00:55 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 23, 2016, 02:46:41 PM
That's irrelevant to my feeling that the renaming fad is a waste of money that could be better used for other purposes (by way of example only, fixing potholes).

Not beaint a dead horse, but I stumbled across the data on estimates of the cost of sign replacement. I like how they break it out per street:

https://www.alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/manager/info/SignCosts-2015.pdf

Looks like Jefferson Davis highway sign replacements would cost about $27,000, and all a hypothetical replacement of all Confederate-related road names (I dont' think that was ever seriously discussed though) would cost $171,150.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 24, 2016, 09:19:03 AM
$27K is a rounding error compared to what VDOT's Northern Virginia District usually spends in a year.  There's not much that you could get for $27K if applied to other road purposes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on August 24, 2016, 09:49:52 AM
Even fundraising by private citizens could probably cover that pretty quickly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on August 26, 2016, 12:44:42 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 24, 2016, 09:00:55 AM

Not beaint a dead horse, but I stumbled across the data on estimates of the cost of sign replacement. I like how they break it out per street:

https://www.alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/manager/info/SignCosts-2015.pdf

Looks like Jefferson Davis highway sign replacements would cost about $27,000, and all a hypothetical replacement of all Confederate-related road names (I dont' think that was ever seriously discussed though) would cost $171,150.

Of course, that's only the direct cost of changing signs. Address changes and related costs for other parts of the government, businesses, residences (especially along streets other than the Jefferson Davis, though there might be some with that in their addresses), and also maps and mapping software, were not included. My guess is that those extra costs could easily be far higher.

The extra costs might be lower along the Jeff Davis than for other streets, if businesses were embarrassed to use the Jeff Davis name, and went out of their way to use side street addresses instead. Or the ones that did use Jeff Davis addresses wouldn't mind changing to a less controversial name. People who would have to change addresses on less obviously Confederate-named streets like Beauregard St. or Hume Ave. would more likely consider the name change to be a costly burden than a blessing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 26, 2016, 07:29:07 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 23, 2016, 06:11:48 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 23, 2016, 05:04:05 PM
I know. Last night on the way home I was speculating on how many people who have those license plates will drop them once the exemption is gone. No reason to pay $25 a year extra then. For now, the HOV exemption is worth it (if you qualify, obviously; they capped the number of eligible plates for I-395 and later for I-66).

From a transportation perspective, these exemptions are a bad idea. ....

....

Sure, but at the same time, I'm certainly not going to condemn people eligible for the exemptions for taking full advantage of them. My point was simply that the only real reason to have the "Clean Special Fuel" plate is the HOV access. Without that, it's essentially a waste of $25 a year.

I must say the people who bought hybrids because of the exemption are, on the whole, better off when it ends than people with other alternative-fuel vehicles. I used to work with two guys who lived in Prince William County–one moved to Clifton later–who owned CNG-powered vehicles specifically to get the exemption. They said you had to refill the tank at least twice a week, but the time saved using the HOV made up for that. They both said without the HOV exemption those vehicles would be more of a hassle than it's worth because they're not practical for anything other than commuting due to range issues. Compare that to the hybrids, which don't have range issues and are generally usable just like any other car for most purposes unless maybe you own an original Honda Insight or a CR-Z, although if you bought one of those you'd likely have bought some other two-seater had you not gotten the hybrid. The CR-Z had a niche market as one of the few hybrids to offer a manual transmission.

(My former colleagues both said they were regularly confronted by busybodies angry at them for "illegally" putting the CF plates on cars that weren't hybrids. The exemption was never limited to hybrids, and to make it more complicated, not all hybrid models were eligible for the exemption.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 26, 2016, 11:17:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 26, 2016, 07:29:07 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 23, 2016, 06:11:48 PM
From a transportation perspective, these exemptions are a bad idea. ....

....

Sure, but at the same time, I'm certainly not going to condemn people eligible for the exemptions for taking full advantage of them. My point was simply that the only real reason to have the "Clean Special Fuel" plate is the HOV access. Without that, it's essentially a waste of $25 a year.

I am not condemning the people for taking advantage of a great deal either. 

As a former boss of mine put it, "people make rational decisions."

That $25 a year can be spent in less than a week paying tolls to use the existing Transurban HOV/Toll lanes on I-95 and I-395 even  if they  are only used during the morning or afternoon (but not both) peak commute periods.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 26, 2016, 07:29:07 AM
I must say the people who bought hybrids because of the exemption are, on the whole, better off when it ends than people with other alternative-fuel vehicles. I used to work with two guys who lived in Prince William County–one moved to Clifton later–who owned CNG-powered vehicles specifically to get the exemption. They said you had to refill the tank at least twice a week, but the time saved using the HOV made up for that. They both said without the HOV exemption those vehicles would be more of a hassle than it's worth because they're not practical for anything other than commuting due to range issues. Compare that to the hybrids, which don't have range issues and are generally usable just like any other car for most purposes unless maybe you own an original Honda Insight or a CR-Z, although if you bought one of those you'd likely have bought some other two-seater had you not gotten the hybrid. The CR-Z had a niche market as one of the few hybrids to offer a manual transmission.

The first time I saw an Insight was on the I-95 HOV lanes near Dumfries.  Thought it was too tiny to be a serious vehicle.  But I still see those original ones from time to time. Obviously Toyota and their Prius have been the big winners, at least in Northern Virginia (I do not know what impact these cars have had on the HOV lanes on I-64, I-564 and I-264 in Hampton Roads).

I did not know that the CR-Z was offered with a manual transmission.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 26, 2016, 07:29:07 AM
(My former colleagues both said they were regularly confronted by busybodies angry at them for "illegally" putting the CF plates on cars that weren't hybrids. The exemption was never limited to hybrids, and to make it more complicated, not all hybrid models were eligible for the exemption.)

All correct.  Here's a case in point. 

You may recall back in the days when nearly all of VDOT's trucks were painted orange, they had a fleet of Dodge 1 ton Safety Service Patrol trucks, and I believe all of those trucks were powered by CNG (the Safety Service  Patrol  trucks are still there, but all of it has been  outsourced to private contractors now (the current SSP trucks no longer have state government tags, but regular Virginia "civilian" truck tags)).

Someone purchased one of those CNG trucks from VDOT when the trucks reached time to be phased-out of the Commonwealth's fleet.  Yes, that truck had CF tags on it, but the VDOT paint job  was painted over (perfectly legal since it was a pretty low-emission vehicle). There were also a few Ford Crown Victorias with CNG stickers and CF tags (I wonder if some small police force (Alexandria?) might have had a few of them, as these cars looked like retired unmarked police cars).
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 26, 2016, 11:40:56 AM
One of my former colleagues had a CNG Crown Vic with the Police Interceptor package, but he bought it on eBay Motors from a guy in Atlanta.

The original Insight can actually sell for a good price these days because it was EPA-rated for 61 mpg city/70 highway. I think it had a manual shift too.


Edited to add: Regarding the tolls, we easily top $25 a week going down I-495 from I-66 to Springfield and then I-95 to the Franconia—Springfield Parkway. But even with the tolls, gas, and parking it's still slightly cheaper than full rush-hour Metro fare roundtrip for two people plus Metro parking.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 28, 2016, 12:10:23 PM
I drove through western Chesterfield for awhile yesterday. The final Otterdale Road southern extension, from Harper's Mill Parkway to Beach Road is finally under construction, and Woolridge Road is about halfway to Old Hundred Road, with the other half also under construction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 29, 2016, 08:15:42 PM
This thread seems like the best place to ask this. My wife is interested in going to Primland for Christmas. See map link below. Has anyone been down there? If so, how are the roads likely to be at that time of year (recognizing of course you never know what it might do at any given time)? I guess my thought is, is it reasonable to try to drive there at Christmas in a front-wheel-drive sedan with all-season tires? I'm less concerned about US-58 than I am about the roads after you turn off there.

Dropped Pin
near Busted Rock Rd, Meadows of Dan, VA 24120
https://goo.gl/maps/cy9tZ458FBs
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 30, 2016, 07:52:57 AM
The weather will do what the weather does, but from satellite imagery, it looks like SR 610 is paved from US 58 up to Primland.

On a related note, Google needs to update their map of the area...looks like a golf course has been built surrounding Primland...the end of SR 610, itself beyond what looks like a gate, appears to be here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir//36.6628725,-80.4240131/@36.6626979,-80.423923,16.51z?hl=en-US).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 31, 2016, 01:37:52 AM
Washington Post: Driver unfairly accused of not paying toll subjected to $8,300 "˜bureaucratic nightmare' (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/toll-road-driver-unfairly-fined-put-through-bureaucratic-nightmare-judge-finds/2016/08/30/a254071e-6e10-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html)

QuoteAbimbola Laniyan seemed to do everything right when she guided her car onto the Dulles Toll Road in May 2015, a judge would later write. She had her E-ZPass transponder to pay the toll and plenty of money in her account.

QuoteBut for reasons that are still unknown, the electronic toll system did not deduct the $2.50 toll and others that followed. The glitch made the law student from Herndon, Va., a scofflaw in the eyes of the toll authority.

QuoteOver several months, Laniyan made phone calls, filed appeals and requested records in what a judge would call a "bureaucratic nightmare"  to prove she was not guilty of a crime she thought she never committed. Fines and court fees piled up, and $26 in unpaid tolls became a potential judgment of $8,334.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 05, 2016, 02:06:22 PM
There is a public hearing (http://www.insidenova.com/headlines/public-hearing-on-i--flyover-ramp-in-fairfax-county/article_2f51ac1c-7068-11e6-bfbe-574997573127.html) tomorrow night on the planned flyover ramp from I-95 NB to VA 286 (Fairfax County Pkwy) NB (http://virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/i-95-ffx_co_pkwy_flyover.asp) plus other improvements at the interchange.

See planned design here (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/Exhibit_-_I-95_Flyover_100_Scale_Aerial_IMR_4thLane_Opt_10062015.pdf).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 05, 2016, 09:17:54 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 30, 2016, 07:52:57 AM
The weather will do what the weather does, but from satellite imagery, it looks like SR 610 is paved from US 58 up to Primland.

On a related note, Google needs to update their map of the area...looks like a golf course has been built surrounding Primland...the end of SR 610, itself beyond what looks like a gate, appears to be here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir//36.6628725,-80.4240131/@36.6626979,-80.423923,16.51z?hl=en-US).


We've made our reservation. I'll post back in December about the roads, but here's something interesting....we aren't staying in the main building, opting instead for one of three "tree houses" they offer. From what I found online, apparently if you stay in the tree houses and you do not have a four-wheel drive vehicle, they lend you one for the duration of your stay!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fluxgetaway.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2Fthe-gold-eagle-tree-house-Primland.jpg&hash=f77438e47ebd4ec47eec50324b1eb4a388198d0d)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadsguy on September 06, 2016, 01:32:04 PM
What's up with the striping on I-77 between the state line and just north of exit 8? There are hash marks in the shoulders and the dotted line segments are much closer together than normal. Street View shows it was striped like this sometime between June 2011 and August 2013.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on September 06, 2016, 01:38:31 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 06, 2016, 01:32:04 PM
What's up with the striping on I-77 between the state line and just north of exit 8? There are hash marks in the shoulders and the dotted line segments are much closer together than normal. Street View shows it was striped like this sometime between June 2011 and August 2013.
The additional striping is to help improve visibility. That section of I-77 is particularly susceptible to fog and is fairly dangerous, even on mostly clear days.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 06, 2016, 02:04:15 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on September 06, 2016, 01:38:31 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 06, 2016, 01:32:04 PM
What's up with the striping on I-77 between the state line and just north of exit 8? There are hash marks in the shoulders and the dotted line segments are much closer together than normal. Street View shows it was striped like this sometime between June 2011 and August 2013.
The additional striping is to help improve visibility. That section of I-77 is particularly susceptible to fog and is fairly dangerous, even on mostly clear days.

I'm surprised VDOT hasn't done this on I-64 on Afton Mountain, which has the same problem. I-64 does have permanent VMSes on either side of the mountain that warn of dense fog, however.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on September 06, 2016, 02:11:30 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 06, 2016, 01:32:04 PM
What's up with the striping on I-77 between the state line and just north of exit 8? There are hash marks in the shoulders and the dotted line segments are much closer together than normal. Street View shows it was striped like this sometime between June 2011 and August 2013.

Despite some of the things that were in place at the time, there was still a massive pile-up in the northbound lanes of I-77 on Easter Sunday, March 31, 2013. Despite thick fog and warning signs calling for reduced speeds, traffic was still moving at 60-70 MPH on the mountain. One crash set of a chain reaction of wrecks that ended with 3 people dead, 30 injured, and 96 vehicles damaged. http://www.galaxgazette.com/content/multiple-fatalities-reported-massive-i-77-crash

VDOT has been pushing safety improvements since 2011 to reduce such accidents, including the lane striping, traffic cameras, additional message boards, and variable speed limit signs.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/interstate_77_safety_improvements_-_carroll_county.asp

Of course, as VDOT says, "we still need drivers to change their behavior and drive to those conditions [reduced visibility conditions on the fog-prone section] as foggy conditions will continue to create hazards for drivers."

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 06, 2016, 02:43:39 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 05, 2016, 02:06:22 PM
There is a public hearing (http://www.insidenova.com/headlines/public-hearing-on-i--flyover-ramp-in-fairfax-county/article_2f51ac1c-7068-11e6-bfbe-574997573127.html) tomorrow night on the planned flyover ramp from I-95 NB to VA 286 (Fairfax County Pkwy) NB (http://virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/i-95-ffx_co_pkwy_flyover.asp) plus other improvements at the interchange.

See planned design here (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/Exhibit_-_I-95_Flyover_100_Scale_Aerial_IMR_4thLane_Opt_10062015.pdf).

Good move!  It would be nice to see VDOT figure a way to eliminate the at-grade signalized intersections on Va. 286 at Terminal Road and at Loisdale Drive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 06, 2016, 05:48:30 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 06, 2016, 02:04:15 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on September 06, 2016, 01:38:31 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 06, 2016, 01:32:04 PM
What's up with the striping on I-77 between the state line and just north of exit 8? There are hash marks in the shoulders and the dotted line segments are much closer together than normal. Street View shows it was striped like this sometime between June 2011 and August 2013.
The additional striping is to help improve visibility. That section of I-77 is particularly susceptible to fog and is fairly dangerous, even on mostly clear days.

I'm surprised VDOT hasn't done this on I-64 on Afton Mountain, which has the same problem. I-64 does have permanent VMSes on either side of the mountain that warn of dense fog, however.

There are lighted markers on the pavement on Afton Mtn that I've found useful the handful of times I've driven over it in dense fog
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 07, 2016, 08:54:21 AM
I was just looking at Google maps for Portsmouth VA, and it shows the NB MLK freeway connector to 264 as open.  Is this correct?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 07, 2016, 02:55:13 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on September 07, 2016, 08:54:21 AM
I was just looking at Google maps for Portsmouth VA, and it shows the NB MLK freeway connector to 264 as open.  Is this correct?

Nope, it's not open yet. It's been that way on Google Maps for a while now, and the southbound carriageway just ends short of I-264.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: epzik8 on September 11, 2016, 09:43:05 PM
This might be a weird departure from the Hampton Roads discussion, but who's been along U.S. 301 in King George County ever since that Walmart and other stuff in Dahlgren went up? I went there a couple of weeks ago and it's amazing. I'd say King George is no longer just part of the route between Annapolis and Richmond - it's a strong corridor along 301 now just like the Southern Maryland hubs of Upper Marlboro, Waldorf and La Plata.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 13, 2016, 05:35:22 PM
VDOT hopes to begin widening I-64 to six lanes from I-295 (Exit 200) to VA 33/VA 249 (Exit 205) (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2016/public_comments_sought_on107300.asp) sometime next year and is accepting comments until September 27th.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 13, 2016, 05:46:54 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on September 11, 2016, 09:43:05 PM
This might be a weird departure from the Hampton Roads discussion, but who's been along U.S. 301 in King George County ever since that Walmart and other stuff in Dahlgren went up? I went there a couple of weeks ago and it's amazing. I'd say King George is no longer just part of the route between Annapolis and Richmond - it's a strong corridor along 301 now just like the Southern Maryland hubs of Upper Marlboro, Waldorf and La Plata.

I thought that WalMart has been north of the junction of U.S. 301 and Va. 206 for some time now.  Incorrect?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mattpedersen on September 14, 2016, 11:52:22 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 13, 2016, 05:46:54 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on September 11, 2016, 09:43:05 PM
This might be a weird departure from the Hampton Roads discussion, but who's been along U.S. 301 in King George County ever since that Walmart and other stuff in Dahlgren went up? I went there a couple of weeks ago and it's amazing. I'd say King George is no longer just part of the route between Annapolis and Richmond - it's a strong corridor along 301 now just like the Southern Maryland hubs of Upper Marlboro, Waldorf and La Plata.

I thought that WalMart has been north of the junction of U.S. 301 and Va. 206 for some time now.  Incorrect?

I want to say it has been about three years or so.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 14, 2016, 01:37:52 PM
Between 2009-2012 per GMSV
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 14, 2016, 05:55:57 PM
Another section of US 58 widening (http://www.swvatoday.com/news/floyd/article_cf74f79e-7a90-11e6-9bcc-8fe5ea6464d1.html) is completed between Hillsville and Stuart.  I got to check this out as I took US 58 from I-77 to I-85 one time heading back to my parents' house from Blacksburg in 2014.

Also VA is installing signs on I-81 and I-95 (http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/New-VDOT-signs-will-alert-drivers-of-reckless-driving-law-393484031.html) to remind drivers that 80 is reckless driving even in the 70 zones for some reason.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 15, 2016, 07:32:39 AM
I've felt for several years, and still feel, that ticketing people for reckless driving solely for going 81 in a 70 zone is a bit of a "gotcha" law, so I think those signs are a decent gesture to out-of-staters who are far less likely to know about that law. Hopefully, however, the signs are not an indication of upcoming stricter speed limit enforcement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 15, 2016, 07:57:47 AM
QuoteAnother section of US 58 widening is completed between Hillsville and Stuart.  I got to check this out as I took US 58 from I-77 to I-85 one time heading back to my parents' house from Blacksburg in 2014.

Ties directly into the Meadows of Dan bypass, extending west of there for about 8 miles and stopping just short of Big Reed Island Creek.  Leaves gaps of about 7.5 miles west to Hillsville and about 12 miles east to Stuart.  The latter will be far more challenging due to the terrain and grade change.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 15, 2016, 08:02:27 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 13, 2016, 05:35:22 PM
VDOT hopes to begin widening I-64 to six lanes from I-295 (Exit 200) to VA 33/VA 249 (Exit 205) (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2016/public_comments_sought_on107300.asp) sometime next year and is accepting comments until September 27th.

Something that should've been done decades ago lol but at least they're finally getting the ball rolling. Would've been great if this widening was extended to at least exit 220 (VA 33 East) though. Maybe sometime in this lifetime the 6 laning will finally be the whole stretch from Richmond to Newport News
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 15, 2016, 09:19:24 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2016, 07:32:39 AM
I've felt for several years, and still feel, that ticketing people for reckless driving solely for going 81 in a 70 zone is a bit of a "gotcha" law, so I think those signs are a decent gesture to out-of-staters who are far less likely to know about that law. Hopefully, however, the signs are not an indication of upcoming stricter speed limit enforcement.

Agreed. I remember numerous attempts to raise the RD limit have all gotten shot down. At least opponents of raising the RD limit were honest (for once) in one article.

http://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/bill-to-amend-va-s-reckless-driving-law-shot-down/article_1c957453-bab5-5df6-a209-c821f02e295f.html (http://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/bill-to-amend-va-s-reckless-driving-law-shot-down/article_1c957453-bab5-5df6-a209-c821f02e295f.html)

QuoteOpponents cited several concerns, including a possible fiscal impact and that faster speeds lead to more crashes.

:banghead:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: September 15, 2016, 01:40:42 PM

Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 14, 2016, 05:55:57 PMthat 80 is reckless driving even in the 70 zones for some reason.

Because $$$.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 15, 2016, 11:59:43 AM
Quote from: LM117 on September 15, 2016, 09:27:21 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 14, 2016, 05:55:57 PMthat 80 is reckless driving even in the 70 zones for some reason.

Because $$$.

Though not $$$ for the Virginia State Police.

But lots of money for members of Virginia's criminal defense bar.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on September 15, 2016, 02:40:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2016, 07:32:39 AM
I've felt for several years, and still feel, that ticketing people for reckless driving solely for going 81 in a 70 zone is a bit of a "gotcha" law, so I think those signs are a decent gesture to out-of-staters who are far less likely to know about that law. Hopefully, however, the signs are not an indication of upcoming stricter speed limit enforcement.

It seems that most people know about that law, even out-of-staters.  Now, for comparison, many people don't seem to know about Arizona's comparable law of going 86+ on a 75 mph zone, even in-staters.  I wonder if there is a significant difference in enforcement between the two states.

Also, many Florida residents have been caught by Georgia's "Super Speeder" law by surprise, and there is even a movement for a class action lawsuit to overturn the law.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 15, 2016, 08:31:47 PM
It would be better for those signs to say, instead of "Penalties Higher," that reckless driving in Virginia is a criminal offense (misdemeanor) and not just a traffic offense.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 15, 2016, 09:04:44 PM
North Carolina has similar laws in place, although I haven't heard enforcement stories like in Virginia. NC's law applies to any speed over 75mph too. Still, the whole criminal misdemeanor thing for going 5-10mph over the limit is ridiculous. Most states reserve criminal charges for offenses like DWI or really screwing up behind the wheel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 15, 2016, 09:13:19 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 15, 2016, 11:59:43 AM
Quote from: LM117 on September 15, 2016, 09:27:21 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 14, 2016, 05:55:57 PMthat 80 is reckless driving even in the 70 zones for some reason.

Because $$$.

Though not $$$ for the Virginia State Police.

But lots of money for members of Virginia's criminal defense bar.

Yep. That's what I was referring to .
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 15, 2016, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: plain on September 15, 2016, 08:02:27 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 13, 2016, 05:35:22 PM
VDOT hopes to begin widening I-64 to six lanes from I-295 (Exit 200) to VA 33/VA 249 (Exit 205) (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2016/public_comments_sought_on107300.asp) sometime next year and is accepting comments until September 27th.

Something that should've been done decades ago lol but at least they're finally getting the ball rolling. Would've been great if this widening was extended to at least exit 220 (VA 33 East) though. Maybe sometime in this lifetime the 6 laning will finally be the whole stretch from Richmond to Newport News

Yes, they needed 6 lanes there back in 1991, when I traveled there regular.   I am surprised 8-10 is not needed there at this point.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 16, 2016, 07:29:09 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 15, 2016, 02:40:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2016, 07:32:39 AM
I've felt for several years, and still feel, that ticketing people for reckless driving solely for going 81 in a 70 zone is a bit of a "gotcha" law, so I think those signs are a decent gesture to out-of-staters who are far less likely to know about that law. Hopefully, however, the signs are not an indication of upcoming stricter speed limit enforcement.

It seems that most people know about that law, even out-of-staters.  ....


I think it depends on where they're from and how often they drive through Virginia. I seem to recall someone on this forum expressing ignorance (it may have been feigned, of course), and I'd expect people here to be considerably more informed about these sorts of things than the general public. People in neighboring states, sure, I'd expect they'd know about it. My relatives in Florida and Arizona, not so much, although if they ever drive here I warn them.


Edited to add: I somewhat misremembered. vdeane expressed skepticism about how many non-Virginians know about that law. froggie said it's well-known in the neighboring states and noted, correctly, that ignorance of the law is no excuse. He's right, of course, but that doesn't make it any less of a "gotcha" law.

I do think it's interesting how many people these days will try to argue that no sign means something is OK (and I don't mean any specific person, although the people on the TV show "Parking Wars" come to mind). Statute prohibits parking within X feet of an intersection, you get a ticket. "There was no sign saying I can't!" Doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 05:16:27 PM
WTOP Radio: Signs to warn drivers of tough reckless driving penalties in Va. (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2016/09/signs-warn-drivers-tough-reckless-driving-penalties-va/)

QuoteNew signs on Interstates 95 and 81 warn drivers that traveling faster than 80 mph in Virginia can carry stiff penalties, including up to a year in jail.

QuoteThe Virginia Department of Transportation is installing the warning signs on I-95 in the 70 mph zone through Spotsylvania, Caroline and Hanover counties between D.C. and Richmond, and on I-81 as far north as Shenandoah County, west of Front Royal.

QuoteThe signs are going up in locations that data from the Department of Motor Vehicles show have more crashes than other similar highway stretches or higher proportions of speeding drivers than other stretches.

QuoteAt the locations where the signs have been installed in Spotsylvania County, 17 percent of northbound drivers and 8 percent of southbound drivers typically go over 80 mph, said VDOT senior communications specialist Jenny O'Quinn.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 07:28:48 PM
WRC-TV (NBC4) in Washington: Road Resurfacing Project Causing Unwelcomed Dust Up (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Virginia-Community-Wants-Old-Road-Pavement-Back-393321971.html)

QuoteA community in Northern Virginia is upset, because their road was repaved. It is an unusual sentiment, but they said the new surface around their homes is kicking up all sorts of dust and debris and ruining their quality of life.

QuoteA road in Amissville, Virginia, in Culpeper County, was fine the way it was, according to residents in the area. However, the Virginia Department of Transportation came in and started putting down tar and gravel, called chip and seal pavement, which met with disapproval from those living along the road.

Quote"You've got dust that's 30, 40, 50 feet in the air, just plastering you," said John Beck.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: September 16, 2016, 07:40:55 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 07:28:48 PM
A community in Northern Virginia is upset, because their road was repaved. It is an unusual sentiment, but they said the new surface around their homes is kicking up all sorts of dust and debris and ruining their quality of life.

It was not repaved.  It was "oiled" and then "chipped."  At some point, VDOT's contractor will return and "oil" the chipped surface, and it will be back to the way it was.

Montgomery County, Maryland used to do this sort of treatment on most or all of its subdivision streets, but stopped doing it after complaints like the above.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 16, 2016, 07:40:33 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 07:31:19 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 07:28:48 PM
A community in Northern Virginia is upset, because their road was repaved. It is an unusual sentiment, but they said the new surface around their homes is kicking up all sorts of dust and debris and ruining their quality of life.

It was not repaved.  It was "oiled" and then "chipped."  At some point, VDOT's contractor will return and "oil" the chipped surface, and it will be back to the way it was.

Montgomery County, Maryland used to do this sort of treatment on most or all of its subdivision streets, but stopped doing it after complaints like the above.

I am currently on a bridge project as a part of my job, and maintenance this week has been doing chip and seal on a portion of the detour for the bridge closure.  None of us are very happy about that though the dust did not seem to be that bad when I drove on it this morning.

Also this has been done in the subdivision where my parents live before when I was younger.  The whole neighborhood was not pleased to say it lightly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 08:02:30 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 16, 2016, 07:40:33 PM
I am currently on a bridge project as a part of my job, and maintenance this week has been doing chip and seal on a portion of the detour for the bridge closure.  None of us are very happy about that though the dust did not seem to be that bad when I drove on it this morning.

Also this has been done in the subdivision where my parents live before when I was younger.  The whole neighborhood was not pleased to say it lightly.

Never thought it was that awful (and I saw Montgomery County, Maryland do it for many years with no complaint), including the streets in Silver Spring where I grew up.  Then someone complained, the news media got going on it (I think this was pre-Internet days), and the county agreed to not do it any more.

Not sure what they do now to extend the life of pavement on lower-volume roads (I have seen some have been treated with the process used by Slurry Pavers (http://www.slurrypavers.com/index.html) out of Richmond, Virginia).

The chipping and sealing process was done on roads that had (relatively) low speeds (at least in theory) and (relatively) low volumes of traffic (at least in theory).

The highest speed limit on roads I have seen it done was 30 MPH.

Not sure why, but after that second coat of oil was applied to the chips, the streets smelled more like a kind of chocolate than they did petroleum. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 16, 2016, 09:07:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 08:02:30 PM
The highest speed limit on roads I have seen it done was 30 MPH.

The road (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3804176,-76.515068,3a,75y,324.23h,68.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4Z2MkA6zOsWK16RIimiGbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I am referring to has a speed limit of 45 MPH and is somewhat curvy with a few hills.  I also think I remember it being done on rural roads in Prince George County at times as well but not knowing what it was.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 16, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
I drove the gravel portion of VA 91 today. Why this route is on the state primary system is beyond me. Quality-wise, it's a step above SR 623 that runs from VA 42 to Burke's Garden (no major ruts) but it ought to be a secondary.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on September 18, 2016, 10:34:51 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 16, 2016, 09:07:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 08:02:30 PM
The highest speed limit on roads I have seen it done was 30 MPH.

The road (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3804176,-76.515068,3a,75y,324.23h,68.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4Z2MkA6zOsWK16RIimiGbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I am referring to has a speed limit of 45 MPH and is somewhat curvy with a few hills.  I also think I remember it being done on rural roads in Prince George County at times as well but not knowing what it was.

Chip-seal is frequently used on state routes in Ohio and Pennsylvania with a 55mph speed limit. I've also seen it used on primary and secondary state routes in Virginia with 55 speed limits including US 250 in Highland County and VA 311 in Craig County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 18, 2016, 12:39:46 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 18, 2016, 10:34:51 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 16, 2016, 09:07:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 08:02:30 PM
The highest speed limit on roads I have seen it done was 30 MPH.

The road (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3804176,-76.515068,3a,75y,324.23h,68.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4Z2MkA6zOsWK16RIimiGbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I am referring to has a speed limit of 45 MPH and is somewhat curvy with a few hills.  I also think I remember it being done on rural roads in Prince George County at times as well but not knowing what it was.

Chip-seal is frequently used on state routes in Ohio and Pennsylvania with a 55mph speed limit. I've also seen it used on primary and secondary state routes in Virginia with 55 speed limits including US 250 in Highland County and VA 311 in Craig County.

Was not aware that VDOT had done it on primary  system roads.

The AADT on U.S. 250 in Highland County is pretty low:

about 330 (!) at the West Virginia line in 2015; and
about 1100 east of Monterey.

Though with a 55 MPH speed limit, I wonder if VDOT gets angry phone calls and e-mails from people claiming "damaged" paint jobs on their cars?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on September 18, 2016, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 18, 2016, 10:34:51 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 16, 2016, 09:07:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 08:02:30 PM
The highest speed limit on roads I have seen it done was 30 MPH.

The road (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3804176,-76.515068,3a,75y,324.23h,68.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4Z2MkA6zOsWK16RIimiGbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I am referring to has a speed limit of 45 MPH and is somewhat curvy with a few hills.  I also think I remember it being done on rural roads in Prince George County at times as well but not knowing what it was.
Chip-seal is frequently used on state routes in Ohio and Pennsylvania with a 55mph speed limit. I've also seen it used on primary and secondary state routes in Virginia with 55 speed limits including US 250 in Highland County and VA 311 in Craig County.

Which part of VA-311? I drove it last weekend, and while my chipseal-recognition abilities are not that great, I didn't notice any major rough patches.

Put your text out of quote.  -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on September 18, 2016, 04:16:45 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on September 18, 2016, 12:47:26 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 18, 2016, 10:34:51 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 16, 2016, 09:07:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 08:02:30 PM
The highest speed limit on roads I have seen it done was 30 MPH.

The road (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3804176,-76.515068,3a,75y,324.23h,68.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4Z2MkA6zOsWK16RIimiGbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I am referring to has a speed limit of 45 MPH and is somewhat curvy with a few hills.  I also think I remember it being done on rural roads in Prince George County at times as well but not knowing what it was.
Chip-seal is frequently used on state routes in Ohio and Pennsylvania with a 55mph speed limit. I've also seen it used on primary and secondary state routes in Virginia with 55 speed limits including US 250 in Highland County and VA 311 in Craig County.

Which part of VA-311? I drove it last weekend, and while my chipseal-recognition abilities are not that great, I didn't notice any major rough patches.

It was between Paint Bank and the WV line at Peters Mountain. This was probably around 2010. It looks like this section received a 2" asphalt overlay last year per http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/071113/SALEM-CY15.pdf.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 21, 2016, 05:43:42 PM
Contracts awarded by CTB:  (from VDOT's website)

I-64/I-264 Interchange Improvement (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2016/ctb_awards_contract_for107469.asp) to improve access to I-264 EB and VA 403/Newtown Rd from I-64 WB.

I-81 Bridges over New River and VA 232 Bridge over I-81 Replacements (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/salem/2016/board_awards_$48_million107470.asp) near Radford
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 04, 2016, 06:48:44 PM
US 19 Lebanon Bypass and the US 19/460 Tazewell Bypass are both finally getting 65 mph speed limits (http://www.swvatoday.com/news/richlands_clinch_valley/article_d57a2e7a-8a62-11e6-aa7e-5f5c844046c8.html).  I remember the Tazewell Bypass still being 55 when I went to the Pikeville meet in October 2013.

Also a 2.5 miles section of US 23/58/421 near Gate City is being raised to 60 from 55 (http://www.wcyb.com/news/virginia/scott-county/vdot-to-raise-speed-limit-on-stretch-of-road-in-scott-county/117563602).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on October 17, 2016, 02:46:58 PM
https://www.arlnow.com/2016/10/17/county-board-approves-pedestrian-only-streets-in-arlington/

QuoteCounty Board Approves Pedestrian-Only Streets in Arlington

QuoteThe Arlington County Board has approved adding pedestrian-only streets and low-speed "shared streets"  to its transportation repertoire.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 19, 2016, 08:15:49 PM
Contract awarded for I-95/SR 630 Interchange and SR 630 Widening at Stafford CH. (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/contractor-chosen-for-courthouse-road-interchange-work-in-stafford/article_56823840-9e1b-5ae2-8683-80fc4a773d87.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 20, 2016, 07:56:07 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 19, 2016, 08:15:49 PM
Contract awarded for I-95/SR 630 Interchange and SR 630 Widening at Stafford CH. (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/contractor-chosen-for-courthouse-road-interchange-work-in-stafford/article_56823840-9e1b-5ae2-8683-80fc4a773d87.html)

Note that the 4th general lane addition to I-95 that was to be a part of this project was not included due to the funding not being secured for this add-on...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 21, 2016, 07:18:57 PM
The I-64 Phase 2 (http://wavy.com/2016/10/21/vdot-beginning-second-phase-of-i-64-widening-on-peninsula/) (VA 238 (Exit 247) to VA 199 (Exit 242) widening in Hampton Roads begins next week.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 07, 2016, 06:55:13 AM
Update on I-64 widening to 6 lanes between Richmond and Newport News (http://www.dailypress.com/news/traffic/dp-nws-64-widening-to-richmond-update-20161104-story.html):  It may be awhile before the funding is secured for the rest. 

There is a public hearing December 6th for planned safety improvements on US 15/17/29 just north of Opal (http://www.fauquier.com/news/vdot-sets-dec-hearing-on-safety-improvements-north-of-opal/article_c94ec8ca-a1f7-11e6-84ec-a3af50b71be3.html).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on November 07, 2016, 10:36:02 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 21, 2016, 07:18:57 PM
The I-64 Phase 2 (http://wavy.com/2016/10/21/vdot-beginning-second-phase-of-i-64-widening-on-peninsula/) (VA 238 (Exit 247) to VA 199 (Exit 242) widening in Hampton Roads begins next week.
Inching their way closer to Williamsburg.  :nod:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on November 08, 2016, 09:17:06 AM
Drove through the project area the other day. The portion up to the Industrial Park Dr. bridge looks like it could open soon (asphalt laid and jersey barrier standing), but the rest is further behind
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 10, 2016, 04:40:02 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 07, 2016, 06:55:13 AM
There is a public hearing December 6th for planned safety improvements on US 15/17/29 just north of Opal (http://www.fauquier.com/news/vdot-sets-dec-hearing-on-safety-improvements-north-of-opal/article_c94ec8ca-a1f7-11e6-84ec-a3af50b71be3.html).

Not directly related, however, VDOT plans this month (http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-big-change-set-nov.-29-for-opal-intersection-2016) to close the frontage road (old US 17 SB) to actually force traffic to use the loop ramp.  The Sheetz at the intersection (http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-business-reaction-mixed-about-opal-road-change-2016) seems concerned though.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 11, 2016, 01:44:38 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 10, 2016, 04:40:02 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 07, 2016, 06:55:13 AM
There is a public hearing December 6th for planned safety improvements on US 15/17/29 just north of Opal (http://www.fauquier.com/news/vdot-sets-dec-hearing-on-safety-improvements-north-of-opal/article_c94ec8ca-a1f7-11e6-84ec-a3af50b71be3.html).

Not directly related, however, VDOT plans this month (http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-big-change-set-nov.-29-for-opal-intersection-2016) to close the frontage road (old US 17 SB) to actually force traffic to use the loop ramp.  The Sheetz at the intersection (http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-business-reaction-mixed-about-opal-road-change-2016) seems concerned though.

I have not been that way for a while, but that Sheetz in Opal is one of the biggest I have seen anywhere, and I can understand that they would be unhappy with anything that might reduce patronage, especially from trips following U.S. 17 southbound, since it sounds like this change would make that Sheetz very difficult to gain access to and then return  to 17 southbound toward Fredericksburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 15, 2016, 07:20:12 AM
WRIC (from Richmond):  Man petitioning for safety measures on Rt. 10 for a year seriously injured on same road (http://wric.com/2016/11/14/man-petitioning-for-safety-measures-on-rt-10-for-a-year-seriously-injured-on-same-road/)


For the record, I think the plans for the VA 10 widening from Bermuda Triangle Rd to Meadowbrook Rd are on Chesterfield County's website somewhere, but I do not have time to look them up right now.  My parents and I have driven (at times even commuted) this section of VA 10 quite often over the years.

EDIT:  See the public hearing plans here. (http://www.chesterfield.gov/Transportation.aspx?id=8590043054)  They show a 55 mph speed limit throughout the corridor.  (even in the 45 section near SR 732/Old Stage Rd oddly) 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 16, 2016, 07:15:05 PM
Construction on the I-64/I-264 interchange improvements begins tomorrow. (http://wavy.com/2016/11/16/i-264-i-64-interchange-improvements-groundbreaking/)

More general VA news:
DDI on I-581/US 220 at Valley View Blvd will be open Monday. (http://www.winchesterstar.com/news/clarke/interstate-exit-traffic-changes-coming/article_da0433a7-4daf-5dc7-8f10-396e4e344169.html)

Traffic changes around the I-81/VA 37 interchange begin the 28th. (http://www.winchesterstar.com/news/clarke/interstate-exit-traffic-changes-coming/article_da0433a7-4daf-5dc7-8f10-396e4e344169.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 19, 2016, 01:57:23 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 13, 2009, 12:18:12 AM
Some of the stimulus money is going to widening of SR 802(Lewistown Rd) around I-95 which includes replacing the bridge over I-95.

I wonder if stimulus money was actually used on this project considering that it only started last year. 

Quote from: Takumi on February 11, 2012, 03:55:44 PM
Colonial Heights has replaced some signage at major intersections with its own custom-made directory signs. One of the removed signs included the US 144 error.

Actually the US 144 error was relocated to here (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2585899,-77.4089706,3a,75y,300.58h,72.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHp4boKk_ZUeRLUpQQGmVkQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on November 19, 2016, 02:40:09 PM
http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Valley-View-Interchange-project-to-finish-in-time-for-Black-Friday-401494715.html

Looks like Virginia's second Diverging Diamond Interchange at I-581/Valley View Blvd in Roanoke will finally be completed Monday. Two more currently under construction US-460/Southgate Connector in Blacksburg and US-15/I-66 in Haymarket. Construction on a DDI at I-95/Courthouse Road in Stafford is set to begin next summer.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 21, 2016, 10:15:57 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 19, 2016, 02:40:09 PM
http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Valley-View-Interchange-project-to-finish-in-time-for-Black-Friday-401494715.html

Looks like Virginia's second Diverging Diamond Interchange at I-581/Valley View Blvd in Roanoke will finally be completed Monday. Two more currently under construction US-460/Southgate Connector in Blacksburg and US-15/I-66 in Haymarket. Construction on a DDI at I-95/Courthouse Road in Stafford is set to begin next summer.

It is officially open as of this afternoon. (http://wsls.com/2016/11/21/diverging-diamond-interchange-opens-in-roanoke/)

EDIT:  Update on VA 7 widening around Great Falls (http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2016/nov/23/great-falls-route-7-under-construction-6-years/), possible changes planned at VA 294 (Prince William Pkwy) at Old Bridge Rd (where VA 294 traffic currently must turn) (http://potomaclocal.com/2016/11/22/vdot-small-fix-big-problem-prince-william-parkway-old-bridge-road/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 24, 2016, 04:46:09 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 11, 2016, 01:44:38 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 10, 2016, 04:40:02 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 07, 2016, 06:55:13 AM
There is a public hearing December 6th for planned safety improvements on US 15/17/29 just north of Opal (http://www.fauquier.com/news/vdot-sets-dec-hearing-on-safety-improvements-north-of-opal/article_c94ec8ca-a1f7-11e6-84ec-a3af50b71be3.html).

Not directly related, however, VDOT plans this month (http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-big-change-set-nov.-29-for-opal-intersection-2016) to close the frontage road (old US 17 SB) to actually force traffic to use the loop ramp.  The Sheetz at the intersection (http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-business-reaction-mixed-about-opal-road-change-2016) seems concerned though.

I have not been that way for a while, but that Sheetz in Opal is one of the biggest I have seen anywhere, and I can understand that they would be unhappy with anything that might reduce patronage, especially from trips following U.S. 17 southbound, since it sounds like this change would make that Sheetz very difficult to gain access to and then return  to 17 southbound toward Fredericksburg.


I understand that.  I drove through here Tuesday Night around 7 PM and still saw traffic in the left-turn lane back at the intersection back-up into the left lane of US 15/17/29 SB.  (I stayed to the right and took the ramp.)  I also saw portable message signs mentioning the traffic pattern change next week.

EDIT:  Intersection change postponed to Friday. (http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-vdot-delaying-change-at-opal-intersection-2016)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 24, 2016, 09:50:29 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 21, 2016, 10:15:57 PM

EDIT:  Update on VA 7 widening around Great Falls (http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2016/nov/23/great-falls-route-7-under-construction-6-years/), possible changes planned at VA 294 (Prince William Pkwy) at Old Bridge Rd (where VA 294 traffic currently must turn) (http://potomaclocal.com/2016/11/22/vdot-small-fix-big-problem-prince-william-parkway-old-bridge-road/)

There used to be a To I-95 shield on SR 3000 EB at this intersection (albeit too close to the intersection IMO to be effective in drawing traffic that way)

https://goo.gl/maps/QycrbtfE8Dt
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 24, 2016, 08:15:35 PM
VDOT has another Then and Now video - 1948 in downtown Richmond:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDSBpCCX2P4

No route shields as the video was mostly Grace St and Belvidere before it became part of the primary system.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on November 24, 2016, 08:33:37 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 24, 2016, 08:15:35 PM
VDOT has another Then and Now video - 1948 in downtown Richmond:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDSBpCCX2P4

No route shields as the video was mostly Grace St and Belvidere before it became part of the primary system.
Strange how Grace Street got downsized from 4 lanes to 2 lanes. I consider it a major street because it bisects the whole city north of the James River.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 24, 2016, 10:33:50 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 24, 2016, 08:33:37 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 24, 2016, 08:15:35 PM
VDOT has another Then and Now video - 1948 in downtown Richmond:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDSBpCCX2P4

No route shields as the video was mostly Grace St and Belvidere before it became part of the primary system.
Strange how Grace Street got downsized from 4 lanes to 2 lanes. I consider it a major street because it bisects the whole city north of the James River.

It's equally interesting how Belvidere Street has changed from 2 lanes undivided to 6 lanes divided, though I imagine that came with US 1/US 301 being routed that way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on November 25, 2016, 09:14:42 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 24, 2016, 10:33:50 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 24, 2016, 08:33:37 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 24, 2016, 08:15:35 PM
VDOT has another Then and Now video - 1948 in downtown Richmond:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDSBpCCX2P4

No route shields as the video was mostly Grace St and Belvidere before it became part of the primary system.
Strange how Grace Street got downsized from 4 lanes to 2 lanes. I consider it a major street because it bisects the whole city north of the James River.

It's equally interesting how Belvidere Street has changed from 2 lanes undivided to 6 lanes divided, though I imagine that came with US 1/US 301 being routed that way.

Actually Belvidere St., as well as the original Lee Bridge, was 4 lanes (still undivided though). US 1 has been routed on this since the 1930's, with US 301 coming not long after. When Belvidere was extended north of Broad Street to connect with Chamberlyne Ave (late 1958), that extension was built as 6 lanes and 1/301 was routed over that as well. The original portion south of Broad didn't become 6 lanes until 1989 when the newer Lee Bridge was completed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 25, 2016, 09:36:38 AM
Following up on my prior comment from August earlier in this thread (quoted below for reference), does anyone have any routing thoughts on the various options between Roanoke/I-81 and Meadows of Dan? We're heading to Primland in about a month for Christmas. The area south of US-460 between US-29 and I-77 is all new territory for me except for a small segment of US-52 near Hillsville that I used to avoid an accident-related backup once, so I have no feel for which routes would be the most interesting or worthwhile to drive on our way down or back. In one direction I plan to use US-360 to or from Richmond to knock off a good chunk of what I have remaining on that route and to revisit some places I haven't passed through in about 20 years. I figure for the other direction we may use either I-81 or US-340, and I just don't have much of a feel for which routes are worth considering to connect from the Interstate down to Meadows of Dan. I'm not sure we'd use the Blue Ridge Parkway, though, just because I understand it's a much slower drive.

Clinches aren't an issue, I won't be clinching anything on this trip except maybe I-195 (I'm somehow missing two small pieces of that road). So I'm mainly interested in whether anyone has any recommendations on routes that are particularly scenic, fun to drive, or otherwise interesting (including things like cutouts or the like).

Thanks in advance. Again, I didn't want to ask this on the "Road Trips" forum because it's so Virginia-specific.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 29, 2016, 08:15:42 PM
This thread seems like the best place to ask this. My wife is interested in going to Primland for Christmas. See map link below. Has anyone been down there? If so, how are the roads likely to be at that time of year (recognizing of course you never know what it might do at any given time)? I guess my thought is, is it reasonable to try to drive there at Christmas in a front-wheel-drive sedan with all-season tires? I'm less concerned about US-58 than I am about the roads after you turn off there.

Dropped Pin
near Busted Rock Rd, Meadows of Dan, VA 24120
https://goo.gl/maps/cy9tZ458FBs


(Edited to fix a typo)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 25, 2016, 10:37:49 AM
You may want to visit the town of Floyd (intersection of US 221 and VA 8).  The Floyd Country Store (http://www.floydcountrystore.com/) is an interesting place to walk through briefly even when there are no events (they even have square dancing on Friday nights (admission is $5), I went a couple times in 2012 while I was in college).  Just make sure you have cash if you plan to get something there.  Also VA 8 is a decent route between Floyd and Christiansburg with a mostly 55 mph speed limit (last I remembered) except around Riner.  Otherwise I am not very familiar with US 221 between Roanoke and Hillsville if at all.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on November 25, 2016, 10:55:29 AM
On the topic of Richmond, does any historical photos showing the construction of I-95 next to Main Street Station exist? Ones I can find either predate or postdate the construction, or show it as flooded because of Hurricane Agnes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2016, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 25, 2016, 10:55:29 AM
On the topic of Richmond, does any historical photos showing the construction of I-95 next to Main Street Station exist? Ones I can find either predate or postdate the construction, or show it as flooded because of Hurricane Agnes.

I do not have any  such photographs, but remember that I-95 through Richmond was built as the pre-Interstate Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (detolled about 1992).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on November 25, 2016, 11:13:13 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2016, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 25, 2016, 10:55:29 AM
On the topic of Richmond, does any historical photos showing the construction of I-95 next to Main Street Station exist? Ones I can find either predate or postdate the construction, or show it as flooded because of Hurricane Agnes.

I do not have any  such photographs, but remember that I-95 through Richmond was built as the pre-Interstate Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (detolled about 1992).
Thanks. I found a couple that seem interesting.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 25, 2016, 11:53:47 AM
Try these:

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/richmond.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/ce/5cebdc5c-e850-11e4-9d9e-f3826d6859a5/5536905a31662.image.jpg?resize=614%2C760
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e9/9d/ef/e99def117734fec2c1bf5de092169bac.jpg
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/unpacking-part2-120304071111-phpapp02/95/unpacking-the-2010-census-part-2-12-728.jpg?cb=1332589984
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ClstssIJCNM/TpMfFfkpGrI/AAAAAAAAA7E/0btot6yRRvY/s1600/Image+D.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/52/8c/43/528c439626d0d11265d75a97c4d4bab0.jpg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2016, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 25, 2016, 11:53:47 AM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/52/8c/43/528c439626d0d11265d75a97c4d4bab0.jpg

That's a great picture of the Turnpike bridge crossing the James River under construction.

Remember the crash-prone toll barrier (for southbound traffic) on the RTP just south of this bridge? Was that the Falling Creek barrier?

More pictures of the RTP under construction from the Richmond Times-Dispatch here (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/city-of-richmond/collection_60afa544-e850-11e4-a597-17ec292dd45a.html).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 25, 2016, 03:49:30 PM
Regarding Hoo's follow-up and 74/171's response, I found the descent on US 221 into Roanoke to be interesting.  A few different ways to get back to NoVA from Roanoke as well...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 25, 2016, 05:51:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 25, 2016, 03:49:30 PM
Regarding Hoo's follow-up and 74/171's response, I found the descent on US 221 into Roanoke to be interesting.  A few different ways to get back to NoVA from Roanoke as well...

I drove 221 northbound from Hillsville to Roanoke back in the summer. The descent is interesting. Probably a faster route, though from Hillsville is VA 100 to I-81. If you really want to get adventurous and go out of the way, take VA 100 all the way to Pearisburg and then US 460 over to Christiansburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 25, 2016, 07:07:05 PM
Thanks. Sounds like that may be a better option on the way home if it's the descent that's interesting. Looking at a map, I'm thinking perhaps we can then stop at Natural Bridge since I've never been there, and then depending on the time perhaps we can take US-340 from its southern terminus all the way to I-66 to finish the clinch. (Not sure that'll be practical since the trip home will be on a Tuesday and we'll have to work the next day.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 25, 2016, 08:00:11 PM
VA 8's crossing of the Blue Ridge Pkwy is not too bad.  If you see VA 40 on the map as a way back east, just know that despite the lack of elevation change it is VERY twisty until nearly Ferrum...and very quiet.

US 340 is scenic for most of it, even during the winter.  Also scenic is US 11-460 between Christiansburg and Salem.

Your only chance for cutouts in these areas is if the ones at the main Hillsville intersection are still up (some in all 4 directions as of July 2016 GMSV); also there is only one left in Roanoke as of Nov 2015 - VA 116 NB between US 11A-460 and VA 101 (the VA 24 and VA 115 cutouts are gone); only 2 are left in Christiansburg AFAIK - US 460 Bus WB a couple blocks from US 11 and US 11-460 Bus EB after turning off Main St. 

At least some of the US 221 assemblies like the one below are up as of Sept 2015 GSMV

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Funisign%2F221unisign2.jpg&hash=daaaca35e49647e54311dc16befd51d010e546d8)

And this one on 221 SB south of Dugspur...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Foldsigns%2Foldcurve221.jpg&hash=9e0d5795710c80f3aad53c30da48483cd4186dcb)

Standard disclaimers about everything being replaced with modern signage...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 25, 2016, 08:09:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2016, 12:58:02 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 25, 2016, 11:53:47 AM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/52/8c/43/528c439626d0d11265d75a97c4d4bab0.jpg

That's a great picture of the Turnpike bridge crossing the James River under construction.

Remember the crash-prone toll barrier (for southbound traffic) on the RTP just south of this bridge? Was that the Falling Creek barrier?

More pictures of the RTP under construction from the Richmond Times-Dispatch here (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/city-of-richmond/collection_60afa544-e850-11e4-a597-17ec292dd45a.html).

The Falling Creek plaza was immediately south of the original VA 150 interchange overpass (this was about 500 ft south of the VA 895-150 through lanes overpass).  Historic Aerials show this to be the first plaza south of the James River.  The Maury St interchange is immediately south of the bridge...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2016, 08:37:47 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 25, 2016, 08:09:28 PM
The Falling Creek plaza was immediately south of the original VA 150 interchange overpass (this was about 500 ft south of the VA 895-150 through lanes overpass).  Historic Aerials show this to be the first plaza south of the James River.  The Maury St interchange is immediately south of the bridge...

Might also have been the barrier on the I-95/I-64 segment just north of Belvidere Street (present-day Exit  76B). That was, if memory serves, the first barrier for I-95 traffic (and the only  barrier for I-64 movements).

It had a lot of massive signs warning of the toll barrier ahead on the southbound side of the  Turnpike. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 25, 2016, 09:10:21 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 25, 2016, 08:00:11 PM
VA 8's crossing of the Blue Ridge Pkwy is not too bad.  If you see VA 40 on the map as a way back east, just know that despite the lack of elevation change it is VERY twisty until nearly Ferrum...and very quiet.

US 340 is scenic for most of it, even during the winter.  Also scenic is US 11-460 between Christiansburg and Salem.

Your only chance for cutouts in these areas is if the ones at the main Hillsville intersection are still up (some in all 4 directions as of July 2016 GMSV); also there is only one left in Roanoke as of Nov 2015 - VA 116 NB between US 11A-460 and VA 101 (the VA 24 and VA 115 cutouts are gone); only 2 are left in Christiansburg AFAIK - US 460 Bus WB a couple blocks from US 11 and US 11-460 Bus EB after turning off Main St. 

....

Thanks. I doubt we'll go as far as Hillsville. It's out of the way, and while I'd like to knock off the last two segments of two-digit Interstate I have left in Virginia (I-77 north of I-81 and I-64 west of Clifton Forge), it'd be too far out of the way to do that on this trip and I think it'd probably be more interesting to explore the non-Interstates down that way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 28, 2016, 08:29:59 PM
Virginian-Pilot:  On the chopping block: Laskin Road feeder lanes in Virginia Beach (http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/on-the-chopping-block-laskin-road-feeder-lanes-in-virginia/article_c5da6666-4afd-5b16-bda6-0bbd62f43aab.html)

QuoteThis fall, the Public Works Department submitted an application with three projects for SMART Scale, a state transportation funding program, in hopes of landing millions of dollars. Laskin Road was No. 1 for the city. If selected, funding would be allocated beginning in fiscal year 2018, and construction could begin in 2021, according to Paula Miller, VDOT spokeswoman.

The City Council will provide $14.1 million and is requesting $15 million in state funding for the first phase of road improvements.

It includes transforming two miles of Laskin Road through the Hilltop area into an eight-lane divided highway, improving the Laskin-First Colonial Road intersection and creating a six-lane divided highway on First Colonial from Laurel Lane to Interstate 264.

QuoteThe Laskin Road project will include 14-foot wide outside lanes for cyclists and a 10-foot-wide shared-use path on one side of the roadway with a 5-foot-wide sidewalk on the other side.

I guess the bigger question is if US 58 will still be posted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on November 28, 2016, 09:06:36 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 28, 2016, 08:29:59 PM
Virginian-Pilot:  On the chopping block: Laskin Road feeder lanes in Virginia Beach (http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/on-the-chopping-block-laskin-road-feeder-lanes-in-virginia/article_c5da6666-4afd-5b16-bda6-0bbd62f43aab.html)

QuoteThis fall, the Public Works Department submitted an application with three projects for SMART Scale, a state transportation funding program, in hopes of landing millions of dollars. Laskin Road was No. 1 for the city. If selected, funding would be allocated beginning in fiscal year 2018, and construction could begin in 2021, according to Paula Miller, VDOT spokeswoman.

The City Council will provide $14.1 million and is requesting $15 million in state funding for the first phase of road improvements.

It includes transforming two miles of Laskin Road through the Hilltop area into an eight-lane divided highway, improving the Laskin-First Colonial Road intersection and creating a six-lane divided highway on First Colonial from Laurel Lane to Interstate 264.

QuoteThe Laskin Road project will include 14-foot wide outside lanes for cyclists and a 10-foot-wide shared-use path on one side of the roadway with a 5-foot-wide sidewalk on the other side.

I guess the bigger question is if US 58 will still be posted.

FINALLY!!! Those service lanes were nothing but a pain. It's about time they decided to change Laskin to match the rest of US 58 in Virginia Beach. I used to use it from I-264 to get to the northern part of the resort area without having to deal with the traffic and stoplights on the middle part of Atlantic Ave... not the biggest improvement driving wise and it will be much better once this improvement becomes reality. I still remember the ones that existed on Mercury Blvd (US 258) in Hampton. Total nightmare... glad they're gone too
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2016, 10:50:08 AM
Quote from: plain on November 28, 2016, 09:06:36 PM
FINALLY!!! Those service lanes were nothing but a pain. It's about time they decided to change Laskin to match the rest of US 58 in Virginia Beach. I used to use it from I-264 to get to the northern part of the resort area without having to deal with the traffic and stoplights on the middle part of Atlantic Ave... not the biggest improvement driving wise and it will be much better once this improvement becomes reality. I still remember the ones that existed on Mercury Blvd (US 258) in Hampton. Total nightmare... glad they're gone too

Curiously, the ones on Laskin Road remind me of U.S. 50 (Arlington Boulevard) in Fairfax County, which has similar lanes that have never worked especially well in terms of moving traffic, though where there are homes fronting on Arlington Boulevard, they give the residents more of a "home street" feeling than they would otherwise have.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on November 29, 2016, 06:29:17 PM
Just saw on the news that the MLK Expressway extension is set to open tomorrow (11/30/16)!! The report showed aerial coverage of it and a BGS was shown displaying "TOLL US 58" on the viaduct. I thought VA 164 would've went on this segment...


Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2016, 10:50:08 AM
Quote from: plain on November 28, 2016, 09:06:36 PM
FINALLY!!! Those service lanes were nothing but a pain. It's about time they decided to change Laskin to match the rest of US 58 in Virginia Beach. I used to use it from I-264 to get to the northern part of the resort area without having to deal with the traffic and stoplights on the middle part of Atlantic Ave... not the biggest improvement driving wise and it will be much better once this improvement becomes reality. I still remember the ones that existed on Mercury Blvd (US 258) in Hampton. Total nightmare... glad they're gone too

Curiously, the ones on Laskin Road remind me of U.S. 50 (Arlington Boulevard) in Fairfax County, which has similar lanes that have never worked especially well in terms of moving traffic, though where there are homes fronting on Arlington Boulevard, they give the residents more of a "home street" feeling than they would otherwise have.

The problem with the ones on Laskin is that they are lined with businesses instead, added to the fact that there are no slip ramps, which makes it even more daunting to navigate especially during heavy shopping and dining periods. I love how those on US 50 are set up though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 29, 2016, 09:26:18 PM
Quote from: plain on November 29, 2016, 06:29:17 PM
Just saw on the news that the MLK Expressway extension is set to open tomorrow (11/30/16)!! The report showed aerial coverage of it and a BGS was shown displaying "TOLL US 58" on the viaduct. I thought VA 164 would've went on this segment...

Cross-posted to this thread. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11915.msg2189651#msg2189651)


Also the variable speed limits on I-77 at Fancy Gap Mountain are now in place (http://wsls.com/2016/11/29/variable-speed-limit-in-place-on-i-77-on-fancy-gap-mountain/).  The speed limits can vary from 30 mph to 65 mph based on visibility being less than 650 feet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 30, 2016, 08:54:28 PM
VA 215 has been rerouted on its eastern end to meet VA 28 about 1/4 mile further southwest...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 01, 2016, 06:59:16 AM
DDI at I-66 interchange with US 15 in Haymarket to open around December 17th (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2016/11/new-interchange-new-twist-coming-to-i-66/slide/1/)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: December 02, 2016, 04:45:32 PM

QuoteEDIT:  Intersection change postponed to Friday. (http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-vdot-delaying-change-at-opal-intersection-2016) (11-28-2016)
Quote from me above

Change at Opal intersection has officially happened. (http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-marsh-road-closure-takes-effect-at-opal-2016)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 02, 2016, 10:33:48 PM
Signal going up in Chesterfield County at US 1/301 and SR 618 Old Bermuda Hundred Road. Everything's in place and it's scheduled to go live within the next week.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 06, 2016, 06:58:59 AM
US 29 Grade-Separated Interchange at Rio Rd is officially complete (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/culpeper/2016/rt._29-rio_rd._intersection109522.asp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 06, 2016, 07:22:34 AM
^ Anyone have a photo of this?  News release says the overpass and through lanes were opened back in July.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 06, 2016, 07:30:34 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 06, 2016, 07:22:34 AM
^ Anyone have a photo of this?  News release says the overpass and through lanes were opened back in July.


If I have time, I'll look tonight. I may have video from the end of July when we drove through there on our way home from Florida. It was open and the Charlottesville drivers were dealing with the new traffic pattern in the same way they deal with any changes in the traffic patterns (that is, poorly). I suppose, to be fair to them, as of July there weren't enough advance BGSs, so hopefully that's improved in the months since then. We didn't go to any football games this season, so I haven't been to Charlottesville since then.


Edited to add: It's 9:50 PM and I just finished cleaning up from dinner, so I'll look tomorrow. I sat in front of a PC at work all day and simply don't want to do so right now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 06, 2016, 07:04:34 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 06, 2016, 07:22:34 AM
^ Anyone have a photo of this?  News release says the overpass and through lanes were opened back in July.

There is  an overhead aerial view of it from VDOT's Flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/29498349320/in/photostream/).  I last went through here about two weeks before it opened.  I could not find any ground-level photos though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on December 06, 2016, 07:24:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 25, 2016, 08:00:11 PM
VA 8's crossing of the Blue Ridge Pkwy is not too bad.  If you see VA 40 on the map as a way back east, just know that despite the lack of elevation change it is VERY twisty until nearly Ferrum...and very quiet.

I took VA 40 to its west end, on my way down to South Carolina for a few days. On the way back, I took VA 6 east to Richmond, which doesn't go anywhere near Hillsville but was a scenic alternative to taking Interstate or US routes from I-81 to I-95.

VA 40 west of Ferrum was as gnarly as advertised. Not too much aggravation for me with the forewarning, though it probably would've been more fun in one of 1995hoo's rides than my big-ass pickup truck. I thought VA 8 from VA 40 to the Blue Ridge Parkway to be even more gnarly than VA 40, but north of the Parkway it was smooth sailing all the way to Christianburg where I picked up I-81.

Also, VA 40 did a lot of twists and turns on its way through Rocky Mpunt. I had a hard time following the signed route, and had to do several backtracks where I strayed from the route.

On VA 6, I noticed some signage on VA 161 indicating VA 6 extends east of VA 161. I didn't have time to follow the signage, and I hope it's just remnant signage for an old VA 6 routing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 06, 2016, 08:24:31 PM
Quote from: oscar on December 06, 2016, 07:24:41 PM

On VA 6, I noticed some signage on VA 161 indicating VA 6 extends east of VA 161. I didn't have time to follow the signage, and I hope it's just remnant signage for an old VA 6 routing.

This is signage to do a neighborhood clover from VA 161 NB to VA 6 WB, as turning left onto VA 6 directly is illegal part of the time and a pain when it is legal.  The 3rd turn in that sequence has been unposted for at least 10 years now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 06, 2016, 09:51:32 PM
Oscar, thanks. Sounds like Route 40 might be one to save for another time when we won't have to get home for work the next day. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 07, 2016, 07:05:33 PM
LoudounNow: Leesburg Letter Could Save Battlefield Interchange Funding (http://loudounnow.com/2016/12/07/leesburg-letter-could-save-battlefield-interchange-funding/) (VA 7 at Battlefield Pkwy in Leesburg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 09, 2016, 02:47:32 PM
The North/South VA 145 error signs at VA 10 have been fixed. There's now just one shield on each assembly, with an East banner.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 09, 2016, 10:49:17 PM
The rest of Lynnhaven Pkwy is going to be open tomorrow morning. (http://wtkr.com/2016/12/09/lynnhaven-parkway-extension-to-open-to-traffic-on-saturday/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 09, 2016, 10:51:38 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 09, 2016, 02:47:32 PM
The North/South VA 145 error signs at VA 10 have been fixed. There's now just one shield on each assembly, with an East banner.

Took them long enough, I reported it on the MyVDOT customer service portal almost 3 months ago. :P
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 10, 2016, 06:26:32 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 09, 2016, 10:51:38 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 09, 2016, 02:47:32 PM
The North/South VA 145 error signs at VA 10 have been fixed. There's now just one shield on each assembly, with an East banner.

Took them long enough, I reported it on the MyVDOT customer service portal almost 3 months ago. :P

Not to mention there have been N-S signs with erroneous shield saying 145 continues past 10 going back to at least 2006...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 10, 2016, 12:26:26 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 01, 2016, 06:59:16 AM
DDI at I-66 interchange with US 15 in Haymarket to open around December 17th (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2016/11/new-interchange-new-twist-coming-to-i-66/slide/1/)

....

Dr. Gridlock has a blog item about this. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2016/12/08/virginia-readies-new-style-interchange-on-i-66/) What I find amusing are the typical ignorant comments:

Quote
... --- ...
7:30 AM EST
What is the reason Virginia will not implement or use cloverleaf intersections? There's plenty on I-64 west of Richmond, but not one say at I-66 and I-495, I-66 and Rt.28...

It's mind boggling how inept the highway designs are in the area.

(Seriously? Who in his right mind would ever want a cloverleaf at the junction of I-66 and the Beltway??!!!!)


Quote
Deaf and Dumb WP Reader
12/9/2016 11:00 PM EST
This kind of interchange is almost as dumb as the old fashioned traffic circle. How many drivers will be confused and crash?

QuotememyselfI1
12/9/2016 3:28 PM EST [Edited]
These are the DUMBEST, the most STUPID, traffic designs I have ever seen. They are here in the Charlotte area where I live. I do utmost best to avoid them too.

They do NOTHING to 'improve' the traffic flow except force drivers to the WRONG side of the road, create more travel time for 911 and unnecessary maneuvering for tractor-trailers. 

They are only ziig-zags on a straight line. There is also absolutely nothing wrong with left turns either - a figment DOT imagination. They are a compete WASTE of tax dollars for DOT personal use, not for the benefit of the general driving public.

(I highly doubt "memyselfI1" has ever driven through a DDI.)

Quote
mrpoizun
12/9/2016 11:47 AM EST
Soooo..... What's the advantage to this? You still have traffic signals. You still have to hope the other drivers obey them. I don't see any advantage. What's the big deal about no left turns? As long as there are left turn lanes and left turn lights, there's no particular danger, other than someone running a red light.

The following reply to "mrpoizun" was probably the most thoughtful critical comment:

Quote
NonMaskableInterrupt
12/9/2016 8:08 PM EST
That was my question too. Why have traffic lights at the crossovers when simple overpasses could completely avoid the need for them?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 11, 2016, 11:15:21 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 10, 2016, 06:26:32 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 09, 2016, 10:51:38 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 09, 2016, 02:47:32 PM
The North/South VA 145 error signs at VA 10 have been fixed. There's now just one shield on each assembly, with an East banner.

Took them long enough, I reported it on the MyVDOT customer service portal almost 3 months ago. :P

Not to mention there have been N-S signs with erroneous shield saying 145 continues past 10 going back to at least 2006...
They've been fixed within the past few weeks. Now to get a decent photo of the US 145 shield at the other end.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 11, 2016, 09:54:02 PM
Took a ride around Virginia yesterday for my birthday, mainly to go get a sandwich from Blacksburg...

The last 2 cutouts in Gordonsville remain.  The wholesale sign replacements around the Gordonsville traffic circle did not extend to the nearby intersection of VA 231 and US 15-33 truck route.

Construction at Exit 150 (US 220, VA 220 ALT) is still essentially confined to US 11.

Construction of the interchange at US 460 and VA 314 seems like it is slow going.  Still no girders on the overpass.

The widening of VA 114 from 460 Business west a couple miles is really nice...

The vintage VA 99 END shield at the NCL of Pulaski appears to be gone but the circle 99 the other way is still there.   

The Carter Wayside is marked as closed, but it looked like it was in good shape...wondering if they close it just for the winter.

The US 121 error BGS is still up

The most notable find on my trip is a fully signed separate segment of VA 365 on the east side of the campus.  i had gone over there to see if the connection built behind the campus to Community Blvd was posted (it is not), but wandered around to find this separate segment, which intersects main 365 just south of what was the end circle.  The other segment is not posted right at that intersection which is why I didn't notice it several years ago.  But it is posted once in each direction further around, both with error circle shields.

I drove to Hillsville and found all cutouts at the central intersection still in place.  I drove US 58 east to head homeward and drove the newly minted 4-lane segment from Big Reed Island Creek east to Meadows of Dan.  Clinch purists do have to go drive it as it bypasses some segments of the 2-lane road.  It is a nice improvement.  Continuing the widening west to Hillsville involves some difficult terrain and way harder terrain exists from Meadows of Dan east to VA 8.

The older US 58 unisigns east of Meadows of Dan are still in place.

I drove the newly christened VA 8 bypass of Stuart.  It has a 25 mph speed limit throughout and very closely parallels the Business route along its lower third.  In some places VA 8 business is posted as To VA 8 and at least one mainline VA 8 posting is VA 8 TRUCK.  But there are definitely Business 8 shields at both ends of the bypass.

Drove through Martinsville on VA 57.  A lot of new route signage and a really old stoplight assembly here - https://goo.gl/maps/9AxAbAEtZBB2

Not much else to report coming back via US 360 to richmond...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 11, 2016, 10:18:50 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 11, 2016, 09:54:02 PM

Construction at Exit 150 (US 220, VA 220 ALT) is still essentially confined to US 11.

Construction of the interchange at US 460 and VA 314 seems like it is slow going.  Still no girders on the overpass.

The widening of VA 114 from 460 Business west a couple miles is really nice...


All of this (plus the VA 114 WB New River Bridge) make me wonder why I have not gone back to Blacksburg yet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 12, 2016, 11:54:10 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 11, 2016, 09:54:02 PM
Took a ride around Virginia yesterday for my birthday, mainly to go get a sandwich from Blacksburg...

Hope you weren't looking for a Mike's burger. They shut down in late summer  :-( for a variety of reasons.

Quote

Construction at Exit 150 (US 220, VA 220 ALT) is still essentially confined to US 11.

Construction of the interchange at US 460 and VA 314 seems like it is slow going.  Still no girders on the overpass.

The widening of VA 114 from 460 Business west a couple miles is really nice...


The last time I was through Alt. 220, most of the grading had been completed for the new roadbed to the north that will feed into the new roundabout on U.S. 11.

There are times that it looks like Branch Highways has maybe 5 people working on the new Southgate interchange on 460. There was a lot of work done this summer to build the roundabout on campus where the new alignment of Southgate Drive will connect with the existing road and Duck Pond Drive. It is now mostly complete and feeds into the existing Southgate between there and the 460 bypass. Other parts of the project involve work on and around the Huckleberry bike trail. Some grading of ramps has been done at the overpass, but that part of the project seems to be slow going. Every few weeks, a new section of abutment has form work done, then new concrete is revealed. It still isn't apparent what the configuration of roads and ramps on the west side of the bypass will be.

It will be interesting to see if and when the rest of VA 114 from the current end of the four-lane to the arsenal gets put on the "build" list. It doesn't seem to be as big a deal as it was a number of years ago.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 12, 2016, 12:12:27 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 12, 2016, 11:54:10 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 11, 2016, 09:54:02 PM
Took a ride around Virginia yesterday for my birthday, mainly to go get a sandwich from Blacksburg...

Hope you weren't looking for a Mike's burger. They shut down in late summer  :-( for a variety of reasons.


Nope...Sub Station 2.  This is the only one left in Virginia.  They are based in South Carolina which is where I started eating their sandwiches in the 1970s...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 13, 2016, 06:52:18 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 11, 2016, 09:54:02 PM
Construction at Exit 150 (US 220, VA 220 ALT) is still essentially confined to US 11.

The Gateway Crossing (new road) portion of the project is completed.  It is planned to be open on Sunday. (http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/New--406096915.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 13, 2016, 07:41:33 PM
VDOT postponed the Haymarket DDI opening until January 7 due to weather forecast and the Christmas work hiatus.

Meantime, US-1 at Fort Belvoir is supposed to shift to the new alignment tomorrow.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 13, 2016, 11:07:27 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 12, 2016, 12:12:27 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 12, 2016, 11:54:10 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 11, 2016, 09:54:02 PM
Took a ride around Virginia yesterday for my birthday, mainly to go get a sandwich from Blacksburg...

Hope you weren't looking for a Mike's burger. They shut down in late summer  :-( for a variety of reasons.


Nope...Sub Station 2.  This is the only one left in Virginia.  They are based in South Carolina which is where I started eating their sandwiches in the 1970s...

Mmmm sub station 2. Used to eat at the one in gastonia all the time.  Haven't been to one in nearly 10 years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 14, 2016, 06:16:32 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on December 13, 2016, 11:07:27 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 12, 2016, 12:12:27 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 12, 2016, 11:54:10 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 11, 2016, 09:54:02 PM
Took a ride around Virginia yesterday for my birthday, mainly to go get a sandwich from Blacksburg...
Hope you weren't looking for a Mike's burger. They shut down in late summer  :-( for a variety of reasons.


Nope...Sub Station 2.  This is the only one left in Virginia.  They are based in South Carolina which is where I started eating their sandwiches in the 1970s...

Mmmm sub station 2. Used to eat at the one in Gastonia all the time.  Haven't been to one in nearly 10 years.

They are getting ready to open one in the Raleigh area at 1440 Garner Sta Blvd - http://www.substationii.com/locations

Fixed quote.  -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 14, 2016, 07:10:10 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 13, 2016, 07:41:33 PM
Meantime, US-1 at Fort Belvoir is supposed to shift to the new alignment tomorrow.

Final completion is expected in the spring of 2017. (http://www.insidenova.com/headlines/all-lanes-of-richmond-highway-to-shift-to-final-alignment/article_9ed5669e-c218-11e6-941f-9bd9b242a0da.html) 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 14, 2016, 08:36:08 PM
The Jones Branch Connector contract was awarded with construction beginning early 2017 and be partially open by fall 2018.

This project takes the Jones Branch interchange with the I495 Express Lanes and fully builds out the overpass that exist to the west and also continues east as a new overpass entirely over the Inner Loop to connect with a road leading to VA 123.

Will be bike/ped friendly...

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/jones_branch_connector.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on December 14, 2016, 08:49:17 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 14, 2016, 07:10:10 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 13, 2016, 07:41:33 PM
Meantime, US-1 at Fort Belvoir is supposed to shift to the new alignment tomorrow.

Final completion is expected in the spring of 2017. (http://www.insidenova.com/headlines/all-lanes-of-richmond-highway-to-shift-to-final-alignment/article_9ed5669e-c218-11e6-941f-9bd9b242a0da.html) 

Per the article, that just means the realignment that was supposed to happen today will be only four lanes for now, with two more lanes to follow next spring.

BTW, there's a Roy Rogers on US 1 just north of the realignment project, in case CPZ needs another reason to come down and check out the realignment. :)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 15, 2016, 09:42:38 PM
Some of the ramps on 395 are getting new ramp meter lights (i.e. one car per green). The vertically-aligned (on the side) lights are being replaced with horizontally aligned (overhead).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 18, 2016, 06:32:59 AM
Roanoke Times:  Changes are planned at the odd US 460 BUS/VA 111/ Cambria St intersection in Christiansburg. (http://www.roanoke.com/news/education/changes-being-discussed-for-busy-christiansburg-intersection/article_d9cbb0da-8eaa-5d75-8dda-b76ec0bd9b0d.html) 

In case you did not know, this intersection is odd because the ramp from US 460 to US 460 BUS EB and US 460 EB both meet each other at the US 460 BUS/VA 111/Cambria St intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1527741,-80.4142478,444m/data=!3m1!1e3) resulting in separate phases for both the ramp and mainline US 460 BUS EB.  Also traffic going from US 460 BUS EB to VA 111 EB must use a ramp to Cambria St (there are no VA 111 shields to direct you here) as left-turns are not allowed from US 460 BUS EB (but they are from the ramp).

I hope I explained it well enough.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 18, 2016, 09:28:14 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 18, 2016, 06:32:59 AM
Roanoke Times:  Changes are planned at the odd US 460 BUS/VA 111/ Cambria St intersection in Christiansburg. (http://www.roanoke.com/news/education/changes-being-discussed-for-busy-christiansburg-intersection/article_d9cbb0da-8eaa-5d75-8dda-b76ec0bd9b0d.html) 

In case you did not know, this intersection is odd because the ramp from US 460 to US 460 BUS EB and US 460 EB both meet each other at the US 460 BUS/VA 111/Cambria St intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1527741,-80.4142478,444m/data=!3m1!1e3) resulting in separate phases for both the ramp and mainline US 460 BUS EB.  Also traffic going from US 460 BUS EB to VA 111 EB must use a ramp to Cambria St (there are no VA 111 shields to direct you here) as left-turns are not allowed from US 460 BUS EB (but they are from the ramp).

I hope I explained it well enough.

I can definitely see the confusion here especially with that traffic light and the turning situation. How long was it like this?? Since the bypass' completion?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 18, 2016, 10:50:48 AM
Quote from: plain on December 18, 2016, 09:28:14 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 18, 2016, 06:32:59 AM
Roanoke Times:  Changes are planned at the odd US 460 BUS/VA 111/ Cambria St intersection in Christiansburg. (http://www.roanoke.com/news/education/changes-being-discussed-for-busy-christiansburg-intersection/article_d9cbb0da-8eaa-5d75-8dda-b76ec0bd9b0d.html) 

In case you did not know, this intersection is odd because the ramp from US 460 to US 460 BUS EB and US 460 EB both meet each other at the US 460 BUS/VA 111/Cambria St intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1527741,-80.4142478,444m/data=!3m1!1e3) resulting in separate phases for both the ramp and mainline US 460 BUS EB.  Also traffic going from US 460 BUS EB to VA 111 EB must use a ramp to Cambria St (there are no VA 111 shields to direct you here) as left-turns are not allowed from US 460 BUS EB (but they are from the ramp).

I hope I explained it well enough.

I can definitely see the confusion here especially with that traffic light and the turning situation. How long was it like this?? Since the bypass' completion?

The current setup has been in place since the freeway connecting the Blacksburg and Christiansburg bypasses was built.

Before that it had been setup as a simple 4-way intersection with all movements possible, back to when VA 111's north end was reconfigured to meet Cambria Rd west of 460 Bus in the mid 1960s.  Note that it was not possible for original Christiansburg US 460 Byp WB traffic to turn back onto US 460 Bus EB towards Christiansburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on December 18, 2016, 10:45:43 PM
That new section of 460 had just opened when I spent a week in Blacksburg for a class back in 2003. A lot of the overhead signage had not yet been installed. To be a short section of freeway, it sure has some complex interchanges.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on December 19, 2016, 05:58:40 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on December 13, 2016, 11:07:27 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 12, 2016, 12:12:27 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 12, 2016, 11:54:10 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 11, 2016, 09:54:02 PM
Took a ride around Virginia yesterday for my birthday, mainly to go get a sandwich from Blacksburg...

Hope you weren't looking for a Mike's burger. They shut down in late summer  :-( for a variety of reasons.


Nope...Sub Station 2.  This is the only one left in Virginia.  They are based in South Carolina which is where I started eating their sandwiches in the 1970s...

Mmmm sub station 2. Used to eat at the one in gastonia all the time.  Haven't been to one in nearly 10 years.

When I was commuting from Charlotte to Statesville, I used to drop by the one near Clanton road on the way back for a scrap sandwich (basically they took the left over meat and cheese from when they cut the packages and put them on a sandwich...sounds weird but it was really good)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 19, 2016, 11:49:57 AM
Quote from: plain on December 18, 2016, 09:28:14 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 18, 2016, 06:32:59 AM
Roanoke Times:  Changes are planned at the odd US 460 BUS/VA 111/ Cambria St intersection in Christiansburg. (http://www.roanoke.com/news/education/changes-being-discussed-for-busy-christiansburg-intersection/article_d9cbb0da-8eaa-5d75-8dda-b76ec0bd9b0d.html) 

In case you did not know, this intersection is odd because the ramp from US 460 to US 460 BUS EB and US 460 EB both meet each other at the US 460 BUS/VA 111/Cambria St intersection (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1527741,-80.4142478,444m/data=!3m1!1e3) resulting in separate phases for both the ramp and mainline US 460 BUS EB.  Also traffic going from US 460 BUS EB to VA 111 EB must use a ramp to Cambria St (there are no VA 111 shields to direct you here) as left-turns are not allowed from US 460 BUS EB (but they are from the ramp).

I hope I explained it well enough.

I can definitely see the confusion here especially with that traffic light and the turning situation. How long was it like this?? Since the bypass' completion?

That whole interchange and some of the adjacent highway was a botch-job from the beginning. Speculation around here is that VDOT turned the design work over to some junior engineers just graduated from UVa. (as a friend once said of UVa. -- they turn out "social engineers" who know how to pour tea and which fork to use but know nothing about "real" engineering). Granted, they had a limited space to create a complicated interchange (and a lot of the budget was spent on useless connections in Blacksburg to justify the Smart Road*).

The problems appeared early on when it was not possible for people to get from Blacksburg to their homes in the multitude of subdivisions down Cambria Street to the west of N. Franklin St. The intersection, lanes, and lights were reconfigured to allow right turns onto Cambria St. from the middle lane, which helped somewhat. The way to get to Cambria St. (in either direction) when heading east on N. Franklin St. is to take a ramp (with an interesting configuration -- it sort of "disappears" when crossing the railroad tracks due to a quick bend to the right) that ends in a T at Cambria St. Turn left to reach the traffic light at N. Franklin then continue straight on Cambria to reach "downtown" Cambria to the east (it used to be a separate town from Christiansburg until they merged). The problem with trying to address the big intersection with multiple choices of directions and turns means long light cycles and traffic that backs up on the ramps at heavy traffic times (mainly after quitting time at Virginia Tech with lots of people heading home to parts of Christiansburg and beyond).

It will be interesting to see what solutions the new engineering firm comes up with. It would be nice if one suggestion is to complete the 460 eastbound to Business 460 westbound ramp. There are times it would be quicker to go that way to get to Spradlin Farm shopping center (Target, Home Depot, et al) from Blacksburg but that isn't a choice right now.

The other problem in the area that probably won't be fixed is with the two bridges over the exit ramps that connect from the new bypass to the former/current Christiansburg bypass. They are both curved and banked, which plays havoc when it rains and especially when there is freezing rain or snow. The curve/bank combination makes for wrecks when people aren't expecting a slick roadway and VDOT/the local maintenance contractor haven't hit the road with salt/grit. Pre-treating has helped but it can still be a problem.

See http://www.brucebharper.info/varoads/Bburg3A.html for some info about this whole "connect the bypasses" project.

*The Smart Road has become an important research area for Virginia Tech. At the time it was being sold for VDOT funding there was a lot of questionable information being thrown around by supporters. It is built on one of the rejected routes that was proposed to improve traffic flow between Blacksburg and I-81 -- a new road would run from the south end of the then-current Blacksburg 460 Bypass to connect to I-81 just north of where the interstate crosses the N&W/Norfolk Southern tracks about two miles from Christiansburg exit 118. One of the selling points was that "when" the chosen route (today's route) became overcrowded then the Smart Road could be completed from its proposed (at the time) end the rest of the way to I-81 to provide another route to the interstate (opponents pointed out that adding a third lane to the proposed route could probably solve capacity problems). But proponents prevailed and a series of ramps and bridges was included at the Blacksburg end of the new bypass to accommodate the "eventual" completion of the Smart Road as a through highway (which people pointed out would pretty much make it impossible to do some of the things planned for research). But money talks and we are stuck with a bunch of ramps that will probably never see any traffic -- both because the closed-course Smart Road as it is will be too valuable to abandon to a through road and VDOT will probably never raise a second route to I-81 to any level of priority that would get funding (I-73 notwithstanding).

Bruce in Blacksburg

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on December 19, 2016, 03:27:03 PM
My thought was that the Smart Road was going to eventually become I-73.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 19, 2016, 03:53:34 PM
The Virginian-Pilot: "Cartography is like... casket-building. Not many people do it." Virginia's cartographer and his maps  (http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/cartography-is-like-casket-building-not-many-people-do-it/article_447f5896-5469-5823-8dbc-e2e44a3eb7d3.html)

QuoteTen years after the iPhone, one could argue that the paper map has become the victim of Google Maps, Waze and other turn-by-turn direction apps. No longer is it the main device for navigation, as it had been for thousands of years.

QuoteYet, earlier this year, the Virginia Department of Transportation released its updated 2016-2018 road map — just like clockwork. You'll find the neatly folded maps in rest stops and welcome centers across the commonwealth.

QuoteBut why, in this digital age, does the state still print them? Who is in charge of making the maps? How do we use them today?

QuoteDwayne Altice is a man with a unique job.

Quote"Cartography is like flag-making and casket-building,"  he says. "You don't know too many people that have this profession."

QuoteAltice, the state's lone cartographer, has been designing VDOT road maps for the past 26 years. So how did he venture down such a narrow career path?

QuoteHis interest began as a child, when gas stations would still give out free maps. He started a collection at age 6 — a strange hobby for a kid, he acknowledges.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 19, 2016, 04:10:31 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2016, 03:27:03 PM
My thought was that the Smart Road was going to eventually become I-73.

It was supposed to, but seeing as VA has yet to turn a single grain of dirt for I-73, there's little to zero chance the Smart Road will ever have I-shields.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 19, 2016, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2016, 03:27:03 PM
My thought was that the Smart Road was going to eventually become I-73.

That was another one of the myths that was floating about. While it might have worked to have I-73 from the Blacksburg bypass to I-81, then concurrent with I-81 and I-581 through Roanoke, there are as many if not more problems in getting from Princeton, WVa. to Blacksburg as there are to get from Roanoke south to North Carolina. While U.S. 460 in West Virginia is a nice four-lane highway, it ends in Glen Lyn, Va. The road is four lanes from there to Blacksburg but not on any alignment that could be upgraded to interstate standards. To really work, pretty much an entirely new highway would have to be built, crossing several mountains, the New River, and areas that would be sensitive to residents who would oppose such a project (see the current fight against the pipeline being pushed to come through the area). Again, VDOT has enough projects to spend money on.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 19, 2016, 05:28:00 PM
I agree and there's no need for I-73 to go any further than I-81 in Roanoke.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 20, 2016, 07:02:22 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 13, 2016, 06:52:18 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 11, 2016, 09:54:02 PM
Construction at Exit 150 (US 220, VA 220 ALT) is still essentially confined to US 11.

The Gateway Crossing (new road) portion of the project is completed.  It is planned to be open on Sunday. (http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/New--406096915.html)

Opening of the new traffic pattern was pushed back to today due to the weather. (http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/New-traffic-patterns-begin-at-busy-I-81-interchange-407560985.html)  Also note that until the summer, Exit 150A must be used for US 11 or VA 220 ALT SB (article just calls it US 220 for some reason) and Exit 150B must be used for US 220 NB only.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on December 20, 2016, 11:12:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 19, 2016, 05:28:00 PM
I agree and there's no need for I-73 to go any further than I-40 in Greensboro.

FIFY.
Title: New Tidewater Freeways
Post by: Thing 342 on December 22, 2016, 05:00:42 PM
I took a trip down to Norfolk last weekend in order to check out the new MLK extension, as well as the new Dominion Blvd expressway. I managed to get some photos:

VA-164 / MLK Fwy Extension

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_121043.jpg&hash=1c27a0d0fb88a63b7c91763d137f25f9d25306f6)
The extension is signed as part of VA-164, which is right now only lightly signed in Portsmouth. Here's the first sign headed southbound past Pinners' Point.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_121127.jpg&hash=ce11ada86c789682f09f56c14f0f7f03fc8cf8a3)
The beginning of the new freeway at London Blvd.

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.wesj.org/img/vlcsnap-2016-12-21-16h25m43s223.png)
Looking southbound. The speed limit on the extension is a fairly slow 45 mph.

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.wesj.org/img/vlcsnap-2016-12-21-16h26m28s535.png)
Signs for I-264 at the south end of the freeway. Sign in the distance reads END VA-164.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_124354.jpg&hash=92ceda05ccce2be73e46161c3728065451659569)
Looking at the new interchange from I-264 WB. The MLK Freeway is now apparently the MLK Expressway (or has it always been Expwy?).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_124425.jpg&hash=d8b53b1b51df7ac5e707f9e194b9150aef8fdf38)
Heading back northbound on the extension. Not sure what the covered-up sign is for. Perhaps for US-58?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_124451.jpg&hash=9b94252113c38b65813e9daae5ff18f6bf2358f8)
Looking at the north end of the extension. The diagrammatic is a holdover from the old interchange.





Title: Re: New Tidewater Freeways
Post by: Thing 342 on December 22, 2016, 05:08:55 PM
(cont'd)

US-17 / Dominion Blvd Expressway
The northern portion of the Dominion Blvd project, with the freeway portion between VA-168 and VA-165 has been completed. The southern portion, which is just a widening from 2 to 4 lanes, looks to be almost complete, with the northbound lanes finished and the southbound lanes partially open.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_122120.jpg&hash=e8703342e44c04a896378f7f9bcb33ee0fce4f49)
New is this ridiculously oversized APL at the VA-168 / US-17 interchange.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_122128.jpg&hash=536aaa3b52c149980dc6304c63cd34cf4b5360d9)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_122254.jpg&hash=2d7f60f6efaa25347ed17d11daef1da422e61e47)
Nearing the cashless toll gantry for the new bridge. Tolls will likely begin upon the completion of the entire project.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_122315.jpg&hash=9c8055ec8220c37e40fb260a46e336826ab3db65)
Crossing the recently-completed southbound lanes of the new bridge.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_122344.jpg&hash=0e5057cc0bf1e9a70fb1ef209141fdc9cd64dfc1)
An odd gantry at the south end of the bridge.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_122423.jpg&hash=1ecae882da3215912ecb0e7611600c8f357d8eb8)
The south end of the expressway, at Grassfield Pkwy.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_122502.jpg&hash=d309df42ecb6c94bc773d9edeb68c9a1cca1c79b)
One lane of the southbound carriageway is open.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_122606.jpg&hash=e81352a1c007fca598386e2a5fa7640b5cacaa4d)
Mileposts in place headed southbound.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_122904.jpg&hash=32b8a269c63f875e479ed16a872288b10a9fde22)
Headed back northbound on the new lanes.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_123220.jpg&hash=34dff1518d5c2c70134c2509abdcbfacbd084e09)
The start of the expressway, headed northbound.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_123423.jpg&hash=bb4ac72ef896f99e8b236f34565e938676f90a18)
New signs heading northbound over the VA-166 interchange, past the new bridge.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_123507.jpg&hash=484e99e5d799ebdfafc8f4a3d38aacb0ea690a37)
More new signs, headed northbound near the VA-190 interchange.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F107.20.99.209%2Fimg%2F20161219%2FIMG_20161219_123521.jpg&hash=94127ef1adec242bac22494b9d7358d260a185bd)
The north end of the freeway, at VA-168. Note that this ramp (signed as to I-464 N) and the ramp to the right (signed as I-464 / US-17 TO I-64 E) both merge onto the same road (the Oak Grove Connector, just north of where VA-168 NB peels off to join I-64), just on different sides.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 22, 2016, 07:11:47 PM
That last picture is interesting because I-64 is actually signed East/West instead of the classic I-64 to VA Beach or I-64 to Suffolk thing VDOT does to avoid confusion when I-64 does a 180 and contradicts itself pass the I-264 interchange
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 22, 2016, 10:50:48 PM
IIRC, the VA 164 shield in the first photo had an END banner above it previously, as this was the former terminus for VA 164.

The diagrammatic sign in the last of the MLK photos isn't really a "holdover to the old interchange", per se.  It dates to completion of the Pinners Point interchange ca. 2004.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 23, 2016, 06:38:27 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 22, 2016, 05:00:42 PM
I took a trip down to Norfolk last weekend in order to check out the new MLK extension, as well as the new Dominion Blvd expressway. I managed to get some photos:



Were you able to see what happened with VA 337 ALT?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 23, 2016, 09:00:51 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 23, 2016, 06:38:27 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 22, 2016, 05:00:42 PM
I took a trip down to Norfolk last weekend in order to check out the new MLK extension, as well as the new Dominion Blvd expressway. I managed to get some photos:
Were you able to see what happened with VA 337 ALT?

I was planning to see all this Christmas morning and was not planning to look into VA 337 ALT for time purposes.  I'll think about it.

I also saw on the Dominion Blvd project website that tolling is tentatively scheduled to start in early January. (hence another reason to do it now)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on December 23, 2016, 09:14:03 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 23, 2016, 06:38:27 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 22, 2016, 05:00:42 PM
I took a trip down to Norfolk last weekend in order to check out the new MLK extension, as well as the new Dominion Blvd expressway. I managed to get some photos:



Were you able to see what happened with VA 337 ALT?
Unfortunately not, as I had real business down in Chesapeake to get down to, so I didn't have time. However, didn't see any new references to it along VA-164 or I-264, so it may just be discontinuous.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 23, 2016, 01:30:34 PM
We are in Keysville on our way southwest. Noted some new signs on I-95 warning that "OVER 80 MPH IS RECKLESS DRIVING–PENALTIES HIGHER." Didn't see any cops on there. Seen three or four on US-360 so far.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 23, 2016, 05:58:45 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 23, 2016, 01:30:34 PM
We are in Keysville on our way southwest. Noted some new signs on I-95 warning that "OVER 80 MPH IS RECKLESS DRIVING–PENALTIES HIGHER." Didn't see any cops on there. 

FYI, we had discussed it in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.msg2174786#msg2174786).  I do not remember if I saw one on I-81 SB just south of the WV/VA line yesterday.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 14, 2016, 05:55:57 PM
Also VA is installing signs on I-81 and I-95 (http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/New-VDOT-signs-will-alert-drivers-of-reckless-driving-law-393484031.html) to remind drivers that 80 is reckless driving even in the 70 zones for some reason.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 23, 2016, 10:11:18 PM
Heh. Obviously I saw that and responded, but I didn't remember it!

Earlier in the thread I asked about the roads to Primland. That's where we are. No issues at all. Our car is parked at the lodge some ten minutes from our lodging. My car can't handle the gravel road (more like a path) up to here, so the resort provides a 4WD Ford Escape. I'll have pictures sometime next week after we get home.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 24, 2016, 12:21:12 AM
That pic Thing 342 took on the MLK Extention at the High Street interchange, the covered up BGS says US 58 Toll, with pull through arrows over both through lanes. I'm thinking the sign is covered up because they plan on replacing (and correcting) it with both US 58 and VA 164, at least that's what I hope. Also, a part of the extention has created America's newest wrong-way concurrency (US 58 EB with VA 164 WB and vice versa).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 24, 2016, 06:15:55 PM
Washington Post: Non-compete agreement in one Virginia tunnel project haunts another (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/non-compete-agreement-in-one-virginia-tunnel-project-haunts-another/2016/12/24/7fa8940e-c889-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html)

QuoteVirginia's top transportation oversight body voted earlier this month to move ahead with a major tunnel expansion. If everything goes as planned, the multi-billion-dollar project could be good news for the traffic-snarled Hampton Roads region when it opens in 2024.

QuoteBut the Commonwealth may also be setting itself up for a major financial body blow — and demonstrating the long-term consequences of mismanaging public-private partnerships.

QuoteAt issue are the highly-generous terms of a tunnel deal state officials agreed to in 2011 — and locked in for 58 years – with a Swedish construction company and a finance group. That agreement to build a new tube and rehabilitate existing tunnels between the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth, and collect billions of dollars in tolls over the coming decades, includes a non-compete clause.

QuoteThe state agreed that if it built bridges or tunnels near the Downtown/Midtown tunnels sometime in the next half century, it would be on the hook to pay lost tolls that could be attributed to the projects.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 25, 2016, 10:44:38 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 23, 2016, 09:00:51 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 23, 2016, 06:38:27 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 22, 2016, 05:00:42 PM
I took a trip down to Norfolk last weekend in order to check out the new MLK extension, as well as the new Dominion Blvd expressway. I managed to get some photos:
Were you able to see what happened with VA 337 ALT?

I was planning to see all this Christmas morning and was not planning to look into VA 337 ALT for time purposes.  I'll think about it.

I also saw on the Dominion Blvd project website that tolling is tentatively scheduled to start in early January. (hence another reason to do it now)

So most of VA 337 ALT is currently closed (detour is Rodman Ave to US 58 to High St to Constitution Ave to the Turnpike Rd/County St intersection), this basically means that I guess we will not truly know the answer on this situation for awhile.  I did not follow County St east of that intersection.

I did get to see everything else despite the terrible fog this morning. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 25, 2016, 07:50:24 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 25, 2016, 10:44:38 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 23, 2016, 09:00:51 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 23, 2016, 06:38:27 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 22, 2016, 05:00:42 PM
I took a trip down to Norfolk last weekend in order to check out the new MLK extension, as well as the new Dominion Blvd expressway. I managed to get some photos:
Were you able to see what happened with VA 337 ALT?

I was planning to see all this Christmas morning and was not planning to look into VA 337 ALT for time purposes.  I'll think about it.

I also saw on the Dominion Blvd project website that tolling is tentatively scheduled to start in early January. (hence another reason to do it now)

So most of VA 337 ALT is currently closed (detour is Rodman Ave to US 58 to High St to Constitution Ave to the Turnpike Rd/County St intersection), this basically means that I guess we will not truly know the answer on this situation for awhile.  I did not follow County St east of that intersection.

I did get to see everything else despite the terrible fog this morning.

At this point the most logical thing to do is to have VA 337 ALT run concurrently with US 58 from Portsmouth Blvd all the way to Hampton Blvd, either that or just decommission it altogether. It'll be even better if this was actually made the mainline VA 337 but that'll probably never happen
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 27, 2016, 07:52:02 PM
I got a photo of the overhead on US 29 NB at the new SR 631 (Rio Rd) Grade-separated interchange yesterday.  I think I am fine considering the US 29 local lanes as "LOCAL AND BUSINESS".   There also advanced-blue signs for places along the local lanes.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS%252029%2520NORTH%2520AT%2520SR%2520631_zpsoopfiul3.jpg&hash=88122ab9b7e8d0ead2336926ca8606a12e71263f)


Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 31, 2016, 08:52:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2016, 07:45:32 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 16, 2016, 06:37:45 AM
The interchange (technically grade-separated intersection) on US 29 at SR 631/Rio Road (http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/u-s--rio-road-intersection-to-open-next-week/article_cb730cc0-4ad5-11e6-88ff-13e7a28768c9.html) could open as early as Monday.

I drove through this and the six-lane widening north of SR 643 (Polo Grounds Road) to SR 1719 (Towncenter Drive) Sunday when taking an alternate route back to PA.

(The link to the Route 29 Solutions website (http://www.route29solutions.org/learn_more/3._route_29_widening_page.asp) as I am unsure via the search bar that we have really talked about these projects on here.)

Update:  The grade-separated intersection opens tonight (http://www.nbc29.com/story/32468289/route-29-and-rio-road-intersection-construction-ahead-of-schedule). (July 18th)

We drove through the Rio Road interchange today on northbound Route 29. Should be a nice change once people get used to it. But it was somewhat frustrating today because there weren't enough advance overhead signs telling people which lanes to use, just one set of signs right at the interchange. Led to a lot of extremely slow driving and last-minute lane-changing. Charlottesville drivers have never seemed to deal very well with new traffic patterns anyway, and this is a big change. It was apparent to me from a portable VMS that if you "exit" up the ramp to Rio Road, you can continue on 29, seeing as how the ramp is marked as "LOCAL." The portable VMS said to use the "LOCAL" route to go to Albemarle Square. But people naturally panicked when they saw the new underpass to the left.

Be interesting to hear how it is on football Saturdays this fall!

I agree the lack of advance-signage is a problem.  I think the last minute lane changing will hopefully reduce somewhat once the locals realize that they can stay on US 29 easily via the ramp (and really only have to deal with one more traffic light around a whole bunch of them that have been around for years).  Obviously long-distance travelers will probably continue to do last-minute lane changing due to the lack of knowledge of the area and the odd configuration.

I actually had a car do this right in front of me heading under the overpass.  I cannot necessarily say that it was a local Charlottesville resident though as many (including myself) traveled yesterday.  There is advance signage for SR 631 but none stating which lanes cars should be in minus the above overhead.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 27, 2016, 08:54:38 PM
When was that sign installed?  Interesting that sign is in Clearview, considering we have been seeing several new all-FHWA signs in Virginia this year after the interim approval was revoked.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 27, 2016, 09:02:54 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 27, 2016, 08:54:38 PM
When was that sign installed?  Interesting that sign is in Clearview, considering we have been seeing several new all-FHWA signs in Virginia this year after the interim approval was revoked.

The sign was installed earlier this year.  This project was a design-build that began construction in 2015 (http://www.route29solutions.org/learn_more/2._rio_road_intersection.asp) so the interim approval still applied.  (it was all based on let date ultimately)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: December 28, 2016, 09:04:24 PM

Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 29, 2016, 07:12:45 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 13, 2016, 11:37:53 AM
Heading NB, the new third lane starts as an added lane from VA-134. It's mostly complete between here and SR-620 (Oriana Rd), but is blocked off for some reason.
The new third lanes on US 17  (http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-nws-us17-widening-0528-20160527-story.html) up to the bowling alley (before SR 620) are open now in both directions.

The rest of the widening project is now complete. (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2016/george_washington_memorial_highway110062.asp) (from VA 134 to SR 630/Wolf Trap Rd)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 29, 2016, 09:07:01 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 25, 2016, 10:44:38 AM

So most of VA 337 ALT is currently closed (detour is Rodman Ave to US 58 to High St to Constitution Ave to the Turnpike Rd/County St intersection), this basically means that I guess we will not truly know the answer on this situation for awhile.  I did not follow County St east of that intersection.

I did get to see everything else despite the terrible fog this morning. 

Thanks for taking a look.  I am tentatively scheduled to head down there in April so I will check it out to see if anything has changed...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on December 30, 2016, 03:20:13 PM
Video of I-66 coming into the Beltway from the Suburbs:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 04, 2017, 11:38:26 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 27, 2016, 09:02:54 PM
The rest of the widening project is now complete. (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2016/george_washington_memorial_highway110062.asp) (from VA 134 to SR 630/Wolf Trap Rd)
Drove it today. Didn't get any photos, but it seemed like traffic moved well enough when I was there at ~3:45 PM. They kept the 35 MPH speed limit  :banghead:, which remains obnoxiously slow, especially with construction now finished. Next step seems to be extending the widened section from VA-134 south to VA-171 or potentially I-64, as well as north to about VA-105.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 05, 2017, 07:08:40 AM
The signs must not have been taken down yet.  The VDOT news release stated that it was supposed to be back at 45 mph...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 05, 2017, 07:28:28 AM
The Haymarket DDI opening has been pushed back to January 14 due to the forecast for snow this weekend.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 05, 2017, 10:33:26 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 05, 2017, 07:08:40 AM
The signs must not have been taken down yet.  The VDOT news release stated that it was supposed to be back at 45 mph...
They sort of did the same thing with the Chester project. On northbound 1/301, the work zone signs and 35 speed limit signs are still there, despite work not going on for weeks. The 45 MPH sign north of the signal is turned to the side. Southbound, the 35 zone is only between the signal and the car dealership, with 45 posted after that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on January 06, 2017, 11:39:20 AM
DC-area transportation reporter indicates that Bi-County Parkway (which would link PW and Loudoun Counties) remains idle.

https://twitter.com/MartinDiCaro/status/817035922508234753
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 06, 2017, 09:49:54 PM
So I drove down to Knott's Island today and noticed this near Creeds along Princess Anne Rd: (so much that I had to double back to get a good photo of it)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwesj.org%2Froads%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F01%2FIMG_0476.jpg&hash=b236b157d39ccfb90960b8dd733110d889f5b9ad)

Most VA-based readers will know that SR-615 hasn't actually existed for awhile, but here it is. Virginia Beach signage has always been fairly incompetent (and not afraid to post routes that don't exist and go nowhere), but I didn't think they'd be as bad as posting a route that hasn't existed in 30+ years, in the wrong class shield, using an incorrectly-drawn version of that shield. At least they used the correct font.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 06, 2017, 10:39:02 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 06, 2017, 09:49:54 PM
Most VA-based readers will know that SR-615 hasn't actually existed for awhile, but here it is. Virginia Beach signage has always been fairly incompetent (and not afraid to post routes that don't exist and go nowhere), but I didn't think they'd be as bad as posting a route that hasn't existed in 30+ years, in the wrong class shield, using an incorrectly-drawn version of that shield. At least they used the correct font.

Well VDOT does it along I-664 in Chesapeake so it is hard to complain to Va Beach this time.  :banghead:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 06, 2017, 11:02:31 PM
Quotebut I didn't think they'd be as bad as posting a route that hasn't existed in 530+ years

FTFY...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 08, 2017, 12:35:53 PM
That shield dates back to at least 2012, although there are a few other VA 615 shields scattered around too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 08, 2017, 03:05:18 PM
Maybe they want to sign a thru route to NC-615? Its the only main route to Knott's Island, NC, makes sense.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 08, 2017, 04:45:33 PM
Regarding that sign having the wrong class of shield, I'm seeing a fair amount of that recently on what I guess I'd call blue "attractions" signs–for example, on eastbound VA-55 in Linden there's a sign for Fox Meadow Winery (which is located on Freezeland Road) that uses a primary shield for the route number. I've seen a fair number of that sort of error sign in the past few months, although I don't have any clear photos to post.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2017, 11:26:59 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 08, 2017, 04:45:33 PM
Regarding that sign having the wrong class of shield, I'm seeing a fair amount of that recently on what I guess I'd call blue "attractions" signs–for example, on eastbound VA-55 in Linden there's a sign for Fox Meadow Winery (which is located on Freezeland Road) that uses a primary shield for the route number. I've seen a fair number of that sort of error sign in the past few months, although I don't have any clear photos to post.

Route 606 through the Town of Herndon used to be signed with primary system shields, though that  was corrected some years ago (and this is one of the rare places where a secondary route is signed at all inside a Virginia municipality).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 11, 2017, 04:59:29 AM
Fall Hill Ave widening completion date pushed back to April 20th. (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/fall-hill-avenue-upgrade-will-take-longer/article_d3907a9b-6f59-55f5-a441-6b6d3df725d9.html)

There will be a public meeting January 25th (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2017/public_invited_to_comment110487.asp) on the I-95 project that will construct a C/D Road SB between US 17 and VA 3.  This includes a new bridge over the Rappahannock River.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 12, 2017, 10:06:15 PM
VDOT postponed the Haymarket DDI opening again due to the forecast for sleet and freezing rain this Saturday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on January 13, 2017, 12:14:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 12, 2017, 10:06:15 PM
VDOT postponed the Haymarket DDI opening again due to the forecast for sleet and freezing rain this Saturday.

They just need to give it up...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 16, 2017, 10:51:39 PM
Drove through the I-64 widening project in Newport News this weekend. Seems to be progressing well enough, with the third lanes mostly needing a final coat of asphalt before they'll be ready. Much work still to be done on the bridges, however. There were signs advertising some sort of traffic pattern change effective 17 January, which I'm guessing is just lowering the speed limit of Phase 2 (Exit 247 to Exit 242) as work on it gets underway.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwesj.org%2Froads%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F01%2FIMG_0529.jpg&hash=94ade52e6f9d2192a1e90134d24c5a6ff444617e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwesj.org%2Froads%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F01%2FIMG_0532.jpg&hash=7fc988cc6832c1c3246d89407bba4ee50f0ca33a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwesj.org%2Froads%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F01%2FIMG_0535.jpg&hash=1d211714d414760465d3c76f27f6da3b8afdebf2)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwesj.org%2Froads%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F01%2FIMG_0556.jpg&hash=707bd41bc88cdee71b45305f540c818909f1ddf8)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 17, 2017, 08:18:25 PM
Latest scores from Smart Scale for FY 2018 are out. (http://smartscale.org/projects/default.asp)

I already posted an article about the possible ending of the US 460 project due to its own score in its particular thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=449.msg2200033#msg2200033).

US 29 update from Charlottesville Tomorrow:  With Rio intersection done, attention turns to Hydraulic Road (http://www.cvilletomorrow.org/news/article/26109-hydraulic-road-planning/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 22, 2017, 03:39:35 PM
Thanks for that Smart Scale update.
Unfortunate for US 460 (I mostly say this because Virginia spent so much money on it for nothing to happen  :banghead: ) but I'm glad to see several other projects finally seem to be getting the go ahead. Among them are:

- Kings Highway Bridge in Suffolk. I'm pretty sure this will be tolled but it would be worth it considering that incredibly long detour, plus it would actually make VA 125 legit again lmao

- The entire I-95/I-64 overlap will finally be getting highway lighting, something that is decades overdue

- VA 171 widening east of VA 134 (probably will stop just inside Poquoson, which is fine

- the state seems to be fast tracking the rest of the widening of I-64 between Richmond and Newport News
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 22, 2017, 07:46:54 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 17, 2017, 08:18:25 PMUS 29 update from Charlottesville Tomorrow:  With Rio intersection done, attention turns to Hydraulic Road (http://www.cvilletomorrow.org/news/article/26109-hydraulic-road-planning/)

I see the pipe dream of extending I-83 from Baltimore to Greensboro is still floating around. :bigass:

Right now, I'd just like to see the US-29 freeway around Lynchburg extended south from US-460 to existing US-29 south of Lynchburg. US-29 just south of US-460 is a parking lot that is often jammed with trucks. I used to like to go to Lynchburg for shopping when I lived in Farmville, but now it's much easier going to Greensboro from here. Coming into Lynchburg on US-29 from the south is a pain in the ass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 22, 2017, 08:27:17 PM
Wow, didn't know the VA 125 bridge replacement was still alive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 22, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
Quote from: plain on January 22, 2017, 03:39:35 PM
- The entire I-95/I-64 overlap will finally be getting highway lighting, something that is decades overdue

VDOT and before VDOT, VDH, was never that great about installing lights on freeways of Northern Virginia. 

The Capital Beltway (I-495) was nearly entirely dark from the  American Legion Bridge to Springfield, with a few exceptions, until it was essentially reconstructed as part of the Transurban HOV/Toll lane project and lighting added.  Even now, it  is rather dark from the north end of the Transurban lanes to the  end of VDOT maintenance at the American  Legion  Bridge.  As recently as the 1990's, I-66 was almost entirely dark from Gainesville to the I-495 interchange.  For some reason, the Beltway on the Virginia side of the Woodrow Wilson  Bridge was always pretty well lighted.

There are still some "dark spots" along the VA-267 (Dulles Toll Road) corridor (now maintained by MWAA, not VDOT).

The  one freeway in Northern Virginia that was always decently lighted was Shirley Highway (I-395 now) from  Springfield to the D.C. border at the Potomac River.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 22, 2017, 09:58:47 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 22, 2017, 07:46:54 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 17, 2017, 08:18:25 PMUS 29 update from Charlottesville Tomorrow:  With Rio intersection done, attention turns to Hydraulic Road (http://www.cvilletomorrow.org/news/article/26109-hydraulic-road-planning/)

I see the pipe dream of extending I-83 from Baltimore to Greensboro is still floating around. :bigass:

That suggestion has been rattling around the Internet since the days of MTR and maybe before, and got the Piedmont Environmental Council so upset that VDOT actually wrote the PEC people a letter saying there were no plans for that  in the  Six Year Program, and there was no intent that it would ever end up there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on January 23, 2017, 06:30:58 AM
I remember the I-83 project from the early 90's.  I guess I had no idea how much US 29 uses surface streets to this day.

Besides the Gulf station at Amherst (with the tin sign) is a gem not to miss.  Wish I had gotten a picture of it when I was on US 29.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 23, 2017, 07:28:10 AM
Quote from: plain- Kings Highway Bridge in Suffolk. I'm pretty sure this will be tolled but it would be worth it considering that incredibly long detour, plus it would actually make VA 125 legit again lmao

I was under the impression, based on a Virginia Pilot article, that the Kings Highway Bridge did not score well enough to be granted funding.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on January 23, 2017, 01:11:28 PM
I see that Columbia Pike scored well, but in the absence of the streetcar, and with the phantom BRT program never getting off the ground, I wonder what the plan actually is.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 23, 2017, 01:15:09 PM
Disappointed that the Exit 255C project in Newport News got screened out, as that would have diverted a large amount of the traffic trying to get to the shopping centres off of Jefferson Ave.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 23, 2017, 05:55:04 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 23, 2017, 07:28:10 AM
Quote from: plain- Kings Highway Bridge in Suffolk. I'm pretty sure this will be tolled but it would be worth it considering that incredibly long detour, plus it would actually make VA 125 legit again lmao

I was under the impression, based on a Virginia Pilot article, that the Kings Highway Bridge did not score well enough to be granted funding.


That is the way I am reading it, but the fact that it is not completely dead seems shocking at this point.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 23, 2017, 06:18:29 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 22, 2017, 08:27:17 PM
Wow, didn't know the VA 125 bridge replacement was still alive.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 23, 2017, 05:55:04 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 23, 2017, 07:28:10 AM
Quote from: plain- Kings Highway Bridge in Suffolk. I'm pretty sure this will be tolled but it would be worth it considering that incredibly long detour, plus it would actually make VA 125 legit again lmao

I was under the impression, based on a Virginia Pilot article, that the Kings Highway Bridge did not score well enough to be granted funding.


That is the way I am reading it, but the fact that it is not completely dead seems shocking at this point.

I was shocked too when I saw it was still alive. I'm actually glad it is though... the closure of that bridge literary made it hassling (in a few cases impossible) for people to see their families on whatever side of the river, even if it were to just check up on them. Whether or not the bridge will actually get built in our lifetime (if ever) is up in the air, but at least it's still alive and I'm kinda feeling optimistic about it
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 23, 2017, 06:54:58 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 22, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
Quote from: plain on January 22, 2017, 03:39:35 PM
- The entire I-95/I-64 overlap will finally be getting highway lighting, something that is decades overdue

VDOT and before VDOT, VDH, was never that great about installing lights on freeways of Northern Virginia. 

The Capital Beltway (I-495) was nearly entirely dark from the  American Legion Bridge to Springfield, with a few exceptions, until it was essentially reconstructed as part of the Transurban HOV/Toll lane project and lighting added.  Even now, it  is rather dark from the north end of the Transurban lanes to the  end of VDOT maintenance at the American  Legion  Bridge.  As recently as the 1990's, I-66 was almost entirely dark from Gainesville to the I-495 interchange.  For some reason, the Beltway on the Virginia side of the Woodrow Wilson  Bridge was always pretty well lighted.

There are still some "dark spots" along the VA-267 (Dulles Toll Road) corridor (now maintained by MWAA, not VDOT).

The  one freeway in Northern Virginia that was always decently lighted was Shirley Highway (I-395 now) from  Springfield to the D.C. border at the Potomac River.

Yeah, tell me about it. VDOT has never really been big on lighting highways for a considerable length, no matter how bad it's needed, except for the Shirley Hwy example you mentioned (plus they seem to have been going hard in the paint for Hampton Roads since at least the late 1980's smdh). Still, they've gotten a lot better in that regard in NOVA in the last 20 years as you also pointed out and in Bristol, but still seem to neglect certain other areas (like Roanoke's I-581), while overkilling it in others, like the I-95/US 58 interchange in Emporia. Before the current high mast lighting was in place in Richmond on 95 (installed 1999-2001), it still had lighting only in the same places it did when it first opened as the Turnpike (1958)... matter of fact, the high mast project added new lighting only to 95 from the Maury St exit south a mile.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2017, 10:31:24 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 23, 2017, 07:28:10 AM
I was under the impression, based on a Virginia Pilot article, that the Kings Highway Bridge did not score well enough to be granted funding.

Before the bridge was closed, it carried about 3,300 ADT, according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_Highway_Bridge).  Probably not enough to make a toll crossing worthwhile. 

IMO this also points up a flaw in  the  HB 2 process.  A possible replacement of this bridge is a matter of network connectivity and network redundancy, which are admittedly difficult to score.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 24, 2017, 06:39:05 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2017, 10:31:24 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 23, 2017, 07:28:10 AM
I was under the impression, based on a Virginia Pilot article, that the Kings Highway Bridge did not score well enough to be granted funding.

Before the bridge was closed, it carried about 3,300 ADT, according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_Highway_Bridge).  Probably not enough to make a toll crossing worthwhile. 

IMO this also points up a flaw in  the  HB 2 process.  A possible replacement of this bridge is a matter of network connectivity and network redundancy, which are admittedly difficult to score.

Wikipedia typos or misquotes the AADT from the Virginia Pilot article it cites (it is an interesting article - http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/getting-nowhere-on-the-kings-highway-bridge/article_c379c5d0-9aea-5dfe-947a-f47603167327.html).  It is only 3000, which is consistent with the traffic logs in the last couple years the bridge was open.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 24, 2017, 09:54:12 AM
My second road-related act as an eccentric billionaire, after paying off the 895 toll bonds and giving it the interstate shield it deserves, would be to pay for a new King's Highway bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2017, 10:24:21 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 24, 2017, 06:39:05 AM
Wikipedia typos or misquotes the AADT from the Virginia Pilot article it cites (it is an interesting article - http://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/getting-nowhere-on-the-kings-highway-bridge/article_c379c5d0-9aea-5dfe-947a-f47603167327.html).  It is only 3000, which is consistent with the traffic logs in the last couple years the bridge was open.

I did not cross-check it  with  the published VDOT data, but 3,000 is less than 3,300, and makes it less likely that toll financing would work.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 24, 2017, 10:28:07 AM
A new Kings Highway Bridge would be a "nice to have", but I don't see it as drastically needed.  Even when the old bridge was operational, it just didn't have a lot of traffic.  While not having the bridge is a pain for those on the Chuckatuck side, it's not a show-stopper either.  For those who live closest to the old bridge on the Chuckatuck side, it's about 10 miles longer getting to Bowers Hill and about 3.5 miles longer getting to 664/164 than it was when the bridge was in place.  The closer one lives to Route 10/Godwin Blvd, the shorter this additional mileage becomes.  In fact, for those in Chuckatuck proper, it was actually longer to get to 664/164 via the Kings Hwy Bridge than it is via other routes (namely Crittenden Rd up to 17).

Also, plans for a new Kings Highway Bridge have it continuing due west to Route 10 instead of crossing north to Hollidays Point like the old bridge did, so a new bridge is really more about "network redundancy" (as CP noted) than it is about traffic or reconnecting neighborhoods on each side of the old bridge.

As for 895, I don't think removing the tolls would do much there.  Also, in the eyes of the FHWA, giving 895 an Interstate shield would be problematic because the interchange at 95 is not a full interchange (FHWA frowns upon incomplete interchanges).  A waiver could be pursued, but without that waiver, FHWA wouldn't approve an "I-895".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2017, 12:50:31 AM
WTOP Radio: Part of Chain Bridge Road in Fairfax closing for 1 year (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2017/01/part-of-chain-bridge-road-in-fairfax-closing-for-1-year/)

QuoteA Fairfax, Virginia, road will close beginning Wednesday as crews work on a yearlong project.

QuoteRoute 123, also known as Chain Bridge Road, will close just north of Fairfax Boulevard in the section between Route 29/50 and Interstate 66 at midnight Wednesday. The closure will last about one year, said Fairfax Traffic Engineer Curt McCullough.

QuoteThe closure is part of the Northfax Intersection & Drainage Improvements project. It aims to "increase capacity, improve pedestrian mobility and safety, improve traffic flow, and eliminate flooding in the intersection,"  according to the project's website.

QuoteThe project also will include lane closures on southbound Route 123, but the southbound roadway section will remain open through the project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2017, 08:38:45 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 24, 2017, 10:28:07 AM
As for 895, I don't think removing the tolls would do much there.  Also, in the eyes of the FHWA, giving 895 an Interstate shield would be problematic because the interchange at 95 is not a full interchange (FHWA frowns upon incomplete interchanges).  A waiver could be pursued, but without that waiver, FHWA wouldn't approve an "I-895".

I don't think the tolls on 895 will go away anytime soon, though  how many times has it been through bankruptcy since it  opened to traffic?  Twice?

VDOT could probably afford to complete the interchange out of its own dollars, but I am not sure the missing ramps would pass the scoring process.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: epzik8 on January 26, 2017, 01:29:48 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2017, 12:50:31 AM
WTOP Radio: Part of Chain Bridge Road in Fairfax closing for 1 year (http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2017/01/part-of-chain-bridge-road-in-fairfax-closing-for-1-year/)

QuoteA Fairfax, Virginia, road will close beginning Wednesday as crews work on a yearlong project.

QuoteRoute 123, also known as Chain Bridge Road, will close just north of Fairfax Boulevard in the section between Route 29/50 and Interstate 66 at midnight Wednesday. The closure will last about one year, said Fairfax Traffic Engineer Curt McCullough.

QuoteThe closure is part of the Northfax Intersection & Drainage Improvements project. It aims to "increase capacity, improve pedestrian mobility and safety, improve traffic flow, and eliminate flooding in the intersection,"  according to the project's website.

QuoteThe project also will include lane closures on southbound Route 123, but the southbound roadway section will remain open through the project.
I hate driving through Fairfax. I hate Fairfax County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 26, 2017, 07:04:14 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 11, 2017, 04:59:29 AM
There will be a public meeting January 25th (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2017/public_invited_to_comment110487.asp) on the I-95 project that will construct a C/D Road SB between US 17 and VA 3.  This includes a new bridge over the Rappahannock River.

Both the I-95 C/D Road project and the VA 3 interchange project were displayed at the public meeting last night. (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/big-changes-coming-with-i--crossing-project/article_e45fcd2c-d5bc-582e-8ec4-1f80ef0dd264.html)  I am glad that there will be two lanes going from US 17 SB (mentioned as EB) to I-95 SB now.  The other huge change will be that VA 3 traffic will have to exit at the north end of the C/D Road before the US 17 exit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 26, 2017, 01:52:20 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 26, 2017, 07:04:14 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 11, 2017, 04:59:29 AM
There will be a public meeting January 25th (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2017/public_invited_to_comment110487.asp) on the I-95 project that will construct a C/D Road SB between US 17 and VA 3.  This includes a new bridge over the Rappahannock River.

Both the I-95 C/D Road project and the VA 3 interchange project were displayed at the public meeting last night. (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/big-changes-coming-with-i--crossing-project/article_e45fcd2c-d5bc-582e-8ec4-1f80ef0dd264.html) 

I am glad that there will be two lanes going from US 17 SB (mentioned as EB) to I-95 SB now.

That is excellent news.  Will anything be done about I-95 northbound to U.S. 17 northbound?

Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 26, 2017, 07:04:14 AM
The other huge change will be that VA 3 traffic will have to exit at the north end of the C/D Road before the US 17 exit.

IMO that is not such a problem.  Maryland did something similar for I-95 northbound in Prince George's County when the MD-200 interchange was built.  All traffic wanting to exit to MD-198 (and the new Konterra Drive) must now use the C-D lanes which start south of MD-200.  A Jersey wall deters drivers in the four mainline lanes from trying to exit at MD-200 or Konterra Drive or MD-198.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on January 26, 2017, 03:54:17 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 26, 2017, 01:52:20 PM
That is excellent news.  Will anything be done about I-95 northbound to U.S. 17 northbound?
That project scored in the middle of the pack statewide:
https://paptprd.blob.core.windows.net/scorecards/F2-0000001101-R02.PDF
It seems like the high cost ($130 M) of the project holds it back from scoring better.

When I looked at the top scoring projects from each of the districts, most of them cost less than $10M. 
http://smartscale.org/documents/2018_smart_scale_project_scores.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 26, 2017, 06:00:40 PM
The Haymarket DDI is planned to be open Saturday at 9 AM. (http://www.fauquier.com/news/haymarket-s-diverging-diamond-interchange-opens-saturday/article_f2278100-e3ed-11e6-af43-cbd4f01b6278.html)

EDIT: I had thought for sure that I read Sunday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on January 26, 2017, 11:04:49 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 26, 2017, 06:00:40 PM
The Haymarket DDI is planned to be open Saturday at 9 AM. (http://www.fauquier.com/news/haymarket-s-diverging-diamond-interchange-opens-saturday/article_f2278100-e3ed-11e6-af43-cbd4f01b6278.html)

EDIT: I had thought for sure that I read Sunday.

This is like their 5th attempt...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 27, 2017, 07:24:49 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 26, 2017, 11:04:49 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 26, 2017, 06:00:40 PM
The Haymarket DDI is planned to be open Saturday at 9 AM. (http://www.fauquier.com/news/haymarket-s-diverging-diamond-interchange-opens-saturday/article_f2278100-e3ed-11e6-af43-cbd4f01b6278.html)

EDIT: I had thought for sure that I read Sunday.

This is like their 5th attempt...

When they tweeted that it would open this Saturday, I thought about responding with something like, "Amazing coincidence as surprise snowstorm blankets Haymarket."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 27, 2017, 05:19:20 PM
InsideNOVA:  Fairfax, VDOT break ground for Jones Branch Connector in Tysons (http://www.insidenova.com/headlines/fairfax-vdot-break-ground-for-jones-branch-connector-in-tysons/article_84ebb404-e4af-11e6-9ff6-37e84c81e2b0.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 29, 2017, 08:28:56 AM
The Haymarket DDI indeed opened yesterday, though work remains to be done on it.

I don't have any pictures since I wasn't out that way. VDOT tweeted that it was open.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on January 29, 2017, 04:33:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 29, 2017, 08:28:56 AM
The Haymarket DDI indeed opened yesterday, though work remains to be done on it.

I don't have any pictures since I wasn't out that way. VDOT tweeted that it was open.

I was out there today. The basic DDI traffic pattern is in place, but the remaining work is extensive, with lots of distracting orange barrels and barricades all over the place.

That ties into my biggest complaint about DDIs. I have driven completed DDIs in North Carolina, and could overcome my mild confusion. But while they're being built (or if work is being done on a completed DDI), work zone distractions compound the problems with motorist confusion while they get the hang of the DDI concept.

But this might be the least bad option, since the old setup sucked and new development has encroached on the space needed for other hypothetical alternatives such as a large cloverleaf with C/D lanes. When work is finished on the HJymarket DDI (which cannot happen soon enough), it  will probably work fine.  DDI would be best of all for brand-new interchanges.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 29, 2017, 04:46:21 PM
I drove through the nation's first DDI, at I-44 and MO 13, shortly after it opened. There was still work remaining and the barrels, etc., were a bit distracting.

The problem with a DDI is that there's no good way to shift traffic. I think Missouri learned that lesson and started doing full closures while the switchovers are being completed. I saw this in action in 2013 in Joplin, when the DDI at I-44 and Business I-49 was being opened. All Green 49 traffic was forced onto the interstate instead of going under the bridge. (And I know at Haymarket, US 15 crosses over I-66.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 29, 2017, 06:21:06 PM
Quote from: oscar on January 29, 2017, 04:33:26 PM
But this might be the least bad option, since the old setup sucked and new development has encroached on the space needed for other hypothetical alternatives such as a large cloverleaf with C/D lanes. When work is finished on the HJymarket DDI (which cannot happen soon enough), it  will probably work fine.  DDI would be best of all for brand-new interchanges.

Trying to exit from I-66 westbound to make the left onto U.S. 15 southbound (to get to Sheetz) was a dangerous and difficult thing in the days when the interchange was a simple (rural diamond) and there was no signal to stop U.S. 15 traffic (and southbound traffic on U.S. 15 coming from U.S. 50 and VA-234 was always heavy).

This should be a big improvement when completed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 30, 2017, 02:35:22 PM
QuoteTrying to exit from I-66 westbound to make the left onto U.S. 15 southbound (to get to Sheetz) was a dangerous and difficult thing in the days when the interchange was a simple (rural diamond) and there was no signal to stop U.S. 15 traffic (and southbound traffic on U.S. 15 coming from U.S. 50 and VA-234 was always heavy).

Even with recent development, I generally found it easier to exit at US 29/Gainesville and take VA 55 to that Sheetz.  Not much of a time difference given the difficulty of making left turns both onto and off of US 15.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 30, 2017, 03:32:48 PM
Quote from: oscar on January 29, 2017, 04:33:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 29, 2017, 08:28:56 AM
The Haymarket DDI indeed opened yesterday, though work remains to be done on it.

I don't have any pictures since I wasn't out that way. VDOT tweeted that it was open.

I was out there today. The basic DDI traffic pattern is in place, but the remaining work is extensive, with lots of distracting orange barrels and barricades all over the place.

That ties into my biggest complaint about DDIs. I have driven completed DDIs in North Carolina, and could overcome my mild confusion. But while they're being built (or if work is being done on a completed DDI), work zone distractions compound the problems with motorist confusion while they get the hang of the DDI concept.

But this might be the least bad option, since the old setup sucked and new development has encroached on the space needed for other hypothetical alternatives such as a large cloverleaf with C/D lanes. When work is finished on the HJymarket DDI (which cannot happen soon enough), it  will probably work fine.  DDI would be best of all for brand-new interchanges.

Drove though the interchange today for the first time and was delighted to see traffic moving through the interchange smoothly and efficiently, even during the morning rush hour( US-15 S to I-66 E). Those special meetings VDOT held to get drivers familiar with the interchange seemed to have helped tremendously. I'll admit I was a bit skeptical when VDOT first announced the interchange was being turned into a DDI, but now I am hooked. The 3rd lane on US-15 and other finishing touches on the project should be done by this summer.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 31, 2017, 12:28:37 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 30, 2017, 02:35:22 PM
Even with recent development, I generally found it easier to exit at US 29/Gainesville and take VA 55 to that Sheetz.  Not much of a time difference given the difficulty of making left turns both onto and off of US 15.

Just watch out for the Haymarket municipal police looking for speeders (25 MPH limit) just inside the town limits on VA-55 (Washington Street) westbound.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 31, 2017, 07:34:33 AM
Once all the DDI construction is complete, I think it'll be interesting to compare travel times to Warrenton via Route 29 the whole way, Route 15 through the DDI and down to 29, and I-66 west to Great Meadow and then south on US-17. During the years of construction at Gainesville I've often headed further west on I-66, seen the backup for the exit at Haymarket, and therefore chosen the third option noted above. It's out of the way, of course, but there was never any traffic. The Gainesville project eliminated the railroad crossing outside 7-11, but I wonder whether the various new traffic lights that have accompanied the ever-extending sprawl have resulted in that route being the slower one despite the new overpass.

(The wild card on Route 15 is, of course, making sure you don't get stuck at the railroad crossing there.)

BTW, I've also encountered DDIs in North Carolina and I didn't experience any confusion, but I think part of that was because when I realized what I was encountering I got interested in seeing how it worked. Encountering all the barrels, possible leftover marks from old road striping, etc., coupled with headlight glare and possible wet pavement (given Sunday night's snow), would probably make it rather more distracting. But it never ceases to amuse me how so many people living near planned DDIs wring their hands with predictions of doom because it's allegedly "too dangerous" or "too confusing." I will never understand the desire to spend more time sitting at red lights!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on January 31, 2017, 08:30:54 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2017, 07:34:33 AM
But it never ceases to amuse me how so many people living near planned DDIs wring their hands with predictions of doom because it's allegedly "too dangerous" or "too confusing." I will never understand the desire to spend more time sitting at red lights!

Because they're generally rubes with nothing better to do than pay too much attention to grocery store gossip. Same thing happens with modern roundabouts.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 31, 2017, 08:34:20 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2017, 07:34:33 AM
Once all the DDI construction is complete, I think it'll be interesting to compare travel times to Warrenton via Route 29 the whole way, Route 15 through the DDI and down to 29, and I-66 west to Great Meadow and then south on US-17. During the years of construction at Gainesville I've often headed further west on I-66, seen the backup for the exit at Haymarket, and therefore chosen the third option noted above. It's out of the way, of course, but there was never any traffic. The Gainesville project eliminated the railroad crossing outside 7-11, but I wonder whether the various new traffic lights that have accompanied the ever-extending sprawl have resulted in that route being the slower one despite the new overpass.

IMO, heading west on I-66 out to VA-245 (exit signed as Old Tavern) or to U.S. 17 South to reach Warrenton may not save that much time, but it does save a lot of annoyance.  Also, U.S. 15/U.S. 29 between Gainesville and Warrenton is still (based on traffic reports) a pretty  crash-prone corridor (IMO a combination of high speeds, heavy traffic volumes and no access control), and when any crash is reported, taking U.S. 17 becomes pretty attractive.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2017, 07:34:33 AM
(The wild card on Route 15 is, of course, making sure you don't get stuck at the railroad crossing there.)

Some of the NS trains there can be pretty long!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 31, 2017, 08:49:18 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacusJust watch out for the Haymarket municipal police looking for speeders (25 MPH limit) just inside the town limits on VA-55 (Washington Street) westbound.

Never had that problem...even when not going 25 MPH...

Quote from: 1995hooand I-66 west to Great Meadow and then south on US-17.

Never cut the corner on 245?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 31, 2017, 09:37:27 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2017, 08:49:18 AM
....

Quote from: 1995hooand I-66 west to Great Meadow and then south on US-17.

Never cut the corner on 245?


245 is indeed how I go when I use that route, hence the reference to Great Meadow. I just couldn't remember the route number when I typed that at 7:30 this morning and I didn't bother looking it up because I figured most people reading this would be aware of that option to cut off some distance.

As cpzilliacus notes, it's certainly a more relaxing drive via that route even if it doesn't save time. Route 29 between Gainesville and Warrenton "feels" a lot narrower as traffic volumes have increased over the past 20 years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 31, 2017, 11:56:31 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2017, 08:49:18 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacusJust watch out for the Haymarket municipal police looking for speeders (25 MPH limit) just inside the town limits on VA-55 (Washington Street) westbound.

Never had that problem...even when not going 25 MPH...

Nor I (but then I am pretty careful about driving at the speed limit approaching or in towns and cities in Virginia). 

But the Haymarket cops, like more than a few small-town municipal police agencies in Virginia, seem to spend a lot of their time doing speed limit enforcement.  And it's quite easy to be driving 45 there (in particular for out-of-state drivers), because the road is so straight.

Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2017, 08:49:18 AM
Quote from: 1995hooand I-66 west to Great Meadow and then south on US-17.

Never cut the corner on 245?


Only complaint about doing that (for the southbound movement) is that it can be challenging  to make that left at the uncontrolled intersection at U.S. 17 and VA-245 if traffic is heavy.   If I expect traffic to be heavy, then I will just stay on 66 and make the turn at 17 instead - even though  there are no signals there, that is a much easier place to head south on 17.

For the northbound movement, 245 is easy and  reasonably fast.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 31, 2017, 04:10:39 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 31, 2017, 11:56:31 AMBut the Haymarket cops, like more than a few small-town municipal police agencies in Virginia, seem to spend a lot of their time doing speed limit enforcement.

Wasn't there a budget amendment passed a year or two ago that reduced the amount of ticket revenue municipalities could keep?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jwolfer on January 31, 2017, 04:54:36 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 31, 2017, 08:30:54 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2017, 07:34:33 AM
But it never ceases to amuse me how so many people living near planned DDIs wring their hands with predictions of doom because it's allegedly "too dangerous" or "too confusing." I will never understand the desire to spend more time sitting at red lights!

Because they're generally rubes with nothing better to do than pay too much attention to grocery store gossip. Same thing happens with modern roundabouts.
Exactly.. Its a change people get all worked up about changes to familiar roads.

Its the same with flyovers and stacks at freeway to freeway interchanges. There are people who lament the cost/height/confusion and wonder "why not just build a cloverleaf"

LGMS428

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 31, 2017, 07:19:53 PM
Heh. I saw something somewhere recently where someone was complaining that there's not a cloverleaf at the junction of I-66 and the Beltway. Said person must not have lived here in the bad old days when Maryland had a cloverleaf at US-50 and the Beltway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 01, 2017, 02:31:14 PM
Related to the I-95 SC thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257), I've done an analysis of I-95 traffic volumes south of Petersburg and posted the results there.  In short, except for spot locations in Petersburg, volumes do not currently support widening I-95 between Petersburg and the NC line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2017, 06:41:20 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 31, 2017, 04:10:39 PM
Wasn't there a budget amendment passed a year or two ago that reduced the amount of ticket revenue municipalities could keep?

Some states have those provisions, and I think a bill was introduced in the Virginia General Assembly to place some limits on the amount of traffic fine revenue that a local government in the Commonwealth can keep (go over that limit and the money must go to the state's general fund or maybe the Literacy Fund, where most of the fine money generated by traffic summonses issued by the VSP ends up), but I do not think that it passed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 01, 2017, 06:51:39 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2017, 02:31:14 PM
Related to the I-95 SC thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257), I've done an analysis of I-95 traffic volumes south of Petersburg and posted the results there.  In short, except for spot locations in Petersburg, volumes do not currently support widening I-95 between Petersburg and the NC line.

I wouldn't think that part of I-95 would need widening anyway and I don't know why officials ever gave it serious thought in the first place. Even if interstate traffic grow over the next decade or so, that stretch should be good enough to handle that as is.. the only exit that sees a lot of activity is at Exit 12 ((EDIT: I meant Exit 11)) and I never see any congestion. I think VA should concentrate on widening I-95 north of Richmond instead. I believe 8 lanes from Exit 84 to Exit 104 would definitely help with the problems there
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2017, 06:52:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2017, 07:19:53 PM
Heh. I saw something somewhere recently where someone was complaining that there's not a cloverleaf at the junction of I-66 and the Beltway.

Please.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2017, 07:19:53 PM
Said person must not have lived here in the bad old days when Maryland had a cloverleaf at US-50 and the Beltway.

Maryland still has two awful "original" cloverleaf interchanges (early 1960's design) on the I-95 part of Capital Beltway in Prince George's County at the Baltimore-Washington Parkway ("secret" MD-295) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B059'29.9%22N+76%C2%B053'10.1%22W/@38.991628,-76.8883257,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.991628!4d-76.886137) in Greenbelt and at Pennsylvania Avenue Extended (MD-4) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B050'23.2%22N+76%C2%B052'00.2%22W/@38.839775,-76.8710974,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.839775!4d-76.86672) in Forestville. 

As a bonus, a pair of bridges carry the Beltway over MD-4, and both of them are very much in need of deck replacement. 

The bridges that carry the Baltimore-Washington Parkway over the Beltway also need replacement or deck replacement, but since most large trucks may not lawfully use the  Parkway, the need might not be as urgent (though some of the intercity buses that drive the Parkway are pretty heavy).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2017, 07:05:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2017, 02:31:14 PM
Related to the I-95 SC thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257), I've done an analysis of I-95 traffic volumes south of Petersburg and posted the results there.  In short, except for spot locations in Petersburg, volumes do not currently support widening I-95 between Petersburg and the NC line.

I must disagree with your methodology - in terms of deciding if a road needs to be widened, you should also look at peak hour volumes (and ideally peak period "rush hour") volumes and percentages of medium and heavy-duty trucks, plus vehicle probe speeds.  Just looking at annual average daily traffic (AADT) or annual average weekday traffic (AAWDT) is generally not enough (and I realize you are not getting paid to do such an analysis).

EDIT: Having now read your post, you did much more than a simplistic compilation of AADT or AAWDT data.  Good job!  I would, however, suggest that an analysis of vehicle probe data would be warranted to see if speeds drop, where they drop and by how much they drop, especially in summer and around holidays. I see you posted one for South Carolina, but it's over the course of a year, not disaggregated by season or weekday/weekend/holiday.

Now from casual observation, I have generally found traffic on I-95 in Virginia between the North Carolina border and Petersburg to be lighter than it is across much of North Carolina, and never really been able to determine why that is (does a lot of traffic leave I-95 at Emporia to head east on U.S. 58 toward Hampton Roads and does some of it exit at U.S. 158 at Roanoke Rapids, N.C.?).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2017, 07:14:57 PM
Quote from: plain on February 01, 2017, 06:51:39 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2017, 02:31:14 PM
Related to the I-95 SC thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257), I've done an analysis of I-95 traffic volumes south of Petersburg and posted the results there.  In short, except for spot locations in Petersburg, volumes do not currently support widening I-95 between Petersburg and the NC line.

I wouldn't think that part of I-95 would need widening anyway and I don't know why officials ever gave it serious thought in the first place. Even if interstate traffic grow over the next decade or so, that stretch should be good enough to handle that as is.. the only exit that sees a lot of activity is at Exit 12 and I never see any congestion. I think VA should concentrate on widening I-95 north of Richmond instead. I believe 8 lanes from Exit 84 to Exit 104 would definitely help with the problems there

I would love to see the Exit 104 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/place/37%C2%B056'10.1%22N+77%C2%B028'14.7%22W/@37.936138,-77.4751254,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d37.936138!4d-77.470748)  (Junction of I-95 and VA-207) at Ruther Glen/Carmel Church in Caroline County totally rebuilt to make it much more "truck friendly," given the presence of so many truck-related businesses there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 01, 2017, 08:02:27 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacusI would, however, suggest that an analysis of vehicle probe data would be warranted to see if speeds drop, where they drop and by how much they drop, especially in summer and around holidays.

The INRIX analysis I referred to previously in the I-95 SC thread suggests that my results are a "worse case" than reality.  I found lengthy segments at LOS D while their analysis (which included speed analysis) found only one small segment in South Carolina that was LOS C for one hour.

QuoteNow from casual observation, I have generally found traffic on I-95 in Virginia between the North Carolina border and Petersburg to be lighter than it is across much of North Carolina, and never really been able to determine why that is (does a lot of traffic leave I-95 at Emporia to head east on U.S. 58 toward Hampton Roads and does some of it exit at U.S. 158 at Roanoke Rapids, N.C.?).

There's a 7K drop in average daily traffic going from south of US 58 to north of US 58, which might explain your observation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2017, 08:18:29 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2017, 08:02:27 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacusI would, however, suggest that an analysis of vehicle probe data would be warranted to see if speeds drop, where they drop and by how much they drop, especially in summer and around holidays.

The INRIX analysis I referred to previously in the I-95 SC thread suggests that my results are a "worse case" than reality.  I found lengthy segments at LOS D while their analysis (which included speed analysis) found only one small segment in South Carolina that was LOS C for one hour.

I would love to see it disaggregated by season, weekend and holidays. 

Based on my observations, traffic on I-95 in South  Carolina is generally light between I-26 (Orangeburg County) and I-20.  It is usually noticeably heavier north of I-20 (Florence County on the edge of Florence), continuing north toward South of the Border and into North Carolina. 

Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2017, 08:02:27 PM
QuoteNow from casual observation, I have generally found traffic on I-95 in Virginia between the North Carolina border and Petersburg to be lighter than it is across much of North Carolina, and never really been able to determine why that is (does a lot of traffic leave I-95 at Emporia to head east on U.S. 58 toward Hampton Roads and does some of it exit at U.S. 158 at Roanoke Rapids, N.C.?).

There's a 7K drop in average daily traffic going from south of US 58 to north of US 58, which might explain your observation.

That might be enough to explain it.  As an aside, I have seen more drivers stopped by the VSP (apparently) for speeding between Emporia and Petersburg than along any other part of the I-95 corridor in Virginia (that is not systematic, but  the opportunities to speed are probably greater there than between Petersburg and the Wilson Bridge).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 02, 2017, 12:20:11 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2017, 07:14:57 PM
Quote from: plain on February 01, 2017, 06:51:39 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2017, 02:31:14 PM
Related to the I-95 SC thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257), I've done an analysis of I-95 traffic volumes south of Petersburg and posted the results there.  In short, except for spot locations in Petersburg, volumes do not currently support widening I-95 between Petersburg and the NC line.

I wouldn't think that part of I-95 would need widening anyway and I don't know why officials ever gave it serious thought in the first place. Even if interstate traffic grow over the next decade or so, that stretch should be good enough to handle that as is.. the only exit that sees a lot of activity is at Exit 12 and I never see any congestion. I think VA should concentrate on widening I-95 north of Richmond instead. I believe 8 lanes from Exit 84 to Exit 104 would definitely help with the problems there

I would love to see the Exit 104 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/place/37%C2%B056'10.1%22N+77%C2%B028'14.7%22W/@37.936138,-77.4751254,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d37.936138!4d-77.470748)  (Junction of I-95 and VA-207) at Ruther Glen/Carmel Church in Caroline County totally rebuilt to make it much more "truck friendly," given the presence of so many truck-related businesses there.

VA 207 in that area has been modified quite a few times over the years going northeast from the interstate, with the latest configuration not having an intersection with cross traffic (and accompanying traffic signal) until the current SR 652, which is over a half mile past the former intersection at SR 782. This has eliminated the congestion in the area from trucks queuing at the old intersection and light. As for the interchange with I-95 itself, the main issue left is that loop ramp from VA 207 SB to I-95 SB, which is very tight with a sharp turn at the bottom and has caused some serious rollover crashes (I saw 2 trucks and a van roll over myself when I worked in that area). The only solution I see to this is to eliminate the ramp and go with either a standard diamond (which will only recreate another queuing issue), a DDI (not much better in this case) or a flyover ($$$$$).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on February 02, 2017, 10:08:34 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2017, 06:52:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2017, 07:19:53 PM
Said person must not have lived here in the bad old days when Maryland had a cloverleaf at US-50 and the Beltway.

Maryland still has two awful "original" cloverleaf interchanges (early 1960's design) on the I-95 part of Capital Beltway in Prince George's County at the Baltimore-Washington Parkway ("secret" MD-295) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B059'29.9%22N+76%C2%B053'10.1%22W/@38.991628,-76.8883257,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.991628!4d-76.886137) in Greenbelt and at Pennsylvania Avenue Extended (MD-4) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B050'23.2%22N+76%C2%B052'00.2%22W/@38.839775,-76.8710974,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.839775!4d-76.86672) in Forestville. 


The one at Georgia Avenue had an accident every day on my commute when I lived in DC, without any exaggeration.  Glad they finally reconfigured the ramps there to remove the far-too-short weave on the Outer Loop.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 02, 2017, 11:20:03 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 02, 2017, 10:08:34 AM
The one at Georgia Avenue had an accident every day on my commute when I lived in DC, without any exaggeration.  Glad they finally reconfigured the ramps there to remove the far-too-short weave on the Outer Loop.

The interchanges on I-495 between Exit 29, MD-193 (University Boulevard East) and Exit 31, MD-97 (Georgia Avenue) and including Exit 39, U.S. 29 (Colesville Road) are some of the oldest on the entire freeway.  They are not the oldest, but this part of the Beltway opened to traffic in 1962, roughly two years before the entire road was completed and opened.  There was plenty of development around all three interchanges, and especially at MD-97, so Maryland State Roads Commission (SRC), predecessor to the State Highway Administration, had all the reason in the world to keep the footprints as small as possible, and they did, and the results are visible every day. 

Though I think there are more crashes on the Outer Loop between MD-185 (Exit 33, Connecticut Avenue) and the exits to MD-355 (Rockville Pike) and I-270 (Exits 34 and 35, respectively).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 02, 2017, 12:09:07 PM
The cloverleaf I'd like to see modified is the one on I-395 at Duke Street in Alexandria. The weave area on southbound I-395 perpetually slows traffic. If they ever redevelop Landmark Mall with heavy residential space (as has been proposed for years), perhaps they could insist on a proffer to eliminate the loop ramp from WB Duke to SB I-395, replacing it with a companion to the existing flyover for the opposite movement. I don't know what traffic counts are now, but surely it's reasonable to conclude the proposed redevelopment would lead to increased traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 02, 2017, 02:29:48 PM
Quote from: plain on February 02, 2017, 12:20:11 AM
VA 207 in that area has been modified quite a few times over the years going northeast from the interstate, with the latest configuration not having an intersection with cross traffic (and accompanying traffic signal) until the current SR 652, which is over a half mile past the former intersection at SR 782. This has eliminated the congestion in the area from trucks queuing at the old intersection and light. As for the interchange with I-95 itself, the main issue left is that loop ramp from VA 207 SB to I-95 SB, which is very tight with a sharp turn at the bottom and has caused some serious rollover crashes (I saw 2 trucks and a van roll over myself when I worked in that area). The only solution I see to this is to eliminate the ramp and go with either a standard diamond (which will only recreate another queuing issue), a DDI (not much better in this case) or a flyover ($$$$$).

I am not sure what the right solution is, but I am sure that the interchange does not work well as currently configured.   

In my fantasy world, I would widen I-95 through here a lot, add collector-distributor lanes to reduce the "mixing" of traffic wanting to exit and enter here with through trips, and do something with the ramps.  The C-D lanes would presumably cut-down on truck crashes on I-95 itself.

Yes, flyovers are very expensive, but consider also the amount of revenue that the Commonwealth of Virginia and Caroline County collect from the businesses here. Probably pretty substantial.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on February 02, 2017, 04:18:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2017, 12:09:07 PM
The cloverleaf I'd like to see modified is the one on I-395 at Duke Street in Alexandria. The weave area on southbound I-395 perpetually slows traffic. If they ever redevelop Landmark Mall with heavy residential space (as has been proposed for years), perhaps they could insist on a proffer to eliminate the loop ramp from WB Duke to SB I-395, replacing it with a companion to the existing flyover for the opposite movement. I don't know what traffic counts are now, but surely it's reasonable to conclude the proposed redevelopment would lead to increased traffic.

Might go away as part of a planned expansion of 395 Soutbound.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/i-395_south_-_duke_to_edsall.asp

http://www.virginiadot.org/2014-08-13_Preferred_Alternative.pdf

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: HTM Duke on February 02, 2017, 06:11:04 PM
Some things I noticed from my road trips from 2016:

1) VA-348: The cutout within Hungry Mother State Park is gone.
2) VA-325: Not posted at its entrance anymore.
3) VA-326: The Hanover correctional center may be gone, but the Pamunkey Farm (VADOC agribusiness) remains.
4) VA-209: Construction of its full interchange with VA-28 is complete, but remains closed due to unfinished realignment work that is part of the Dulles World Center development.  New signage on VA-28 still does not display the route number with Innovation Ave.
5) VA-190: Erroneous posting on VA-225 telling traffic to turn onto Witchduck Rd (instead of Pembroke Blvd), and also shows 190 running east of the intersection.
6) VA-357: Signage for the Southside VA Training Center on US-1 has been removed and replaced with a sign advertising land for sale.  The only government agency visibly active was the regional probation office.  Route signage itself remains.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on February 02, 2017, 04:18:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2017, 12:09:07 PM
The cloverleaf I'd like to see modified is the one on I-395 at Duke Street in Alexandria. The weave area on southbound I-395 perpetually slows traffic. If they ever redevelop Landmark Mall with heavy residential space (as has been proposed for years), perhaps they could insist on a proffer to eliminate the loop ramp from WB Duke to SB I-395, replacing it with a companion to the existing flyover for the opposite movement. I don't know what traffic counts are now, but surely it's reasonable to conclude the proposed redevelopment would lead to increased traffic.

Might go away as part of a planned expansion of 395 Soutbound.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/i-395_south_-_duke_to_edsall.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/i-395_south_-_duke_to_edsall.asp)

http://www.virginiadot.org/2014-08-13_Preferred_Alternative.pdf (http://www.virginiadot.org/2014-08-13_Preferred_Alternative.pdf)

The overview (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/ph103316roll36x120rev_1.pdf) for the project calls for the off-ramp from 395 south to 236 east to be removed instead, and a new signalized intersection created to replace the missing movement.  A proffer from Howard Huges Corp. (management company behind the Landmark redevlopment) could be possible, but I wonder if VDOT would consider having Transurban pay as well/instead as a concession for the 395 HOT lanes project.  One can hope, especially since the dashboard page for the project lists no funding beyond preliminary engineering, along with a scheduled construction start date of 2021.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 02, 2017, 06:24:56 PM
Tolls on US 17/Dominion Blvd start on February 9th (Thursday of next week). (http://wavy.com/2017/01/31/tolling-begins-feb-9-on-dominion-blvd-veterans-bridge/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 03, 2017, 11:25:22 AM
Quote from: HTM Duke on February 02, 2017, 06:11:04 PM
The overview (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/ph103316roll36x120rev_1.pdf) for the project calls for the off-ramp from 395 south to 236 east to be removed instead, and a new signalized intersection created to replace the missing movement.  A proffer from Howard Huges Corp. (management company behind the Landmark redevlopment) could be possible, but I wonder if VDOT would consider having Transurban pay as well/instead as a concession for the 395 HOT lanes project.  One can hope, especially since the dashboard page for the project lists no funding beyond preliminary engineering, along with a scheduled construction start date of 2021.

IMO this is good news.  Might make southbound 395 a little less crash prone here, with the lane drop and the weaving associated with that ramp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 10, 2017, 06:54:12 AM
Well I did not know that pedestrians, bicycles, mopeds, etc. were allowed on VA 37 as they will not be as of Monday (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/staunton/2017/pedestrians_bicycles_and_other111398.asp).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 10, 2017, 09:57:39 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 10, 2017, 06:54:12 AM
Well I did not know that pedestrians, bicycles, mopeds, etc. were allowed on VA 37 as they will not be as of Monday (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/staunton/2017/pedestrians_bicycles_and_other111398.asp).

Strange, I wasn't aware of that either. Then again, the onramps to VA 37 seem to lack the standard "prohibited" signage that other freeway entrances in Virginia typically have. VDOT is usually pretty good about this, as even VA 150 in Richmond has them on the southbound onramps from VA 147 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5449944,-77.5529113,3a,75y,116.23h,70.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0WLzvztBw1swlyah7I9adQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0WLzvztBw1swlyah7I9adQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D273.78854%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)...which is a little awkward as VA 150 is not a freeway and has at-grade intersections and even bus stops past this point (until Forest Hill Ave). In fact, that segment of VA 150 isn't even maintained by VDOT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 17, 2017, 07:04:03 AM
VDOT: CTB AWARDS SEVEN CONTRACTS WORTH $ 60.7 MILLION (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2017/ctb_awards_seven_contracts111560.asp)  (The most notable project here is the safety improvements at the I-95/VA 3 interchange in Fredericksburg.)

Also an advisory panel has been announced to look at the intersection of US 29 at Hydraulic Rd (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/culpeper/2017/rt._29-hydraulic_area_advisory111562.asp) in Charlottesville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 17, 2017, 09:04:16 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 10, 2017, 09:57:39 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 10, 2017, 06:54:12 AM
Well I did not know that pedestrians, bicycles, mopeds, etc. were allowed on VA 37 as they will not be as of Monday (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/staunton/2017/pedestrians_bicycles_and_other111398.asp).

Strange, I wasn't aware of that either. Then again, the onramps to VA 37 seem to lack the standard "prohibited" signage that other freeway entrances in Virginia typically have. VDOT is usually pretty good about this, as even VA 150 in Richmond has them on the southbound onramps from VA 147 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5449944,-77.5529113,3a,75y,116.23h,70.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0WLzvztBw1swlyah7I9adQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0WLzvztBw1swlyah7I9adQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D273.78854%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)...which is a little awkward as VA 150 is not a freeway and has at-grade intersections and even bus stops past this point (until Forest Hill Ave). In fact, that segment of VA 150 isn't even maintained by VDOT.

Now that you mention it.. looking at Street View I don't see any of those "prohibited" signs on any of the onramps to VA 262 either. Maybe because it's a Super-2 or something? Idk
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on February 17, 2017, 10:59:03 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 17, 2017, 07:04:03 AM
Also an advisory panel has been announced to look at the intersection of US 29 at Hydraulic Rd (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/culpeper/2017/rt._29-hydraulic_area_advisory111562.asp) in Charlottesville.

That can't come to a good end. If there ever was a place that needed a wall built around it, Charlottesville is it  :-D  Gotta keep those wahoos contained and away from the general population.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 21, 2017, 04:08:46 PM
I got a new set of tires put on today and drove from Petersburg to Jarratt and back. US 301's bridge over the Nottoway River has been demolished, with I-95 as the obvious detour.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 22, 2017, 12:04:23 AM
Quote from: Takumi on February 21, 2017, 04:08:46 PM
I got a new set of tires put on today and drove from Petersburg to Jarratt and back. US 301's bridge over the Nottoway River has been demolished, with I-95 as the obvious detour.

Have sometimes wondered why VDH (or maybe it was VDHT by then, it was not VDOT yet) didn't just put U.S. 301 onto I-95, and leave (what is now) U.S. 301 as an F-route (admittedly it would probably be a record-setting long one) or a regular secondary system route from VA-631 Jarrat (I-95 Exit 20) to VA-35/VA-156 Courtland (I-95 Exit 41).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 22, 2017, 10:59:43 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 22, 2017, 12:04:23 AM
Quote from: Takumi on February 21, 2017, 04:08:46 PM
I got a new set of tires put on today and drove from Petersburg to Jarratt and back. US 301's bridge over the Nottoway River has been demolished, with I-95 as the obvious detour.

Have sometimes wondered why VDH (or maybe it was VDHT by then, it was not VDOT yet) didn't just put U.S. 301 onto I-95, and leave (what is now) U.S. 301 as an F-route (admittedly it would probably be a record-setting long one) or a regular secondary system route from VA-631 Jarrat (I-95 Exit 20) to VA-35/VA-156 Courtland (I-95 Exit 41).

My guess would be because many people figure that the US route designation is the clear alternate route in case the interstate is clogged or shut down for whatever reason, though I don't recall that stretch having to be shut down, at least so far anyway
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 22, 2017, 01:09:36 PM
VDOT doesn't do that often. The only significant section of a US route in Virginia being moved onto an interstate and its old route being downgraded to (mostly) secondary is US 60 between Lexington and West Virginia, which of course is more difficult terrain. The old routings usually tend to become either a bannered US route or a state primary route.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 22, 2017, 06:18:28 PM
I did a video of the 495 Beltway back last summer after the Corridor H meet.  I figured I'd post it here:

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2017, 12:53:15 AM
Quote from: Takumi on February 22, 2017, 01:09:36 PM
VDOT doesn't do that often. The only significant section of a US route in Virginia being moved onto an interstate and its old route being downgraded to (mostly) secondary is US 60 between Lexington and West Virginia, which of course is more difficult terrain. The old routings usually tend to become either a bannered US route or a state primary route.

Yes, I agree with you. 

Good point about U.S. 60 and I-64 west of Lexington.

North of the Potomac, Maryland has at times moved the U.S. route onto the Interstate, especially U.S. 40 west of Baltimore, where long sections (but not all of it) were moved onto I-68 (there were pre-I-68 freeway sections) and I-70 (it made particular sense between Frederick and Marriottsville, since the old U.S. 40 became I-70).

Unsigned I-595 remains U.S. 50, which makes sense since even pre-I-595, the old freeway was U.S. 50.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2017, 01:35:45 AM
Drove U.S. 250 for the first time ever from I-81 (through Staunton) to the crest of Allegheny Mountain at the Highland County, Va./Pocahontas County, W.Va. border (elevation better than 4,000 feet AMSL).  Probably the most twisting primary highway I have ever driven in Virginia (U.S. 33, U.S. 211 (crossing Shenandoah National Park), Skyline Drive and Blue Ridge Parkway do not come close). 

The weather was not as good as promised, but there were still plenty of spectacular views in western Augusta County and at several points in Highland County. 

There were several new-looking cutouts in Staunton (not sure if they were new or not, and I did not photograph them on this trip).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 23, 2017, 06:41:07 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2017, 01:35:45 AM
Drove U.S. 250 for the first time ever from I-81 (through Staunton) to the crest of Allegheny Mountain at the Highland County, Va./Pocahontas County, W.Va. border (elevation better than 4,000 feet AMSL).  Probably the most twisting primary highway I have ever driven in Virginia (U.S. 33, U.S. 211 (crossing Shenandoah National Park), Skyline Drive and Blue Ridge Parkway do not come close). 

The weather was not as good as promised, but there were still plenty of spectacular views in western Augusta County and at several points in Highland County. 

There were several new-looking cutouts in Staunton (not sure if they were new or not, and I did not photograph them on this trip).

US 250 is definitely the twistiest US Highway routing in Virginia.

These primary routes in Virginia are IMO worse than US 250:

VA 16 from Marion to Tazewell (a top notch white knuckle experience)
VA 80 between US 11 and US 19
VA 56's crossing of Blue Ridge Pkwy
VA 72 north of Coeburn
VA 70
VA 63 from Clinchco to Haysi
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2017, 09:55:30 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 23, 2017, 06:41:07 AM
VA 56's crossing of Blue Ridge Pkwy

The only  one on your list I have driven. 

I did not think it was as twisting as U.S. 250, but at the time I drove it, it had official signs posted discouraging large trucks from using it to cross the Blue Ridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on February 23, 2017, 02:42:32 PM
Since many of those listed are in the southwestern corner of the state, I've driven them. I will definitely agree about VA 16 and VA 80 (the latter is also especially curvy between Breaks and Haysi). I don't really have any great recollection of VA 72 and VA 70 being that crooked, and VA 63 only moderately so.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 24, 2017, 06:56:28 AM
It seems that the construction of the interchange on the south end of the Warrenton Bypass (US 15/US 17/US 29) will start in 2018. (http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-lfcc-interchange-project-could-start-next-year-2017)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on February 25, 2017, 11:22:29 PM
I remember back in the 1970's and 1980's when Warrenton had zero issues driving through or around the city.  Obviously, with the increase in population across northern and northwestern Virginia, this has to be done.  Looking at the photo from the article makes me believe that a freeway is needed from the north end of the Warrenton bypass to the south end of the Culpeper bypass.  Of course, this will not happen without disrupting many residences and many businesses.  This interchange will hopefully alleviate the backups on the Warrenton bypass when this is completed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2017, 07:42:36 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on February 25, 2017, 11:22:29 PM
I remember back in the 1970's and 1980's when Warrenton had zero issues driving through or around the city.  Obviously, with the increase in population across northern and northwestern Virginia, this has to be done.  Looking at the photo from the article makes me believe that a freeway is needed from the north end of the Warrenton bypass to the south end of the Culpeper bypass.  Of course, this will not happen without disrupting many residences and many businesses.  This interchange will hopefully alleviate the backups on the Warrenton bypass when this is completed.

Culpeper County has become a bedroom exurb of Northern Virginia, with plenty of new development visible along and near U.S. 29, and this is a bottleneck for many commuters from that part of the world. Beyond that, U.S. 17 is a truck bypass of the west side of the Capital Beltway for trucks moving between the I-95, I-81 and I-70 corridors, and all that traffic has to come through this intersection as well.

So this is a good thing, though I wonder how much this project has been subject to organized opposition?

There does not appear to be that much in the way  of development close to the current interchange, so it should be possible to construct without too much impact on people living nearby (Google Maps here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B041'11.0%22N+77%C2%B047'13.9%22W/@38.686378,-77.7959571,2034m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.686378!4d-77.787197)).

Aside, the first comment in the article linked above was this:

QuoteVDOT will screw this one up too just like the weigh station we've never used and the Opal intersection that that after two revisions and is still a cluster#$@!

The weigh station (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B041'42.2%22N+77%C2%B046'56.5%22W/@38.695062,-77.7845421,508m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.695062!4d-77.782348) mentioned above was on the U.S. 15/U.S. 17/U.S. 29 Eastern Bypass of Warrenton south of Meetze Road (VA-643) on the southbound and northbound sides, and it was (and remains) a good example of how not to do truck weight and safety enforcement. It was designed and installed during the administration of Gov. Jim Gilmore (R) (in office from 1998 to 2002) after there were demands to "do something" about the seemingly ever-increasing volume of trucks passing Warrenton, but VDOT was instructed to not spend any money on the project, so there is no building for the personnel to work in, no deceleration or acceleration lanes and no signage.  This was the result, and when the Virginia State Police and DMV tried to operate enforcement activities here, the immediate result was crashes, so much so that the project was abandoned and has never been used again (in other words, the comment above is incorrect - it was used, at least for a short time).

I have seen the Opal flyover for U.S. 17 southbound movements, and it seems to work reasonably well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on February 26, 2017, 10:24:27 AM
The American tolerance for commute time knows no bounds.  I couldn't imagine commuting into the VA suburbs from Culpeper every day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 26, 2017, 12:00:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 26, 2017, 10:24:27 AM
The American tolerance for commute time knows no bounds.  I couldn't imagine commuting into the VA suburbs from Culpeper every day.

About 12 years ago I worked with someone who commuted from Charlottesville to DC for a time. She was a summer associate at the law firm where I worked, she attended UVA Law School, and she made the commute because she had a daughter attending school in Charlottesville and she didn't want to disrupt that (seeing as how the daughter's school year ran a good month beyond the university calendar). I do not remember whether she was a single parent or what, because I think a more typical strategy might have been to room with someone in DC on weeknights and then return to Charlottesville for the weekends.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2017, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 26, 2017, 12:00:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 26, 2017, 10:24:27 AM
The American tolerance for commute time knows no bounds.  I couldn't imagine commuting into the VA suburbs from Culpeper every day.

About 12 years ago I worked with someone who commuted from Charlottesville to DC for a time. She was a summer associate at the law firm where I worked, she attended UVA Law School, and she made the commute because she had a daughter attending school in Charlottesville and she didn't want to disrupt that (seeing as how the daughter's school year ran a good month beyond the university calendar). I do not remember whether she was a single parent or what, because I think a more typical strategy might have been to room with someone in DC on weeknights and then return to Charlottesville for the weekends.

Charlottesville to D.C. (even Charlottesville to Northern Virginia) every day would seem like a brutal trip, even in the summer when the days are reasonably long.

A quick look at the Amtrak site does not provide any alternative that would allow daily commutes by railroad either, and at $80 or better one-way, probably not affordable either, and Greyhound does not seem much better in terms of schedules of buses.  The only non-Greyhound bus is Starlight, and it runs from the Amtrak Station and Rio Road to New York City (not Washington), and appears to be oriented to the "weekend in New York" market.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2017, 07:29:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 26, 2017, 10:24:27 AM
The American tolerance for commute time knows no bounds.  I couldn't imagine commuting into the VA suburbs from Culpeper every day.

Hey, people move out there because they do not want to live in a small apartment and cannot afford a single-family detached home closer in, and are probably not believers in Smart Growth. There could be VRE commuter rail service from Culpeper to Washington, D.C. (Amtrak stops in Culpeper), at some point in the future.

Was discussing recently the land use along I-83 in Baltimore County, Maryland, where most development is disfavored north of Timonium, and the "resumption" of suburban sprawl once across the line into York County, Pennsylvania (especially Shrewsbury Township (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrewsbury_Township,_York_County,_Pennsylvania), a de-facto suburb of Baltimore and maybe Washington too).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 26, 2017, 08:19:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2017, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 26, 2017, 12:00:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 26, 2017, 10:24:27 AM
The American tolerance for commute time knows no bounds.  I couldn't imagine commuting into the VA suburbs from Culpeper every day.

About 12 years ago I worked with someone who commuted from Charlottesville to DC for a time. She was a summer associate at the law firm where I worked, she attended UVA Law School, and she made the commute because she had a daughter attending school in Charlottesville and she didn't want to disrupt that (seeing as how the daughter's school year ran a good month beyond the university calendar). I do not remember whether she was a single parent or what, because I think a more typical strategy might have been to room with someone in DC on weeknights and then return to Charlottesville for the weekends.

Charlottesville to D.C. (even Charlottesville to Northern Virginia) every day would seem like a brutal trip, even in the summer when the days are reasonably long.

....

Absolutely. I've made the roundtrip between Charlottesville and Fairfax (near Woodson HS) with maybe a 20-minute turnaround time in Fairfax more than once, and on at least one occasion I did it twice in one day. That got really old. I can't imagine doing it every single day. Plus when I was in school making that drive regularly there was a lot less traffic (and a lot fewer traffic lights) between Warrenton and Gainesville than now. Used to be an easy drive. Now I find that segment to be a real nuisance (good thing I don't usually go that way anymore since the other way via Gordonsville, Orange, and Wilderness is more direct for where I live now).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on February 26, 2017, 08:36:31 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2017, 07:29:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 26, 2017, 10:24:27 AM
The American tolerance for commute time knows no bounds.  I couldn't imagine commuting into the VA suburbs from Culpeper every day.

Hey, people move out there because they do not want to live in a small apartment and cannot afford a single-family detached home closer in, and are probably not believers in Smart Growth. There could be VRE commuter rail service from Culpeper to Washington, D.C. (Amtrak stops in Culpeper), at some point in the future.

Was discussing recently the land use along I-83 in Baltimore County, Maryland, where most development is disfavored north of Timonium, and the "resumption" of suburban sprawl once across the line into York County, Pennsylvania (especially Shrewsbury Township, a de-facto suburb of Baltimore and maybe Washington too).

There's plenty of affordable single-family homes in and near the Beltway, but not in the types of neighborhoods (race, density, house+lot size) that Culpeper crowd would want to live in.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2017, 11:17:18 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on February 26, 2017, 08:36:31 PM
There's plenty of affordable single-family homes in and near the Beltway, but not in the types of neighborhoods (race, density, house+lot size) that Culpeper crowd would want to live in.

There are also people that want a new home, something increasingly rare near the Beltway, but which can be found in places like Culpeper, Shrewsbury and similarly distant exurbs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 27, 2017, 07:34:32 AM
Another not totally implausible scenario is that spouses have jobs in different locations. I knew a guy who worked in Charlottesville. His wife worked in the Norfolk area. They knew this when they got married and she intended to change jobs, but the economy went in the toilet, so they initially didn't live together for two years (due to work) and then they lived in the Richmond area since it was about as midway between as they could get. Eventually she got a job in the Richmond area. I suppose it's not crazy to think perhaps there are people in the Culpeper area where one spouse works in Charlottesville or Harrisonburg or something and the other works in Northern Virginia or DC.

(Someone once told me my (now-retired) parents are idiots for living off 236 east of Fairfax City because it wasn't near either of their jobs. When they moved there, my mom worked nearby and my father worked downtown, but she later changed jobs and worked in Centreville. Seems to me living roughly halfway between both spouses' jobs is a good way to choose where to live, recognizing their example is FAR more practical and reasonable than the Culpeper hypothesis above! More importantly, in our family's case we moved to that house when I was 10 and my brother was 8 and my parents wanted to make sure we attended Frost and Woodson for junior high and high school. I doubt the school issue factors into living in Culpeper, but in terms of people subjecting themselves to long commutes in the DC suburbs, public school selection is a major issue for many people in choosing where to live. I can't really blame people for making that an important factor.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on February 27, 2017, 08:28:26 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2017, 11:17:18 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on February 26, 2017, 08:36:31 PM
There's plenty of affordable single-family homes in and near the Beltway, but not in the types of neighborhoods (race, density, house+lot size) that Culpeper crowd would want to live in.

There are also people that want a new home, something increasingly rare near the Beltway, but which can be found in places like Culpeper, Shrewsbury and similarly distant exurbs.

Nice to have a new home that you can't enjoy during the week (other than sleeping in it) because you're spending all that time in a car.  Also causes a nightmare when you've got young kids back in Culpeper that need to get to local points A and B during the week (ugh...need to leave work early...again...).

I went from commuting just from Greenbelt, MD to Dupont Circle either by car or Metro (about an hour one-way by the time I got to my office) to driving under ten minutes to work when I moved to Superior, WI and worked in Duluth.  My commute's just a smidge longer than that now here in NY, but there's simply no going back to a long commute once you've given it up.  I'd take a crappier home and a short commute over living in a mansion and having to commute an hour again.  The damage to my quality of life by that long commute is just no longer tolerable if I were to consider it again.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on February 27, 2017, 09:22:19 AM
Many new houses are built with garbage materials anyway. My WWII-era unit is built from brick and solid as a rock. Some wood-frame stuff from the housing-bubble era in the outer suburbs is already falling apart.

Concur that time is the most scarce resource. Most new houses in North America are overbuilt anyway, in terms of square footage.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 27, 2017, 07:11:11 PM
Virginia officially gave up on tolling an interstate with the federal exemption...

http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2017/02/va-gives-up-on-some-i-95-tolls/

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 27, 2017, 09:02:58 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 27, 2017, 07:11:11 PM
Virginia officially gave up on tolling an interstate with the federal exemption...

http://wtop.com/sprawl-crawl/2017/02/va-gives-up-on-some-i-95-tolls/



So is tolling I-81 dead in Virginia as well? I was under the impression that VA had submitted some sort of I-81 PP3 toll project(the details are vague) to the Trump administration
http://www.richmond.com/news/article_00698499-4f9c-5ce5-9a06-2ca917fc6da8.html\
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 28, 2017, 06:37:51 AM
^ That actual I-81 P3 submittal was YEARS ago (like over a decade).  Was probably dusted off for Trump's thing (which is also likely going nowhere).  As the article noted, VDOT transferred tolling authority from I-81 to I-95 several years ago.

(also, your link goes to a Pioneers graphic)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 28, 2017, 08:02:47 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 28, 2017, 06:37:51 AM
^ That actual I-81 P3 submittal was YEARS ago (like over a decade).  Was probably dusted off for Trump's thing (which is also likely going nowhere).  As the article noted, VDOT transferred tolling authority from I-81 to I-95 several years ago.

Was that before (or after) the Star Solutions proposal for I-81 tolled truck-only lanes crashed and burned?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 28, 2017, 09:19:30 AM
Star was one of the proposals submitted, but not the only one.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 28, 2017, 11:36:00 AM
That tolling plan was doomed the moment they decided to put the toll south of Petersburg, where it would've generated the least amount of $$$. They should've considered Caroline County instead.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 02, 2017, 11:39:35 PM
The Pocahontas Pkwy's tolls are increasing yet again on March 16th

http://wtvr.com/2017/02/24/pocahontas-parkway-tolls-to-increase-in-march/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 03, 2017, 04:44:21 PM
Quote from: plain on March 02, 2017, 11:39:35 PM
The Pocahontas Pkwy's tolls are increasing yet again on March 16th

http://wtvr.com/2017/02/24/pocahontas-parkway-tolls-to-increase-in-march/

And I'm sure the traffic counts will drop even more, accordingly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2017, 08:59:05 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 03, 2017, 04:44:21 PM
Quote from: plain on March 02, 2017, 11:39:35 PM
The Pocahontas Pkwy's tolls are increasing yet again on March 16th

http://wtvr.com/2017/02/24/pocahontas-parkway-tolls-to-increase-in-march/

And I'm sure the traffic counts will drop even more, accordingly.

You are probably right.  Even the far west end of the Dulles Greenway, VA-267 (not a cheap road to drive on) carries quite a bit more traffic than any part of VA-895.  I suppose for some drivers, VA-895 is a worthwhile way to avoid I-95 through Richmond, and it also provides a fast way to reach the airport from VA-150 and a large slice of Chesterfield County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 03, 2017, 09:22:19 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2017, 08:59:05 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 03, 2017, 04:44:21 PM
Quote from: plain on March 02, 2017, 11:39:35 PM
The Pocahontas Pkwy's tolls are increasing yet again on March 16th

http://wtvr.com/2017/02/24/pocahontas-parkway-tolls-to-increase-in-march/

And I'm sure the traffic counts will drop even more, accordingly.

You are probably right.  Even the far west end of the Dulles Greenway, VA-267 (not a cheap road to drive on) carries quite a bit more traffic than any part of VA-895.  I suppose for some drivers, VA-895 is a worthwhile way to avoid I-95 through Richmond, and it also provides a fast way to reach the airport from VA-150 and a large slice of Chesterfield County.

It's a shame because it really is the fastest way to get to the airport if you're south of the river (especially since the Airport Drive Extension/VA 281 opened). North of the river you're still better off using I-64 or even I-295 to VA 156.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 03, 2017, 10:03:44 PM
After I saw the article I dug into the 'net and came across this using Google Books. There's a lot more behind the Pocahontas than I even realized before. This one is not a pdf so you don't have to worry about that but it's still a long read. It starts in the middle so you might want to scroll to the top first for anyone interested in it

https://books.google.com/books?id=E8c1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=richmond+petersburg+turnpike&source=bl&ots=_jbhwhjE2H&sig=uTdbveKyzdGmmHvcZzli19Ev_TI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB05CQxbnSAhUBYCYKHd06ARE4ChDoAQgrMAY
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 04, 2017, 08:15:39 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVAAnd I'm sure the traffic counts will drop even more, accordingly.

I looked back over VDOT traffic volume statistics for 2003-2015 (most recent year available), and (keeping in mind that volumes over 10K are rounded to the nearest 1K), the only years that showed a decrease were 2009 (likely due to the recession), 2011, and 2013.  As of 2015, traffic west of Laburnum is at its highest level ever, while traffic east of Laburnum (always low) has almost built itself back up to it's 2008 pre-recession level.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 07, 2017, 09:04:44 PM
The "Future I-785" signs are no longer posted on US-29 around Danville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Strider on March 08, 2017, 12:10:11 PM
Are there plans to turn U.S. 58 into a interstate? This article mentions something about it...?

http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Republican-candidates-for-Virginia-Governor-share-views-in-Franklin-County-415614813.html

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 08, 2017, 12:27:50 PM
Nothing at an official or statewide level as far as we know.  Given what the article discusses, it's likely just "politicians talk".

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Strider on March 08, 2017, 12:42:29 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 08, 2017, 12:27:50 PM
Nothing at an official or statewide level as far as we know.  Given what the article discusses, it's likely just "politicians talk".


That is what I thought... I won't be surprised if they are trying to push U.S. 58 to be a interstate. isn't that road like 500+ miles in Virginia?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2017, 12:46:27 PM
Quote from: Strider on March 08, 2017, 12:10:11 PM
Are there plans to turn U.S. 58 into a interstate? This article mentions something about it...?

http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Republican-candidates-for-Virginia-Governor-share-views-in-Franklin-County-415614813.html

I doubt that this is going to happen. 

Indeed, I suspect that there will be no big push on infrastructure at all for the next several years - at least at the federal level. 

And there's probably not enough traffic in most of the U.S. 58 corridor to make this attractive as a Public-Private Transportation Act project either.  Maybe east of I-95 or I-85, but that's it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 08, 2017, 01:02:40 PM
This post is not meant to imply endorsement or lack of endorsement of this candidate or any other candidate...

I don't think he meant the entirety of US 58...but I could be wrong about that

From his facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/FrankWagnerforGovernor/videos/1326064947456529/) here are the transportation related priorities he listed (#5-7 were not transportation related):

Check out my 7 Point Plan to reinvigorate the economy of Southside, Virginia.
1. Create an Inland Rail port in Pittsylvania County
2. Upgrade Route 58 to Interstate Quality
3. Upgrade Route 220
4. Start Construction of Interstate 73

The accompanying video only restates the list only with a still picture - no audio to further explain.

For example, is #3 entirely separate from #4?  Or does he mean US 220 north of Roanoke?  Or north of Covington?

It only took 30 years to widen US 58 as part of the huge infrastructure endeavor set up to do specifically that.  Converting the non-bypasses of US 58 into an interstate would be very expensive unless the plan would be to just tear down all the residences and businesses that have driveways.  Then it would just be expensive.  So I can't see this meaning all of it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Strider on March 08, 2017, 01:26:18 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 08, 2017, 01:02:40 PM
This post is not meant to imply endorsement or lack of endorsement of this candidate or any other candidate...

I don't think he meant the entirety of US 58...but I could be wrong about that

From his facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/FrankWagnerforGovernor/videos/1326064947456529/) here are the transportation related priorities he listed (#5-7 were not transportation related):

Check out my 7 Point Plan to reinvigorate the economy of Southside, Virginia.
1. Create an Inland Rail port in Pittsylvania County
2. Upgrade Route 58 to Interstate Quality
3. Upgrade Route 220
4. Start Construction of Interstate 73

The accompanying video only restates the list only with a still picture - no audio to further explain.

For example, is #3 entirely separate from #4?  Or does he mean US 220 north of Roanoke?  Or north of Covington?

It only took 30 years to widen US 58 as part of the huge infrastructure endeavor set up to do specifically that.  Converting the non-bypasses of US 58 into an interstate would be very expensive unless the plan would be to just tear down all the residences and businesses that have driveways.  Then it would just be expensive.  So I can't see this meaning all of it.


Ah I see.. just wondering. Thank you for sharing the link. I was surprised when it mentions something like this. From I-95 to I-85.. I could see it, but I never been on U.S. 58 west of I-85 with the exception of Martinsville and Danville areas (multiplex with US 29 and US 220), so I don't know how traffic is like out there. But you are correct, money would be a HUGE issue.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on March 08, 2017, 01:52:15 PM
I see he's peddling the old myth that a down economy is the result of insufficient roads, as opposed to low worker productivity.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 08, 2017, 01:54:01 PM
US-58 isn't that bad with traffic in general, but I've encountered a lot of semis that like to play leapfrog for miles on end.

I definitely like the idea of upgrading US-58 and, at the risk of getting chairs thrown at me, I wouldn't mind seeing it go as far as I-81, linking it with the Port of Virginia in Norfolk. However, some of the small speed traps towns would need to be bypassed and I suspect there would be a lot of opposition to the idea.

Either way, I don't expect VA to pursue any new interstates anytime soon, if ever. The state so far has shown little to zero interest in I-73, with the exception of Martinsville and Roanoke, and Hampton Roads wouldn't be on Future I-87's corridor if it wasn't for NC.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 08, 2017, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 08, 2017, 01:52:15 PM
I see he's peddling the old myth that a down economy is the result of insufficient roads, as opposed to low worker productivity.

There are cases where piss-poor infrastructure does have a negative effect on a region's economy. Perhaps not the sole reason, but it can definitely be a contributing factor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2017, 03:04:54 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 08, 2017, 01:52:15 PM
I see he's peddling the old myth that a down economy is the result of insufficient roads, as opposed to low worker productivity.

Areas that are isolated from the Interstate system (or "near-Interstate" highways, such as the  ADHS corridors in  many states) are just not going to get considered for new economic activity, with  possible exceptions for large prison complexes, and maybe deposits of natural resources (many coal towns in the past). 

Stated another way, access to the highway system (and in some cases major airports) is a prerequisite for economic development. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on March 08, 2017, 04:09:56 PM
Take a look at Binghamton, NY.  Interstate access isn't a guarantee of economic activity, either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 08, 2017, 05:06:04 PM
QuoteTake a look at Binghamton, NY.  Interstate access isn't a guarantee of economic activity, either.

Or the Meridian, MS area...

It's true that some look at Interstate access as a consideration for economic development, but as some of the automobile companies locating plants in the Southeast have learned the hard way, you also need an educated/skilled work force.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 08, 2017, 08:06:11 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 08, 2017, 01:54:01 PM

I definitely like the idea of upgrading US-58 and, at the risk of getting chairs thrown at me, I wouldn't mind seeing it go as far as I-81, linking it with the Port of Virginia in Norfolk. However, some of the small speed traps towns would need to be bypassed and I suspect there would be a lot of opposition to the idea.


Ever been on US 58 between Damascus and VA 16?  The terrain here is quite foreboding.  Upgrading this section alone to even a modern 2-lane road would be monumental.  I have seen somewhere (but cannot find) a study that suggested the best route would be a new-terrain route that had significant pieces in North Carolina.  Can't imagine NC footing the bill for a pricey mountain freeway that would have nearly no benefit to NC.

The only project I could find in the Route 58 Development universe in this area involves improving the secondary route connection from US 58 to Taylors Valley.  Nothing in VTrans2035 either that I noticed...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 08, 2017, 09:33:00 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 08, 2017, 08:06:11 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 08, 2017, 01:54:01 PM

I definitely like the idea of upgrading US-58 and, at the risk of getting chairs thrown at me, I wouldn't mind seeing it go as far as I-81, linking it with the Port of Virginia in Norfolk. However, some of the small speed traps towns would need to be bypassed and I suspect there would be a lot of opposition to the idea.


Ever been on US 58 between Damascus and VA 16?  The terrain here is quite foreboding.  Upgrading this section alone to even a modern 2-lane road would be monumental.  I have seen somewhere (but cannot find) a study that suggested the best route would be a new-terrain route that had significant pieces in North Carolina.  Can't imagine NC footing the bill for a pricey mountain freeway that would have nearly no benefit to NC.

The only project I could find in the Route 58 Development universe in this area involves improving the secondary route connection from US 58 to Taylors Valley.  Nothing in VTrans2035 either that I noticed...

http://www.heraldcourier.com/community/route-hard-to-tame/article_7ceefb7a-8197-11e5-a0e2-7fcaea4fa93c.html
Basically all that's left to be done in the Route 58 Corridor Development Program is to finish widening US-58 between Hillsville and Laural Fork(8 miles), Meadows of Dan and Stuart(12 miles), and Phase IV in the widening from Abington to Damascus(4 miles). Although I would personally like it if US-58 was four lanes from US-23(Duffield) to Jonesville, I realize this is highly unlikely due to a high number of homes and business located directly off US-58 near Jonesville. This would then require an expensive bypass, which I'm sure would be immediately shot down by environmentalists. Speaking of the environment, according to the article above, the environment is main reason why US-58 will never be upgraded/widened from Independence to Damascus. A four laned US-58 from I-77 to Virginia Beach is fine by me, as from Hillsville to Bristol I-77 to I-81 is faster anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 09, 2017, 04:48:56 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 08, 2017, 08:06:11 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 08, 2017, 01:54:01 PM

I definitely like the idea of upgrading US-58 and, at the risk of getting chairs thrown at me, I wouldn't mind seeing it go as far as I-81, linking it with the Port of Virginia in Norfolk. However, some of the small speed traps towns would need to be bypassed and I suspect there would be a lot of opposition to the idea.


Ever been on US 58 between Damascus and VA 16?  The terrain here is quite foreboding.  Upgrading this section alone to even a modern 2-lane road would be monumental.  I have seen somewhere (but cannot find) a study that suggested the best route would be a new-terrain route that had significant pieces in North Carolina.  Can't imagine NC footing the bill for a pricey mountain freeway that would have nearly no benefit to NC.

Nope, I can't say I have. I've only driven it from Martinsville to I-664. It was just an idea that looked good on paper. Not one of my better ideas, apparently. :pan:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2017, 07:39:29 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 08, 2017, 04:09:56 PM
Take a look at Binghamton, NY.  Interstate access isn't a guarantee of economic activity, either.

I  have some familiarity with Binghamton, and I agree with you.  But places that are isolated from good highways (and that generally means 4 lane divided arterial highways) will literally get bypassed for consideration. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on March 09, 2017, 10:18:27 AM
It's my understanding that the Alternate US 58 corridor from Abingdon through Norton to Jonesville is supposed to be the preferred corridor, not "plain" US 58 through Bristol, Gate City and Duffield.

For a complete southern four-lane corridor, the best option is to widen US 58 east of Independence to VA 16, then VA 16 from there to Marion and I-81. I would then extend Alternate US 58 eastward along I-81 from Abingdon to Marion, and then along VA 16 to intersect US 58 at .... (name of small community escapes me but I think it's Volney.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on March 09, 2017, 01:36:31 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 08, 2017, 01:52:15 PM
I see he's peddling the old myth that a down economy is the result of insufficient roads, as opposed to low worker productivity.

"low worker productivity"? What the hell does this mean? Southside Virginia wasn't done in by lazy workers, but by companies that were more interested in profits than quality. Furniture and textile factories were shuttered (and workers put out of jobs) when China became the preferred location to manufacture sofas, nightstands, and bedsheets. Transportation had little to do with the demise of that area.

As to an inland rail port, one has to wonder what would be shipped to and from that port? Rail service is good and road access isn't bad, but there really isn't much to attract shippers to that location.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on March 09, 2017, 02:13:02 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on March 09, 2017, 01:36:31 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 08, 2017, 01:52:15 PM
I see he's peddling the old myth that a down economy is the result of insufficient roads, as opposed to low worker productivity.

"low worker productivity"? What the hell does this mean?

Modern industries tend to settle in areas with highly-productive workers (defined as output per unit of labor). That's why most high-wage/high-salary industries wind up clustering in the same metropolitan areas (northeast, bay area, etc).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2017, 02:44:20 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on March 09, 2017, 01:36:31 PM
As to an inland rail port, one has to wonder what would be shipped to and from that port? Rail service is good and road access isn't bad, but there really isn't much to attract shippers to that location.

This (http://www.portofvirginia.com/facilities/virginia-inland-port-vip/) facility seems to serve a fair number of freight moves (located in the Great Valley of Virginia north of I-66 here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B059'15.8%22N+78%C2%B010'41.7%22W/@38.987721,-78.1957595,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.987721!4d-78.17825)).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on March 13, 2017, 09:37:00 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2017, 02:44:20 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on March 09, 2017, 01:36:31 PM
As to an inland rail port, one has to wonder what would be shipped to and from that port? Rail service is good and road access isn't bad, but there really isn't much to attract shippers to that location.

This (http://www.portofvirginia.com/facilities/virginia-inland-port-vip/) facility seems to serve a fair number of freight moves (located in the Great Valley of Virginia north of I-66 here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B059'15.8%22N+78%C2%B010'41.7%22W/@38.987721,-78.1957595,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.987721!4d-78.17825)).

The Virginia Inland Rail Port has been around for a long time and benefits from being close to and easily accessible from a variety of locations in nearby Maryland, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. I don't know the impact of Norfolk Southern opening an intermodal terminal in Pittsburgh; it may be that there are better shipping rates in and out of Hampton Roads vs. Philadelphia. The Southside terminal doesn't seem to have such an area to pull from (Roanoke and Lynchburg don't seem to be big on container traffic) and for North Carolina traffic it would seem to be cheaper/more direct to go southeast to Wilmington.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 22, 2017, 10:11:35 PM
WTOP Radio: Big changes at Reagan National will start with traffic issues (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/03/big-changes-at-reagan-national-will-start-with-traffic-issues/slide/1/)

QuoteA $1 billion overhaul of key parts of Reagan National Airport will include new security checkpoints, traffic changes and an airy new terminal that will mean travelers no longer have to squeeze onto buses to reach small planes.

QuoteMetropolitan Washington Airports Authority CEO Jack Potter said Wednesday that the traffic impacts of building two new security checkpoints above the roadway where drivers pick up family and friends may be the biggest challenge.

QuoteThe construction will mean lane closures, which the authority plans to limit to about a year, as the foundations of the new security areas are built between the Metro tracks and the existing terminals. That means driving through the airport to drop off, pick up or park could take longer.

QuoteThe authority said entrances to the airport from the Metro station will remain open during construction of the security areas, although the moving walkways may be closed.

QuoteSeparate, longer-term plans call for more significant changes to how drivers get into and out of the airport. Those changes, such as eliminating or shifting traffic lights on airport property, are meant to address the increased slowdowns as more and more people fly in and out of Reagan National.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 24, 2017, 11:18:38 PM
I recently found out that the old US 301 truss bridge over Nottaway River south of Stony Creek was torn down.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_301_Nottoway_Bridge_Trusses.JPG

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_301_Nottoway_River_Crossing_Historical_Marker.JPG

I mentioned on the thread about demolishing old truss bridges that the existence of I-95 next to it as relief was the only reason that bridge was still around (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19504.msg2203434#msg2203434). Looks like I was wrong about that.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 24, 2017, 11:41:47 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 24, 2017, 11:18:38 PM
I recently found out that the old US 301 truss bridge over Nottaway River south of Stony Creek was torn down.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_301_Nottoway_Bridge_Trusses.JPG

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_301_Nottoway_River_Crossing_Historical_Marker.JPG

I mentioned on the thread about demolishing old truss bridges that the existence of I-95 next to it as relief was the only reason that bridge was still around (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19504.msg2203434#msg2203434). Looks like I was wrong about that.



Here are a couple more photos of the 1928 bridge from 2006:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fbridges%2F301nottoway-2.jpg&hash=5116711637952e327e1aeda4ff98ec4b35e81d61)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fbridges%2F301nottoway-3.jpg&hash=e5f22a9a2ff325ff791f3bdd0410fbeb8ae64638)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fbridges%2F301nottoway-4.jpg&hash=4239cf39880387c57f02445f45697f6b4e59e428)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 25, 2017, 07:30:50 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 24, 2017, 11:18:38 PM
I recently found out that the old US 301 truss bridge over Nottaway River south of Stony Creek was torn down.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_301_Nottoway_Bridge_Trusses.JPG

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_301_Nottoway_River_Crossing_Historical_Marker.JPG

I mentioned on the thread about demolishing old truss bridges that the existence of I-95 next to it as relief was the only reason that bridge was still around (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19504.msg2203434#msg2203434). Looks like I was wrong about that.


I drove past it a few weeks ago. It had just been torn down...the cranes were still there and everything.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 26, 2017, 09:38:30 AM
Quote from: Takumi on March 25, 2017, 07:30:50 PM
I mentioned on the thread about demolishing old truss bridges that the existence of I-95 next to it as relief was the only reason that bridge was still around (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19504.msg2203434#msg2203434). Looks like I was wrong about that.

It bothers me that VDOT would remove a bridge that merited a historical marker.

I suppose the cost to repair the bridge was more than the cost to demolish the old one and build new?

The posted weight limits were not as low as I have seen elsewhere in Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 26, 2017, 01:37:43 PM
The bridge was closed at least back in December when I drove by.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 26, 2017, 03:36:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 26, 2017, 09:38:30 AM

It bothers me that VDOT would remove a bridge that merited a historical marker.



The historical marker discusses Revolutionary and Civil War crossings of the river, not the 1928 bridge.  The original location for the road crossing of the river was not at the 301 location but rather directly east of today's short SR 659 Bolling Bridge Rd (old VA 40).  Original VA 24 used SR 640 northeast paralleling the river then west to cross the river.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 26, 2017, 04:55:23 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 26, 2017, 03:36:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 26, 2017, 09:38:30 AM

It bothers me that VDOT would remove a bridge that merited a historical marker.



The historical marker discusses Revolutionary and Civil War crossings of the river, not the 1928 bridge.  The original location for the road crossing of the river was not at the 301 location but rather directly east of today's short SR 659 Bolling Bridge Rd (old VA 40).  Original VA 24 used SR 640 northeast paralleling the river then west to cross the river.

Thanks. I have driven by there many times but never stopped to read the marker, which I always assumed was about that bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 27, 2017, 12:30:33 AM
I just saw the Bridgehunter report, and let me just say, holy shit! I can't believe I drove across that damn thing 2 1/2 years ago:

http://bridgehunter.com/va/sussex/18282/

I probably would've been safer driving on the Tappan Zee Bridge... NOW!

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 27, 2017, 07:13:53 PM
Anyone remember if there was a similar bridge on the northbound lanes of 301 before I-95 was there?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 27, 2017, 09:02:06 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 27, 2017, 07:13:53 PM
Anyone remember if there was a similar bridge on the northbound lanes of 301 before I-95 was there?

The 1968 historic aerial stops literally less than a half mile from this bridge.

I could not find anything doing several kinds of searches on the CTB and the internet in general.  My guess is that the NB bridge which was built in the 1950s would not have been a truss bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 27, 2017, 09:15:25 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 27, 2017, 07:13:53 PM
Anyone remember if there was a similar bridge on the northbound lanes of 301 before I-95 was there?

I doubt it. US 301 wasn't dualized in that area until 1957-58, so more likely than not the bridge was similar to the US 58 bridge over I-95 Emporia
https://goo.gl/maps/M7ehCYsKmGD2

or like WB US 58 over the Meherrin River
https://goo.gl/maps/rHFAzrVxhsp

interestingly EB US 58 over the Meherrin had a bridge very similar to the US 301 Nottaway bridge but it was replaced well over a decade ago
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 27, 2017, 09:42:47 PM
No doubt the bridge's life was prolonged by it mostly being used only by local traffic for the past 35 years or so.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 01, 2017, 08:21:22 PM
When I entered VA via I-77 SB this afternoon, I noticed that VA 598 is now signed with US 52 at Exit 66.  (no photo)

I got off there to clinch US 52 south to Wytheville so I do not know if this is the case NB as GSV shows 2012 NB and 2011 SB.

Also the US 37 error on I-81 SB at US 11 (Exit 317) north of Winchester has been fixed.  I do not know if a new sign was put there or not.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on April 01, 2017, 11:05:53 PM
From what I can tell on GSV I don't think it's a new sign.  VA hasn't used all-Clearview signage in several years and the Nov 2016 one (which does have the correct shield) is all Clearview with the classic thin tab, like the 2013 one (which had the US 37 shield)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 06, 2017, 09:24:44 AM
On our way up Route 1 through Old Town this morning we noted some sign replacement has been underway in the past 24 hours–most of the HOV-2 signs have been replaced with "HOV 2+" signs and several of the signs about the trucks being required to use the center lane have also been replaced. I don't know if this presages some larger sign-replacement project–those HOV signs were rather old and dirty–but I thought I'd mention it in case anyone hasn't visited the two US-1 cutouts and wants to do so. Hopefully those won't be replaced since they're in excellent shape, but you never know once they start replacing things....
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 10, 2017, 06:51:56 AM
WTOP Exclusive: Major backups expected due to urgent I-95 bridge fixes (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/04/major-backups-expected-due-to-urgent-i-95-bridge-fixes/slide/1/)

QuoteThree areas of a crumbling bridge over Neabsco Creek, just south of Potomac Mills Mall in Virginia, need extensive repairs that will require southbound traffic to funnel through two lanes on the four-lane bridge from 9 p.m. Saturday, April 29, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 1, and again from 10 p.m. Friday, May 5, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 8.

QuoteThe Express Lanes will remain southbound until about midnight on Sunday both weekends, before reversing to point northbound as usual for the Monday morning commute, Transurban's Mike McGurk said.

The second weekend, VDOT is asking all drivers to avoid 95 southbound in the area if possible, even if it just means getting on 95 a few miles farther south at Route 234. On Sunday, traffic problems are expected to be similar to those on the first weekend.

QuoteA hole opened up in the bridge deck this fall, exposing the urgency of these fixes and prompting a temporary repair, said Brian Morrison, VDOT senior structural bridge engineer.

"Those were some emergency deck repairs to shore up a hole that developed in the deck, and this project is to do a more extensive repair on that area and some other areas on the bridge. Hopefully they will last for five to 10 years,"  he said.



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 10, 2017, 07:40:05 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 10, 2017, 06:51:56 AM
WTOP Exclusive: Major backups expected due to urgent I-95 bridge fixes (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/04/major-backups-expected-due-to-urgent-i-95-bridge-fixes/slide/1/)

QuoteThree areas of a crumbling bridge over Neabsco Creek, just south of Potomac Mills Mall in Virginia, need extensive repairs that will require southbound traffic to funnel through two lanes on the four-lane bridge from 9 p.m. Saturday, April 29, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 1, and again from 10 p.m. Friday, May 5, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 8.

This will be ugly.  Some drivers might be able to bail out to U.S. 17 to the west, or U.S. 301 to the east to avoid this.  U.S. 1 (Jefferson  Davis Highway) cannot handle that kind of bail-out traffic, and will quickly suffer a traffic melt-down.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 10, 2017, 11:43:33 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 10, 2017, 07:40:05 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 10, 2017, 06:51:56 AM
WTOP Exclusive: Major backups expected due to urgent I-95 bridge fixes (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/04/major-backups-expected-due-to-urgent-i-95-bridge-fixes/slide/1/)

QuoteThree areas of a crumbling bridge over Neabsco Creek, just south of Potomac Mills Mall in Virginia, need extensive repairs that will require southbound traffic to funnel through two lanes on the four-lane bridge from 9 p.m. Saturday, April 29, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 1, and again from 10 p.m. Friday, May 5, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 8.

This will be ugly.  Some drivers might be able to bail out to U.S. 17 to the west, or U.S. 301 to the east to avoid this.  U.S. 1 (Jefferson  Davis Highway) cannot handle that kind of bail-out traffic, and will quickly suffer a traffic melt-down.

That may be somewhat of a detour for through traffic, but for commuters into NOVA and DC that's not going to help them at all... this situation really exposes an ongoing problem in this area: the fact that US 1 is the only road parallel to I-95 until north of Lorton. Drivers literally have only that one option as an alternate
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on April 10, 2017, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 10, 2017, 07:40:05 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 10, 2017, 06:51:56 AM
WTOP Exclusive: Major backups expected due to urgent I-95 bridge fixes (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/04/major-backups-expected-due-to-urgent-i-95-bridge-fixes/slide/1/)

QuoteThree areas of a crumbling bridge over Neabsco Creek, just south of Potomac Mills Mall in Virginia, need extensive repairs that will require southbound traffic to funnel through two lanes on the four-lane bridge from 9 p.m. Saturday, April 29, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 1, and again from 10 p.m. Friday, May 5, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 8.

This will be ugly.   U.S. 1 (Jefferson  Davis Highway) cannot handle that kind of bail-out traffic, and will quickly suffer a traffic melt-down.

Armageddon here we come. I hope as a result of this disaster VDOT/NVTA will put much more urgency in widening US-1 from 4 to 6 lanes to at least Stafford county.

Also since widening the regular I-95 free lanes is a no go, VDOT/Transburban should consider widening the HOT lanes from 2 to 3 lanes all the way Garrisonville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 10, 2017, 12:41:49 PM
Quote from: plain on April 10, 2017, 11:43:33 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 10, 2017, 07:40:05 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 10, 2017, 06:51:56 AM
WTOP Exclusive: Major backups expected due to urgent I-95 bridge fixes (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/04/major-backups-expected-due-to-urgent-i-95-bridge-fixes/slide/1/)

QuoteThree areas of a crumbling bridge over Neabsco Creek, just south of Potomac Mills Mall in Virginia, need extensive repairs that will require southbound traffic to funnel through two lanes on the four-lane bridge from 9 p.m. Saturday, April 29, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 1, and again from 10 p.m. Friday, May 5, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 8.

This will be ugly.  Some drivers might be able to bail out to U.S. 17 to the west, or U.S. 301 to the east to avoid this.  U.S. 1 (Jefferson  Davis Highway) cannot handle that kind of bail-out traffic, and will quickly suffer a traffic melt-down.

That may be somewhat of a detour for through traffic, but for commuters into NOVA and DC that's not going to help them at all... this situation really exposes an ongoing problem in this area: the fact that US 1 is the only road parallel to I-95 until north of Lorton. Drivers literally have only that one option as an alternate

There are a few back roads accessible off Route 234 that go too far out of the way to be viable options as relief routes. Old Bridge to 123 already backs up, and Yates Ford Road through Clifton is not a serious option. This is going to be very ugly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 10, 2017, 12:59:49 PM
Quote from: plain on April 10, 2017, 11:43:33 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 10, 2017, 07:40:05 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 10, 2017, 06:51:56 AM
WTOP Exclusive: Major backups expected due to urgent I-95 bridge fixes (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/04/major-backups-expected-due-to-urgent-i-95-bridge-fixes/slide/1/)

QuoteThree areas of a crumbling bridge over Neabsco Creek, just south of Potomac Mills Mall in Virginia, need extensive repairs that will require southbound traffic to funnel through two lanes on the four-lane bridge from 9 p.m. Saturday, April 29, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 1, and again from 10 p.m. Friday, May 5, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 8.

This will be ugly.  Some drivers might be able to bail out to U.S. 17 to the west, or U.S. 301 to the east to avoid this.  U.S. 1 (Jefferson  Davis Highway) cannot handle that kind of bail-out traffic, and will quickly suffer a traffic melt-down.

That may be somewhat of a detour for through traffic, but for commuters into NOVA and DC that's not going to help them at all... this situation really exposes an ongoing problem in this area: the fact that US 1 is the only road parallel to I-95 until north of Lorton. Drivers literally have only that one option as an alternate

Unless I am missing something, one potential solution for the majority of commuters is to look at the calendar, realize it's the weekend, and go back to bed.

If this were the northbound lanes, then the 6 a.m. Monday re-opening would indeed create a huge mess, as 95 is already often backed up a couple miles from Woodbridge at 5 a.m.

Also they are overselling the number of lanes to close.  One of the 4 lanes is the ramp from the rest area/Exit 156, which will be closed.  So there is only a 3/2 drop, which comes 4 miles after the permanent 4/3 drop in Woodbridge...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 10, 2017, 01:57:48 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 10, 2017, 12:59:49 PM
Quote from: plain on April 10, 2017, 11:43:33 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 10, 2017, 07:40:05 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 10, 2017, 06:51:56 AM
WTOP Exclusive: Major backups expected due to urgent I-95 bridge fixes (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/04/major-backups-expected-due-to-urgent-i-95-bridge-fixes/slide/1/)

QuoteThree areas of a crumbling bridge over Neabsco Creek, just south of Potomac Mills Mall in Virginia, need extensive repairs that will require southbound traffic to funnel through two lanes on the four-lane bridge from 9 p.m. Saturday, April 29, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 1, and again from 10 p.m. Friday, May 5, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 8.

This will be ugly.  Some drivers might be able to bail out to U.S. 17 to the west, or U.S. 301 to the east to avoid this.  U.S. 1 (Jefferson  Davis Highway) cannot handle that kind of bail-out traffic, and will quickly suffer a traffic melt-down.

That may be somewhat of a detour for through traffic, but for commuters into NOVA and DC that's not going to help them at all... this situation really exposes an ongoing problem in this area: the fact that US 1 is the only road parallel to I-95 until north of Lorton. Drivers literally have only that one option as an alternate

Unless I am missing something, one potential solution for the majority of commuters is to look at the calendar, realize it's the weekend, and go back to bed.

If this were the northbound lanes, then the 6 a.m. Monday re-opening would indeed create a huge mess, as 95 is already often backed up a couple miles from Woodbridge at 5 a.m.

Also they are overselling the number of lanes to close.  One of the 4 lanes is the ramp from the rest area/Exit 156, which will be closed.  So there is only a 3/2 drop, which comes 4 miles after the permanent 4/3 drop in Woodbridge...

Oh.... well there's that  :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 10, 2017, 04:03:52 PM
Agreed with Mike...I think some people are overhyping this.  Will it be a mess?  Absolutely.  Will it be any worse of a mess than normally happens on a weekend?  Not really.  And the HO/T lanes pointing south all weekend will help.

If anything, I could see this being more of a problem for northbound 95 traffic, as the HO/T normally point northbound from Saturday evening through Sunday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on April 10, 2017, 04:31:12 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 10, 2017, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 10, 2017, 07:40:05 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 10, 2017, 06:51:56 AM
WTOP Exclusive: Major backups expected due to urgent I-95 bridge fixes (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/04/major-backups-expected-due-to-urgent-i-95-bridge-fixes/slide/1/)

QuoteThree areas of a crumbling bridge over Neabsco Creek, just south of Potomac Mills Mall in Virginia, need extensive repairs that will require southbound traffic to funnel through two lanes on the four-lane bridge from 9 p.m. Saturday, April 29, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 1, and again from 10 p.m. Friday, May 5, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 8.

This will be ugly.   U.S. 1 (Jefferson  Davis Highway) cannot handle that kind of bail-out traffic, and will quickly suffer a traffic melt-down.

Armageddon here we come. I hope as a result of this disaster VDOT/NVTA will put much more urgency in widening US-1 from 4 to 6 lanes to at least Stafford county.

Also since widening the regular I-95 free lanes is a no go, VDOT/Transburban should consider widening the HOT lanes from 2 to 3 lanes all the way Garrisonville.

I don't. It'd be a waste of money that would leave US-1 otherwise overcapacity on any given day. A few weekends of heavy traffic isn't the end of the world. Look at what Metro riders are putting up with in Safetrack.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 10, 2017, 06:01:16 PM
Somehow I totally skipped over the northbound part when reading plus given it's on the weekend, you're right it shouldn't be bad. Still when I think about just the normal rush hour (and the occasional accidents that makes it even worse) I can't help but wonder if the state would've built a road or two radiating away from DC or the Beltway (doesn't even have to be freeway) between I-95 and I-66 would it be as bad as it is now? I'm not talking about long distance or anything but to at least maybe Prince William Parkway? Looking at it Virginia really doesn't have very many "spokes" outside the Beltway towards the south and the south-southwest to provide options. Can't widen 95 but so much. Maryland's side, though still bad, doesn't seem to be as bad as Virginia's
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on April 10, 2017, 07:05:33 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 10, 2017, 04:31:12 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 10, 2017, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 10, 2017, 07:40:05 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 10, 2017, 06:51:56 AM
WTOP Exclusive: Major backups expected due to urgent I-95 bridge fixes (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/04/major-backups-expected-due-to-urgent-i-95-bridge-fixes/slide/1/)

QuoteThree areas of a crumbling bridge over Neabsco Creek, just south of Potomac Mills Mall in Virginia, need extensive repairs that will require southbound traffic to funnel through two lanes on the four-lane bridge from 9 p.m. Saturday, April 29, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 1, and again from 10 p.m. Friday, May 5, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 8.

This will be ugly.   U.S. 1 (Jefferson  Davis Highway) cannot handle that kind of bail-out traffic, and will quickly suffer a traffic melt-down.

Armageddon here we come. I hope as a result of this disaster VDOT/NVTA will put much more urgency in widening US-1 from 4 to 6 lanes to at least Stafford county.

Also since widening the regular I-95 free lanes is a no go, VDOT/Transburban should consider widening the HOT lanes from 2 to 3 lanes all the way Garrisonville.

I don't. It'd be a waste of money that would leave US-1 otherwise overcapacity on any given day. A few weekends of heavy traffic isn't the end of the world. Look at what Metro riders are putting up with in Safetrack.
I'll take overcapacity over undercapacity any day. Yes some parts of US-1 are not nearly as bad as other parts, but if the incident in Atlanta should teach us anything, its that it pays to have
good alternate routes/options in the case of an emergency like there very well could have been had that hole in the Neabsco Creek Bridge gone unnoticed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 10, 2017, 08:24:03 PM
Quote from: plain on April 10, 2017, 06:01:16 PM
Somehow I totally skipped over the northbound part when reading plus given it's on the weekend, you're right it shouldn't be bad. Still when I think about just the normal rush hour (and the occasional accidents that makes it even worse) I can't help but wonder if the state would've built a road or two radiating away from DC or the Beltway (doesn't even have to be freeway) between I-95 and I-66 would it be as bad as it is now? I'm not talking about long distance or anything but to at least maybe Prince William Parkway? Looking at it Virginia really doesn't have very many "spokes" outside the Beltway towards the south and the south-southwest to provide options. Can't widen 95 but so much. Maryland's side, though still bad, doesn't seem to be as bad as Virginia's

The Occoquan River and Occoquan Reservoir were likely the main hinderances.  This is likely why VA 350 ended at US 1 just north of the river when built in the 40s-50s.

VA 123's bridge over the Occoquan was still a tiny one lane truss bridge built in 1878 until Hurricane Agnes washed it away in 1972.  Then the replacement was just a simple bridge that was not replaced with a multilane bridge until 2007.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 11, 2017, 09:28:23 AM
Quote from: plain on April 10, 2017, 06:01:16 PM
Somehow I totally skipped over the northbound part when reading plus given it's on the weekend, you're right it shouldn't be bad. Still when I think about just the normal rush hour (and the occasional accidents that makes it even worse) I can't help but wonder if the state would've built a road or two radiating away from DC or the Beltway (doesn't even have to be freeway) between I-95 and I-66 would it be as bad as it is now? I'm not talking about long distance or anything but to at least maybe Prince William Parkway? Looking at it Virginia really doesn't have very many "spokes" outside the Beltway towards the south and the south-southwest to provide options. Can't widen 95 but so much. Maryland's side, though still bad, doesn't seem to be as bad as Virginia's

There was once a proposal to build a new arterial or expressway-type road (something like the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286) or the  Prince William Parkway (VA-294)) between Prince William County and Fairfax County called Ridgefield Road.  It would have crossed between the two counties roughly parallel to VA-612 (Yates Ford Road).  It was considered well into the 1990's, but is now pretty well dead.

Ridgefield Road would presumably not have provided relief for the traffic mess to come on I-95, but it would have provided a degree of network redundancy, which is a desirable thing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on April 12, 2017, 04:37:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 11, 2017, 09:28:23 AM
Quote from: plain on April 10, 2017, 06:01:16 PM
Somehow I totally skipped over the northbound part when reading plus given it's on the weekend, you're right it shouldn't be bad. Still when I think about just the normal rush hour (and the occasional accidents that makes it even worse) I can't help but wonder if the state would've built a road or two radiating away from DC or the Beltway (doesn't even have to be freeway) between I-95 and I-66 would it be as bad as it is now? I'm not talking about long distance or anything but to at least maybe Prince William Parkway? Looking at it Virginia really doesn't have very many "spokes" outside the Beltway towards the south and the south-southwest to provide options. Can't widen 95 but so much. Maryland's side, though still bad, doesn't seem to be as bad as Virginia's

There was once a proposal to build a new arterial or expressway-type road (something like the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286) or the  Prince William Parkway (VA-294)) between Prince William County and Fairfax County called Ridgefield Road.  It would have crossed between the two counties roughly parallel to VA-612 (Yates Ford Road).  It was considered well into the 1990's, but is now pretty well dead.

Ridgefield Road would presumably not have provided relief for the traffic mess to come on I-95, but it would have provided a degree of network redundancy, which is a desirable thing.

Ridgefield Road (posted as SR 3300) was built in Prince William County (Dale City) between Dale Blvd. and Prince William Pkwy sometime around 2003 or 2004. It's, for the most part, posted at 50 mph. Is this part of what would've been included in the Ridgefield Road you're referring to? 

https://goo.gl/maps/nh5r6Xawpk62

If Ridgefield Rd were extended north of Prince William Pkwy onto Greatbridge Road (Formerly Asdee Lane), I can see it could roughly go in the same place where you're referring. Interestingly, around the same area, I wonder if there was at one time a bridge or ford that connected Fairfax County SR 610 (Wolf Run Shoals Rd) and Prince William County SR 610 (Bacon Race Road [now SR 896], Delaney Rd [now SR 2025], Cardinal Drive, and Neabsco Rd), which are both across the Occoquan from each other.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on April 12, 2017, 05:16:10 PM
As much as I've been interested in local roads for years, I had never heard of the Ridgefield Rd Occoquan River crossing proposal -- but find it quite fascinating. I read some old news articles from the Washington Post in the 1990s that the original Ridgefield Rd proposal would've gone from VA-234 northwest of Montclair, through Dale City, past the Prince William Pkwy (then Davis Ford Rd), across the Occoquan River, and eventually terminate at the Fairfax County Pkwy, but there was lots of outcry from Fairfax County residents and officials, so it was never built. In the meantime, the same traffic issues that people had concerns about a generation ago have gotten worse.

Is there a map that anybody has of what this proposed route would've looked like?  I've tried to search for one but can't find it.  I can only presume that Ridgefield Rd, built in 2003-2004, was part of the longer proposed route as well as an undeveloped sliver of forest separating the Mapledale and Lindendale communities south of Dale Blvd across where Ridgefield Rd ends.

There was also another plan that would've extended north from where the Prince William Pkwy turns at Old Bridge Rd along where Touchstone Circle is now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jwolfer on April 12, 2017, 07:28:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 10, 2017, 07:40:05 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 10, 2017, 06:51:56 AM
WTOP Exclusive: Major backups expected due to urgent I-95 bridge fixes (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/04/major-backups-expected-due-to-urgent-i-95-bridge-fixes/slide/1/)

QuoteThree areas of a crumbling bridge over Neabsco Creek, just south of Potomac Mills Mall in Virginia, need extensive repairs that will require southbound traffic to funnel through two lanes on the four-lane bridge from 9 p.m. Saturday, April 29, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 1, and again from 10 p.m. Friday, May 5, through 6 a.m. Monday, May 8.

This will be ugly.  Some drivers might be able to bail out to U.S. 17 to the west, or U.S. 301 to the east to avoid this.  U.S. 1 (Jefferson  Davis Highway) cannot handle that kind of bail-out traffic, and will quickly suffer a traffic melt-down.
For travelers from the Northeast to NC through FL, US 13 and 58 or 17 would be a good alternante route

LGMS428

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 12, 2017, 07:40:03 PM
Quote from: plainI can't help but wonder if the state would've built a road or two radiating away from DC or the Beltway (doesn't even have to be freeway) between I-95 and I-66 would it be as bad as it is now? I'm not talking about long distance or anything but to at least maybe Prince William Parkway?

The 1969 highway plan had one such freeway-grade radial, which would have tied into the Beltway at Braddock Rd and run out to 234 roughly where it meets Prince William Pkwy and SR 649.  The wide right-of-way along Braddock on both sides of the Beltway is a relic of this plan, which was named the Monticello Freeway.  It would have been built right on top of Braddock Rd from roughly Guiney Rd (SR 651) to east of the Beltway near Backlick Rd (where it would have followed new-alignment to the also-cancelled Four Mile Run Expressway).

Quote from: dfnvaRidgefield Road (posted as SR 3300) was built in Prince William County (Dale City) between Dale Blvd. and Prince William Pkwy sometime around 2003 or 2004. It's, for the most part, posted at 50 mph. Is this part of what would've been included in the Ridgefield Road you're referring to? 

Yes, but extending in both directions from what PWC actually built, based on the 1969 plan.  To the south, it would have tied into Cardinal Dr at Minnieville Rd.  To the north, I would not characterize it as "parallel to Yates Ford Rd" as CP suggested because the planned river crossing was closer to Occoquan than it wa to Yates Ford (at the bend in the river closest to Springwoods Dr).  The Monticello Freeway proposal I mentioned above was far closer to Yates Ford than Ridgefield Rd would have been.

On the Fairfax County side, Ridgefield Rd would have tied into Lee Chapel Rd (SR 643) at 123.  The main things it would have done were provide another local river crossing and enable denser development between Prince William Pkwy and 123 than currently exists (especially on the Fairfax County side).  As CP noted, it would have not really helped I-95.

QuoteI read some old news articles from the Washington Post in the 1990s that the original Ridgefield Rd proposal would've gone from VA-234 northwest of Montclair, through Dale City, past the Prince William Pkwy (then Davis Ford Rd), across the Occoquan River, and eventually terminate at the Fairfax County Pkwy

I have yet to find anything in the old planning documents to suggest such a routing for Ridgefield Rd.  Certainly not by that name, as your description suggests a PWC attempt to funnel Dale City traffic into the 123 bridge.  The Ridgefield Rd plan going at least back to the late '60s is as I described above.

QuoteIs there a map that anybody has of what this proposed route would've looked like?

You will not find it online (at least not currently).  It dates to a regional (Northern Virginia) planning document titled the 1969 Northern Virginia Major Thoroughfare Plan, which you can probably find at one of the major library hubs in the area...I got my photoscans and photocopies from the copy housed at the main Fairfax County Library branch in Fairfax City.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 13, 2017, 07:13:43 AM
Quote from: dfnva on April 12, 2017, 04:37:35 PM

If Ridgefield Rd were extended north of Prince William Pkwy onto Greatbridge Road (Formerly Asdee Lane), I can see it could roughly go in the same place where you're referring. Interestingly, around the same area, I wonder if there was at one time a bridge or ford that connected Fairfax County SR 610 (Wolf Run Shoals Rd) and Prince William County SR 610 (Bacon Race Road [now SR 896], Delaney Rd [now SR 2025], Cardinal Drive, and Neabsco Rd), which are both across the Occoquan from each other.

County maps into the 1950s imply the ford was available for use.  I would guess the ability to cross at SR 610 was eliminated when the Occoquan Dam was built in 1957.  This crossing goes back to Colonial times.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on April 13, 2017, 04:47:53 PM
Thanks for sharing the information - - I may see if one or more local libraries has the 1969 plan.

Quote from: froggie on April 12, 2017, 07:40:03 PM
Quote from: plainI can't help but wonder if the state would've built a road or two radiating away from DC or the Beltway (doesn't even have to be freeway) between I-95 and I-66 would it be as bad as it is now? I'm not talking about long distance or anything but to at least maybe Prince William Parkway?

The 1969 highway plan had one such freeway-grade radial, which would have tied into the Beltway at Braddock Rd and run out to 234 roughly where it meets Prince William Pkwy and SR 649.  The wide right-of-way along Braddock on both sides of the Beltway is a relic of this plan, which was named the Monticello Freeway.  It would have been built right on top of Braddock Rd from roughly Guiney Rd (SR 651) to east of the Beltway near Backlick Rd (where it would have followed new-alignment to the also-cancelled Four Mile Run Expressway).

Quote from: dfnvaRidgefield Road (posted as SR 3300) was built in Prince William County (Dale City) between Dale Blvd. and Prince William Pkwy sometime around 2003 or 2004. It's, for the most part, posted at 50 mph. Is this part of what would've been included in the Ridgefield Road you're referring to? 

Yes, but extending in both directions from what PWC actually built, based on the 1969 plan.  To the south, it would have tied into Cardinal Dr at Minnieville Rd.  To the north, I would not characterize it as "parallel to Yates Ford Rd" as CP suggested because the planned river crossing was closer to Occoquan than it wa to Yates Ford (at the bend in the river closest to Springwoods Dr).  The Monticello Freeway proposal I mentioned above was far closer to Yates Ford than Ridgefield Rd would have been.

On the Fairfax County side, Ridgefield Rd would have tied into Lee Chapel Rd (SR 643) at 123.  The main things it would have done were provide another local river crossing and enable denser development between Prince William Pkwy and 123 than currently exists (especially on the Fairfax County side).  As CP noted, it would have not really helped I-95.

QuoteI read some old news articles from the Washington Post in the 1990s that the original Ridgefield Rd proposal would've gone from VA-234 northwest of Montclair, through Dale City, past the Prince William Pkwy (then Davis Ford Rd), across the Occoquan River, and eventually terminate at the Fairfax County Pkwy

I have yet to find anything in the old planning documents to suggest such a routing for Ridgefield Rd.  Certainly not by that name, as your description suggests a PWC attempt to funnel Dale City traffic into the 123 bridge.  The Ridgefield Rd plan going at least back to the late '60s is as I described above.

QuoteIs there a map that anybody has of what this proposed route would've looked like?

You will not find it online (at least not currently).  It dates to a regional (Northern Virginia) planning document titled the 1969 Northern Virginia Major Thoroughfare Plan, which you can probably find at one of the major library hubs in the area...I got my photoscans and photocopies from the copy housed at the main Fairfax County Library branch in Fairfax City.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 13, 2017, 06:19:02 PM
If you're in the Fairfax area, I can confirm the library in Fairfax City (formerly known as Central) still had the copy froggie mentions as of two years ago. It's up on the top floor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 14, 2017, 09:12:57 AM
It happened again smdh..

http://wtvr.com/2017/04/13/bridge-over-i-95-repeatedly-struck-by-trucks/

I know VDOT has a plan in the works for an overheight truck detection system in Richmond  (not sure if this particular bridge is part of it) but it seems to me that they would have a warning sign before the previous exit in either direction.. the article suggests it's posted but I have yet to notice one

There is one SB posted for the Brook Rd overpass, but again it's after the previous exit.. what good does that do?
https://goo.gl/maps/844bfEFfCLU2
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Henry on April 14, 2017, 09:43:30 AM
What is the deal with trucks hitting bridges? 11 times in the last 19 years is a bit much, don't you think?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 14, 2017, 02:47:34 PM
Quote from: plain on April 14, 2017, 09:12:57 AM
It happened again smdh..

http://wtvr.com/2017/04/13/bridge-over-i-95-repeatedly-struck-by-trucks/

I know VDOT has a plan in the works for an overheight truck detection system in Richmond  (not sure if this particular bridge is part of it) but it seems to me that they would have a warning sign before the previous exit in either direction.. the article suggests it's posted but I have yet to notice one

There is one SB posted for the Brook Rd overpass, but again it's after the previous exit.. what good does that do?
https://goo.gl/maps/844bfEFfCLU2

This is a consequence of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike being old (open to trafic in 1958), though I am sure that some people will gladly try to blame VDOT.

The Baltimore-Harbor Tunnel (I-895) in Maryland is about the same age as the RTP (open 1957); the tunnel itself is signed for 13'6" and there are overheight detectors approaching the portal from the north (there are two) and from the south (there's one).  But even with the detectors, there are trucks that stop just short of the tunnel or get stuck in it.

IMO VDOT needs to more-aggressively sign  I-295 as the route for trucks that do not have to be in downtown Richmond on both I-95 and I-64.  Maybe take a cue from how Georgia signs the approaches to the Perimeter (I-285) to keep through truck trips away from downtown Atlanta.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 14, 2017, 04:10:02 PM
Quote from: plain on April 14, 2017, 09:12:57 AM
It happened again smdh..

http://wtvr.com/2017/04/13/bridge-over-i-95-repeatedly-struck-by-trucks/

I know VDOT has a plan in the works for an overheight truck detection system in Richmond  (not sure if this particular bridge is part of it) but it seems to me that they would have a warning sign before the previous exit in either direction.. the article suggests it's posted but I have yet to notice one

There is one SB posted for the Brook Rd overpass, but again it's after the previous exit.. what good does that do?
https://goo.gl/maps/844bfEFfCLU2

It would honestly be a better idea to just demolish the bridge and have Henrico County build a road connecting to the orphaned segment of Scott Road. Might be easy enough to do with the Best Products Plaza being abandoned for several years now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 14, 2017, 04:52:42 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 14, 2017, 02:47:34 PM
Quote from: plain on April 14, 2017, 09:12:57 AM
It happened again smdh..

http://wtvr.com/2017/04/13/bridge-over-i-95-repeatedly-struck-by-trucks/

I know VDOT has a plan in the works for an overheight truck detection system in Richmond  (not sure if this particular bridge is part of it) but it seems to me that they would have a warning sign before the previous exit in either direction.. the article suggests it's posted but I have yet to notice one

There is one SB posted for the Brook Rd overpass, but again it's after the previous exit.. what good does that do?
https://goo.gl/maps/844bfEFfCLU2

This is a consequence of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike being old (open to trafic in 1958), though I am sure that some people will gladly try to blame VDOT.

The Baltimore-Harbor Tunnel (I-895) in Maryland is about the same age as the RTP (open 1957); the tunnel itself is signed for 13'6" and there are overheight detectors approaching the portal from the north (there are two) and from the south (there's one).  But even with the detectors, there are trucks that stop just short of the tunnel or get stuck in it.

IMO VDOT needs to more-aggressively sign  I-295 as the route for trucks that do not have to be in downtown Richmond on both I-95 and I-64.  Maybe take a cue from how Georgia signs the approaches to the Perimeter (I-285) to keep through truck trips away from downtown Atlanta.

Actually this particular overpass is on I-95's 1963 extension, not the original RPT (which has several  overpasses with even lower clearances) but yeah I completely agree. VDOT could very easily post a number of signs on the freeways approaching I-295 to warn about the low clearances plus a few standard signs in the correct places in case any trucks has to go into the city, etc.

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 14, 2017, 04:10:02 PM
It would honestly be a better idea to just demolish the bridge and have Henrico County build a road connecting to the orphaned segment of Scott Road. Might be easy enough to do with the Best Products Plaza being abandoned for several years now.

The county doesn't even have to that, just improve the existing Scott Rd as it connects to Park Central Dr, which connects to Parham. That bridge can definitely go though
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 14, 2017, 06:18:35 PM
No matter how well they sign it, someone will still mess up. Watch the videos from the Gregson Street railroad trestle in Durham (the "11foot8 Bridge"). Nice new light-up sign, but trucks still smash into it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 17, 2017, 04:18:16 PM
WTOP Radio: Parts of 200 homes, businesses in path of Route 1 'superstreet' (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/04/parts-200-homes-businesses-path-route-1-superstreet/slide/1/)

QuotePlans to widen Route 1 in Fairfax County will leave space in the middle of the road for a future bus rapid transit line, but could take pieces or more of 200 residential and business properties in the area.

QuoteA Richmond Highway Corridor Improvements public information meeting Tuesday night focuses on a $214.8 million project to widen about three miles of the existing road between Jeff Todd Way (near the Roy Rogers) and Napper Road (near the Costco and Wal-Mart) in the Mt. Vernon area from four regular traffic lanes to six traffic lanes.

QuoteThe work would leave enough space between the new northbound and southbound lanes for bus-only lanes that are in the county's separate but related long-range plans. Those plans call for nine bus rapid transit stations from the Huntington Metro Station to Fort Belvoir by 2028, with plans for a later extension to Woodbridge.

FYI, I had posted the same article less than 60 seconds earlier, but I guess you did not notice it.  :-D  I went ahead and removed my post.   -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 18, 2017, 09:39:12 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 17, 2017, 04:18:16 PM
FYI, I had posted the same article less than 60 seconds earlier, but I guess you did not notice it.  :-D  I went ahead and removed my post.   -Mark

Great minds think alike?  ;-)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 18, 2017, 09:45:11 AM
Hopefully the widening won't destroy the Roy Rogers, although there's another nearby at Manchester Lakes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on April 18, 2017, 09:51:57 AM
Why is the Roy Rogers worth saving?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 18, 2017, 10:30:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2017, 09:51:57 AM
Why is the Roy Rogers worth saving?

I am not down that way as much as Hoo (though I have eaten at that (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7171525,-77.1324637,3a,75y,11.79h,73.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svjK9f6BdNAC_4Dt7DWbVAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) one), but it's probably the best fast food place in the general (U.S. 1) area.  Remember that Roy Rogers has something of a cult following in its original territory of metropolitan Washington, D.C.  Of course, they could probably build a replacement restaurant nearby (though getting the land with the appropriate zoning in Fairfax County, Virginia is not going to be cheap).

Even though it is not on the Fort Belvoir property, I suspect they get a lot of customers at lunch time from there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 18, 2017, 10:37:38 AM
BTW, cp, if you want I can give you a referral code for the Roy's Rewards program–when you sign up with the code, you get a $5 coupon.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 18, 2017, 10:40:49 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 18, 2017, 10:37:38 AM
BTW, cp, if you want I can give you a referral code for the Roy's Rewards program–when you sign up with the code, you get a $5 coupon.

Was not aware of that! I take my stepmother there (who has dementia but likes Roy Rogers for some reason) somewhat frequently.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 18, 2017, 11:12:07 PM
I miss the horsey sauce.  And I am not confusing it with Arby's
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 18, 2017, 11:38:01 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on April 18, 2017, 11:12:07 PM
I miss the horsey sauce.  And I am not confusing it with Arby's

The Roy Rogers "Fixins Bar" has horsey sauce (but no Trigger sauce).  Not sure if it is what you mean (I do not generally like horseradish sause).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on April 19, 2017, 06:35:46 AM
Roy Rogers could run circles around Arby's, especially because of the fixins bar.  Wish NC still had them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 19, 2017, 11:10:52 AM
Quote from: OracleUsr on April 19, 2017, 06:35:46 AM
Roy Rogers could run circles around Arby's, especially because of the fixins bar.  Wish NC still had them.

You might well get them again.  Plamondon Companies of Frederick, Maryland (which ended up buying the rights to the Roy Rogers name and concept after Hardees tried (and failed) to kill the brand) is pretty  aggressively  seeking to expand the Roy Rogers chain up and down the East Coast.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 19, 2017, 12:16:01 PM
WTOP Radio: Virginia looks ahead to a driverless world (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/04/va-officials-imagine-a-mind-bending-driverless-world)

QuoteSending a driverless car out to pick up dry cleaning or tapping a button so the car can take a 12-year-old to soccer practice could become daily routines within a decade or two.

QuoteVirginia is trying to sort out how to deal with a variety of likely transportation innovations, such as self-driving cars, that may come sooner than expected.

Quote"What changed my mind about this is the fact that the tech companies are getting involved,"  said Lorna Parkins, vice president for transportation planning at Michael Baker International.

Quote"So the pace of change for the auto industry is about five years to design something new and implement it. In the tech industry, it's about 18 months,"  she told the Commonwealth Transportation Board on Tuesday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 24, 2017, 09:56:05 AM
Washington Post: Virginia wants to steal some of California's driverless thunder (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/virginia-wants-to-steal-some-of-californias-driverless-thunder/2017/04/23/a4bc6b54-206c-11e7-a0a7-8b2a45e3dc84_story.html)

QuoteGov. Terry McAuliffe bounded into the spare offices of a start-up incubator to make a rapid-fire pronouncement: He will spend the last nine months of his term trying to make Virginia "the capital of automated vehicles."

QuoteIt was his economic development-meets-standup routine, and the commonwealth's salesman in chief had industry leader California and other rivals in mind. With more than 280 wineries, Virginia is already on the Golden State's heels in a crucial industry, the argument went.

Quote"They're going to think Napa is an auto parts company!"  Mc­Auliffe (D) jabbed, knocking the "lighter fluid out there."

QuoteAnd driverless cars and drones, in air and water, are next up. "I want to own the land, the water and the sky,"  McAuliffe told the roomful of tech execs and mobility wonks in Arlington County. "We're going to bury those other 49 states. Worthless!"
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on April 24, 2017, 10:38:25 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 24, 2017, 09:56:05 AM
Washington Post: Virginia wants to steal some of California's driverless thunder (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/virginia-wants-to-steal-some-of-californias-driverless-thunder/2017/04/23/a4bc6b54-206c-11e7-a0a7-8b2a45e3dc84_story.html)

QuoteGov. Terry McAuliffe bounded into the spare offices of a start-up incubator to make a rapid-fire pronouncement: He will spend the last nine months of his term trying to make Virginia "the capital of automated vehicles."

QuoteIt was his economic development-meets-standup routine, and the commonwealth's salesman in chief had industry leader California and other rivals in mind. With more than 280 wineries, Virginia is already on the Golden State's heels in a crucial industry, the argument went.

Quote"They're going to think Napa is an auto parts company!"  Mc­Auliffe (D) jabbed, knocking the "lighter fluid out there."

QuoteAnd driverless cars and drones, in air and water, are next up. "I want to own the land, the water and the sky,"  McAuliffe told the roomful of tech execs and mobility wonks in Arlington County. "We're going to bury those other 49 states. Worthless!"

Virginia Tech is already a key player in all this, between the Smart Road and the agreement with the FAA as a UAV testing/development site. There are plans to expand the Smart Road research areas to be able to simulate rural and mountainous terrain. See the Roanoke Times article at https://goo.gl/d2nUSC

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 26, 2017, 04:06:05 PM
The design alternatives for the planned VA 7 interchange at Battlefield Pkwy have been presented to the Leesburg Town Council.   (http://loudounnow.com/2017/04/26/vdot-presents-east-market-street-interchange-options/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2017, 11:45:27 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on April 24, 2017, 10:38:25 AM
Virginia Tech is already a key player in all this, between the Smart Road and the agreement with the FAA as a UAV testing/development site. There are plans to expand the Smart Road research areas to be able to simulate rural and mountainous terrain. See the Roanoke Times article at https://goo.gl/d2nUSC

Bruce in Blacksburg

I wonder how a driverless car would handle roads like U.S. 250 between Staunton and Bartow, W.Va. (junction of 250 and WV-92/WV-28, perhaps more-commonly known as Arbovale)?

Or U.S. 33 between Harrisonburg and Brandywine, W.Va.?

And there's the matter of cattle chute work zones, so beloved by PennDOT and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 27, 2017, 01:04:15 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2017, 11:45:27 PM
Or U.S. 33 between Harrisonburg and Brandywine, W.Va.?

It would quickly become a giant fireball off the side of the road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 28, 2017, 12:15:24 AM
Washington Post: Weekend bridge repairs to create traffic backups on I-95 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/04/27/weekend-bridge-repairs-to-create-traffic-backups-on-i-95/)

QuoteIf your weekend travels takes you though Interstate 95 in Northern Virginia, be prepared for some bigger-than-usual delays.

QuoteDeck repairs on the bridge over Neabsco Creek, just south of Potomac Mills Mall, will require some lane closures that are likely to create heavy traffic backups on the I-95 corridor in Dale City.

QuoteTraffic will need to get by on two of the three southbound lanes from 9 p.m. Saturday until 6 a.m. Monday. Then again from 10 p.m. Friday, May 5 through 6 a.m. Monday, May 8, the Virginia Department of Transportation said.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 28, 2017, 07:23:46 AM
Late last night the electronic signs were all advising people to take alternate routes because of that, and the one just north of Duke Street was advising that the HO/T lanes will be southbound all weekend.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 28, 2017, 11:07:26 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 28, 2017, 07:23:46 AM
Late last night the electronic signs were all advising people to take alternate routes because of that, and the one just north of Duke Street was advising that the HO/T lanes will be southbound all weekend.

Transurban is going to rake in the revenue this weekend running the lanes south (even on Sunday).  The bridge work is supposed to be finished by 6 AM Monday morning, but I presume that the managed lanes will be reversed to run north sometime early on Monday morning.

I hope that the VSP is on the lookout for the people that try to illegally enter the managed lanes at crossovers that are signed for official use only (I think that anyone caught doing that qualifies for a reckless driving charge). I have noticed this to be a real problem when the managed lanes are running southbound in the area between VA-294 (Prince William Parkway) and the Dale City weigh/inspection station and truck rest area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on April 30, 2017, 07:26:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2017, 11:45:27 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on April 24, 2017, 10:38:25 AM
Virginia Tech is already a key player in all this, between the Smart Road and the agreement with the FAA as a UAV testing/development site. There are plans to expand the Smart Road research areas to be able to simulate rural and mountainous terrain. See the Roanoke Times article at https://goo.gl/d2nUSC

I wonder how a driverless car would handle roads like U.S. 250 between Staunton and Bartow, W.Va. (junction of 250 and WV-92/WV-28, perhaps more-commonly known as Arbovale)?

The intersection of US 250/WV 28/WV 92 is at Bartow. Arbovale is several miles south along WV 28/WV 92, immediately north of the Green Bank Observatory. Arbovale has what is effectively a short 2-lane bypass from when WV 28/WV 92 was realigned to avoid two 90-degree turns.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on April 30, 2017, 07:32:31 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 20, 2017, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 20, 2017, 06:58:43 AM
WSLS10: CTB approves more than $64 million for Route 220 improvements (http://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/roanoke/ctb-approves-more-than-64-million-for-route-220-improvements)

Note that this is mostly just minor safety improvements, not four-lane widening.  I put this here because this is in Botetourt County and is unrelated to I-73.

I recently drove U.S. 220 from Covington to Monterey, and was surprised at how primitive it was. Perhaps the local people of Bath and Highland Counties want it that way?

Traffic counts are low along US 220 north of Covington, especially so north of Warm Springs where they never get above 1400. Some work to straight the curves near Falling Spring might be nice but most of the road supports 55+ without any trouble. There's no real reason to upgrade it further.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 30, 2017, 09:58:30 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on April 30, 2017, 07:26:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2017, 11:45:27 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on April 24, 2017, 10:38:25 AM
Virginia Tech is already a key player in all this, between the Smart Road and the agreement with the FAA as a UAV testing/development site. There are plans to expand the Smart Road research areas to be able to simulate rural and mountainous terrain. See the Roanoke Times article at https://goo.gl/d2nUSC

I wonder how a driverless car would handle roads like U.S. 250 between Staunton and Bartow, W.Va. (junction of 250 and WV-92/WV-28, perhaps more-commonly known as Arbovale)?

The intersection of US 250/WV 28/WV 92 is at Bartow. Arbovale is several miles south along WV 28/WV 92, immediately north of the Green Bank Observatory. Arbovale has what is effectively a short 2-lane bypass from when WV 28/WV 92 was realigned to avoid two 90-degree turns.

I mentioned Arbovale because for some reason, there are properties like this (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B026'30.1%22N+79%C2%B041'22.6%22W/@38.441685,-79.6901595,128m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.441685!4d-79.689611?hl=en) at the crest of Allegheny Mountain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_Mountain_(West_Virginia_%E2%80%93_Virginia)) (the Virginia/West Virginia state line and the Eastern Continental Divide are at the crest of the mountain) that has shown by Google Maps as being in the "town" of Greenbank or Arbovale (tonight it says Greenbank, previously it has said Arbovale). 

I always associated Greenbank with the site of the radio telescope, though sometimes it is said to be located in Arbovale.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on April 30, 2017, 10:49:02 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 30, 2017, 09:58:30 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on April 30, 2017, 07:26:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2017, 11:45:27 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on April 24, 2017, 10:38:25 AM
Virginia Tech is already a key player in all this, between the Smart Road and the agreement with the FAA as a UAV testing/development site. There are plans to expand the Smart Road research areas to be able to simulate rural and mountainous terrain. See the Roanoke Times article at https://goo.gl/d2nUSC

I wonder how a driverless car would handle roads like U.S. 250 between Staunton and Bartow, W.Va. (junction of 250 and WV-92/WV-28, perhaps more-commonly known as Arbovale)?

The intersection of US 250/WV 28/WV 92 is at Bartow. Arbovale is several miles south along WV 28/WV 92, immediately north of the Green Bank Observatory. Arbovale has what is effectively a short 2-lane bypass from when WV 28/WV 92 was realigned to avoid two 90-degree turns.

I mentioned Arbovale because for some reason, there are properties like this (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B026'30.1%22N+79%C2%B041'22.6%22W/@38.441685,-79.6901595,128m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.441685!4d-79.689611?hl=en) at the crest of Allegheny Mountain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegheny_Mountain_(West_Virginia_%E2%80%93_Virginia)) (the Virginia/West Virginia state line and the Eastern Continental Divide are at the crest of the mountain) that has shown by Google Maps as being in the "town" of Greenbank or Arbovale (tonight it says Greenbank, previously it has said Arbovale). 

I always associated Greenbank with the site of the radio telescope, though sometimes it is said to be located in Arbovale.

That area is part of Greenbank magisterial district, which is sort of akin to a township in WV. There are normally 3 districts in a county. Nobody actually uses those as geographic references but Google Maps sometimes shows them as they are geocoded as the sub-county geographic level. In many counties, they're numbered or directional (e.g., Western, Central, Eastern) rather than named after a locale.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 01, 2017, 01:49:48 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on April 30, 2017, 10:49:02 PM
That area is part of Greenbank magisterial district, which is sort of akin to a township in WV. There are normally 3 districts in a county. Nobody actually uses those as geographic references but Google Maps sometimes shows them as they are geocoded as the sub-county geographic level. In many counties, they're numbered or directional (e.g., Western, Central, Eastern) rather than named after a locale.

Virginia has them as well, in every county except Arlington - and the (county-equivalent) cities do not have them either.

West Virginia presumably inherited them from Virginia. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 02, 2017, 07:00:35 AM
The southbound ramps at the I-81/VA 37 interchange were planned to have opened last night. (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/staunton/2017/new_southbound_ramps_set113770.asp)  (I think most of the storms last night missed Winchester so I am unsure if they are open or not, but they should be opened the next clear evening according to the VDOT news release.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 02, 2017, 11:10:57 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 02, 2017, 07:00:35 AM
The southbound ramps at the I-81/VA 37 interchange were planned to have opened last night. (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/staunton/2017/new_southbound_ramps_set113770.asp)  (I think most of the storms last night missed Winchester so I am unsure if they are open or not, but they should be opened the next clear evening according to the VDOT news release.)

Do you know why VA-37 was not built with full freeway-to-freeway connections at the south end (especially) since that is what VDOT has been working on recently; but also at the north end?  Virginia does not usually go for breezewoods at places where freeways intersect each other, but they did in this case for some reason. 

As an aside  and well to the south, there was once a breezewood on I-81/I-77 at Wytheville after the rest of I-81 in Virginia was complete. 

According to Virginia Highways Project (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/i081.htm), it took many years after the rest of I-81 was completed to finish that section in Wytheville

QuoteThe segment from exit 77 to US 52/VA 121 Fort Chiswell was opened in Sept 1985.
The last segment of I-81 to open was from today's exit 73 to exit 77, in July 1987. These last two segments were partially built on top of existing US 11-52 ROW.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 02, 2017, 02:04:58 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 02, 2017, 11:10:57 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 02, 2017, 07:00:35 AM
The southbound ramps at the I-81/VA 37 interchange were planned to have opened last night. (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/staunton/2017/new_southbound_ramps_set113770.asp)  (I think most of the storms last night missed Winchester so I am unsure if they are open or not, but they should be opened the next clear evening according to the VDOT news release.)



Do you know why VA-37 was not built with full freeway-to-freeway connections at the south end (especially) since that is what VDOT has been working on recently; but also at the north end?  Virginia does not usually go for breezewoods at places where freeways intersect each other, but they did in this case for some reason. 

As an aside  and well to the south, there was once a breezewood on I-81/I-77 at Wytheville after the rest of I-81 in Virginia was complete. 

According to Virginia Highways Project (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/i081.htm), it took many years after the rest of I-81 was completed to finish that section in Wytheville

QuoteThe segment from exit 77 to US 52/VA 121 Fort Chiswell was opened in Sept 1985.
The last segment of I-81 to open was from today's exit 73 to exit 77, in July 1987. These last two segments were partially built on top of existing US 11-52 ROW.

This is a reply from a related question in another thread a little while back...

VA 37 was moved further west at the request of local leaders - see page 10 at:
http://www.virginiadot.org/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-03-1965-01.pdf

Contracts were already let in 1962 for I-81 in the Winchester area, so my guess is that by the time VA 37's route was finalized in 1965 it would've been difficult to incorporate an I-81/US 11/VA 37 interchange (also a railroad nearby).

I couldn't find in the CTB minutes the rationale for the Winchester Bypass but I'd be surprised if it was for alleviating traffic on a brand new I-81 (otherwise the number would've probably been VA 281).  Additionally, the south VA 37 ending is also at grade interchange with I-81.  I would argue there is no "breezewood" situation at the north end because its purpose was likely for US 11-related reasons and VA 37 ends at a partial interchange there.  Or at least not so much for I-81 SB traffic (an argument could be made that I-81 NB traffic trying to reach US 50 or US 522 benefits from VA 37 from the south interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 05, 2017, 11:00:33 AM
WTOP Radio: Lee Highway pedestrian bridge approaching final design (http://wtop.com/arlnow-com/2017/05/lee-highway-pedestrian-bridge-approaching-final-design/slide/1/)

QuoteRefinements are being made to a plan to build a pedestrian and cyclist bridge in East Falls Church, which has undergone big changes in the past few months.

QuoteA previous version came under fire earlier this year for what critics viewed as a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and a perceived lack of community input, as well as design concerns. In previous renderings, the bridge had a trussed roof and was dark red.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 08, 2017, 07:09:41 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 25, 2016, 10:44:38 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 23, 2016, 09:00:51 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 23, 2016, 06:38:27 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 22, 2016, 05:00:42 PM
I took a trip down to Norfolk last weekend in order to check out the new MLK extension, as well as the new Dominion Blvd expressway. I managed to get some photos:
Were you able to see what happened with VA 337 ALT?

I was planning to see all this Christmas morning and was not planning to look into VA 337 ALT for time purposes.  I'll think about it.

I also saw on the Dominion Blvd project website that tolling is tentatively scheduled to start in early January. (hence another reason to do it now)

So most of VA 337 ALT is currently closed (detour is Rodman Ave to US 58 to High St to Constitution Ave to the Turnpike Rd/County St intersection), this basically means that I guess we will not truly know the answer on this situation for awhile.  I did not follow County St east of that intersection.

I did get to see everything else despite the terrible fog this morning. 

I tried to field check VA 337 ALT (Portsmouth) this weekend to see how VA 164's completion affected it and I could not determine what they are doing with it...a new posting is east of VA 164's overpass at the intersection of Turnpike and Constitution but there is no arrow (and also no alternate banner either).

Possibilities are:
Turns left on Constitution to go to VA 141 London Blvd;
Continues on County to VA 141 Effingham;
Continues on County to Elm, then south to connect back with VA 337.

I drove County to Effingham and saw no further shields and also went through the intersection where Elm becomes VA 337 and no signage there either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 08, 2017, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 08, 2017, 07:09:41 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 25, 2016, 10:44:38 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 23, 2016, 09:00:51 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 23, 2016, 06:38:27 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 22, 2016, 05:00:42 PM
I took a trip down to Norfolk last weekend in order to check out the new MLK extension, as well as the new Dominion Blvd expressway. I managed to get some photos:
Were you able to see what happened with VA 337 ALT?

I was planning to see all this Christmas morning and was not planning to look into VA 337 ALT for time purposes.  I'll think about it.

I also saw on the Dominion Blvd project website that tolling is tentatively scheduled to start in early January. (hence another reason to do it now)

So most of VA 337 ALT is currently closed (detour is Rodman Ave to US 58 to High St to Constitution Ave to the Turnpike Rd/County St intersection), this basically means that I guess we will not truly know the answer on this situation for awhile.  I did not follow County St east of that intersection.

I did get to see everything else despite the terrible fog this morning. 

I tried to field check VA 337 ALT (Portsmouth) this weekend to see how VA 164's completion affected it and I could not determine what they are doing with it...a new posting is east of VA 164's overpass at the intersection of Turnpike and Constitution but there is no arrow (and also no alternate banner either).

Possibilities are:
Turns left on Constitution to go to VA 141 London Blvd;
Continues on County to VA 141 Effingham;
Continues on County to Elm, then south to connect back with VA 337.

I drove County to Effingham and saw no further shields and also went through the intersection where Elm becomes VA 337 and no signage there either.

So it's not directed onto the MLK at all?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 08, 2017, 09:47:40 AM
There is no interchange between VA 337 ALT Turnpike Rd and VA 164.  High St has a half-interchange (off ramp from 164 WB and on ramp to 164 EB) and beyond that there are no access points between I-264 and US 58/VA 141
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 08, 2017, 10:25:12 AM
One would think the city would've sent it up to London then onto the MLK and through the Midtown Tunnel to meet back up with mainline 337, at least it would've made sense that way... then again mainline 337's routing isn't signed very well either especially between the Jordan Bridge and Downtown Norfolk smdh who knows
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on May 08, 2017, 10:47:28 AM
Quote from: plain on May 08, 2017, 10:25:12 AM
One would think the city would've sent it up to London then onto the MLK and through the Midtown Tunnel to meet back up with mainline 337, at least it would've made sense that way... then again mainline 337's routing isn't signed very well either especially between the Jordan Bridge and Downtown Norfolk smdh who knows
I think that there is sufficient enough evidence to show that most of the Hampton Roads (especially those on the Southside) cities do not give two shits about the state routes that pass through them. I doubt that anyone has actually ever used VA-337-ALT as a through route anyways, so it's probably better off being decommissioned.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 08, 2017, 12:46:11 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 08, 2017, 10:47:28 AM
Quote from: plain on May 08, 2017, 10:25:12 AM
One would think the city would've sent it up to London then onto the MLK and through the Midtown Tunnel to meet back up with mainline 337, at least it would've made sense that way... then again mainline 337's routing isn't signed very well either especially between the Jordan Bridge and Downtown Norfolk smdh who knows
I think that there is sufficient enough evidence to show that most of the Hampton Roads (especially those on the Southside) cities do not give two shits about the state routes that pass through them. I doubt that anyone has actually ever used VA-337-ALT as a through route anyways, so it's probably better off being decommissioned.

This was a frequently used truck route.

I went ahead and sent the City of Portsmouth an e-mail asking what the routing actually is...we'll see what kind of response I get...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 10, 2017, 03:55:25 PM
The second weekend of the I-95 SB Bridge Work in Prince William County continues to be delayed due to rain in the forecast again this weekend.(from Fairfax News) (https://fairfaxnews.com/2017/05/i-95-roadwork-postponed-again/)  It is now planned to be next weekend (May 19th-May 22nd).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 10, 2017, 04:59:59 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 10, 2017, 03:55:25 PM
The second weekend of the I-95 SB Bridge Work in Prince William County continues to be delayed due to rain in the forecast again this weekend.(from Fairfax News) (https://fairfaxnews.com/2017/05/i-95-roadwork-postponed-again/)  It is now planned to be next weekend (May 19th-May 22nd).

I like the map and instructions with one notable exception.

QuoteEast side: I-495 to Route 5 (Branch Avenue) southbound to Route 301 southbound to Route 206/218 westbound to I-95 southbound

No, no, no, a thousand times no!

QuoteEast side: I-495 to Route 5 (Branch Avenue) southbound to Route 301 southbound to Route 207 westbound to I-95 southbound

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 10, 2017, 08:40:59 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 10, 2017, 04:59:59 PM

QuoteEast side: I-495 to Route 5 (Branch Avenue) southbound to Route 301 southbound to Route 206/218 westbound to I-95 southbound


VA 218 is narrow and extremely hilly and twisting for about 10 miles west of VA 206 and is not a good road to drive at night, in addition to it not being an efficient detour (even if only going to Fredericksburg...faster to go VA 206 to VA 3)...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 11, 2017, 07:10:18 AM
There was a public hearing Tuesday Night for the new planned interchange on US 15/17/29 at the south end of the Warrenton Bypass. (http://www.fauquier.com/news/public-views-plan-for-overpass-roundabouts-near-lord-fairfax-college/article_bcff77fe-35ae-11e7-93c5-8f1f46b69ec7.html)  (from Fauquier Times)

There will be roundabouts at the intersections of the ramps at US 15/17/29 BUS and Lord Fairfax Dr.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 11, 2017, 08:10:05 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 11, 2017, 07:10:18 AM
There was a public hearing Tuesday Night for the new planned interchange on US 15/17/29 at the south end of the Warrenton Bypass. (http://www.fauquier.com/news/public-views-plan-for-overpass-roundabouts-near-lord-fairfax-college/article_bcff77fe-35ae-11e7-93c5-8f1f46b69ec7.html)  (from Fauquier Times)

There will be roundabouts at the intersections of the ramps at US 15/17/29 BUS and Lord Fairfax Dr.

Getting rid of the miserable signal there will provide significant benefit to drivers on U.S. 15/U.S. 17/U.S. 29. 

Especially southbound, it seems that drivers are sometimes not expecting a signal there, perhaps they are fooled by the interchanges at the northeast corner of Warrenton and the one at Meetze Road?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 11, 2017, 09:53:39 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 11, 2017, 08:10:05 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 11, 2017, 07:10:18 AM
There was a public hearing Tuesday Night for the new planned interchange on US 15/17/29 at the south end of the Warrenton Bypass. (http://www.fauquier.com/news/public-views-plan-for-overpass-roundabouts-near-lord-fairfax-college/article_bcff77fe-35ae-11e7-93c5-8f1f46b69ec7.html)  (from Fauquier Times)

There will be roundabouts at the intersections of the ramps at US 15/17/29 BUS and Lord Fairfax Dr.

Getting rid of the miserable signal there will provide significant benefit to drivers on U.S. 15/U.S. 17/U.S. 29. 

Especially southbound, it seems that drivers are sometimes not expecting a signal there, perhaps they are fooled by the interchanges at the northeast corner of Warrenton and the one at Meetze Road?

There's plenty of advanced warning of the signal, but the signal has got to go.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: CVski on May 11, 2017, 09:07:51 PM
Rumor was Chris Pearmund was part of a planned development down near there.  A housing tract built like a golf course community, but with vineyards and a wine cellar/tasting clubhouse.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 11, 2017, 11:31:53 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 11, 2017, 08:10:05 AM
Especially southbound, it seems that drivers are sometimes not expecting a signal there, perhaps they are fooled by the interchanges at the northeast corner of Warrenton and the one at Meetze Road?

I think US-29 from south of I-66 to NC is definitely one of those roads that VA really didn't know what it wanted to do with. What I mean is that for a while it looked like the idea of extending I-83 down US-29 throughout Virginia in the 1990s wasn't that far fetched, as US-29 already had 11 freeway like bypasses around various towns with little to no development in between. However I assume the state gave up on that idea as the cost do this was too high with not enough traffic at the time to make up for it. I think the proposed Charlottesville Western Bypass which VDOT fully suspended/cancelled in 2014 killed the last hope of turning US-29 into I-83. As a result today the majority of US-29 isn't all too bad and is in fact mostly pleasant. However as more drivers begin to also realize this and increasingly use US-29 as an alternative to I-95 and I-81, combined with more Northern Virginia sprawl I think VDOT should study doing 2 things
1. Continue to take out not just the dangerous traffic lights on US-29 they are now currently converting to interchanges, but take out all the traffic lights on 28 miles of US-29 from the south end of the Culpeper bypass to the north end of the Warrenton bypass. I'm not saying go full limited access interstate here, just take get rid of all the unnecessary traffic lights and build interchanges where appropriate.
2. Because of the much heavier development in between Warrenton and Gaineville that would make replacing traffic lights with interchanges much more destructive and expensive, widen this stretch of US-29 to six lanes. I do not support the proposed Buckland Bypass as I think it goes too far out of the way and hardly anyone would use it, let alone it also being extremely destructive to houses, battlefileds ext.
Now I know someone is going to criticize how much more sprawl and traffic this idea would create and to that I agree and say if the developers really want it, let them pay for it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on May 12, 2017, 07:54:02 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 11, 2017, 11:31:53 PM
As a result today the majority of US-29 isn't all too bad and is in fact mostly pleasant.

Except for the stretch near Lynchburg. US-29 is a parking lot between VA-24 and US-460. Between the truck traffic, the traffic lights and the constant speed limit changes, it's a pain in the ass approaching Lynchburg from the south. The existing freeway bypass there really needs to be extended from US-460 to US-29 south of the city.

I used to go to Lynchburg a lot for shopping when I lived in Farmville a few years ago since getting there from US-460 was easy, but since I ended up in the Danville area, it's a bitch getting there on US-29. I stopped going to Lynchburg altogether and started going to Greensboro instead, since it's about the same distance from me and US-29 is a MUCH quicker and better drive between Danville and Greensboro. Plus Greensboro is a lot easier to navigate than Lynchburg. Despite Greensboro being a much larger city, traffic flows a lot better there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 12, 2017, 08:14:26 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 11, 2017, 09:53:39 AM
There's plenty of advanced warning of the signal, but the signal has got to go.

I do not get down that way too often, but I have seen  drivers (including drivers of commercial vehicles) slam on the brakes going southbound when that movement has a red signal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 12, 2017, 08:19:42 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 11, 2017, 11:31:53 PM
I think US-29 from south of I-66 to NC is definitely one of those roads that VA really didn't know what it wanted to do with. What I mean is that for a while it looked like the idea of extending I-83 down US-29 throughout Virginia in the 1990s wasn't that far fetched, as US-29 already had 11 freeway like bypasses around various towns with little to no development in between. However I assume the state gave up on that idea as the cost do this was too high with not enough traffic at the time to make up for it. I think the proposed Charlottesville Western Bypass which VDOT fully suspended/cancelled in 2014 killed the last hope of turning US-29 into I-83. As a result today the majority of US-29 isn't all too bad and is in fact mostly pleasant. However as more drivers begin to also realize this and increasingly use US-29 as an alternative to I-95 and I-81, combined with more Northern Virginia sprawl I think VDOT should study doing 2 things
1. Continue to take out not just the dangerous traffic lights on US-29 they are now currently converting to interchanges, but take out all the traffic lights on 28 miles of US-29 from the south end of the Culpeper bypass to the north end of the Warrenton bypass. I'm not saying go full limited access interstate here, just take get rid of all the unnecessary traffic lights and build interchanges where appropriate.
2. Because of the much heavier development in between Warrenton and Gaineville that would make replacing traffic lights with interchanges much more destructive and expensive, widen this stretch of US-29 to six lanes. I do not support the proposed Buckland Bypass as I think it goes too far out of the way and hardly anyone would use it, let alone it also being extremely destructive to houses, battlefileds ext.
Now I know someone is going to criticize how much more sprawl and traffic this idea would create and to that I agree and say if the developers really want it, let them pay for it.

1. The I-83 proposal was never a formal one by VDOT, and it drove the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) bananas (to the point that VDOT finally sent them a letter saying that I-83 was not then, and never had been, an official plan).  The PEC spent a lot of time and money opposing the Western Bypass of Charlottesville.

2.  As money becomes available, I think you will see more signalized intersections replaced by interchanges.  Rio Road at U.S. 29 turned out pretty well.

3.  Developers do not use transportation infrastructure, but their customers do.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 12, 2017, 09:43:36 AM
Quote3.  Developers do not use transportation infrastructure, but their customers do.

Oh, they most certainly do use transportation infrastructure, both for the physical construction of their developments, but also in planning where they can make the most bang for the buck.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 12, 2017, 04:13:03 PM
Don't forget the use of "proffers" is pretty common in Virginia as part of the zoning/development process. I assume it's not unique to Virginia, of course, but this IS a Virginia thread....
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 13, 2017, 03:02:48 PM
VDOT has released their 2016 traffic data.  I breezed through it a minute and did not notice anything newsworthy regarding routings...

http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/Traffic_2016/AADT_PrimaryInterstate_2016.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 14, 2017, 10:30:43 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 12, 2017, 09:43:36 AM
Quote3.  Developers do not use transportation infrastructure, but their customers do.

Oh, they most certainly do use transportation infrastructure, both for the physical construction of their developments, but also in planning where they can make the most bang for the buck. get approval from the local development approval process.

FTFY.

The use of the system to build structures such as new homes is exactly what the system was designed and built for. 

As for in planning where they develop, in most of the United States, developers cannot use such methods to determine where to build, with the notable exception of Houston, Texas. You know that very well. 

In Maryland and Northern Virginia, that explains new home construction in exurban places like Adams and York Counties in Pennsylvania; the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia; the western I-66 corridor (Warren County around Front Royal); and even Washington County, Maryland.  Otherwise known as "leapfrog" development.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 14, 2017, 10:36:16 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 12, 2017, 04:13:03 PM
Don't forget the use of "proffers" is pretty common in Virginia as part of the zoning/development process. I assume it's not unique to Virginia, of course, but this IS a Virginia thread....

Yes, that is standard operating procedure in at least some Virginia jurisdictions.  And it does have one advantage - it frequently leads to roads getting built (parts of the Fairfax County Parkway were built with dollars from developer proffers), intersections improved and other improvements.

I personally much prefer it over the adequate public facilities ordinances (APFO) used in much of Maryland, which can be pretty easily "gamed" and allows development in places that are not well-served by transit and suffer from severe traffic congestion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 14, 2017, 04:53:16 PM
Quote
2.  As money becomes available, I think you will see more signalized intersections replaced by interchanges.  Rio Road at U.S. 29 turned out pretty well.

This is a bad project.  $80 million for an urban interchange that eliminated three signals but in the overall scheme makes very little difference for thru traffic, the money was basically wasted by VDOT.

A critical weakness remains where the US-29 bypass connects to Emmet Street / Seminole Trail, and that will be very expensive and complex to resolve; two different alternatives were developed around 2004 to provide a high capacity connection for US-29 thru traffic and Hydraulic Road grade separation and were estimated at $170 million, it would be over $300 million today.

The Western Bypass was under contract for $180 million when the governor flushed the project down the commode, a very irresponsible decision, IMHO. 

Building urban arterial interchanges largely fell out of favor by 20 years ago, too expensive, too disruptive, too complex to build, too little traffic benefits.  And these ones would not be needed if the Western Bypass was built.  And the northern terminal of the Western Bypass would have been extensible with future projects to extend the US-29 bypass to the airport or even to Ruckersville.

Bad and wasteful decisions have been and are being made here by the state and the county.

--
Scott M. Kozel   
http://www.roadstothefuture.com

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 14, 2017, 10:08:51 PM
QuoteAnd these ones would not be needed if the Western Bypass was built. 

Not true.  The local studies pointed out that major upgrades, if not outright grade separation, were needed at Rio and Hydraulic even if the Western Bypass was built.

QuoteAnd the northern terminal of the Western Bypass would have been extensible with future projects to extend the US-29 bypass to the airport or even to Ruckersville.

Not with the way development has been pushing into Greene County.  One of the Western Bypass's biggest flaws is that the preserved right-of-way didn't go far enough north.  For several years now, there's been a lot of pricey development (or the existing development along US 29 proper) in the way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 12:22:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 14, 2017, 10:08:51 PM
QuoteAnd these ones would not be needed if the Western Bypass was built. 

Not true.  The local studies pointed out that major upgrades, if not outright grade separation, were needed at Rio and Hydraulic even if the Western Bypass was built.

US-29 already had 8 lanes at Rio Road, higher capacity turn lanes would have addressed the needs.

US-29 has 6 lanes at Hydraulic Road, and 8 widening and higher capacity turn lanes would address the needs.

Urban arterial interchanges are a mostly outmoded concept for any new construction, and I can't believe that they would be deemed worth building if the bypass extension was built.

Quote
QuoteAnd the northern terminal of the Western Bypass would have been extensible with future projects to extend the US-29 bypass to the airport or even to Ruckersville

Not with the way development has been pushing into Greene County.  One of the Western Bypass's biggest flaws is that the preserved right-of-way didn't go far enough north.  For several years now, there's been a lot of pricey development (or the existing development along US 29 proper) in the way.

Aerial photos show ample room to extend the bypass north of the airport.  Even without a future extension, bypassing 6 miles of US-29 and then transitioning into a widened US-29 would have provided a major improvement.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 15, 2017, 12:48:29 AM
@Beltway: The proposed Charlottesville bypass was flawed from the beginning. The bypass was not planned to have any interchanges other than the endpoints.. the only thing it would've done was provide a way for through traffic to avoid the development just north of the city and nothing else... it would not have helped with the traffic situation at all as the far majority of the people who uses the existing stretch are commuters, thus the reason why it was 8-laned in the first place and even that have become inadequate. The whole reason for the Rio Rd grade separation was to basically keep traffic flowing on US 29 at that junction. Another grade separation or two at other junctions is the only thing I see fixing this stretch
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 01:05:30 AM
Quote from: plain on May 15, 2017, 12:48:29 AM
@Beltway: The proposed Charlottesville bypass was flawed from the beginning. The bypass was not planned to have any interchanges other than the endpoints.. the only thing it would've done was provide a way for through traffic to avoid the development just north of the city and nothing else... it would not have helped with the traffic situation at all as the far majority of the people who uses the existing stretch are commuters, thus the reason why it was 8-laned in the first place and even that have become inadequate. The whole reason for the Rio Rd grade separation was to basically keep traffic flowing on US 29 at that junction. Another grade separation or two at other junctions is the only thing I see fixing this stretch

It was originally planned to have two more interchanges, but those were deleted to satisfy "anti-sprawl" advocates.  VA-654 Barracks Road and at VA-743 Hydraulic Road.

The urban arterial interchanges are flawed as I pointed out. 

I mentioned the critical weakness that remains where the US-29 bypass connects to Emmet Street / Seminole Trail along with the Hydraulic Road intersection.  I don't believe that project will ever be built; the construction costs and R/W costs and impacts are far too high and I predict that it will never be built.

During the development of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act legislation (ISTEA of 1991, the federal 7-year transportation bill), Virginia, along with North Carolina, worked successfully to have US-29 designated as a "Highway of National Significance." This designation means that the U.S. Congress considers the US-29 corridor to be an important corridor that is not adequately served by the Interstate Highway System, and therefore, it requires further highway development to serve the travel and economic development needs of the region. State transportation officials view US-29 as a interregional highway that serves important regional transportation interests along the whole corridor from I-40/I-85 at Greensboro, N.C., to I-66 at Gainesville, Virginia.

The Charlottesville US-29 situation is grossly inadequate and state and local officials are failing to provide sound transportation decisions.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on May 15, 2017, 08:02:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 01:05:30 AMDuring the development of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act legislation (ISTEA of 1991, the federal 7-year transportation bill), Virginia, along with North Carolina, worked successfully to have US-29 designated as a "Highway of National Significance." This designation means that the U.S. Congress considers the US-29 corridor to be an important corridor that is not adequately served by the Interstate Highway System, and therefore, it requires further highway development to serve the travel and economic development needs of the region. State transportation officials view US-29 as a interregional highway that serves important regional transportation interests along the whole corridor from I-40/I-85 at Greensboro, N.C., to I-66 at Gainesville, Virginia.

I'll probably get scorching nuclear heat for saying this, but I've always felt that if there's any highway in Virginia that would benefit from a freeway upgrade, it's US-29. Even though there's no chance in hell of an I-83 extension (which I'm a big fan of), US-29 could still be an interstate standard freeway between Danville and I-66 without having I-shields. Considering that I-81 is clogged with truck traffic with no plans by VDOT to widen it and the fact that I-95 is a nightmare between Richmond and DC, it would make sense to me that the main N/S corridor through central VA be a high speed alternative to I-81 and I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 15, 2017, 08:56:19 AM
US 29 is definitely an important corridor but cost will make doing the full length prohibitive...

Except for Amherst to near Lovingston, way too many access control issues to upgrade existing US 29 without mostly new alignments from Danville northward.

From Lovingston to I-64 in addition to accesses, the terrain is pretty unfavorable for highway construction.

Charlottesville to Culpeper and Remington to I-66 are OK from a terrain standpoint but too many accesses and development to do a direct upgrade for the most part.

Extending the Madison Heights Bypass south to VA 24 is needed and is on VDOT's wish list to actually do.  Perhaps other areas could get by with superstreet upgrades in lieu of full freeway.  Couple that with a few strategic interchanges (south end of Warrenton Bypass will be quite helpful when done; also where US 15 splits off near Gainesville)...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 15, 2017, 08:02:28 AM
I'll probably get scorching nuclear heat for saying this, but I've always felt that if there's any highway in Virginia that would benefit from a freeway upgrade, it's US-29. Even though there's no chance in hell of an I-83 extension (which I'm a big fan of), US-29 could still be an interstate standard freeway between Danville and I-66 without having I-shields. Considering that I-81 is clogged with truck traffic with no plans by VDOT to widen it and the fact that I-95 is a nightmare between Richmond and DC, it would make sense to me that the main N/S corridor through central VA be a high speed alternative to I-81 and I-95.

You won't get any "scorching" from me! :-)  As part of the state arterial system that was designated in 1965, US-29 was upgraded to 4 lanes divided with 13 bypasses of towns and cities, the work completed in 2005 when the Danville Expressway's last dualization was completed.

Unfortunately new Interstate construction has become very expensive, we could figure $25 to $30 million per mile in rural areas.  So that could be $5 to $6 billion for the corridor. Hard to find that amount of funding...

For now I would like to see these projects expedited --
Southern Lynchburg / Madison Heights Bypass, between US-460 and US-29 south
Brandy Station interchange
Remington Bypass south terminus interchange
Remington Bypass north terminus interchange
Warrenton Bypass south terminus interchange
6- or 8-lane reconstruction between Warrenton Bypass and Gainesville
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 12:43:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 12:23:57 PM
As part of the state arterial system that was designated in 1965, US-29 was upgraded to 4 lanes divided with 13 bypasses of towns and cities, the work completed in 2005 when the Danville Expressway's last dualization was completed.

I found an online article about 5 years ago concerning the Arterial Highway System, how that in 2003 the General Assembly removed the designation class, and specified that these highways would simply be classified under the FHWA standards as part of the National Highway System (NHS) and specifically classified as Rural Principal Arterials under the NHS.  IOW the Arterial Highway System designation was removed.

I don't recall any newspaper articles about this, and 10 minutes of searching online today did not find any info about this.  Anyone here know more about this?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 15, 2017, 01:15:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 12:43:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 12:23:57 PM
As part of the state arterial system that was designated in 1965, US-29 was upgraded to 4 lanes divided with 13 bypasses of towns and cities, the work completed in 2005 when the Danville Expressway's last dualization was completed.

I found an online article about 5 years ago concerning the Arterial Highway System, how that in 2003 the General Assembly removed the designation class, and specified that these highways would simply be classified under the FHWA standards as part of the National Highway System (NHS) and specifically classified as Rural Principal Arterials under the NHS.  IOW the Arterial Highway System designation was removed.

I don't recall any newspaper articles about this, and 10 minutes of searching online today did not find any info about this.  Anyone here know more about this?

Mentioned in the June 2003 CTB minutes (Agenda item 22 of http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/ctb-minutes-06192003.pdf) but i couldn't find any of the supporting information...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 01:42:20 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 15, 2017, 01:15:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 12:43:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 12:23:57 PM
As part of the state arterial system that was designated in 1965, US-29 was upgraded to 4 lanes divided with 13 bypasses of towns and cities, the work completed in 2005 when the Danville Expressway's last dualization was completed.

I found an online article about 5 years ago concerning the Arterial Highway System, how that in 2003 the General Assembly removed the designation class, and specified that these highways would simply be classified under the FHWA standards as part of the National Highway System (NHS) and specifically classified as Rural Principal Arterials under the NHS.  IOW the Arterial Highway System designation was removed.

I don't recall any newspaper articles about this, and 10 minutes of searching online today did not find any info about this.  Anyone here know more about this?
Mentioned in the June 2003 CTB minutes (Agenda item 22 of http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/ctb-minutes-06192003.pdf) but i couldn't find any of the supporting information...

"Agenda Item 22: Action on Rescindment of Prior Board action of March
19, 1964 and VDOT Departmental Policy Memoranda 8-2 of May 6, 1991,
and Repeal of 24 VAC 30-480-10 in the Code of Virginia relating to
Arterial Networks, to coincide with the effective date of July 1, 2003, of
Chapter 302 of the 2003 Acts of the Assembly, which repealed all
provisions in the Code referring to the Arterial Network of Highways and
repealed the Acts of Assembly that designated certain highways as part of
the Arterial Network. Referenced by attachment of Resolution, Decision
Brief, Chapter 302 of the 2003 Acts of the Assembly, Department Policy
Memoranda 8-2 of May 6, 1991, Letter of endorsement for these actions
of May 9, 2003 from the Office of the Attorney General, a listing of the
affected highways, the March 19, 1964 Resolution of the Board and a
map."

....

Bill passed into law -- http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?031+sum+HB1487

"Arterial network of highways. Eliminates references in the Code to the arterial network of highways and repeals the Acts of Assembly that designate certain highways as part of the arterial network. The bill provides that its provisions are not to be deemed to alter state funding of maintenance, maintenance replacement, construction, or reconstruction of former arterial network projects within the boundaries of any city."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 15, 2017, 01:54:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 01:05:30 AM
Quote from: plain on May 15, 2017, 12:48:29 AM
@Beltway: The proposed Charlottesville bypass was flawed from the beginning. The bypass was not planned to have any interchanges other than the endpoints.. the only thing it would've done was provide a way for through traffic to avoid the development just north of the city and nothing else... it would not have helped with the traffic situation at all as the far majority of the people who uses the existing stretch are commuters, thus the reason why it was 8-laned in the first place and even that have become inadequate. The whole reason for the Rio Rd grade separation was to basically keep traffic flowing on US 29 at that junction. Another grade separation or two at other junctions is the only thing I see fixing this stretch

It was originally planned to have two more interchanges, but those were deleted to satisfy "anti-sprawl" advocates.  VA-654 Barracks Road and at VA-743 Hydraulic Road.

The urban arterial interchanges are flawed as I pointed out. 

I mentioned the critical weakness that remains where the US-29 bypass connects to Emmet Street / Seminole Trail along with the Hydraulic Road intersection.  I don't believe that project will ever be built; the construction costs and R/W costs and impacts are far too high and I predict that it will never be built.

During the development of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act legislation (ISTEA of 1991, the federal 7-year transportation bill), Virginia, along with North Carolina, worked successfully to have US-29 designated as a "Highway of National Significance." This designation means that the U.S. Congress considers the US-29 corridor to be an important corridor that is not adequately served by the Interstate Highway System, and therefore, it requires further highway development to serve the travel and economic development needs of the region. State transportation officials view US-29 as a interregional highway that serves important regional transportation interests along the whole corridor from I-40/I-85 at Greensboro, N.C., to I-66 at Gainesville, Virginia.

The Charlottesville US-29 situation is grossly inadequate and state and local officials are failing to provide sound transportation decisions.

Oh no doubt I completely agree with the state screwing the corridor up.. shiiit I'm still mad about the whole Richmond Beltway/John Rolfe Pkwy fiasco. In a way the two situations are kinda similar: the state waited so long to secure the adequate right of way that development formed and got in the way. The bypass if built now would certainly mean the destruction of many homes in its path. All I was trying to point out is VDOT will have to go for the next best (and most likely costlier) thing... think about the Memorial Dr situation down in Huntsville and why ALDOT felt the need to do it. Not saying VDOT would even do anything that dramatic. As for Hydraulic, sooner or later VDOT will be forced to grade-separate or at least something there. Even if the bypass was built as planned, whether it had those two interchanges you mentioned or not I'm not sure how much of a help it would be as many people live to the east of existing US 29. The interchange at the original bypass/Emmitt would have to be redone anyway. Which will definitely not be an easy fix. But yes the longer the state waits the more difficult it will be to fix this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 03:38:01 PM
Quote from: plain on May 15, 2017, 01:54:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 01:05:30 AM
The Charlottesville US-29 situation is grossly inadequate and state and local officials are failing to provide sound transportation decisions.

Oh no doubt I completely agree with the state screwing the corridor up.. shiiit I'm still mad about the whole Richmond Beltway/John Rolfe Pkwy fiasco. In a way the two situations are kinda similar: the state waited so long to secure the adequate right of way that development formed and got in the way. The bypass if built now would certainly mean the destruction of many homes in its path. All I was trying to point out is VDOT will have to go for the next best (and most likely costlier) thing... think about the Memorial Dr situation down in Huntsville and why ALDOT felt the need to do it. Not saying VDOT would even do anything that dramatic. As for Hydraulic, sooner or later VDOT will be forced to grade-separate or at least something there. Even if the bypass was built as planned, whether it had those two interchanges you mentioned or not I'm not sure how much of a help it would be as many people live to the east of existing US 29. The interchange at the original bypass/Emmitt would have to be redone anyway. Which will definitely not be an easy fix. But yes the longer the state waits the more difficult it will be to fix this.

VDOT had acquired nearly all the right-of-way needed for the bypass.  Now the current Regime has started selling it off.

VDOT studied a number of alternatives over a period of years, and selected the Alternative 10 bypass.  A full NEPA process was completed with an FHWA approved Final EIS and Record of Decision.

It was IMHO a good compromise, as a further western bypass would have been much longer, an eastern bypass would have had to overlap I-64 and it would have also been much longer, and either of them would have had plenty of impacts to the built and natural environment.  Rebuilding Emmet Street into a freeway has the issues that I already cited.

We had officials and newspapers in Lynchburg and Danville and other cities pressing the issue for Albemarle County to agree to a high-speed bypass because to them US-29 was their principal north-south highway, and they unlike Albemarle County do not have an Interstate highway serving their cities.  To those cities, Charottesville  is major bottleneck in the US-29 corridor.

I maintain that the situation at the original bypass and Emmet Street and Hydraulic Road can be improved somewhat but that a full scale direct movement for US-29 will be unbuildable due to the fantastically high construction cost and impacts to businesses and development.

If they ever do revisit/study building a C'ville Bypass, I would maintain that something close to Alternate 10 would again be deemed the best alternative.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 15, 2017, 08:40:02 PM
The next year or so would in some ways be an ideal time for construction at the intersection of Emmet and Hydraulic: K-Mart is closing that store later this year and the site is to be redeveloped (an REI has been cited as a possibility), so it'd be the right time for roadwork. Won't happen that quickly, of course.

The 15-mph loop ramp on northbound 29 is horrible, but there's no space to fix it. I sometimes go around via Hydraulic if the traffic is bad.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 15, 2017, 10:04:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2017, 04:53:16 PM
Quote
2.  As money becomes available, I think you will see more signalized intersections replaced by interchanges.  Rio Road at U.S. 29 turned out pretty well.

This is a bad project.  $80 million for an urban interchange that eliminated three signals but in the overall scheme makes very little difference for thru traffic, the money was basically wasted by VDOT.

I disagree, even though there is much more that should be done. Still, this gets rid of a trouble-prone intersection and improves the pedestrian environment.   

The bypass to the west was (and remains) the better option for through traffic and traffic headed north along the U.S. 29 corridor in the direction of Culpeper and beyond. U.S. 29 from Greensboro, N.C. to Gainesville is a de-facto interstate highway.

But the politics are apparently not in favor of a true bypass route (as as I have suggested previously and as you know very well, furious opposition by the PEC probably has something to do with that).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 11:28:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 15, 2017, 08:40:02 PM
The next year or so would in some ways be an ideal time for construction at the intersection of Emmet and Hydraulic: K-Mart is closing that store later this year and the site is to be redeveloped (an REI has been cited as a possibility), so it'd be the right time for roadwork. Won't happen that quickly, of course.

The 15-mph loop ramp on northbound 29 is horrible, but there's no space to fix it. I sometimes go around via Hydraulic if the traffic is bad.

That is what I was saying, that has no business being the permanent connection for northbound US-29 traffic.

One alternative in 2003 study was to build a 4-lane connector from the bypass to Emmet Street to the north, and that would have bridged over Hydraulic Road.

The other alternative in 2003 study was to ramp off of the bypass before Emmet Street eastbound and open to 4 lanes and have a signalized intersection with Emmet Street with a 3-lane turning movement to northbound Emmet Street.  US-29 would pass under Hydraulic Road with a grade separation.  The southbound connection would be widened to 2 lanes (actually that is now under construction).

Each was estimated at $170 million in 2003.  The first had massive R/W impacts but provided a high capacity thru movement.  The second I question whether it would not be a major bottleneck northbound.

Obviously they need to choose which alternative to use before addressing the Hydraulic Road intersection.

Probably cost about $300 million today, and as I said earlier I don't think that kind of funding will ever be found, especially given the limited benefits.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on May 16, 2017, 07:01:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 03:38:01 PMWe had officials and newspapers in Lynchburg and Danville and other cities pressing the issue for Albemarle County to agree to a high-speed bypass because to them US-29 was their principal north-south highway, and they unlike Albemarle County do not have an Interstate highway serving their cities.  To those cities, Charottesville  is major bottleneck in the US-29 corridor.

Yeah, I remember Danville and Lynchburg were pretty livid at the stonewalling being caused. IIRC, Albemarle and Charlottesville told them to fuck off.

I would argue that Lynchburg is almost as big a bottleneck as Charlottesville. Even with Charlottesville's bypass being shelved, finishing the Lynchburg bypass would be a great first step in unclogging the US-29 corridor. Rather than put pressure on Albemarle County, which is a lost cause at this point, Lynchburg ought to put pressure on the state to have their own bypass finished.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 16, 2017, 07:25:37 AM
I still can't help but wonder what sort of environmental/similar roadblocks the western bypass would have encountered because of the reservoir being not that far west of existing US-29. You cross over it if you take the back way around from the airport area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 16, 2017, 01:32:17 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 16, 2017, 07:01:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2017, 03:38:01 PMWe had officials and newspapers in Lynchburg and Danville and other cities pressing the issue for Albemarle County to agree to a high-speed bypass because to them US-29 was their principal north-south highway, and they unlike Albemarle County do not have an Interstate highway serving their cities.  To those cities, Charottesville  is major bottleneck in the US-29 corridor.

Yeah, I remember Danville and Lynchburg were pretty livid at the stonewalling being caused. IIRC, Albemarle and Charlottesville told them to fuck off.

Of course.  Every other city gets a US-29 bypass built, but Albemarle and Charlottesville are the Exalted Ones who don't want to participate.

Well, they do have a short US-29 bypass that was opened around 1962, but it has been obsolete for at least 30 years.

Quote
I would argue that Lynchburg is almost as big a bottleneck as Charlottesville. Even with Charlottesville's bypass being shelved, finishing the Lynchburg bypass would be a great first step in unclogging the US-29 corridor. Rather than put pressure on Albemarle County, which is a lost cause at this point, Lynchburg ought to put pressure on the state to have their own bypass finished.

When you live within the bypassed area, you rarely use the bypass, so your city's lacking a bypass doesn't impact you nearly like it does when you need to pass thru another city's area.

This is my case with I-295 and VA-288, I rarely use them but they are critically needed by many other travelers from other areas.

Lynchburg has two decent US-29 freeways and puts Charlottesville to shame.  The problem is US-29 south of the US-460 bypass, and local officials are seeking and supporting the building of the southern segment of the Lynchburg / Madison Heights Bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 16, 2017, 01:35:52 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 16, 2017, 07:25:37 AM
I still can't help but wonder what sort of environmental/similar roadblocks the western bypass would have encountered because of the reservoir being not that far west of existing US-29. You cross over it if you take the back way around from the airport area.

Alternate 10 came within 1/4 mile of the reservoir.  That was one of the talking points of the opponents.

It is not unusual to build a freeway -over- a reservoir.  The US-15 / Future I-99 freeway in northern PA does just that, it is simply a matter of utilizing the proper environmental designs and safeguards.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 17, 2017, 09:18:45 PM
The upcoming southbound I-95 Rappahannock River crossing project has a new design concept
http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/new-concept-for-rappahannock-river-crossing-project-on-interstate/article_78f3edd0-b7d4-5004-861a-e0afd5ba9c4c.html
Overall I like this idea and think its an improvement over the original. My only concern is that I hope there is still enough room left in the I-95 median for a theoretical I-95 HOT lanes extension to Spotsylvania if necessary. Its always good to plan ahead.

This new design apparently has no impact on the project's cost.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 17, 2017, 10:24:25 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 17, 2017, 09:18:45 PM
The upcoming southbound I-95 Rappahannock River crossing project has a new design concept
http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/new-concept-for-rappahannock-river-crossing-project-on-interstate/article_78f3edd0-b7d4-5004-861a-e0afd5ba9c4c.html
Overall I like this idea and think its an improvement over the original. My only concern is that I hope there is still enough room left in the I-95 median for a theoretical I-95 HOT lanes extension to Spotsylvania if necessary. Its always good to plan ahead.

This new design apparently has no impact on the project's cost.

Ample space in the median -- the bridges are about 170 feet apart.
Could fit three new roadways in that space -- a two-lane roadway with shoulders, and two three lane roadways with full shoulders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Henry on May 18, 2017, 10:18:09 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 17, 2017, 10:24:25 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 17, 2017, 09:18:45 PM
The upcoming southbound I-95 Rappahannock River crossing project has a new design concept
http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/new-concept-for-rappahannock-river-crossing-project-on-interstate/article_78f3edd0-b7d4-5004-861a-e0afd5ba9c4c.html
Overall I like this idea and think its an improvement over the original. My only concern is that I hope there is still enough room left in the I-95 median for a theoretical I-95 HOT lanes extension to Spotsylvania if necessary. Its always good to plan ahead.

This new design apparently has no impact on the project's cost.

Ample space in the median -- the bridges are about 170 feet apart.
Could fit three new roadways in that space -- a two-lane roadway with shoulders, and two three lane roadways with full shoulders.
Perhaps an extension of the reversible HOV lanes would be in order, but there'd be at least 60 miles of those extending from there to Washington!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 18, 2017, 12:57:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 15, 2017, 10:04:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 14, 2017, 04:53:16 PM
Quote
2.  As money becomes available, I think you will see more signalized intersections replaced by interchanges.  Rio Road at U.S. 29 turned out pretty well.
This is a bad project.  $80 million for an urban interchange that eliminated three signals but in the overall scheme makes very little difference for thru traffic, the money was basically wasted by VDOT.
I disagree, even though there is much more that should be done. Still, this gets rid of a trouble-prone intersection and improves the pedestrian environment.   

My term "wasted" may be too strong, but certainly it wasn't worth $80 million.  I could see maybe $15 million or so for surface level improvements such as lengthened 2-lane left turn lanes and/or "superstreet" improvements.

Again, if the area had been bypassed then the users of Emmet Street should be well satisfied with a surface level modernized eight-lane arterial, even if sometimes there was some congestion.

Quote
The bypass to the west was (and remains) the better option for through traffic and traffic headed north along the U.S. 29 corridor in the direction of Culpeper and beyond. U.S. 29 from Greensboro, N.C. to Gainesville is a de-facto interstate highway.

ISTEA of 1991 designated US-29 between I-40 and I-66 as a "Highway of National Significance".  Probably not quite an Interstate in importance, but pretty close to it.  In a class above certain other Virginia 4-lane corridors such as US-360 and US-17.

Quote
But the politics are apparently not in favor of a true bypass route (as as I have suggested previously and as you know very well, furious opposition by the PEC probably has something to do with that).

Unfortunately a US-29 bypass extension does not look likely any time in the near future or not so near future.

One of the criticisms of the Rio Road interchange project is that spending that much money to improve the existing highway drives another major nail in the coffin in the bypass extension project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 20, 2017, 02:14:57 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 10, 2017, 03:55:25 PM
The second weekend of the I-95 SB Bridge Work in Prince William County continues to be delayed due to rain in the forecast again this weekend.(from Fairfax News) (https://fairfaxnews.com/2017/05/i-95-roadwork-postponed-again/)  It is now planned to be next weekend (May 19th-May 22nd).

Now it is postponed indefinitely as the work was cancelled for this weekend due to rain last night. (http://wtop.com/traffic/2017/05/2nd-round-major-bridge-repairs-95-postponed-due-moisture/slide/1/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2017, 08:08:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 16, 2017, 01:35:52 PM
Alternate 10 came within 1/4 mile of the reservoir.  That was one of the talking points of the opponents.

It is not unusual to build a freeway -over- a reservoir.  The US-15 / Future I-99 freeway in northern PA does just that, it is simply a matter of utilizing the proper environmental designs and safeguards.

U.S. 29 crosses the Rocky Gorge Reservoir (Patuxent River) between Montgomery  County and Howard County in Maryland, a source of drinking water for the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 20, 2017, 10:01:27 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2017, 08:08:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 16, 2017, 01:35:52 PM
Alternate 10 came within 1/4 mile of the reservoir.  That was one of the talking points of the opponents.

It is not unusual to build a freeway -over- a reservoir.  The US-15 / Future I-99 freeway in northern PA does just that, it is simply a matter of utilizing the proper environmental designs and safeguards.

U.S. 29 crosses the Rocky Gorge Reservoir (Patuxent River) between Montgomery  County and Howard County in Maryland, a source of drinking water for the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Three primary routes cross the Newport News Reservoir (I-64, VA 105, VA 143) plus a railroad, so it's not exactly catastrophic.  Though to be fair all of those 4 crossings were in place before that body of water became the reservoir.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 21, 2017, 12:09:10 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 20, 2017, 10:01:27 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2017, 08:08:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 16, 2017, 01:35:52 PM
Alternate 10 came within 1/4 mile of the reservoir.  That was one of the talking points of the opponents.

It is not unusual to build a freeway -over- a reservoir.  The US-15 / Future I-99 freeway in northern PA does just that, it is simply a matter of utilizing the proper environmental designs and safeguards.
U.S. 29 crosses the Rocky Gorge Reservoir (Patuxent River) between Montgomery  County and Howard County in Maryland, a source of drinking water for the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Three primary routes cross the Newport News Reservoir (I-64, VA 105, VA 143) plus a railroad, so it's not exactly catastrophic.  Though to be fair all of those 4 crossings were in place before that body of water became the reservoir.

My point again that Alternate 10 would have been built with the proper environmental designs and safeguards to protect the reservoir.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 21, 2017, 11:34:35 AM
I never said it was a complete barrier. I said I couldn't help but wonder what sort of issues or roadblocks (metaphorical roadblocks, obviously) would have arisen. You know there would have been a lot of hand-wringing and fighting about it, especially around Charlottesville. What did it take, something like 40 years to build the Meadowcreek Parkway due in part to its proximity to the McIntire Park golf course?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on May 21, 2017, 05:46:46 PM
I just stumbled across this article from 2016. Apparently, local governments can keep ticket revenue again. So much for putting the brakes on speed traps. :banghead:

http://www.progress-index.com/news/20161001/another-chance-for-hopewells-million-dollar-mile (http://www.progress-index.com/news/20161001/another-chance-for-hopewells-million-dollar-mile)

QuoteLegislation restores fines to local governments

By Sarah Vogelsong / Staff Writer
HOPEWELL – The storied "Million-Dollar Mile"  of Interstate 295 may once again become a path to prosperity for Hopewell.

For a decade, the 3.3 miles of I-295 below the Appomattox River that wind erratically between the city of Hopewell and Prince George County have sat at the center of a statewide controversy over the extent to which localities should be allowed to profit from patrolling state and federally funded roads. In 2012, the General Assembly attempted to resolve the issue by instituting a new policy that would siphon off a gradually increasing percentage of the traffic fines localities collected each year. The more local governments collected from traffic tickets, the more they were likely to lose to the state.

Drivers eager to avoid fines were delighted by the change. Local governments, particularly those traversed by interstates or heavily trafficked state roads, were less happy, arguing that the move was yet another instance of the state pulling badly needed funds out of communities still reeling from the recession.

This past spring, local governments won the latest battle over the state's major roads when the General Assembly abruptly reversed its course, returning to its former stance that localities are entitled to keep the fines and fees they collect for violations of local ordinances.

"We've sent a message loud and clear that this is a local issue, that we're not infringing on the State Police in any form,"  said Del. Riley Ingram, the Republican representative for Hopewell in the House of Delegates and one of the sponsors of the 2016 bill that axed the practice of remitting local fines and fees to the state.

"Local governments have got to have money,"  he said simply. "There's no question about it."

Policing for profit?

Although the state's four-year collection of fines and fees ultimately affected 33 localities spread all across the commonwealth, its roots lie in Hopewell, where Sheriff Greg Anderson in 2006 began the "I-295 Highway Safety Program,"  an initiative that posted deputies along the truncated sections of the interstate that pass through the city to aggressively ticket speeders.

Anderson's program was possible thanks to a provision of Virginia law that allows localities to "adopt"  portions of the Code of Virginia into their ordinances, making a violation of state law also a violation of local law. By adopting state motor vehicle code, localities can charge traffic violators under their local laws, thereby channeling the fees collected by the local district court into their general fund.

In Hopewell, the I-295 program was immediately successful, netting the city one to two million dollars annually. Others, however, were less pleased. Motorist safety organization AAA accused Hopewell of "policing for profit"  and publicly warned out-of-state drivers about the stretch of interstate below the Appomattox.

"The intense speed enforcement by 11 sheriff's deputies for 14 hours per day is suspect for an entity whose primary role is not traffic enforcement but rather courtroom security and other functions,"  a AAA news release from April 2012 stated.

As the outcry increased in volume, Virginia Sen. John Watkins (R-10th) introduced a bill that would have prevented localities from collecting the fees associated with traffic violations on interstates or other federally funded roads and sent those funds directly from the courts to the state Literary Fund. His proposal was defeated, but it paved the way for amendments to the 2012 Appropriations Act that inaugurated the practice of taking a portion of some localities' fines and fees for the Literary Fund.

Whether a locality had to give up some of its fines and fees was determined using a formula that was triggered when local collections equaled more than 50 percent of the locality's total collections. If they did, they were classified as "excess,"  and the state comptroller deducted half of that excess for use by the state before returning the remainder of the funds to the locality. Over time, the formula would become more stringent, pulling more and more localities under its umbrella.

Over the four years that localities were required to remit excess collections to the state, Hopewell paid a total of $478,893, according to figures from Virginia's Auditor of Public Accounts. Emporia was the next hardest hit, paying more than $250,000 back to the state between 2012 and 2016. Other localities that were consistently forced to return funds included the cities of Falls Church and Fairfax and the county of Greensville. Within the Tri-Cities, Dinwiddie had to pay the state $11,494 in 2013, and Colonial Heights owed $15,771 in 2016.

While AAA hailed the passage of the remittance legislation, local governments immediately joined together in opposition, arguing both that the state was unlawfully depriving already-strapped communities of funding and that traffic law enforcement was a matter of safety.

An opinion from then-Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli declared that money collected from violations of local ordinances "constitute revenue of the locality,"  not of the commonwealth, although it also declared that the General Assembly could pass legislation appropriating such money to the Literary Fund. Both the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties vigorously opposed the remittances, with the VML in a March 2015 letter to Gov. Terry McAuliffe stating that the legislation "carpet bombs local law enforcement programs."  Criticism was also directed toward what the league called the "arbitrary formula"  of the 2015 legislation, which "does not distinguish between types of roads, miles of roads to be patrolled, amounts of traffic, road congestion, motorist and pedestrian safety, and other factors."

In Hopewell, both Anderson and his successor, current Hopewell Sheriff Luther Sodat, have publicly called the enforcement a matter of safety.

"Apparently (AAA's) definition of a speed trap and what I know of one are two different things,"  Sodat told The Progress-Index last week.

When it comes to I-295, the stated policy of the Hopewell Sheriff's Office is not to ticket any driver going less than 80 mph on the road, which has a speed limit of 70 mph. Once the driver's speed exceeds 85 mph, the deputy can issue a ticket for reckless driving.

Figures provided by Sodat to The Progress-Index record that in 2016, deputies issued an average of 835 tickets per month to interstate drivers going between 81 and 84 mph and about 316 tickets per month to drivers going 85 mph or above. Between January and August of this year, deputies have ticketed 369 drivers traveling over 90 mph and 27 additional drivers traveling over 100 mph. In total, tickets have been issued to over 9,200 drivers on the interstate since the beginning of the year – a not unusual count for the city since the I-295 Safety Program began.

Besides issuing traffic tickets, the program has also this year led to the arrest of 12 individuals on drug violations, the issuance of many dozen warrants and 1,262 warnings to motorists. Sodat sees the latter as evidence of the initiative's basis in safety concerns, asking, "If this was a speed trap, wouldn't we have written every one?"

Since the program's creation, the city of Hopewell has consistently backed the initiative. In 2012, then-mayor Christina Luman-Bailey opened a City Council meeting with a statement on the program that declared, "Insinuations that this program is a petty "˜speed trap/money grab' demonstrate an astounding ignorance of the facts. How could anyone who supports safe driving possibly object to tickets being issued to speeders of 81+ miles an hour?"  The city's proposed 2016 General Assembly legislative priorities described the remittances as "the state seizure of local fines and fees"  and stated that the practice was "based upon a misinterpretation of the Code of Virginia."

"If allowed to exist, these funds will continue to have a major impact on the city's public safety program,"  the document concluded.

Nevertheless, Sodat told The Progress-Index that his department's funding was not linked to fluctuations in revenue related to state remittances.

"I get nothing for this program. I don't get a pay increase,"  he said. "My money would be the same whether this program were here or not."

The effects of the remittances, said Del. Roslyn Tyler (D-75), a co-sponsor of the bill ending the practice, were felt beyond law enforcement in the localities affected.

"It affected their annual budget,"  she said. "There was a shortfall in a lot of areas."

Ultimately, Tyler and Ingram were able to win over enough legislators to their cause, with the majority approving a budget amendment package from McAuliffe that rejected the continuation of the remittances after July 1.

"Of course we're happy the money is coming back to the localities,"  said Sodat. Further, he said, his view of the value of the I-295 Safety Program has only been reinforced by recent reports of severe employee shortages within the Virginia State Police.

"Eventually,"  he said, "it would have really hurt all the jurisdictions."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 21, 2017, 06:35:33 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 17, 2017, 09:18:45 PM
The upcoming southbound I-95 Rappahannock River crossing project has a new design concept
http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/new-concept-for-rappahannock-river-crossing-project-on-interstate/article_78f3edd0-b7d4-5004-861a-e0afd5ba9c4c.html
Overall I like this idea and think its an improvement over the original. My only concern is that I hope there is still enough room left in the I-95 median for a theoretical I-95 HOT lanes extension to Spotsylvania if necessary. Its always good to plan ahead.

This new design apparently has no impact on the project's cost.
I like Larry Gross's comment on this; "a graphic is worth a thousand words!"

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 21, 2017, 10:14:35 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 21, 2017, 05:46:46 PM
I just stumbled across this article from 2016. Apparently, local governments can keep ticket revenue again. So much for putting the brakes on speed traps. :banghead:

http://www.progress-index.com/news/20161001/another-chance-for-hopewells-million-dollar-mile (http://www.progress-index.com/news/20161001/another-chance-for-hopewells-million-dollar-mile)
<<big snip>>

"Of course we're happy the money is coming back to the localities,"  said Sodat. Further, he said, his view of the value of the I-295 Safety Program has only been reinforced by recent reports of severe employee shortages within the Virginia State Police.

"Eventually,"  he said, "it would have really hurt all the jurisdictions."

There need to be controls, but they can't just tell Hopewell to butt out and not police that segment of I-295.  VSP historically does have major shortages in sworn officer staffing.  Hopewell has a major hospital with an ER, and has major firefighting capabilities, that directly support that segment of I-295.  No other cities are nearby enough to provide those capabilities; maybe Petersburg but they are not closeby and they help support I-95 and I-85.

I worked on the design of I-295 while at VDOT Location and Design in the early 1980s, and I-295 does weave in and out of the city.  They also took out about 80 buildings for the interchange at VA-36 which is entirely within the city limits.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 22, 2017, 08:34:42 AM
^ If that's the case, perhaps the General Assembly should have directed the state's cut of those ticket revenues to VSP.

Furthermore, if a municipality is relying THAT MUCH on ticket revenue for its annual budget, that's a problem.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on May 22, 2017, 10:08:10 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 22, 2017, 08:34:42 AM
^ If that's the case, perhaps the General Assembly should have directed the state's cut of those ticket revenues to VSP.

Furthermore, if a municipality is relying THAT MUCH on ticket revenue for its annual budget, that's a problem.

You hit the nail on the head.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 22, 2017, 10:54:30 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 22, 2017, 08:34:42 AM
^ If that's the case, perhaps the General Assembly should have directed the state's cut of those ticket revenues to VSP.

That's a good idea, though VSP has a strong anti-ticket revenue philosophy (to fund their own law enforcement operations), as they apparently feel it compromises their objectivity as a police agency.

Quote from: froggie on May 22, 2017, 08:34:42 AM
Furthermore, if a municipality is relying THAT MUCH on ticket revenue for its annual budget, that's a problem.

I agree.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 22, 2017, 01:46:21 PM
Yet another reason to avoid the People's Republic of Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 22, 2017, 02:38:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2017, 01:46:21 PM
Yet another reason to avoid the People's Republic of Virginia.

:-D :-D :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 03:06:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2017, 01:46:21 PM
Yet another reason to avoid the People's Republic of Virginia.

http://www.rcnky.com/articles/2014/10/20/these-are-6-biggest-challenges-facing-kentucky

These Are the 6 Biggest Challenges Facing Kentucky

1. Failure to Dream Big
2. Underfunded Government
3. Our Health
4. Concentrated, Cyclical Poverty
5. The Louisville Divide
6. No Front-Ranked University

I got a good chuckle out of this --

"The fifth dilemma is the historic and persistent divide between the state's largest city and the rest of Kentucky. We Louisvillians are often subjected to invidious comparison with Indianapolis and Nashville, citing the progress in those other cities and our contrasting lack of similar economic success. To the extent that the criticism is accurate, it can be explained in many ways, but one real factor is the truth that the rest of Kentucky doesn't much like Louisville... certainly doesn't like Louisville in the way it loves Lexington.

Non-Louisvillians consider the river city a dismal if not downright dangerous place. I had a friend from Breathitt County who, when she was about to visit me, tried to insist that I meet her at the county line on I-64, since driving in Louisville was, in her view, so difficult and dangerous. She had no trouble and no fear in Lexington, which I believe has much worse traffic problems than Louisville."
...

They make a world-class baseball bat!!  The Louisville Slugger.

I've never been to Bat City so I really don't have an opinion either way.

Positives: In conjunction with Indiana they just built two new freeway bridges.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on May 22, 2017, 03:31:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2017, 01:46:21 PM
Yet another reason to avoid the People's Republic of Virginia.

It can be worse. Try speed camera-infested Maryland, for example. Thankfully, speed cameras are still illegal in Virginia.

At least for me, I can stick it to Hopewell by setting the cruise control at 71, and not pulling off the Interstate to leave any money behind in Hopewell such as on food or gas. Falls Church, next to my county, is much harder for me to avoid even though it's only about two square miles in size (all of which should be considered a speed trap). It doesn't help that most of my doctors practice there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 22, 2017, 03:54:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 03:06:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2017, 01:46:21 PM
Yet another reason to avoid the People's Republic of Virginia.

http://www.rcnky.com/articles/2014/10/20/these-are-6-biggest-challenges-facing-kentucky

David Hawpe wrote that. Please don't get me started on the liberal retired editor of the liberal Courier-Journal. (And I don't have the affection for Lexington that he thinks I might.

I dislike Virginia's speed enforcement efforts -- the "anything 20 over, or above 80 no matter what the speed limit is, is automatically reckless driving, which is a criminal charge rather than a traffic violation" and the ban on radar detectors. I really dislike driving in Virginia, as pretty as much of the state is and the amount of unique signage that can be found there, because of it.

Quote from: oscar on May 22, 2017, 03:31:50 PM

It can be worse. Try speed camera-infested Maryland, for example.

Which a good V-1 will tell you about well ahead of encountering them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 05:32:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2017, 03:54:34 PM
David Hawpe wrote that. Please don't get me started on the liberal retired editor of the liberal Courier-Journal. (And I don't have the affection for Lexington that he thinks I might.

I dislike Virginia's speed enforcement efforts -- the "anything 20 over, or above 80 no matter what the speed limit is, is automatically reckless driving, which is a criminal charge rather than a traffic violation" and the ban on radar detectors. I really dislike driving in Virginia, as pretty as much of the state is and the amount of unique signage that can be found there, because of it.

FYI, lots of people don't need or want to drive 20+ over, or to drive 80+, so it is non-issue, and doesn't impact their driving satisfaction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on May 22, 2017, 07:21:00 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2017, 01:46:21 PM
Yet another reason to avoid the People's Republic of Virginia.

I've also heard it referred to as the Communistwealth of Virginia. :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on May 22, 2017, 08:08:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2017, 03:54:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 03:06:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2017, 01:46:21 PM
Yet another reason to avoid the People's Republic of Virginia.

http://www.rcnky.com/articles/2014/10/20/these-are-6-biggest-challenges-facing-kentucky

David Hawpe wrote that. Please don't get me started on the liberal retired editor of the liberal Courier-Journal. (And I don't have the affection for Lexington that he thinks I might.

I dislike Virginia's speed enforcement efforts -- the "anything 20 over, or above 80 no matter what the speed limit is, is automatically reckless driving, which is a criminal charge rather than a traffic violation" and the ban on radar detectors. I really dislike driving in Virginia, as pretty as much of the state is and the amount of unique signage that can be found there, because of it.

Quote from: oscar on May 22, 2017, 03:31:50 PM

It can be worse. Try speed camera-infested Maryland, for example.

Which a good V-1 will tell you about well ahead of encountering them.

I actually support VA's ban on radar detectors, since the only reason they exist is to encourage speeding without being caught.  IMO it should even be a felony to oppose any such ban and anyone who opposes the ban should IMO get lifetime imprisonment without trial.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on May 22, 2017, 08:31:15 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 22, 2017, 08:08:14 PM
I actually support VA's ban on radar detectors, since the only reason they exist is to encourage speeding without being caught.

For starters, they can also alert you to slow-moving farm equipment, using low-power K-band transmitters to warn approaching detector-equipped drivers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 09:03:41 PM
Quote from: oscar on May 22, 2017, 08:31:15 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 22, 2017, 08:08:14 PM
I actually support VA's ban on radar detectors, since the only reason they exist is to encourage speeding without being caught.
For starters, they can also alert you to slow-moving farm equipment, using low-power K-band transmitters to warn approaching detector-equipped drivers.

If that is the only warning devices they have, they will get run over by a truck before long.

Hopefully the slow-moving farm equipment won't try the freeway!  :pan:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 23, 2017, 01:12:15 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 22, 2017, 08:08:14 PMIMO it should even be a felony to oppose any such ban and anyone who opposes the ban should IMO get lifetime imprisonment without trial.

Hey, it's the thought police!

Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 22, 2017, 08:08:14 PM
I actually support VA's ban on radar detectors, since the only reason they exist is to encourage speeding without being caught.

Well of course that's their purpose. Most people that I know think speed limits are too low and are set artificially and arbitrarily. I'd wager to guess that's the prevailing opinion on this board.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2017, 01:28:25 PM
Quote from: oscar on May 22, 2017, 03:31:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2017, 01:46:21 PM
Yet another reason to avoid the People's Republic of Virginia.

It can be worse. Try speed camera-infested Maryland, for example. Thankfully, speed cameras are still illegal in Virginia.

Maryland does not have that many speed cameras  on the state-maintained arterial system, and where they are found, they are installed by county or sometimes municipal governments (note that Baltimore City has traditionally had many more, and those appear to be mostly about raising revenue, but the city may not put up cameras on any of its state-maintained toll routes (I-95, I-395, I-695 and I-895), but I-83 and the  freeway parts of U.S. 40 and MD-295 in the city are apparently fair game).

The only places where there are state-installed speed cameras in Maryland are approaching and in construction zones, but the presence of those devices is very well advertised leading up to the work area (recent places with aggressive camera enforcement included I-70 at the bridge replacement over Conococheague Creek and nearby  at MD-63 in Washington County (now complete) and U.S. 15 at the Monocacy Boulevard interchange project in Frederick County (that one may still be in operation).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on May 23, 2017, 02:21:00 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 23, 2017, 01:12:15 PM


Well of course that's their purpose. Most people that I know think speed limits are too low and are set artificially and arbitrarily. I'd wager to guess that's the prevailing opinion on this board.

Remember that Virginia has a significantly higher density than many Western states, and in many areas these lower speed limits are warranted based on engineering studies.  I oppose blanket speed limits; speed limits should be raised appropriately based on engineering judgment.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on May 23, 2017, 07:51:43 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on May 22, 2017, 08:08:14 PMIMO it should even be a felony to oppose any such ban and anyone who opposes the ban should IMO get lifetime imprisonment without trial.
I...this...I...I can't even.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on May 26, 2017, 02:22:04 PM
Annandale: "Traffic roundabout planned for Ravensworth Road"

http://annandaleva.blogspot.com/2017/05/traffic-roundabout-planned-for.html

QuoteThe Federal Highway Administration and Virginia Department of Transportation are planning to install a traffic roundabout at Ravensworth Road and Jayhawk Street in Annandale.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 01, 2017, 07:10:49 AM
WDBJ7:  Construction moves forward to demolish and replace the VA 232 bridge over I-81 as part of the replacing of the I-81 bridges over the New River. (http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/First-phase-of-construction-project-on-Interstate-81-begins-425586844.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 01, 2017, 07:37:17 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on May 26, 2017, 02:22:04 PM
Annandale: "Traffic roundabout planned for Ravensworth Road"

http://annandaleva.blogspot.com/2017/05/traffic-roundabout-planned-for.html

QuoteThe Federal Highway Administration and Virginia Department of Transportation are planning to install a traffic roundabout at Ravensworth Road and Jayhawk Street in Annandale.


As opposed to some other sort of roundabout.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 01, 2017, 11:48:09 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 01, 2017, 07:10:49 AM
WDBJ7:  Construction moves forward to demolish and replace the VA 232 bridge over I-81 as part of the replacing of the I-81 bridges over the New River. (http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/First-phase-of-construction-project-on-Interstate-81-begins-425586844.html)

What 50+ years will do to modern Interstate highway bridges.  Those were opened in 1965 and photos thereof were on some of the VDH recruiting brochures back then, picturesque bridges on a sag vertical curve with interesting girder designs and hammerhead pier designs.
http://www.southwesttimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/I-81-bridge-New-River-web.jpg
The VA-232 overpass is in the background.

Now the bridges are nearing end of service life and at today's costs it will cost about $100 million to replace them.  Simply maintaining existing service on older Interstate highways is becoming very expensive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 01, 2017, 03:38:23 PM
At least those bridges have shoulders on them. Any indication the new bridges will be built for 3 lanes in each direction? It would make sense given how busy the corridor is and the various proposals for widening.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 01, 2017, 04:26:04 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 01, 2017, 03:38:23 PM
At least those bridges have shoulders on them. Any indication the new bridges will be built for 3 lanes in each direction? It would make sense given how busy the corridor is and the various proposals for widening.

VDOT can be coy about announcing when they are building a bridge with an extra lane, perhaps to avoid opposition from RE/T groups and federal bureaucrats.

Reading between the lines, I would say yes the new bridge will have 3 lanes available for traffic --

"replace the northbound bridge and widen the shoulders and approach to the bridge on Interstate 81 at the New River"
"reconstruct the Route 232 overpass to accommodate widening of the interstate"
"improve northbound deceleration lane lengths by adding an extended deceleration lane that will provide an additional factor of safety for traffic entering or exiting from Interstate 81.

http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/projects/salem/i-81_new_river_bridge_replacement.asp

It only takes about 2,000 feet of "extended deceleration lane" to extend the length of the bridge.
$48 million sounds like enough to build the about 1,500-foot-long bridge with 3 lanes and 2 full shoulders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 01, 2017, 04:44:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2017, 04:26:04 PM
VDOT can be coy about announcing when they are building a bridge with an extra lane, perhaps to avoid opposition from RE/T groups and federal bureaucrats.

Reading between the lines, I would say yes the new bridge will have 3 lanes available for traffic --

"replace the northbound bridge and widen the shoulders and approach to the bridge on Interstate 81 at the New River"
"reconstruct the Route 232 overpass to accommodate widening of the interstate"
"improve northbound deceleration lane lengths by adding an extended deceleration lane that will provide an additional factor of safety for traffic entering or exiting from Interstate 81.

http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/projects/salem/i-81_new_river_bridge_replacement.asp

It only takes about 2,000 feet of "extended deceleration lane" to extend the length of the bridge.
$48 million sounds like enough to build the about 1,500-foot-long bridge with 3 lanes and 2 full shoulders.

Maryland DOT/SHA just adds the extra lane on most redecked or replaced bridges.  It can legitimately be said that it is a left-side shoulder if the anti-auto/anti-highway industry gets upset.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 01, 2017, 06:54:52 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 01, 2017, 04:44:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2017, 04:26:04 PM
VDOT can be coy about announcing when they are building a bridge with an extra lane, perhaps to avoid opposition from RE/T groups and federal bureaucrats.

Reading between the lines, I would say yes the new bridge will have 3 lanes available for traffic --

"replace the northbound bridge and widen the shoulders and approach to the bridge on Interstate 81 at the New River"
"reconstruct the Route 232 overpass to accommodate widening of the interstate"
"improve northbound deceleration lane lengths by adding an extended deceleration lane that will provide an additional factor of safety for traffic entering or exiting from Interstate 81.

http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/projects/salem/i-81_new_river_bridge_replacement.asp

It only takes about 2,000 feet of "extended deceleration lane" to extend the length of the bridge.
$48 million sounds like enough to build the about 1,500-foot-long bridge with 3 lanes and 2 full shoulders.
Maryland DOT/SHA just adds the extra lane on most redecked or replaced bridges.  It can legitimately be said that it is a left-side shoulder if the anti-auto/anti-highway industry gets upset.

Most of the time VDOT adds the future lane on bridge rehabs or replacements if the highway is a likely candidate for widening in the near future.  I-81 certainly is.  I-95 Meherrin River bridges at MP 10?  Maybe, but will probably be at least 10 years before they do that.

The I-64 bridges over Nine Mile Road in Henrico County that were just replaced each have 3 lanes and full shoulders on each side, you can see the future lanes on the inside.  VDOT wants to widen this I-64 section to 6 lanes when they can fund it, between VA-156 and I-295.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-64_bridge_replacement_over_nine_mile_road.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 01, 2017, 07:38:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2017, 11:48:09 AM


What 50+ years will do to modern Interstate highway bridges.  Those were opened in 1965 and photos thereof were on some of the VDH recruiting brochures back then, picturesque bridges on a sag vertical curve with interesting girder designs and hammerhead pier designs.



Here are pictures from its opening day in Nov 1965 (WSTS screen shots):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2F81newriver.jpg&hash=606bcf507a7aaec2a79a9acf4236eaa2a28e72e4)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2F81newriver2.jpg&hash=9ec945191a7dc29181cf883acb70fe27b43597b5)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2F81newriver3.jpg&hash=12ebac41907cd93d1f2abbda47e6e7a3ed464ee1)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 01, 2017, 08:58:39 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 01, 2017, 07:38:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2017, 11:48:09 AM
What 50+ years will do to modern Interstate highway bridges.  Those were opened in 1965 and photos thereof were on some of the VDH recruiting brochures back then, picturesque bridges on a sag vertical curve with interesting girder designs and hammerhead pier designs.
Here are pictures from its opening day in Nov 1965 (WSTS screen shots):
http://www.vahighways.com/81newriver.jpg
http://www.vahighways.com/81newriver2.jpg
http://www.vahighways.com/81newriver3.jpg

Yes, that is what I remember from the VDH recruiting brochure, with the bulb-shaped girders where they rest on the bearing seats.

I wonder if they widened the bridge to put a right shoulder on it.
The girders look different today --
http://www.southwesttimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/I-81-bridge-New-River-web.jpg

The parapets were replaced, they have a Jersey Barrier shape today, whereas originally they had a barrier curb and a vertical wall.

It is definitely the same bridge in each photo, verified by the VA-232 bridge and roadway in the background.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 12, 2017, 05:11:26 PM
Construction at the I-95/VA 3 interchange is going to begin June 26th. (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/fredericksburg/construction-on-route-interchange-in-fredericksburg-beginning-soon/article_167751d7-18cc-5925-8eb9-00bd4881ab93.html)  (from Fredericksburg.com)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on June 12, 2017, 09:40:07 PM
I noticed that one of the GOP candidates for governor, Frank Wagner, is still pushing for upgrading US-58 to an interstate. Apparently, he sees I-87 as a threat to southside VA.

http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/news/five-questions-virginia-governor-s-race/article_6079aeb8-4d6f-11e7-a900-5fb019268592.html (http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/news/five-questions-virginia-governor-s-race/article_6079aeb8-4d6f-11e7-a900-5fb019268592.html)

Quote1. In every election, the economy comes up as a major concern. But when voters go through a candidate's economic plan, they often don't see how it would help them. Please give specific examples of how your plan would benefit places like Martinsville, Henry and Patrick counties.

Frank Wagner- What we've been doing in the General Assembly is treating symptoms of a bad economy down here. We haven't come down here and cured the disease. The disease is gonna take an investment in infrastructure. You have to upgrade Route 58 to interstate quality. If we don't do that, North Carolina will just rip us up. They're already proposing a highway parallel to 58, coming up to the city of Chesapeake. If they do that, all the economic development won't be here, it'll be in North Carolina. You need connectivity, you've got to have the highway infrastructure. We also need to straighten out 220 and get started on Interstate 73. Now we can't get a bill in four years, we can't even get a permit, but you can get I-73 to where it can't be stopped. We also need more technical courses and diplomas at New College Institute, to increase K-12 funding with a bigger emphasis on career technical education and to look at creating an inland port in Pittsylvania County. We also need free trade zones here. What that does is reduce the tariffs and things like that to attract overseas investment.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 12, 2017, 09:47:58 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 12, 2017, 05:11:26 PM
Construction at the I-95/VA 3 interchange is going to begin June 26th. (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/fredericksburg/construction-on-route-interchange-in-fredericksburg-beginning-soon/article_167751d7-18cc-5925-8eb9-00bd4881ab93.html)  (from Fredericksburg.com)

IMO a flyover would be better from VA-3 eastbound to I-95 northbound. VA-3 has enough traffic lights already as it is. However this would have increased costs significantly and as a result caused the project to not score well in Virginia's new Smart Scale program.

All in all glad to see VDOT is at least doing something to fix the troublesome interchange and would much rather have this design then another more expensive one; which could have likely ended up similar to Northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project problem and not gotten any funding. Hopefully VDOT will be able to save some extra money on this project​ so they can then expedite planning and construction on a new I-95 interchange (likely a diamond or DDI) at Harrison Road, a few miles south, which I bet also helps relieve Exit 130 tremendously.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 12, 2017, 10:17:48 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 12, 2017, 09:40:07 PM
I noticed that one of the GOP candidates for governor, Frank Wagner, is still pushing for upgrading US-58 to an interstate. Apparently, he sees I-87 as a threat to southside VA.

http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/news/five-questions-virginia-governor-s-race/article_6079aeb8-4d6f-11e7-a900-5fb019268592.html (http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/news/five-questions-virginia-governor-s-race/article_6079aeb8-4d6f-11e7-a900-5fb019268592.html)

Quote1. In every election, the economy comes up as a major concern. But when voters go through a candidate's economic plan, they often don't see how it would help them. Please give specific examples of how your plan would benefit places like Martinsville, Henry and Patrick counties.

Frank Wagner- What we've been doing in the General Assembly is treating symptoms of a bad economy down here. We haven't come down here and cured the disease. The disease is gonna take an investment in infrastructure. You have to upgrade Route 58 to interstate quality. If we don't do that, North Carolina will just rip us up. They're already proposing a highway parallel to 58, coming up to the city of Chesapeake. If they do that, all the economic development won't be here, it'll be in North Carolina. You need connectivity, you've got to have the highway infrastructure. We also need to straighten out 220 and get started on Interstate 73. Now we can't get a bill in four years, we can't even get a permit, but you can get I-73 to where it can't be stopped. We also need more technical courses and diplomas at New College Institute, to increase K-12 funding with a bigger emphasis on career technical education and to look at creating an inland port in Pittsylvania County. We also need free trade zones here. What that does is reduce the tariffs and things like that to attract overseas investment.

Wagner is definitely the infastucture candidate, no doubt about it. Not only does he want to turn much of US-58 in Virginia into an interstate ( I-58 kinda has a nice ring to it), he also wants to...
- Finish widening I-64 between Norfolk and Richmond
- Widen I-81 either around the Roanoke area or throughout the entire state
- Build the Coalfields expressway
- Build I-73
- Move past building Express Toll Lanes
- Build 2 new inland ports in Southside and Southwest Virginia

Not sure how just a gas tax increase would pay for all this, but as a roadgeek I'm definitely interested. At this point I'm actually surprised he hasn't mentioned​ turning US-29 south of I-66 into an interstate.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on June 12, 2017, 10:35:46 PM
The only section of US 58 that would need to be an interstate highway would be from South Hill at I-85 to Bowers Hill in Chesapeake.
Maybe from Danville to Bowers Hill at the most.  Some sections could be upgraded on the spot, however, there are many sections that would have to be built on new terrain.

This would be something to see if it became reality.  US 58 transitioning to I-58 and then back to US 58 again.  Not sure if this has been done before...I'm sorry, US 41/I-41/US 41.  :D

Fictional territory here...

If this ever became reality, would I-58 replace I-264?  Then VA 44 could be used to replace US 58 from Bowers Hill to Va. Beach.  :hmmm:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on June 13, 2017, 08:54:01 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 12, 2017, 10:17:48 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 12, 2017, 09:40:07 PM
I noticed that one of the GOP candidates for governor, Frank Wagner, is still pushing for upgrading US-58 to an interstate. Apparently, he sees I-87 as a threat to southside VA.

http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/news/five-questions-virginia-governor-s-race/article_6079aeb8-4d6f-11e7-a900-5fb019268592.html (http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/news/five-questions-virginia-governor-s-race/article_6079aeb8-4d6f-11e7-a900-5fb019268592.html)

Quote1. In every election, the economy comes up as a major concern. But when voters go through a candidate's economic plan, they often don't see how it would help them. Please give specific examples of how your plan would benefit places like Martinsville, Henry and Patrick counties.

Frank Wagner- What we've been doing in the General Assembly is treating symptoms of a bad economy down here. We haven't come down here and cured the disease. The disease is gonna take an investment in infrastructure. You have to upgrade Route 58 to interstate quality. If we don't do that, North Carolina will just rip us up. They're already proposing a highway parallel to 58, coming up to the city of Chesapeake. If they do that, all the economic development won't be here, it'll be in North Carolina. You need connectivity, you've got to have the highway infrastructure. We also need to straighten out 220 and get started on Interstate 73. Now we can't get a bill in four years, we can't even get a permit, but you can get I-73 to where it can't be stopped. We also need more technical courses and diplomas at New College Institute, to increase K-12 funding with a bigger emphasis on career technical education and to look at creating an inland port in Pittsylvania County. We also need free trade zones here. What that does is reduce the tariffs and things like that to attract overseas investment.

Wagner is definitely the infastucture candidate, no doubt about it. Not only does he want to turn much of US-58 in Virginia into an interstate ( I-58 kinda has a nice ring to it), he also wants to...
- Finish widening I-64 between Norfolk and Richmond
- Widen I-81 either around the Roanoke area or throughout the entire state
- Build the Coalfields expressway
- Build I-73
- Move past building Express Toll Lanes
- Build 2 new inland ports in Southside and Southwest Virginia

Not sure how just a gas tax increase would pay for all this, but as a roadgeek I'm definitely interested. At this point I'm actually surprised he hasn't mentioned​ turning US-29 south of I-66 into an interstate.

He probably hasn't mentioned US-29 because of the strong opposition it would bring, particulary from the Charlottesville area. On the other hand, Lynchburg and Danville would be very happy about it. Those two cities already blame Charlottesville for being a bottleneck.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on June 13, 2017, 09:12:02 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 12, 2017, 10:35:46 PM
The only section of US 58 that would need to be an interstate highway would be from South Hill at I-85 to Bowers Hill in Chesapeake.
Maybe from Danville to Bowers Hill at the most.  Some sections could be upgraded on the spot, however, there are many sections that would have to be built on new terrain.

This would be something to see if it became reality.  US 58 transitioning to I-58 and then back to US 58 again.  Not sure if this has been done before...I'm sorry, US 41/I-41/US 41.  :D

Fictional territory here...

If this ever became reality, would I-58 replace I-264?  Then VA 44 could be used to replace US 58 from Bowers Hill to Va. Beach.  :hmmm:

Based on Wagner's answer about helping Henry County, he'll probably want the interstate to begin at I-77. He wouldn't have much support otherwise. The area already feels like they've been neglected in favor of other parts of the state, so I highly doubt he would begin the interstate at I-85 and leave out the rest of southside VA.

If US-58 ever does become an interstate, which is unlikely IMO, I also think it should take over I-264. Not mention that I-87 could easily take over I-464, so that would eliminate two I-x64's.

Either way, upgrading US-58 would not be easy and there would probably be opposition from some of the small speed traps towns that would be bypassed by the interstate.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 13, 2017, 10:57:28 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 13, 2017, 09:12:02 AM
If US-58 ever does become an interstate, which is unlikely IMO, I also think it should take over I-264. Not mention that I-87 could easily take over I-464, so that would eliminate two I-x64's.

IMO, an upgraded U.S. 58 does not need to be an Interstate. An expressway-type road (like the West Virginia ADHS corridors like Corridors G and H) would be fine.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 13, 2017, 11:35:01 AM
I agree to an extent with both amroad17 and cpzilliacus on the US 58 thing.

If there was ever a time when US 58 is upgraded to an interstate then from South Hill eastward would be just fine. Anything west of South Hill would be absolutely ridiculous. I seriously doubt an interstate corridor along southern Virginia would help boost the fortunes of the cities/towns Wagner is trying to target.

But if US 58 never becomes an interstate then the least the state can do is build a bypass of Brodnax and upgrade or bypass the section between the Franklin Bypass and the Suffolk Bypass.

Aslo a folded diamond interchange could be built at LaCrosse... this would at least eliminate 1 of the 3 traffic signals on 58 between I-85 and I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on June 13, 2017, 12:17:10 PM
US 58 is sort of like US 48, OH 32, or US 35 between Emporia and Courtland now.

If this endeavor became reality, this freeway would probably have to be signed with an I-number if the 90/10 method is used.  I wouldn't care if this was signed as US 58 instead of having an I-58.  Then, possibly, VDOT could sign the old US 58 portions as VA 44--even if they are discontinuous (ala MD 144 on the old US 40 alignments).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 13, 2017, 02:12:52 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 13, 2017, 12:17:10 PM
US 58 is sort of like US 48, OH 32, or US 35 between Emporia and Courtland now.

US-58 between I-95 and I-64/I-264/I-464 -- 35% of the distance is limited access.  30% of the distance is full freeway.

There is a connect-the-bypasses project in study that would make a seamless freeway between the Courtland and Franklin bypasses.  The current interchange project at the east end of the Courtland Bypass would accommodate that.  The west end of the Franklin Bypass was built with right-of-way for a future interchange, and that would be built under this proposal.  A new alignment would be built to the north of the existing nonlimited-access highway.  I surmise that at about 2.5 miles in length that this project is modest enough in cost that it may be built in the near future.  This would be a worthwhile project.

This US-58 6-lane widening project is in the Six-Year Program for 2021 advertisement --

Route 58/Holland Road Improvements
The 3.1 mile widening project will provide an additional travel lane both east and west bound from Route 58/13/32 bypass to approximately 0.7mile west of Manning Bridge Road. There will be intersection and traffic signal upgrades. The project will also include a separated bikeway or multi-use path to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. The City of Suffolk will administer all roles with state oversight.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/route_58-holland_road_improvements.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 13, 2017, 09:28:38 PM
http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-wagner-talks-southwest-virginia/article_99c33412-9d3b-5921-afef-430ee7242162.html
Quote from: link=topic=http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-wagner-talks-southwest-virginia/article_99c33412-9d3b-5921-afef-430ee7242162.html date=1497370630
If nothing else, Wagner is asking questions other candidates aren't. Such as this one: "Why isn't there more economic growth around Interstate 77?"  he asks. He's mystified why Wytheville doesn't have more going on where I-77 and I-81 intersect. "That's the only place where I've seen two interstate criss-cross and not have economic activity,"  Wagner says. He wants to know why, and says as governor he'd try to find out why – and fix it.
I found this statement to be very intriguing and am wondering
A. Is this statement valid?
B. If it is valid, then why?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 13, 2017, 09:53:39 PM
I voted for Wagner even though I knew he wouldn't win. He was the only one with anything worthwhile to say about transportation, and I think there's something valid to the idea that if you want transportation improvements you have to be willing to pay for them. That's not a popular statement with many voters, but it's correct.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on June 15, 2017, 07:52:41 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 13, 2017, 09:53:39 PM
I voted for Wagner even though I knew he wouldn't win. He was the only one with anything worthwhile to say about transportation, and I think there's something valid to the idea that if you want transportation improvements you have to be willing to pay for them. That's not a popular statement with many voters, but it's correct.

Indeed. It was refreshing to hear. Oh well, it was good while it lasted. :-D Back to the status quo. :banghead:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kkt on June 15, 2017, 07:51:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 23, 2017, 01:12:15 PM
Hey, it's the thought police!

I think it's the Thought Police's plainclothes Snark Division.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2017, 06:32:51 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 13, 2017, 09:53:39 PM
I voted for Wagner even though I knew he wouldn't win. He was the only one with anything worthwhile to say about transportation, and I think there's something valid to the idea that if you want transportation improvements you have to be willing to pay for them. That's not a popular statement with many voters, but it's correct.

I presume that the  Democratic nominee, Lt. Gov. Ralph Northham, knows something about expensive  infrastructure by personal experience, given he is a native of  Accomack County, and getting to "mainland" Virginia by road requires crossing the Chesapeake Bay via the CBBT - or heading north into Maryland and then across the WPL [Bay] Bridge.

It is reasonable to assume that he made the crossing quite a few times during his college years (his online bio says he  was a cadet at the Virginia Military  Institute in Lexington).

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 16, 2017, 08:16:06 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 13, 2017, 09:53:39 PM
I voted for Wagner even though I knew he wouldn't win. He was the only one with anything worthwhile to say about transportation, and I think there's something valid to the idea that if you want transportation improvements you have to be willing to pay for them. That's not a popular statement with many voters, but it's correct.

I heard radio ads from him the days leading up to Primary Day talking about improvements to, by name, highways, Metro and VRE. These ads almost certainly were targeted to the NOVA market. I was curiously surprised to hear a Republican gubnatorial hopeful talk so highly of infrastructure; probably reflects the ever-growing political influence of NOVA.

Mr. Stewart's radio spots were, by any measure, much more short on policy agendae.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on June 16, 2017, 08:49:07 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 16, 2017, 08:16:06 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 13, 2017, 09:53:39 PM
I voted for Wagner even though I knew he wouldn't win. He was the only one with anything worthwhile to say about transportation, and I think there's something valid to the idea that if you want transportation improvements you have to be willing to pay for them. That's not a popular statement with many voters, but it's correct.

I heard radio ads from him the days leading up to Primary Day talking about improvements to, by name, highways, Metro and VRE. These ads almost certainly were targeted to the NOVA market. I was curiously surprised to hear a Republican gubnatorial hopeful talk so highly of infrastructure; probably reflects the ever-growing political influence of NOVA.

What impressed me with Wagner is that he not only addressed NOVA and the toll issues there, but unlike other candidates, he realized that other areas of the state beyond the 3 metro areas have infrastructure needs as well and addressed them too. I'm not saying I-shields need to start popping up everywhere, but it would've been nice to have a governor that looked after the rest of us as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 16, 2017, 09:24:56 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 13, 2017, 02:12:52 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 13, 2017, 12:17:10 PM
US 58 is sort of like US 48, OH 32, or US 35 between Emporia and Courtland now.

US-58 between I-95 and I-64/I-264/I-464 -- 35% of the distance is limited access.  30% of the distance is full freeway.

There is a connect-the-bypasses project in study that would make a seamless freeway between the Courtland and Franklin bypasses.  The current interchange project at the east end of the Courtland Bypass would accommodate that.  The west end of the Franklin Bypass was built with right-of-way for a future interchange, and that would be built under this proposal.  A new alignment would be built to the north of the existing nonlimited-access highway.  I surmise that at about 2.5 miles in length that this project is modest enough in cost that it may be built in the near future.  This would be a worthwhile project.

This US-58 6-lane widening project is in the Six-Year Program for 2021 advertisement --

Route 58/Holland Road Improvements
The 3.1 mile widening project will provide an additional travel lane both east and west bound from Route 58/13/32 bypass to approximately 0.7mile west of Manning Bridge Road. There will be intersection and traffic signal upgrades. The project will also include a separated bikeway or multi-use path to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. The City of Suffolk will administer all roles with state oversight.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/route_58-holland_road_improvements.asp

I definitely dig their plan for the section between the Courtland and Franklin bypasses and agree that it's a worthwhile project.

But I'm frowning upon that 6-laning of Holland Rd... I don't think that's going to cut it. There's already many homes and businesses in that 3 mile stretch with more to come so just simply widening that stretch will only provide a very temporary relief. There needs to be grade separation somewhere in the mix. Now that I've gone back and looked at the satellite image just to the north of that area again, there seems to be ample room for 2-lane carriageways on each side of the railroad tracks there (except at that distribution center at Kenyon Rd). This is where a new limited access highway could be routed, begining from the Suffolk bypass going westward, then eventually moving away from said railroad just before Kenyon Rd to eventually rejoin US 58 west of the development (and proposed 6 laned section) in question. I know, I'm just wishful thinking I guess, but I believe the state (or Suffolk) really should act in securing some ROW somewhere before this area turns into another US 29 Charlottesville situation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 16, 2017, 11:21:35 AM
Quote from: plain on June 16, 2017, 09:24:56 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 13, 2017, 02:12:52 PM
This US-58 6-lane widening project is in the Six-Year Program for 2021 advertisement --
Route 58/Holland Road Improvements
The 3.1 mile widening project will provide an additional travel lane both east and west bound from Route 58/13/32 bypass to approximately 0.7mile west of Manning Bridge Road. There will be intersection and traffic signal upgrades. The project will also include a separated bikeway or multi-use path to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists along the corridor. The City of Suffolk will administer all roles with state oversight.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/route_58-holland_road_improvements.asp
I definitely dig their plan for the section between the Courtland and Franklin bypasses and agree that it's a worthwhile project.

But I'm frowning upon that 6-laning of Holland Rd... I don't think that's going to cut it. There's already many homes and businesses in that 3 mile stretch with more to come so just simply widening that stretch will only provide a very temporary relief. There needs to be grade separation somewhere in the mix. Now that I've gone back and looked at the satellite image just to the north of that area again, there seems to be ample room for 2-lane carriageways on each side of the railroad tracks there (except at that distribution center at Kenyon Rd). This is where a new limited access highway could be routed, begining from the Suffolk bypass going westward, then eventually moving away from said railroad just before Kenyon Rd to eventually rejoin US 58 west of the development (and proposed 6 laned section) in question. I know, I'm just wishful thinking I guess, but I believe the state (or Suffolk) really should act in securing some ROW somewhere before this area turns into another US 29 Charlottesville situation.

The 3.1 mile widening project will include access management controls, and I believe that it will be a very substantial traffic improvement.

That said I do support studying a bypass extension that would connect the Holland Bypass and the Suffolk Bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on June 16, 2017, 11:30:17 PM
If a freeway it built to connect the Suffolk Bypass to the Holland Bypass, the current end at the US 13 split would have to be reconfigured.  The freeway would have to run north of current US 58.  The tie-in at Holland would not be difficult to do. 

It would be nice if the Franklin-Courtland section was built.  It wouldn't seem to be a tremendous undertaking.

If this was ever completed, do you believe AASHTO would approve a 2di (I-58) or would they make it a 3di (I-595)?  I guess it would depend on how Virginia would submit the application.  If they submitted one having I-58 (assumption/example) go all the way to Va. Beach and supplanting I-264 (or following the Chesapeake/Va. Beach section of the Hampton Roads Beltway and then going to Va. Beach), then I believe AASHTO would approve a 2di.

As for the above paragraph, another fictional thought...

Have I-64 supplant I-264 from the Norfolk interchange to where I-264 currently ends in Va. Beach.  Have I-58 follow the southern loop of the HR Beltway to the current I-64/I-264 interchange in Norfolk.  This would get rid of the wrong direction I-64 to Bowers Hill (even though this is a rather interesting interstate novelty--which I dealt with and got used to, living 22 years in Chesapeake).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 17, 2017, 02:55:22 AM
Given the development just west of the US 58/13/58 BUS junction it would be nearly impossible to freeway Holland Rd in that area... a freeway would have to be on an entirely new ROW.

The only way I see an interstate ever being designated on US 58 is if it was interstate quality to at least I-95 (much better if it was to I-85 though as we discussed). And then it would most likely be a 2di. Anything less than that would be meh, given Virginia's history with interstate designations. Hell I'm still surprised about I-264 being allowed to get extended over VA 44's routing
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 07:19:38 AM
Quote from: plain on June 17, 2017, 02:55:22 AM
Given the development just west of the US 58/13/58 BUS junction it would be nearly impossible to freeway Holland Rd in that area... a freeway would have to be on an entirely new ROW.

The only way I see an interstate ever being designated on US 58 is if it was interstate quality to at least I-95 (much better if it was to I-85 though as we discussed). And then it would most likely be a 2di. Anything less than that would be meh, given Virginia's history with interstate designations. Hell I'm still surprised about I-264 being allowed to get extended over VA 44's routing

Virginia did get some relatively short but vital urban Interstate mileage additions to the original 1956 and 1968 Interstate system allocations.

I-664 between I-64/I-264 at Bowers Hill, and 2 miles north of south shore of Hampton Roads -- 11 miles.

I-264 Downtown Tunnel / Berkley Bridge expansion, parallel tunnel and parallel bridge, interchange upgrades -- 2.2 miles.

I-295 extension from Varina in Henrico County to I-95 south of Petersburg -- 16 miles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 03:30:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 07:19:38 AM
Virginia did get some relatively short but vital urban Interstate mileage additions to the original 1956 and 1968 Interstate system allocations.

I-664 between I-64/I-264 at Bowers Hill, and 2 miles north of south shore of Hampton Roads -- 11 miles.

I-264 Downtown Tunnel / Berkley Bridge expansion, parallel tunnel and parallel bridge, interchange upgrades -- 2.2 miles.

I-295 extension from Varina in Henrico County to I-95 south of Petersburg -- 16 miles.

Those were new construction segments that were designated as Interstate routes upon completion.

The aforementioned 12 miles of VA-44 already existed when it was designated as an Interstate route.

The originally designated I-264 from I-64 at Bowers Hill to I-64/I-264/VA-44 near Military Circle did not include the Downtown Tunnel / Berkley Bridge complex (completed 1952, funded with toll revenue bonds).  Seems odd that that segment was omitted, but it is what it is.  VDOT got approval from FHWA to add it in 1978, and to expand it.

Part of my highway advocacy efforts will be to submit detailed justifications to VDOT recommending that they pursue designation as Interstate routes on the following.  Good candidates every one.

VA-895 ==> I-895
VA-195 ==> I-195
VA-288 ==> I-695
VA-164 ==> I-164
MLK Fwy segment ==> I-764
VA-267 ==> I-595
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 17, 2017, 03:45:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 03:30:57 PM



VA-895 ==> I-895
VA-195 ==> I-195
VA-288 ==> I-695
VA-164 ==> I-164
MLK Fwy segment ==> I-764
VA-267 ==> I-595

Curiosity questions...

Would Virginia have to pay back federal $ to convert VA 195 as they would for VA 895?

Does the City of Richmond still object to VA 288 being placed into the interstate system?  In 1977 the city petitioned CTB to abandon the interstate idea and even suggested studying an I-195 extension to I-85 west of Petersburg...!

Why I-764 instead of continuing I-164 on over the MLK Expwy?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 17, 2017, 03:51:27 PM
Echoing Mike's I-764 question.  Meanwhile, I'd think an I-x66 would be more appropriate for VA 267.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on June 17, 2017, 04:46:46 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 17, 2017, 03:45:00 PM
Does the City of Richmond still object to VA 288 being placed into the interstate system?  In 1977 the city petitioned CTB to abandon the interstate idea and even suggested studying an I-195 extension to I-85 west of Petersburg...!

Why did Richmond object to VA-288 becoming an interstate? It doesn't have tolls and is very close to meeting interstate standards, if it doesn't already. What do they have to lose if it became I-695? 

Of all the proposed interstates Beltway mentioned, VA-288/I-695 seems to be the most logical addition to the Interstate system, since it acts as a shortcut to I-95 from I-64 and vice versa, with the added bonus of bypassing Richmond.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: EricJV95 on June 17, 2017, 05:12:32 PM
I know they are widening I-64 from the Denbigh area of Newport News up to I-295 just outside of Richmond. Now, Are there any plans to have I-64 widened between I-464 in Chesapeake to the Bowers Hill-Suffolk-Norfolk split at I-264 (EXITS 299A-B) to 3 lanes each?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on June 17, 2017, 05:22:35 PM
Quote from: EricJV95 on June 17, 2017, 05:12:32 PM
I know they are widening I-64 from the Denbigh area of Newport News up to I-295 just outside of Richmond. Now, Are there any plans to have I-64 widened between I-464 in Chesapeake to the Bowers Hill-Suffolk-Norfolk split at I-264 (EXITS 299A-B) to 3 lanes each?
Yes, though it looks like any additional capacity will be in the form of managed lanes (HOV, HOT, etc): http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/i-64_southside_widening_and_high_rise_bridge_phase_1_project.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/i-64_southside_widening_and_high_rise_bridge_phase_1_project.asp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 17, 2017, 05:50:26 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2017, 04:46:46 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 17, 2017, 03:45:00 PM
Does the City of Richmond still object to VA 288 being placed into the interstate system?  In 1977 the city petitioned CTB to abandon the interstate idea and even suggested studying an I-195 extension to I-85 west of Petersburg...!

Why did Richmond object to VA-288 becoming an interstate? It doesn't have tolls and is very close to meeting interstate standards, if it doesn't already. What do they have to lose if it became I-695? 

Of all the proposed interstates Beltway mentioned, VA-288/I-695 seems to be the most logical addition to the Interstate system, since it acts as a shortcut to I-95 from I-64 and vice versa, with the added bonus of bypassing Richmond.

See pp. 33-41 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-04-1977-01.pdf

Essentially Richmond thought the beltway of Richmond would do nothing to alleviate Richmond's traffic problems (among other arguments).  They did not mention the VA 288 portion specifically but were requesting that construction stop on what was the original part of I-295 opened, as a bypass of I-64...

The document mentions traffic projections but these were not included in the CTB documentation.  Would be interesting to see how the projections (deemed exaggerated by Richmond) compare to what ultimately happened...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 06:07:04 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 17, 2017, 03:45:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 03:30:57 PM
VA-895 ==> I-895
VA-195 ==> I-195
VA-288 ==> I-695
VA-164 ==> I-164
MLK Fwy segment ==> I-764
VA-267 ==> I-595
Curiosity questions...

Would Virginia have to pay back federal $ to convert VA 195 as they would for VA 895?

Does the City of Richmond still object to VA 288 being placed into the interstate system?  In 1977 the city petitioned CTB to abandon the interstate idea and even suggested studying an I-195 extension to I-85 west of Petersburg...!

Why I-764 instead of continuing I-164 on over the MLK Expwy?

I don't think that VDOT would necessarily have to pay back federal funds to obtain I-895, that was an idea that I posted on my Route 895 website article back in 2002.  They should like some other states request a clause be added to the next federal transportation bill to allow this designation.

I wasn't aware that the City of Richmond had a stance on VA-288 in 1977, I was aware that they were very outspoken against I-295 being built south of US-60, thinking that it would harm the city economically.  I-295 was already under construction north of the city between I-64 at Short Pump and US-60 at Sandston.

I propose using Interstate I-164 on the Western Freeway and then thru the 2-lane ramps of the Pinners Point Interchange that connect to the Midtown Tunnel approach highway, thru the Midtown Tunnel, and terminating I-164 at the interchange with West Brambleton Avenue and Hampton Boulevard in downtown Norfolk.

I-164 would be an Interstate spur route connecting I-664 to downtown Norfolk and Hampton Boulevard.  I-664 and I-164 would be an appropriate designated Interstate highway connector between Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth and Norfolk.  It could even function as an "interim third Hampton Roads crossing", exploiting the fact that currently the I-664 HR tunnel carries about 1/2 of the volume of the I-64 HR tunnel.

The Martin Luther King Freeway between the Pinners Point Interchange and I-264 near downtown Portsmough, would be designated as Interstate I-764.  A short but vital highway that connects I-164 to I-264 and the Downtown Tunnel / Berkley Bridge complex.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: June 17, 2017, 07:19:23 PM

Quote from: LM117 on June 17, 2017, 04:46:46 PM
Of all the proposed interstates Beltway mentioned, VA-288/I-695 seems to be the most logical addition to the Interstate system, since it acts as a shortcut to I-95 from I-64 and vice versa, with the added bonus of bypassing Richmond.

These Interstate/interregional traffic movements that bypass Richmond are signed on the highway system --
1) Westbound I-64 traffic heading for I-95 south of Richmond to Petersburg is directed by sign on I-64 near Short Pump to use VA-288.
2) Northbound I-95 traffic heading for I-64 west of Richmond to Charlottesville is directed by sign on I-95 near Chester to use VA-288.

Such traffic movements should not temporarily leave the Interstate system, the bypass should be an Interstate highway.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: June 17, 2017, 07:19:27 PM

Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2017, 03:51:27 PM
Echoing Mike's I-764 question.  Meanwhile, I'd think an I-x66 would be more appropriate for VA 267.

I considered that, and Route 566 is not currently in use.  It seemed somewhat awkward to have a 28-mile-long spur branching off the mainline route only 8 miles from its terminus.

Route 595 is also not currently in use.  I tended to favor the route being part of the I-95 system, like I-795 branches from I-695 in Maryland.

But I will grant that I-566 would work.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 17, 2017, 07:32:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 06:07:04 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2017, 03:51:27 PM
Echoing Mike's I-764 question.  Meanwhile, I'd think an I-x66 would be more appropriate for VA 267.

I considered that, and Route 566 is not currently in use.  It seemed somewhat awkward to have a 28-mile-long spur branching off the mainline route only 8 miles from its terminus.

Route 595 is also not currently in use.  I tended to favor the route being part of the I-95 system, like I-795 branches from I-695 in Maryland.

But I will grant that I-566 would work.

I guess I-595 confusion would be minimal since most in MD do not even know that the one there exists.

Sadly, my main response to this topic is that "Maybe one day I-366 will exist along VA 28 after all".   :-D 

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 17, 2017, 08:47:32 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 17, 2017, 03:45:00 PM
In 1977 the city petitioned CTB to abandon the interstate idea and even suggested studying an I-195 extension to I-85 west of Petersburg...!

Damn it seems like Richmond officials of that era wanted to ultimately have the I-85/I-95 junction in Richmond instead of Petersburg with such a proposal. When combined with those other issues you guys mentioned it seems those officials were either crazy, ignorant or just straight up assholes. Given the turmoil and controversies the city was experiencing, maybe it was a combination of the 3 lmao.



For fantasy I actually floated an idea on another thread a while back of having an expressway that started at VA 288 just west of Pocahontas State Park, go southward, then southeast, cross the Appomattox River just downstream from Lake Chesdin, junction I-85 below US 460, then east to the I-95/I-295 junction (basically this would create a beltway around both Richmond AND Petersburg). I realize the last part is actually the "I-85 rerouting" that was proposed back in the day but never happened.
In my head, the numbering would be as follows:

the eastern bypass would remain I-295.

the western bypass (including VA 288 west and north of the state park, plus I-295 between I-64 Short Pump and it's northern junction with I-95) would become I-285.

VA 288 from the state park eastward would remain VA 288.. no interstate designation necessary.

south of Petersburg, the change from I-285 to I-295 would occur either halfway between I-85 and I-95 or at the Dinwiddie/Prince George county line.

the junction of I-85/I-95 remains in downtown Petersburg (which, in my opinion, is where it belongs).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 17, 2017, 09:04:58 PM
Quotesouth of Petersburg, the change from I-285 to I-295 would occur either halfway between I-85 and I-95 or at the Dinwiddie/Prince George county line.

What is wrong with just I-85 or I-95?

In this scenario, I think I would prefer west of I-95 being I-285 and east of I-95 being I-295 (resulting in a I-64/I-285 duplex in Short Pump though) or just not change I-295's routing at all and make the new freeway all I-285.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 17, 2017, 09:15:20 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 17, 2017, 07:32:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 06:07:04 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 17, 2017, 03:51:27 PM
Echoing Mike's I-764 question.  Meanwhile, I'd think an I-x66 would be more appropriate for VA 267.

I considered that, and Route 566 is not currently in use.  It seemed somewhat awkward to have a 28-mile-long spur branching off the mainline route only 8 miles from its terminus.

Route 595 is also not currently in use.  I tended to favor the route being part of the I-95 system, like I-795 branches from I-695 in Maryland.

But I will grant that I-566 would work.

I guess I-595 confusion would be minimal since most in MD do not even know that the one there exists.

Sadly, my main response to this topic is that "Maybe one day I-366 will exist along VA 28 after all".   :-D 



IMO the perfect time/opportunity to designate a state highway that is either near or already at Interstate Standards into an Interstate is right after a major construction/improvement project takes place on that highway. New Name(Interstate designation)= New and Improved Highway= Hopefully less confusion among drivers. Unfortunately I think VDOT missed a perfect chance to do this by not turning VA-164 into I-164 after they extended the MLK freeway to I-264.
VA-288 should definitely be designated an interstate(either I-695 or even I-864) and whenever VDOT decides to widen at least some portions of VA-288 to six or more lanes(hopefully relatively soon), that would also be a great time to pursue an I-Shield

Finally the most perfect opportunity of all for VDOT to turn an existing state highway into an interstate would be you guessed it: VA-28 into I-366 right after the I-66 Express Lanes Project concludes in around 2022.
As a result of the massive project, the I-66/VA-28 interchange will be properly upgraded and the last lights on that section of VA-28 would be eliminated thus making VA-28 meet interstate standards all the way from I-66 to VA-7(15 miles).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 17, 2017, 09:15:58 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 17, 2017, 09:04:58 PM
Quotesouth of Petersburg, the change from I-285 to I-295 would occur either halfway between I-85 and I-95 or at the Dinwiddie/Prince George county line.

What is wrong with just I-85 or I-95?

In this scenario, I think I would prefer west of I-95 being I-285 and east of I-95 being I-295 (resulting in a I-64/I-285 duplex in Short Pump though) or just not change I-295's routing at all and make the new freeway all I-285.

I simply couldn't decide whether the change would occur at I-85 or I-95 so I went with the middle  :-D

When I thought up the idea I already knew that I-285 would have to be duplexed with I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 09:17:48 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 17, 2017, 07:32:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 06:07:04 PM
I considered that, and Route 566 is not currently in use.  It seemed somewhat awkward to have a 28-mile-long spur branching off the mainline route only 8 miles from its terminus.

Route 595 is also not currently in use.  I tended to favor the route being part of the I-95 system, like I-795 branches from I-695 in Maryland.

But I will grant that I-566 would work.
I guess I-595 confusion would be minimal since most in MD do not even know that the one there exists.

Sadly, my main response to this topic is that "Maybe one day I-366 will exist along VA 28 after all".   :-D 

When the segment of VA-28 north of I-66 has no more at-grade intersections, I would recommend that it be re-designated as an Interstate route.  Save I-566 for future use there.

Of course, Virginia could do a 'Maryland' and re-designate VA-267 as I-98 !
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 18, 2017, 09:26:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 09:17:48 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 17, 2017, 07:32:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 06:07:04 PM
I considered that, and Route 566 is not currently in use.  It seemed somewhat awkward to have a 28-mile-long spur branching off the mainline route only 8 miles from its terminus.

Route 595 is also not currently in use.  I tended to favor the route being part of the I-95 system, like I-795 branches from I-695 in Maryland.

But I will grant that I-566 would work.
I guess I-595 confusion would be minimal since most in MD do not even know that the one there exists.

Sadly, my main response to this topic is that "Maybe one day I-366 will exist along VA 28 after all".   :-D 

When the segment of VA-28 north of I-66 has no more at-grade intersections, I would recommend that it be re-designated as an Interstate route.  Save I-566 for future use there.

Of course, Virginia could do a 'Maryland' and re-designate VA-267 as I-98 !

In the lore of this forum, that segment of VA-28 is to become I-366, possibly with an 85-mph speed limit. It's a bit of a running joke because of a former forum member named ethanman62817, now banned, who was obsessed with that road becoming an Interstate.

You can find a thread discussing the joke at the link below, and somewhere within the thread someone linked ethanman's posts. He used to ask some really stupid questions, like "Why is the speed limit only 55 mph on I-95 in Pennsylvania?" and things like that.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16098.msg2082392#msg2082392


Edited to add: Here is the original thread about I-366.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5504.0




Setting aside that joke, though, I find myself looking at the "I-566" reference and wondering why not I-166.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 18, 2017, 10:28:13 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 18, 2017, 09:26:04 AM

Setting aside that joke, though, I find myself looking at the "I-566" reference and wondering why not I-166.

Because there is already a VA 166 and an unposted VA 366
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 18, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 18, 2017, 10:28:13 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 18, 2017, 09:26:04 AM

Setting aside that joke, though, I find myself looking at the "I-566" reference and wondering why not I-166.

Because there is already a VA 166 and an unposted VA 366

Ah. Good point. Obviously I forgot about that.

Edited to add: Doesn't stop us from having US-360 and VA-360 that intersect each other, though
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 18, 2017, 02:44:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 18, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 18, 2017, 10:28:13 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 18, 2017, 09:26:04 AM
Setting aside that joke, though, I find myself looking at the "I-566" reference and wondering why not I-166.
Because there is already a VA 166 and an unposted VA 366

That was my thinking.

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 18, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
Ah. Good point. Obviously I forgot about that.

Edited to add: Doesn't stop us from having US-360 and VA-360 that intersect each other, though

A number of states have duplicated numbers between highway systems.  Even Virginia has a few.

I-381 and VA-381. 
I-195 and VA-195.

The Route 195 designation has been in use on these highways for 40 years, so my proposal would simply make it all an Interstate designation.  AFAIK no federal funds were used on VA-195.

My proposals were designed to follow the rules as much as possible with regard to Interstate numbering and duplications.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 18, 2017, 06:56:08 PM
Most of Virginia's are continuations of the US or Interstate route with the same number.  They considered renumbering VA 311 when US 311 came back but to this point I haven't seen any thing further on that.

VA 13 should've been VA 284 when it was christened and makes no sense to me at all...

VA 360 was supposed to be US 360 ALT which for some reason AASHTO vetoed.  No idea why VDOT didn't post it as VA 360 ALT...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 20, 2017, 01:58:30 PM
Related to the discussion about US 58 in Suffolk from last week, I've finally mapped out a concept for connecting the Holland and Suffolk bypasses.  It's a modification to a concept I sketched out 15 years ago.  Details and a map are in the Fictional folder (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20535).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 20, 2017, 02:18:42 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 20, 2017, 01:58:30 PM
Related to the discussion about US 58 in Suffolk from last week, I've finally mapped out a concept for connecting the Holland and Suffolk bypasses.  It's a modification to a concept I sketched out 15 years ago.  Details and a map are in the Fictional folder (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20535).

That looks like a workable preliminary design.  I hadn't put deep thought into how to have a full interchange between the existing bypass and the bypass extension and the old US-58, but that one looks like it has it covered.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on June 20, 2017, 08:51:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 18, 2017, 09:26:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 09:17:48 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 17, 2017, 07:32:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 17, 2017, 06:07:04 PM
I considered that, and Route 566 is not currently in use.  It seemed somewhat awkward to have a 28-mile-long spur branching off the mainline route only 8 miles from its terminus.

Route 595 is also not currently in use.  I tended to favor the route being part of the I-95 system, like I-795 branches from I-695 in Maryland.

But I will grant that I-566 would work.
I guess I-595 confusion would be minimal since most in MD do not even know that the one there exists.

Sadly, my main response to this topic is that "Maybe one day I-366 will exist along VA 28 after all".   :-D 

When the segment of VA-28 north of I-66 has no more at-grade intersections, I would recommend that it be re-designated as an Interstate route.  Save I-566 for future use there.

Of course, Virginia could do a 'Maryland' and re-designate VA-267 as I-98 !

In the lore of this forum, that segment of VA-28 is to become I-366, possibly with an 85-mph speed limit. It's a bit of a running joke because of a former forum member named ethanman62817, now banned, who was obsessed with that road becoming an Interstate.

You can find a thread discussing the joke at the link below, and somewhere within the thread someone linked ethanman's posts. He used to ask some really stupid questions, like "Why is the speed limit only 55 mph on I-95 in Pennsylvania?" and things like that.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16098.msg2082392#msg2082392


Edited to add: Here is the original thread about I-366.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5504.0




Setting aside that joke, though, I find myself looking at the "I-566" reference and wondering why not I-166.
Its funny you did not link the post where ethanman8675309 or whatever told everyone on here to just go 85 mph and if we get pulled over mention his username on here and the cops will let you go free and clear.  That was his best work next to disguising himself as a username close to mine and asking why the interstate system is missing route numbers by actually using a list and dots and  :confused:   Of course agentsteel called him out on that one as both users did ask the very same stupid questions at the same time and of course roadman66 left right about the time that ethan got banned.

He was a character for sure.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 21, 2017, 07:28:30 AM
It's in the thread I linked as "the original thread about I-366":

Quote from: ethanman62187 on October 28, 2011, 03:05:49 PM
Quote from: Takumi on October 27, 2011, 05:51:18 PM
Yeah, trying to go 60 on VA 28 would be insane. Even though the only time I've ever been on it was at 2 AM, I could see why it's 45 at most points.

For the freeway section of route 28, I can let you drive 65.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 22, 2017, 09:18:30 PM
The VA 92 replacement bridge over the Staunton River shows up in the revised Virginia 6-year plan...

http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=233&line_item_id=1498338

$12M with construction starting in 2022.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 22, 2017, 09:46:59 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2017, 09:18:30 PM
The VA 92 replacement bridge over the Staunton River shows up in the revised Virginia 6-year plan...
http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=233&line_item_id=1498338
$12M with construction starting in 2022.

I believe that was old US-360 before the relocation was built between Clover and Wylliesburg.

That bridge is old and decrepit.  Doesn't carry much traffic.  Wonder if they are going to keep part of the old truss structure on display.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 22, 2017, 09:56:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 22, 2017, 09:46:59 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2017, 09:18:30 PM
The VA 92 replacement bridge over the Staunton River shows up in the revised Virginia 6-year plan...
http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=233&line_item_id=1498338
$12M with construction starting in 2022.

I believe that was old US-360 before the relocation was built between Clover and Wylliesburg.

That bridge is old and decrepit.  Doesn't carry much traffic.  Wonder if they are going to keep part of the old truss structure on display.


Yes...was US 360 until the late 1960s.

The traffic count the last year the old bridge was open (2006) was 440.  It was a whopping 490 in 2001.

IMO it borders on a waste of money to rebuild the bridge because it is shorter and faster to reach Clover via US 360 across the river.  However, the Clover Power Station probably has truck traffic that the town of Clover would rather not see as they have to while there is no VA 92 bridge, so that may justify the expenditure....
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 22, 2017, 10:37:06 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2017, 09:56:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 22, 2017, 09:46:59 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2017, 09:18:30 PM
The VA 92 replacement bridge over the Staunton River shows up in the revised Virginia 6-year plan...
http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=233&line_item_id=1498338
$12M with construction starting in 2022.
I believe that was old US-360 before the relocation was built between Clover and Wylliesburg.
That bridge is old and decrepit.  Doesn't carry much traffic.  Wonder if they are going to keep part of the old truss structure on display.
Yes...was US 360 until the late 1960s.

The traffic count the last year the old bridge was open (2006) was 440.  It was a whopping 490 in 2001.

IMO it borders on a waste of money to rebuild the bridge because it is shorter and faster to reach Clover via US 360 across the river.  However, the Clover Power Station probably has truck traffic that the town of Clover would rather not see as they have to while there is no VA 92 bridge, so that may justify the expenditure....

Looks to me like the rural population along parts of VA-92 would have a long detour if the bridge was closed.  Those volumes are more like a major secondary road.  That is probably why the bridge is being replaced... $12 million but almost any project is really expensive nowadays.

Is the bridge closed?  I thought I drove over it a couple years ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 22, 2017, 11:17:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 22, 2017, 10:37:06 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2017, 09:56:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 22, 2017, 09:46:59 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2017, 09:18:30 PM
The VA 92 replacement bridge over the Staunton River shows up in the revised Virginia 6-year plan...
http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=233&line_item_id=1498338
$12M with construction starting in 2022.
I believe that was old US-360 before the relocation was built between Clover and Wylliesburg.
That bridge is old and decrepit.  Doesn't carry much traffic.  Wonder if they are going to keep part of the old truss structure on display.
Yes...was US 360 until the late 1960s.

The traffic count the last year the old bridge was open (2006) was 440.  It was a whopping 490 in 2001.

IMO it borders on a waste of money to rebuild the bridge because it is shorter and faster to reach Clover via US 360 across the river.  However, the Clover Power Station probably has truck traffic that the town of Clover would rather not see as they have to while there is no VA 92 bridge, so that may justify the expenditure....

Looks to me like the rural population along parts of VA-92 would have a long detour if the bridge was closed.  Those volumes are more like a major secondary road.  That is probably why the bridge is being replaced... $12 million but almost any project is really expensive nowadays.

Is the bridge closed?  I thought I drove over it a couple years ago.

Closed in 2008 for safety reasons.  VA 92 detour posted on US 360 so long that there have been error SR 92 shields and correct shields replacing them...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 22, 2017, 11:42:04 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 22, 2017, 11:17:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 22, 2017, 10:37:06 PM
Looks to me like the rural population along parts of VA-92 would have a long detour if the bridge was closed.  Those volumes are more like a major secondary road.  That is probably why the bridge is being replaced... $12 million but almost any project is really expensive nowadays.
Is the bridge closed?  I thought I drove over it a couple years ago.
Closed in 2008 for safety reasons.  VA 92 detour posted on US 360 so long that there have been error SR 92 shields and correct shields replacing them...

Interesting ... closed for almost 10 years so the local population should be used to it.  The $12 million does seem like a lot to spend in that situation.  Wonder what the official justification is?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 23, 2017, 11:08:41 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 22, 2017, 11:42:04 PM
Interesting ... closed for almost 10 years so the local population should be used to it.  The $12 million does seem like a lot to spend in that situation.  Wonder what the official justification is?

I do not know the geography there at all, but  could it be due to public safety reasons? 

In particular fire/rescue/EMS responders (perhaps law enforcement too) needing to be able to cross there?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 23, 2017, 11:28:44 AM
It's not that much farther to the US 360 crossing.  In point of fact, for anyone in Clover proper and up to about where SR 600 splits off, it's shorter to go to the US 360 crossing than it is the old VA 92 crossing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 23, 2017, 02:42:35 PM
According to this article, Halifax County in Sept 2016 was going to consider whether to ask for a connector road between US 360 and VA 92 so that a new bridge wouldn't be necessary.

http://www.yourgv.com/news/local_news/deadline-looms-for-financing-decision-on-courthouse/article_c60bd2d2-72d3-11e6-a368-af2684f04bcd.html

I haven't so far been able to find anything related to the justification to replace the bridge.  Perhaps the connector road cost was such that replacing the bridge wasn't much more expensive.  Some info from when the bridge abandonment was coming can be found here which had opposition - http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.transport.road/2008-02/msg02132.html - in 2005 the estimate for a new bridge was $5M plus $1M to tear down the old one.  Repairs to restore it back to the 17-ton weight limit it had would've been nearly as expensive as a new bridge.

I believe the key is the Clover Power Station which may be better served if worker and truck traffic can come/go from the east.  This plant opened right before they closed the bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 28, 2017, 03:03:56 PM
Danville is pushing "Future I-785" as the way to prosperity. Officials see the "Future" signs as the first step to convert U.S. 29 into a interstate highway.

Quote
U.S. 29 will become an interstate stretching all the way from Blairs, Virginia to Greensboro, North Carolina. It's just a matter of time before the signs are switched over.

"This sign is a symbol of a promise, a promise that needs to become a commitment," Senator Bill Stanley said.

The news story states "As it stands, the road fits interstate standards, there are just a few areas that need upgrades before the interstate signs go up." but doesn't go into detail about who has determined that the Danville Bypass (and other parts of the road) is ready for real interstate signs.

See http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/New-interstate-to-bring-business-to-Southside-431189073.html

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on June 28, 2017, 03:56:19 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 28, 2017, 03:03:56 PMThe news story states "As it stands, the road fits interstate standards, there are just a few areas that need upgrades before the interstate signs go up." but doesn't go into detail about who has determined that the Danville Bypass (and other parts of the road) is ready for real interstate signs.

Hell, if the road fits interstate standards, then it wouldn't need any upgrades, now would it? :pan: The only part of the bypass that meets interstate standards is the shoulders. Most of the ramps at the interchanges will need lengthening since they're woefully substandard and the at-grade Elizabeth Street access will need to be either closed off or grade separated.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 28, 2017, 03:59:39 PM
(via Loudoun Now):   The planned VA 7 interchange at Battlefield Pkwy is recommended to be a SPUI by the Leesburg Town Council. (http://loudounnow.com/2017/06/28/council-backs-staff-recommendations-for-58m-interchange-project/) 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 28, 2017, 04:07:04 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 28, 2017, 03:03:56 PM
Danville is pushing "Future I-785" as the way to prosperity. Officials see the "Future" signs as the first step to convert U.S. 29 into a interstate highway.

Quote
U.S. 29 will become an interstate stretching all the way from Blairs, Virginia to Greensboro, North Carolina. It's just a matter of time before the signs are switched over.

"This sign is a symbol of a promise, a promise that needs to become a commitment," Senator Bill Stanley said.

The news story states "As it stands, the road fits interstate standards, there are just a few areas that need upgrades before the interstate signs go up." but doesn't go into detail about who has determined that the Danville Bypass (and other parts of the road) is ready for real interstate signs.

See http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/New-interstate-to-bring-business-to-Southside-431189073.html

Bruce in Blacksburg


There'll be a wait.  As best I can tell no part of the Virginia side requiring upgrades is in the 6-year STIP and the one NC project I found didn't score well enough to get any funding (NC 150 to US 29 Bus)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on June 28, 2017, 04:11:46 PM
To add to what WDBJ missed, the local newspaper here says that interstate designation is being requested for US-29.

http://www.godanriver.com/work_it_sova/news/future-i--corridor-signs-return-to-danville-as-a/article_8af01a36-5b90-11e7-a9a8-0b69d7a4ec4c.html#comments (http://www.godanriver.com/work_it_sova/news/future-i--corridor-signs-return-to-danville-as-a/article_8af01a36-5b90-11e7-a9a8-0b69d7a4ec4c.html#comments)

QuoteHighways signs reading "Future I-785 Corridor"  have been reinstalled along the U.S. 29 bypass from the Virginia-North Carolina border to its intersection at U.S. 58.

State and local officials unveiled the sign during a ceremony Tuesday morning at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research.

Officials who spoke at the event emphasized the importance of highway accessibility for attracting new industries.

"There are a lot of pieces of the economic development puzzle, but highway accessibility is ranked No. 1 by chief executive officers, or CEOs, who determine where to locate or expand their business,"  Del. Danny Marshall said. "What is important to CEOs should be important to us."

The designation as a future interstate corridor would let CEOs know the region is connected with good highways, Marshall said.

Danville, with support from Greensboro, and Guilford, Rockingham and Caswell counties in North Carolina, began an effort in 1996 to obtain interstate designation for U.S. 29 from I-85 in Greensboro.

Signs were installed along the route identifying it as the "Future I-785 Corridor"  in 1998. The signs disappeared from that portion of the highway in Danville a few years ago, likely because of snow removal.

Danville Mayor John Gilstrap called the reinstallation of the signs "a project that offers the promise of a better tomorrow."

"These signs make a valuable statement for Danville and Pittsylvania County when we drive prospects around the region,"  Gilstrap said.

To be able to see an interstate sign, even if it says "future,"  "is something that contributes to the overall story about why Danville/Pittsylvania County is a good location for the project being pursued,"  Gilstrap said.

Marshall, Del. Les Adams and state Sen. Frank Ruff requested that the Virginia Department of Transportation reinstall the signs.

"The ability to move goods in and out is extremely important,"  Ruff said. "The designation as a future interstate corridor, along with our efforts in workforce development training, makes for a great economic development package."

State Sen. Bill Stanley called the sign reinstallation "a symbol of a promise that needs to bring a commitment."

Stanley went on to highlight the gap between spending for interstate projects in Northern Virginia compared to that for projects in Southside. Over the past 20 years, more than $10 billion has been spent in the northern part of the state, compared to $900 million in this region, he said.

"This infrastructure is critical, but if we want it, we must fight for it,"  Stanley said.

During an interview after the event, Marshall told the Danville Register & Bee that federal designation is being sought for the interstate. Marshall said he has talked with U.S. Rep. Tom Garrett, R-5th District, about getting the designation.

Danville Economic Development Director Telly Tucker said the signs and designation would give the region "more visibility for an industry with specific infrastructure needs."

"This allows us to market the region as having interstate designated highways,"  Tucker said.

The Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. – of which Southside is a part – is within a 24-hour drive of two-thirds of the country's population, Tucker added. Getting products to consumers as quickly as possible is paramount, he said. The signs add attractiveness to the region from a marketing standpoint, he said.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 28, 2017, 04:14:43 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 28, 2017, 04:07:04 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 28, 2017, 03:03:56 PM
Danville is pushing "Future I-785" as the way to prosperity. Officials see the "Future" signs as the first step to convert U.S. 29 into a interstate highway.
Quote
U.S. 29 will become an interstate stretching all the way from Blairs, Virginia to Greensboro, North Carolina. It's just a matter of time before the signs are switched over.
"This sign is a symbol of a promise, a promise that needs to become a commitment," Senator Bill Stanley said.
The news story states "As it stands, the road fits interstate standards, there are just a few areas that need upgrades before the interstate signs go up." but doesn't go into detail about who has determined that the Danville Bypass (and other parts of the road) is ready for real interstate signs.
See http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/New-interstate-to-bring-business-to-Southside-431189073.html
Bruce in Blacksburg
There'll be a wait.  As best I can tell no part of the Virginia side requiring upgrades is in the 6-year STIP and the one NC project I found didn't score well enough to get any funding (NC 150 to US 29 Bus)

The Danville Expressway upgrades would be fairly modest.  It is a freeway and Elizabeth Street does not have a median crossover and there are three designed but unbuilt ramps that could be built to Interstate standards.  Not sure of how much demand there is to bridge Elizabeth Street over US-29.

NC US-29 has about 15 miles of nonlimited-access highway that would need -serious- upgrades in order to provide a freeway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 29, 2017, 01:10:42 AM
New subject; I-95 Rest Areas.

There seems to be this dirt road that starts where the truck/bus/towed vehicles re-entry ramp merges with the cars re-entry ramp at the northbound Ladysmith rest area, that runs parallel to northbound I-95 for relatively less than a mile and has a dead end just before "Stevens Mill Run." Anyone know what this was for?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on June 29, 2017, 05:36:23 AM
Google Earth shows it leading to a structure off in the woods. Sewage treatment??
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 29, 2017, 06:54:49 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on June 29, 2017, 05:36:23 AM
Google Earth shows it leading to a structure off in the woods. Sewage treatment??

Historic Aerials show a retention pond immediately adjacent to the rest area that was removed between 1994-2002.  There were structures next to it that were also removed.  The extension of the frontage road and structures at the end appeared between 1994-2002 and at least one looks like a water tank of some sort, so sewage treatment is still a viable answer.



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 29, 2017, 05:15:54 PM
WTVR (Richmond) posted a very interesting story & video today, the 25th anniversary of the toll removal on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike

http://wtvr.com/2017/06/29/25-years-ago-the-last-toll-paid-on-interstate-95-in-virginia/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 30, 2017, 06:57:18 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 17, 2017, 09:18:45 PM
The upcoming southbound I-95 Rappahannock River crossing project has a new design concept
http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/new-concept-for-rappahannock-river-crossing-project-on-interstate/article_78f3edd0-b7d4-5004-861a-e0afd5ba9c4c.html
Overall I like this idea and think its an improvement over the original. My only concern is that I hope there is still enough room left in the I-95 median for a theoretical I-95 HOT lanes extension to Spotsylvania if necessary. Its always good to plan ahead.

This new design apparently has no impact on the project's cost.

There was a public meeting Wednesday Night about the updated design.  Currently construction is scheduled to start next year. (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/revamped-rappahannock-river-crossing-project-moving-forward/article_1aa4dc4e-1bda-5b0a-a04b-561ab10208c3.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 30, 2017, 10:05:00 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 30, 2017, 06:57:18 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 17, 2017, 09:18:45 PM
The upcoming southbound I-95 Rappahannock River crossing project has a new design concept
http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/new-concept-for-rappahannock-river-crossing-project-on-interstate/article_78f3edd0-b7d4-5004-861a-e0afd5ba9c4c.html
Overall I like this idea and think its an improvement over the original. My only concern is that I hope there is still enough room left in the I-95 median for a theoretical I-95 HOT lanes extension to Spotsylvania if necessary. Its always good to plan ahead.

This new design apparently has no impact on the project's cost.

There was a public meeting Wednesday Night about the updated design.  Currently construction is scheduled to start next year. (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/revamped-rappahannock-river-crossing-project-moving-forward/article_1aa4dc4e-1bda-5b0a-a04b-561ab10208c3.html)
Even though a large portion of traffic gets off at VA-3(Exit 130) and the project's southern merge area will be "long", I still don't like the idea of six lanes choking back down to three. IMO there needs to be at least one or two auxiliary lanes that stretch from the project's southern terminus to the US-1/US-17 exit(126).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 30, 2017, 12:19:57 PM
Quote from: plain on June 29, 2017, 05:15:54 PM
WTVR (Richmond) posted a very interesting story & video today, the 25th anniversary of the toll removal on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike

http://wtvr.com/2017/06/29/25-years-ago-the-last-toll-paid-on-interstate-95-in-virginia/

Thanks for sharing this.  Having driven all of the  RPT when  it was a real turnpike, it brought back memories.  Mostly  I drove the northern section, as far south  as Broad Street (Exit 74C today). I think  the coin drop toll there might have been 10¢ or maybe 25¢ (not sure now), but I also drove the entire Pike sometimes, as far as the last toll plaza on I-85 in Petersburg (IIRC, the toll on I-85 was a little higher than the other mainline barriers (at some point maybe 30¢ instead of 25¢)).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 30, 2017, 12:23:34 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 30, 2017, 10:05:00 AM
Even though a large portion of traffic gets off at VA-3(Exit 130) and the project's southern merge area will be "long", I still don't like the idea of six lanes choking back down to three. IMO there needs to be at least one or two auxiliary lanes that stretch from the project's southern terminus to the US-1/US-17 exit(126).

I would love to see the managed lanes end at the last I-95 interchange in Spotsylvania County, at VA-606 (Exit 118, Thornburg).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 30, 2017, 12:26:33 PM
Quote from: plain on June 29, 2017, 05:15:54 PM
WTVR (Richmond) posted a very interesting story & video today, the 25th anniversary of the toll removal on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike
http://wtvr.com/2017/06/29/25-years-ago-the-last-toll-paid-on-interstate-95-in-virginia/

It didn't cost $230 million for the 1992 RPT toll plaza removal project.

From my website --
The I-95 Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike became toll-free on July 1, 1992, and the 3 mainline toll plazas (each 10-12 lanes wide) were demolished, underground foundations removed, unneeded pavement removed, and approach pavement removed and replaced.  VDOT's projects cost a total of $2.5 million and did everything necessary to completely convert each toll plaza section to a full freeway design.  A collection of ramp toll plazas were removed too.  The Turnpike Authority administration building at the VA-10 interchange near Chester remained in place, but it was unoccupied after the toll removal until it was completely renovated in 1994 to be used as a major VDOT training center, which is what it is currently used for.
....

Portions at either end of the RPT became toll free in 1987 and 1989, and those respective toll plazas were removed then.

From my website --

The Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike's I-85 portion become toll-free in 1986, when Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds were used to finance most of the project for the new interchange between Squirrel Level Road and I-85 (completed in 1987) in the City of Petersburg; and the mainline Dinwiddie County Toll Plaza near US-1 west of Petersburg was removed then.  The 1989 CTB toll increase decision also provided for the removal of the I-95 Washington Street toll plaza in Petersburg, thereby making toll-free the I-95 portion of the Turnpike south of the Ivey Avenue interchange (completed in 1987, built to help support the Southpark Mall that was built then) in the City of Colonial Heights; this interchange is less than a mile south of the VA-144 Temple Avenue interchange.  Actually Ivey Avenue was not connected to the interchange, and the connecting road into the mall was later named Southpark Boulevard.  The 1989 CTB toll increase decision also provided for the removal of the ramp toll plazas in the City of Richmond at the I-95/I-64/I-195 Bryan Park interchange and at VA-161 Boulevard, thereby making toll-free the I-95 portion of the Turnpike north of Boulevard.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 30, 2017, 01:02:46 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 30, 2017, 12:19:57 PM
Quote from: plain on June 29, 2017, 05:15:54 PM
WTVR (Richmond) posted a very interesting story & video today, the 25th anniversary of the toll removal on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike

http://wtvr.com/2017/06/29/25-years-ago-the-last-toll-paid-on-interstate-95-in-virginia/

Thanks for sharing this.  Having driven all of the  RPT when  it was a real turnpike, it brought back memories.  Mostly  I drove the northern section, as far south  as Broad Street (Exit 74C today). I think  the coin drop toll there might have been 10¢ or maybe 25¢ (not sure now), but I also drove the entire Pike sometimes, as far as the last toll plaza on I-85 in Petersburg (IIRC, the toll on I-85 was a little higher than the other mainline barriers (at some point maybe 30¢ instead of 25¢)).

It brought me back to that time as well, I was a kid when I rode on the turnpike many times with my pops in the 1980s and still remember certain aspects of the road. The highest the I-85 toll booth got was 25 cents, as that toll point was the first to be eliminated.. we actually came through there when it became toll free but the plaza wasn't dismantled yet. The Broad St ramps were never tolled, as this exit (as well as the Franklin St ramp SB) was a "halfway point" between one tolled section and the next. You are spot on with the 10 cents number though as most ramp tolls along the 'pike cost just that, with a couple costing 25 cents before the 1992 detolling. I'm not sure how much the I-95 ramp toll (the "Washington St toll" Beltway mentions on his site) at the I-85 split was though as we always continued on 85 to Henderson, NC.

There is something I think I also remember, maybe someone can help me out with this: wasn't there for a short time in the late 80's/early 90's a RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP at the Belvidere toll plaza SB?

I'm always looking for old pics and vids of turnpikes because I love the unique signage on them, and the RTP is no different (well at least the pre 1970's RTP). The video WTVR provided gave me a glance at such signage, and also a look at the ramp from the turnpike NB to Broad St EB (obviously no longer there because of VA 195).



@Beltway: I kinda went WTF myself when they threw that $230 million number out there for toll removal. I agree that that number is way too high.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 30, 2017, 01:25:20 PM
Quote from: plain on June 30, 2017, 01:02:46 PM
There is something I think I also remember, maybe someone can help me out with this: wasn't there for a short time in the late 80's/early 90's a RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP at the Belvidere toll plaza SB?

Yes there was and I wish I had taken a photo of it, although it looked unremarkable from ground level.

Basically about 1,000 feet long and rising to a height of about 10 feet at the end and with retaining walls on the side and end.  Not meant for high speed trucks, probably 25 mph or less, as a few trucks had lost their brakes and crashed into a toll booth.  There is a long grade to the north of the toll plaza of about 2%.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 30, 2017, 02:02:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2017, 01:25:20 PM
Quote from: plain on June 30, 2017, 01:02:46 PM
There is something I think I also remember, maybe someone can help me out with this: wasn't there for a short time in the late 80's/early 90's a RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP at the Belvidere toll plaza SB?

Yes there was and I wish I had taken a photo of it, although it looked unremarkable from ground level.

Basically about 1,000 feet long and rising to a height of about 10 feet at the end and with retaining walls on the side and end.  Not meant for high speed trucks, probably 25 mph or less, as a few trucks had lost their brakes and crashed into a toll booth.  There is a long grade to the north of the toll plaza of about 2%.

Ahh thanks!!! There was a discussion last month on a Facebook page about I-95 and someone brought up the  RPT. So I mentioned the truck ramp and this dude on there (ironically he said he's been driving trucks for over 30 years) denied that it ever existed. I was like I KNOW WHAT I SAW! I wish you had a picture of it too.. If I'm not mistaken this could very well have been the only truck ramp to exist anywhere on I-95. Or are there any in Maine or something?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 30, 2017, 02:18:31 PM
Quote from: plain on June 30, 2017, 02:02:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2017, 01:25:20 PM
Quote from: plain on June 30, 2017, 01:02:46 PM
There is something I think I also remember, maybe someone can help me out with this: wasn't there for a short time in the late 80's/early 90's a RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP at the Belvidere toll plaza SB?
Yes there was and I wish I had taken a photo of it, although it looked unremarkable from ground level.
Basically about 1,000 feet long and rising to a height of about 10 feet at the end and with retaining walls on the side and end.  Not meant for high speed trucks, probably 25 mph or less, as a few trucks had lost their brakes and crashed into a toll booth.  There is a long grade to the north of the toll plaza of about 2%.
Ahh thanks!!! There was a discussion last month on a Facebook page about I-95 and someone brought up the  RPT. So I mentioned the truck ramp and this dude on there (ironically he said he's been driving trucks for over 30 years) denied that it ever existed. I was like I KNOW WHAT I SAW! I wish you had a picture of it too.. If I'm not mistaken this could very well have been the only truck ramp to exist anywhere on I-95. Or are there any in Maine or something?

I have lived in the Richmond-Petersburg area since 1977 and passed this site many times.

Probably was the only one on I-95.  The combination of a mainline toll plaza and a major highway grade near the toll plaza.  The toll plaza itself was on a level grade and that is always the goal of highway designers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 01, 2017, 06:31:06 PM
VDOT posted another "then and now" video comparing the pre-construction Springfield Interchange in 1999 to the completed project in 2007, although it's worth noting the express lane ramps were not constructed for a few more years (they opened in November 2012). Those ramps make the Beltway interchange look more impressive.

Either way, today marks 16 years that I've lived at my current address a few miles east of there, and I still think it's easily the most effective road improvement I've seen.

http://youtu.be/bbr7_z_8k24
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 02, 2017, 10:14:32 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 30, 2017, 10:05:00 AM
Even though a large portion of traffic gets off at VA-3(Exit 130) and the project's southern merge area will be "long", I still don't like the idea of six lanes choking back down to three. IMO there needs to be at least one or two auxiliary lanes that stretch from the project's southern terminus to the US-1/US-17 exit(126).
What bugs me is the elimination of the west-to-south loop ramp at US 17/BUS US 17 (Exit 133), in spite of the fact that cloverleaf interchanges are outdated. Either way, I hope I can get some decent pics of the Fredericksburg Welcome Center before the project is started.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 02, 2017, 02:44:26 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 02, 2017, 10:14:32 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 30, 2017, 10:05:00 AM
Even though a large portion of traffic gets off at VA-3(Exit 130) and the project's southern merge area will be "long", I still don't like the idea of six lanes choking back down to three. IMO there needs to be at least one or two auxiliary lanes that stretch from the project's southern terminus to the US-1/US-17 exit(126).
What bugs me is the elimination of the west-to-south loop ramp at US 17/BUS US 17 (Exit 133), in spite of the fact that cloverleaf interchanges are outdated. Either way, I hope I can get some decent pics of the Fredericksburg Welcome Center before the project is started.

Cloverleaf interchanges are not outdated, the issue is having sufficient auxiliary lane length between the two loops.  VA I-295 has a lot of cloverleaf interchanges and they are expansive due to late-Interstate-era design standards, and they have plenty of merge room.

That said, I don't like it one bit even on older smaller designs when they eliminate a loop and then create an at-grade signalized intersection where there was none previously.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: JJBers on July 02, 2017, 04:18:08 PM
I can't believe we've manged to get 99 pages of discussion on a state...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 03, 2017, 12:17:22 AM
Quote from: JJBers on July 02, 2017, 04:18:08 PM
I can't believe we've manged to get 99 pages of discussion on a state...
Oh, we'll get more, and on other states too.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 03, 2017, 04:06:07 PM
US 29 north of Charlottesville is now 6 lanes from Polo Grounds Rd to Towncenter Dr.  Also the Berkmar Drive extension opened Sunday. (http://www.newsplex.com/content/news/Widened-Route-29-opens-to-drivers-432281243.html)  (Charlottesville Newsplex)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: JJBers on July 03, 2017, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 03, 2017, 12:17:22 AM
Quote from: JJBers on July 02, 2017, 04:18:08 PM
I can't believe we've manged to get 99 pages of discussion on a state...
Oh, we'll get more, and on other states too.
Well, we already got one state over 100, and this is most likely next. Connecticut (92) and Florida (94) are coming close behind
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 03, 2017, 05:14:10 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 03, 2017, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 03, 2017, 12:17:22 AM
Quote from: JJBers on July 02, 2017, 04:18:08 PM
I can't believe we've manged to get 99 pages of discussion on a state...
Oh, we'll get more, and on other states too.
Well, we already got one state over 100, and this is most likely next. Connecticut (92) and Florida (94) are coming close behind

This thread started 8 1/2 years ago ... not surprising that it could average a page per month.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 03, 2017, 08:48:30 PM
Heh. I see this thread being on page 50. I have the forum set to display the maximum possible number of posts per page so as to reduce the number of pages I have to click through to read a thread.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2017, 09:28:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2017, 02:44:26 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 02, 2017, 10:14:32 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 30, 2017, 10:05:00 AM
Even though a large portion of traffic gets off at VA-3(Exit 130) and the project's southern merge area will be "long", I still don't like the idea of six lanes choking back down to three. IMO there needs to be at least one or two auxiliary lanes that stretch from the project's southern terminus to the US-1/US-17 exit(126).
What bugs me is the elimination of the west-to-south loop ramp at US 17/BUS US 17 (Exit 133), in spite of the fact that cloverleaf interchanges are outdated. Either way, I hope I can get some decent pics of the Fredericksburg Welcome Center before the project is started.

Cloverleaf interchanges are not outdated, the issue is having sufficient auxiliary lane length between the two loops.  VA I-295 has a lot of cloverleaf interchanges and they are expansive due to late-Interstate-era design standards, and they have plenty of merge room.

That said, I don't like it one bit even on older smaller designs when they eliminate a loop and then create an at-grade signalized intersection where there was none previously.

The problem with cloverleafs is the weaving required, which can be bad even with more room for same.

There are some old (original to the freeway) cloverleafs on the Prince George's County part of I-95/I-495 that have outlived their usefulness, but may  not get replaced because of the great cost involved. 

MD-4 (Pennsylvania Avenue Extended) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B050'23.2%22N+76%C2%B052'00.2%22W/@38.8397912,-76.8689261,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.839787!4d-76.866732)

Baltimore Washington Parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B059'30.1%22N+76%C2%B053'09.6%22W/@38.9917051,-76.8903697,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.991701!4d-76.885987)

And one on I-695 in  Anne Arundel County  that  may  be the worst remaining full cloverleaf in the state, at the MD-295 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B013'09.8%22N+76%C2%B039'30.6%22W/@39.2193811,-76.6606831,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d39.219377!4d-76.658489) interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on July 05, 2017, 10:19:08 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2017, 09:28:20 AM

The problem with cloverleafs is the weaving required, which can be bad even with more room for same.

There are some old (original to the freeway) cloverleafs on the Prince George's County part of I-95/I-495 that have outlived their usefulness, but may  not get replaced because of the great cost involved. 

This is a long-standing complaint about some of the interchanges in Roanoke on I-581 -- especially the busy Hershberger Rd./southbound 581 ramps, which serve the airport and traffic headed downtown. There is a short combined on/off merge area, which most times isn't difficult to navigate, but if there is a lot of traffic combined with people who don't know how to merge (the main complaint) it gets messy. Further south, the Orange Ave. exit is problematic, especially with people who are sticking with the right lane to exit just beyond that exit onto Williamson Rd. VDOT claims all is well and all the ramps are up to standards, so no "fix" is in sight (not that there needs to be, given the massive need to fix sections of nearby I-81).

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 05, 2017, 10:51:27 AM
Totally agreed about cloverleafs not being suitable for urban areas. To me Cloverleaf Interchanges has advantages only at major rural juctions, like I-70 at I-81(the C/D lanes helps here also) or I-85 at US 58, where there's not as much traffic and there's plenty of room for the interchange to be large enough for wearing to be more fluid.

Cloverleafs in urban/suburban areas has never been a good idea, as many highway departments have come to realize over the last couple decades. VDOT had to add flyovers on I-295 at both I-64 junctions (Exit 28 despite the C/D lanes, & Exit 53). Definitely should've planned better junctions on this road, especially at interstate to interstate junctions and especially given the fact that failed loops already existed in both Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads by 1980. And now they might have to consider a flyover from I-295 SB to US 360 EB because of traffic backing up onto the interstate for that movement during the rush (already bad and will get worse).

I like Ontario's Parclo Interchanges over a full cloverleaf. While it involves signals on the surface streets, I'd take that over the dangers of weaving on a busy highway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 05, 2017, 12:10:51 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2017, 09:28:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2017, 02:44:26 PM
Cloverleaf interchanges are not outdated, the issue is having sufficient auxiliary lane length between the two loops.  VA I-295 has a lot of cloverleaf interchanges and they are expansive due to late-Interstate-era design standards, and they have plenty of merge room.
That said, I don't like it one bit even on older smaller designs when they eliminate a loop and then create an at-grade signalized intersection where there was none previously.
The problem with cloverleafs is the weaving required, which can be bad even with more room for same.

There are some old (original to the freeway) cloverleafs on the Prince George's County part of I-95/I-495 that have outlived their usefulness, but may  not get replaced because of the great cost involved. 

I agree that older cloverleaf interchanges with short auxiliary lanes between the loops present problems with merging especially under heavy traffic.

Solutions are limited --
1) Expand the cloverleaf interchange layout if affordable right-of-way is available
2) Eliminate two loops and replace with two signalized intersections
3) Eliminate two loops and replace with two semi-directional ramps
4) Replace interchange with SPUI
5) Build new ramp-connectors as has been done on several VA I-81 interchanges to replace a loop
6) Build a new interchange nearby (a mile or so away) to relieve or replace the older interchange

Nearly all of these encounter feasibility issues with regard to high construction cost and/or high right-of-way cost.  Number 2 is the only one that does not have high costs, but IMHO the "solution" is worse than the "problem" in most cases.

Regarding VDOT adding flyovers on I-295 at both I-64 junctions, the northern segment of I-295 was completed in 1981 and it was at least 1995 before the existing ramps started having congestion problems.  Should the original designs have included semi-directional ramps?  Maybe.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 05, 2017, 09:43:14 PM
http://www.enr.com/articles/42285-virginia-transportation-plan-calls-for-182b-in-spending

Virginia Transportation Plan Calls for $18.2B in Spending
July 5, 2017

Virginia will spend $18.6 billion to study, develop and build more than 3,600 transportation projects through 2023 under the latest Six-Year Improvement Program approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

More than $15.2 billion will go to highway projects, with $1.1 billion earmarked for "state of good repair"  efforts statewide. The program also incorporates projects prioritized under Virginia's highly acclaimed Smart Scale scoring system, and provides the Virginia Dept. of Transportation with a budget of $5.4 billion for FY 2018, which begins July 1, 2017.

Major work to be funded during the six-year period includes the $600-million first phase of the I-64 Southside Widening and High Rise Bridge project in Chesapeake, and the $108-million, 6.2-mile second phase of the U.S. Route 460 Connector in Buchanan County. The highway total also allocates nearly $4 billion for the state's role in public-private partnerships, such as extending the I-95 Express Lanes to Fredericksburg.

Rail and public transportation programs will receive $3.4 billion over the next six years, with $2.6 billion set aside for public-transportation projects and $817 million for rail initiatives.

Virginia's Six-Year Improvement Program sets funding allocations for the state's public transportation systems for the immediate fiscal year, and planned funding for the following five fiscal years. The program is updated annually to reflect updated revenue estimates, revised priorities and changes in project schedules and costs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 07, 2017, 07:00:47 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 20, 2016, 07:56:07 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 19, 2016, 08:15:49 PM
Contract awarded for I-95/SR 630 Interchange and SR 630 Widening at Stafford CH. (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/contractor-chosen-for-courthouse-road-interchange-work-in-stafford/article_56823840-9e1b-5ae2-8683-80fc4a773d87.html)

Note that the 4th general lane addition to I-95 that was to be a part of this project was not included due to the funding not being secured for this add-on...

The project has begun with the groundbreaking yesterday. (http://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/07/courthouse-rd-widening-gets-underway-near-95/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 08, 2017, 05:13:24 PM
What happened with the left shoulder widening project on I-95 between VA-619 and VA-123?  That was awarded about 3 years ago to install full 10 foot wide left shoulders on the original 1964 design where the general purpose roadways had 3 foot wide left shoulders.

They did a fine job on about 3/4 of the length each way with modern shoulders installed.  However in each direction there are two segments of considerable length where the shoulder has not yet been widened. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on July 10, 2017, 03:59:09 PM
Another step in eliminating a traffic light on U.S. 460 starts tonight (Monday, July 10) when the beams for the new overpass in Blacksburg are put in place (but there is still a lot of work to do; at times it looks like Branch only has about 5 guys working on this at any one time). Eventually Southgate Drive will shift east and the at-grade intersection with traffic light will be removed. That will make for a (somewhat) uninterrupted trip from I-81 west to Narrows before encountering a traffic light (next lights are in West Virginia adjacent to and at the WV Turnpike interchange).

Bruce in Blacksburg

-------

U.S. 460 closed nightly beginning this evening

Alternating lanes of the U.S. 460 bypass from Southgate Drive north to Exit 5 (South Main Street) will be closed between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. nightly beginning the week of July 10, (weather permitting), until work placing the bridge beams for the new Southgate interchange is completed. Traffic will be detoured through the Corporate Research Center along Research Center Drive. 

*West Rte. 460 will be closed on Monday and Tuesday, July 10 and July 11 between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. The instructions for the Route 460 West detour is noted below.

*East Rte. 460 will be closed on Wednesday and Thursday, July 12 and July 13 between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. The instructions for the East Rte. 460 Detour is also noted below.

There will be numerous slow roll operations will be utilized on Route 460 West between the hours of 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. during this road closure in order to move the beams to the off-loading location at the bridges.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 13, 2017, 12:36:00 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on July 10, 2017, 03:59:09 PM
Another step in eliminating a traffic light on U.S. 460 starts tonight (Monday, July 10) when the beams for the new overpass in Blacksburg are put in place (but there is still a lot of work to do; at times it looks like Branch only has about 5 guys working on this at any one time). Eventually Southgate Drive will shift east and the at-grade intersection with traffic light will be removed. That will make for a (somewhat) uninterrupted trip from I-81 west to Narrows before encountering a traffic light (next lights are in West Virginia adjacent to and at the WV Turnpike interchange).
Bruce in Blacksburg

I was thinking that there was a signal at the north end of the Blacksburg Bypass between US-460 and Business US-460, but I just checked it on Google Maps Street View and I see that there is no signal.  I am a bit surprised that it would not need one.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 13, 2017, 06:58:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2017, 12:36:00 AM
I was thinking that there was a signal at the north end of the Blacksburg Bypass between US-460 and Business US-460, but I just checked it on Google Maps Street View and I see that there is no signal.  I am a bit surprised that it would not need one.


See this thread for more discussion on the plans on what is being done at that intersection. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11725.msg2142681#msg2142681)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 13, 2017, 09:19:16 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 13, 2017, 06:58:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2017, 12:36:00 AM
I was thinking that there was a signal at the north end of the Blacksburg Bypass between US-460 and Business US-460, but I just checked it on Google Maps Street View and I see that there is no signal.  I am a bit surprised that it would not need one.
See this thread for more discussion on the plans on what is being done at that intersection. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11725.msg2142681#msg2142681)

An interchange would seem the logical way to upgrade the intersection where a bypass connects to the business route.  But a signal would have been installed years ago if traffic warranted it, you would think.  A basic 4-ramp interchange nowadays is about a $25 million project so that would be a factor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on July 13, 2017, 12:58:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2017, 09:19:16 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 13, 2017, 06:58:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2017, 12:36:00 AM
I was thinking that there was a signal at the north end of the Blacksburg Bypass between US-460 and Business US-460, but I just checked it on Google Maps Street View and I see that there is no signal.  I am a bit surprised that it would not need one.
See this thread for more discussion on the plans on what is being done at that intersection. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11725.msg2142681#msg2142681)

An interchange would seem the logical way to upgrade the intersection where a bypass connects to the business route.  But a signal would have been installed years ago if traffic warranted it, you would think.  A basic 4-ramp interchange nowadays is about a $25 million project so that would be a factor.

The referenced thread sums up the issue pretty well. The shifted interchange to the east was about the best solution for all involved but was not well supported by the town government or the transportation board reps (who barely acknowledged that they were aware that there was a problem). Because of the location of that intersection, there really isn't a good solution to fix what is in place -- topography is a bitch. Westbound traffic is coming off the end of a long flat straightaway (and regular drivers on the road know they have a long slog up Brush Mountain so are adverse to reducing speed by much) that then drops downhill before curving to head up the mountain. Eastbound traffic is coming off said Brush Mountain and face a righthand curve and uphill run at the N. Main intersection. Dropping in a traffic light is a solution on one level but it all adds a lot of problems on another level. Unless there is a series of "Be prepared to stop when flashing" signals from near the bottom of the grade and around the curve, there will be speeding vehicles that won't be able to safely stop for a red light and will probably blow through it (it happens at Southgate even with good sight distance to the "prepare to stop" sign and the light itself). Same goes for traffic going west, with the addition of people who decide not to stop and lose momentum to get up the mountain. I expect there to continue to be bad accidents at that intersection and the vicinity even after the latest "fixes" are applied.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on July 14, 2017, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on July 10, 2017, 03:59:09 PM
Another step in eliminating a traffic light on U.S. 460 starts tonight (Monday, July 10) when the beams for the new overpass in Blacksburg are put in place (but there is still a lot of work to do; at times it looks like Branch only has about 5 guys working on this at any one time). Eventually Southgate Drive will shift east and the at-grade intersection with traffic light will be removed. That will make for a (somewhat) uninterrupted trip from I-81 west to Narrows before encountering a traffic light (next lights are in West Virginia adjacent to and at the WV Turnpike interchange).

Here is the Virginia Tech press release on the setting of the beams, with photos and a time-lapse video.

http://vtnews.vt.edu/photo-galleries/460-bridge-installation.html (http://vtnews.vt.edu/photo-galleries/460-bridge-installation.html)

Trivial factoid -- the "Hokie stone" facing on the bridge piers and abutments is fake, the pattern was impressed into the concrete as part of the forms when it was poured. This is both a cost-savings (the actual limestone blocks, plus the stone masons, don't come cheap) and a material savings (the university-owned quarry that produces the stone has changed operation to extend its life, producing thinner 4-inch wide blocks instead of the full-thickness structural blocks that used to be used to face campus buildings).

Bruce in Blacksburg

-------

U.S. 460 closed nightly beginning this evening

Alternating lanes of the U.S. 460 bypass from Southgate Drive north to Exit 5 (South Main Street) will be closed between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. nightly beginning the week of July 10, (weather permitting), until work placing the bridge beams for the new Southgate interchange is completed. Traffic will be detoured through the Corporate Research Center along Research Center Drive. 

*West Rte. 460 will be closed on Monday and Tuesday, July 10 and July 11 between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. The instructions for the Route 460 West detour is noted below.

*East Rte. 460 will be closed on Wednesday and Thursday, July 12 and July 13 between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. The instructions for the East Rte. 460 Detour is also noted below.

There will be numerous slow roll operations will be utilized on Route 460 West between the hours of 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. during this road closure in order to move the beams to the off-loading location at the bridges.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 14, 2017, 11:54:27 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on July 14, 2017, 09:36:11 AM
http://vtnews.vt.edu/photo-galleries/460-bridge-installation.html (http://vtnews.vt.edu/photo-galleries/460-bridge-installation.html)
Trivial factoid -- the "Hokie stone" facing on the bridge piers and abutments is fake, the pattern was impressed into the concrete as part of the forms when it was poured. This is both a cost-savings (the actual limestone blocks, plus the stone masons, don't come cheap) and a material savings (the university-owned quarry that produces the stone has changed operation to extend its life, producing thinner 4-inch wide blocks instead of the full-thickness structural blocks that used to be used to face campus buildings).
Bruce in Blacksburg

Still it is a nice looking bridge, that they put that much aesthetic treatment into the bridge, in the road facing girders, the piers and the abutments.

In the last 20 years few new bridges get any aesthetic treatment at all, I don't recall seeing any on the 20-some bridges replaced in the I-495 HOT Lanes Project.  Plain post and lintel design; not to denigrate the utilitarian design that has its own engineering elegance, but no aesthetic treatment.

The I-95 Shirley Highway reconstruction 1965 to 1975 had at least light aesthetic treatment in its new bridges.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 24, 2017, 10:28:53 PM
VDOT's Website: COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD AWARDS CONTRACT FOR I-64 WIDENING PROJECT IN HENRICO AND NEW KENT (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2017/commonwealth_transportation_board_awards117750.asp)

QuoteThe project will widen Interstate 64 between Interstate 295 (Exit 200) in Henrico and Bottoms Bridge (Exit 205) in New Kent. When completed, the project is expected to provide immediate congestion relief and enhanced safety to the roadway corridor. Improvements include adding a 12-foot wide travel lane and a 10-foot wide shoulder in both directions in the median of the existing roadway, widening the bridges over the Chickahominy River and improving the acceleration and deceleration lanes at the truck weigh station.

As a design-build project, the project team will begin construction before design work is completed, which greatly reduces the overall time necessary to complete the project.

Following the award, a notice to proceed will be issued in August 2017. The estimated completion date for the project is late summer 2019.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on July 24, 2017, 10:59:16 PM
That's a good start, along with the ongoing widening between Williamsburg and Jefferson Avenue in Newport News. Hope the rest gets widened before terribly long.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 25, 2017, 12:13:56 AM
Now we can officially get to rolling on this thing. Best part is when finished at least the capacity will be good enough to get people to the US 60 option at Bottoms Bridge until the widening extends east.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 25, 2017, 12:27:52 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 24, 2017, 10:28:53 PM
VDOT's Website: COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD AWARDS CONTRACT FOR I-64 WIDENING PROJECT IN HENRICO AND NEW KENT (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2017/commonwealth_transportation_board_awards117750.asp)
QuoteThe project will widen Interstate 64 between Interstate 295 (Exit 200) in Henrico and Bottoms Bridge (Exit 205) in New Kent. When completed, the project is expected to provide immediate congestion relief and enhanced safety to the roadway corridor. Improvements include adding a 12-foot wide travel lane and a 10-foot wide shoulder in both directions in the median of the existing roadway, widening the bridges over the Chickahominy River and improving the acceleration and deceleration lanes at the truck weigh station.
As a design-build project, the project team will begin construction before design work is completed, which greatly reduces the overall time necessary to complete the project.
Following the award, a notice to proceed will be issued in August 2017. The estimated completion date for the project is late summer 2019.

These 4 current I-64 widening projects (Phase III at Williamsburg will begin in near future) are "congestion relief" projects per the info released, and that basically means that they are adding a new lane and full shoulder each way in the median and with little or no improvements outside of the existing roadways, in order to reduce the costs and reduce the needed environmental studies.  These 4 projects were originally planned to be widening to 8 lanes (4 each way).  The outside widening and interchange upgrades will occur sometime in the future (bet on at least 10 years, IMHO).  Existing pavements in these 4 projects will be heavily rehabbed and overlaid with asphalt.

Not to complain too much, these will be huge improvements.

This is still only about 40% of the length of the 4-lane sections between Richmond and Newport News that will have widening under construction.   
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on July 25, 2017, 05:45:51 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 24, 2017, 10:28:53 PM
VDOT's Website: COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD AWARDS CONTRACT FOR I-64 WIDENING PROJECT IN HENRICO AND NEW KENT (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2017/commonwealth_transportation_board_awards117750.asp)

QuoteThe project will widen Interstate 64 between Interstate 295 (Exit 200) in Henrico and Bottoms Bridge (Exit 205) in New Kent. When completed, the project is expected to provide immediate congestion relief and enhanced safety to the roadway corridor. Improvements include adding a 12-foot wide travel lane and a 10-foot wide shoulder in both directions in the median of the existing roadway, widening the bridges over the Chickahominy River and improving the acceleration and deceleration lanes at the truck weigh station.

As a design-build project, the project team will begin construction before design work is completed, which greatly reduces the overall time necessary to complete the project.

Following the award, a notice to proceed will be issued in August 2017. The estimated completion date for the project is late summer 2019.

Much needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 25, 2017, 09:09:47 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 25, 2017, 12:27:52 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 24, 2017, 10:28:53 PM
VDOT's Website: COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD AWARDS CONTRACT FOR I-64 WIDENING PROJECT IN HENRICO AND NEW KENT (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2017/commonwealth_transportation_board_awards117750.asp)
QuoteThe project will widen Interstate 64 between Interstate 295 (Exit 200) in Henrico and Bottoms Bridge (Exit 205) in New Kent. When completed, the project is expected to provide immediate congestion relief and enhanced safety to the roadway corridor. Improvements include adding a 12-foot wide travel lane and a 10-foot wide shoulder in both directions in the median of the existing roadway, widening the bridges over the Chickahominy River and improving the acceleration and deceleration lanes at the truck weigh station.
As a design-build project, the project team will begin construction before design work is completed, which greatly reduces the overall time necessary to complete the project.
Following the award, a notice to proceed will be issued in August 2017. The estimated completion date for the project is late summer 2019.

These 4 current I-64 widening projects (Phase III at Williamsburg will begin in near future) are "congestion relief" projects per the info released, and that basically means that they are adding a new lane and full shoulder each way in the median and with little or no improvements outside of the existing roadways, in order to reduce the costs and reduce the needed environmental studies.  These 4 projects were originally planned to be widening to 8 lanes (4 each way).  The outside widening and interchange upgrades will occur sometime in the future (bet on at least 10 years, IMHO).  Existing pavements in these 4 projects will be heavily rehabbed and overlaid with asphalt.

Not to complain too much, these will be huge improvements.

This is still only about 40% of the length of the 4-lane sections between Richmond and Newport News that will have widening under construction.   

Every little bit helps.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on August 03, 2017, 12:03:03 PM
VDOT is pushing ahead with its "solution" to the U.S. 460 intersection with N. Main Street in Blacksburg, with one of its "public input" sessions (I'll be out of town that day so will miss it).

Bruce in Blacksburg


QuoteNorth Main Street at Route 460 Intersection Improvements Design Public Hearing
Thursday, Aug. 31, 5-7 p.m.
Blacksburg Community Center
725 Patrick Henry Dr.
Inclement Weather Date: Tuesday, Sept. 5, 5-7 p.m.
Find out about a project to improve safety at the intersection where North Main Street connects with Route 460 and Farmingdale Lane in Blacksburg. The project will modify the intersection to add and lengthen turn lanes and restrict left turns from North Main Street and Farmingdale Lane onto Route 460. The project also includes improvements to facilitate U-turns on Route 460. Closing the connection of Bishop Road to Route 460 also is being considered.
The hearing will be held in an open house format and VDOT representatives will be present to answer questions.
Review the project information and the National Environmental Policy Act document in the form of a Categorical Exclusion at the public hearing or after the hearing at VDOT's Salem District Office located at 731 Harrison Ave., Salem, 540-387-5353, 800-367-7623, TTY/TDD 711. Please call ahead to ensure the availability of appropriate personnel to answer your questions.
Property impact information, relocation assistance policies and tentative construction schedules are available for your review at the above address and will be available at the public hearing.
Give your written or oral comments at the hearing or submit them by Sept. 10, 2017, to Tim Dowdy, Project Manager, 731 Harrison Ave., Salem, VA 24153. Comments also can be emailed to tim.dowdy@vdot.virginia.gov. Please reference "North Main Street Blacksburg Public Comment"  in the subject heading.
VDOT ensures nondiscrimination and equal employment in all programs and activities in accordance with Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you need more information in regards to your civil rights on this project or need special assistance for persons with disabilities or limited English proficiency, contact Tim Dowdy at the phone numbers listed above.
Length: 0.9 mile
From: 0.3 Mile South of North Main Street To: 0.6 Mile North of North Main Street
State Project: 0460-150-262, P101 Federal Project: NHPP-5150(197) UPC: 108900
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 07, 2017, 08:06:42 PM
http://www.fauquier.com/news/with-buckland-bypass-a-no-go-officials-consider-new-ways/article_dd5a560c-79ee-11e7-b0cd-1b169076a052.html
Now that the controversial Buckland Bypass appears to be dead, hopefully the "new ways" VDOT and the NVTA will seek to alleviate traffic on the US-29 corridor will be:
1. Widening US-29 from 4 to 6 lanes from at least US-15 to Virginia Oaks Drive(preferably all the way from Warrenton but I can see why thats a long shot).
2. Widening the rest of US-15 from 2 to 4 lanes from US-29 to VA-55
3. Possibly building interchanges at Berverlys Mill Road(SR-600), Vint Hill Road(VA-215), US-15, Old Carolina Road, and Somerset Crossing Drive.

Doubt #3 will happen because of cost and how it would almost certainly bring back talks of making US-29 an interstate, which as we already know, is pretty strongly opposed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 07, 2017, 09:59:50 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 07, 2017, 08:06:42 PM
http://www.fauquier.com/news/with-buckland-bypass-a-no-go-officials-consider-new-ways/article_dd5a560c-79ee-11e7-b0cd-1b169076a052.html
Now that the controversial Buckland Bypass appears to be dead, hopefully the "new ways" VDOT and the NVTA will seek to alleviate traffic on the US-29 corridor will be:
1. Widening US-29 from 4 to 6 lanes from at least US-15 to Virginia Oaks Drive(preferably all the way from Warrenton but I can see why thats a long shot).

It shouldn't be a "long shot", at a minimum US-29 should be reconstructed to six lanes (three each way) between the Warrenton Bypass and Gainesville.  Eight lanes would be better.  Both roadways should be reconstructed, as in profile flattened to a modern rural arterial highway standard.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 07, 2017, 08:06:42 PM
2. Widening the rest of US-15 from 2 to 4 lanes from US-29 to VA-55
3. Possibly building interchanges at Berverlys Mill Road(SR-600), Vint Hill Road(VA-215), US-15, Old Carolina Road, and Somerset Crossing Drive.
Doubt #3 will happen because of cost and how it would almost certainly bring back talks of making US-29 an interstate, which as we already know, is pretty strongly opposed.

Two or three interchanges on US-29 would help a lot.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 07, 2017, 11:26:35 PM
If they're going to burn right-of-way, I'd rather it be on frontage roads and/or interchange ramps than on 8 lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 07, 2017, 11:45:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 07, 2017, 11:26:35 PM
If they're going to burn right-of-way, I'd rather it be on frontage roads and/or interchange ramps than on 8 lanes.

If they are going to build frontage roads, then they might as well make the right-of-way limited access.  In that case a six-lane expressway could handle a lot of traffic well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 11, 2017, 05:46:51 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 02, 2017, 04:18:08 PM
I can't believe we've manged to get 99 pages of discussion on a state...
Takumi brought it to 100 pages.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2017, 07:51:18 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 02, 2017, 04:18:08 PM
I can't believe we've manged to get 99 pages of discussion on a state commonwealth...

FTFY.  ;-)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 12, 2017, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 11, 2017, 05:46:51 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 02, 2017, 04:18:08 PM
I can't believe we've manged to get 99 pages of discussion on a state...
Takumi brought it to 100 pages.



50 pages, if you set the forum to display the maximum number of posts per page instead of whatever the default is.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cl94 on August 12, 2017, 07:15:30 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 12, 2017, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 11, 2017, 05:46:51 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 02, 2017, 04:18:08 PM
I can't believe we've manged to get 99 pages of discussion on a state...
Takumi brought it to 100 pages.



50 pages, if you set the forum to display the maximum number of posts per page instead of whatever the default is.

Only ~600 replies to go until Virginia takes the lead from New York  :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 26, 2017, 01:45:10 PM
Sign folks weigh the pros and cons of this sign

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4391/35757168784_45810f16b2_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WtJQw5)20170813_163049 (https://flic.kr/p/WtJQw5) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

Pros:
Outline around the shield
US inside the shield

Cons:
Not a cutout
Clearview
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: JJBers on August 26, 2017, 01:48:34 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 12, 2017, 07:15:30 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 12, 2017, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 11, 2017, 05:46:51 PM
Quote from: JJBers on July 02, 2017, 04:18:08 PM
I can't believe we've manged to get 99 pages of discussion on a state...
Takumi brought it to 100 pages.



50 pages, if you set the forum to display the maximum number of posts per page instead of whatever the default is.

Only ~600 replies to go until Virginia takes the lead from New York  :-D
So 2100
:bigass:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 27, 2017, 10:04:20 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on August 26, 2017, 01:45:10 PM
Sign folks weigh the pros and cons of this sign

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4391/35757168784_45810f16b2_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WtJQw5)20170813_163049 (https://flic.kr/p/WtJQw5) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

Pros:
Outline around the shield
US inside the shield

Cons:
Not a cutout
Clearview
California contractor, maybe?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 28, 2017, 07:42:43 AM
I want to say I've seen a few of these stylized US shields on small guide signs elsewhere in the Hampton Roads area, but I can't remember where I would've seen them...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 31, 2017, 10:48:56 PM
I am not saying it has never happened before, but this type of corruption is unusual at VDOT.

Washington Post: Virginia officials charged in snow-clearing bribery scheme (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/virginia-officials-charged-in-snow-clearing-bribery-scheme/2017/08/31/43119ebc-8e83-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html)

QuoteTwo Virginia Department of Transportation officials were arrested Thursday for allegedly taking $140,000 in bribes from snow-removal contractors, according to prosecutors and court documents.

QuoteThe bribery scheme started in the 2013-2014 snow season and involved more than $9.1 million in contracts, according to the indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.

QuoteThe state officials steered snow-clearing work to contractors in exchange for bribes and the officials often got a cut of the contractor's payment from the commonwealth, prosecutors said.

QuoteAnthony Willie, superintendent at the Burke-area maintenance headquarters, and his deputy, Kenneth Adams, secretly sought "to enrich themselves by corruptly demanding . . . and agreeing to receive and accept bribes . . . in exchange for being influenced in the performance of official acts in their roles as public officials,"  according to the indictment.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 31, 2017, 11:44:42 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 31, 2017, 10:48:56 PM
I am not saying it has never happened before, but this type of corruption is unusual at VDOT.
Washington Post: Virginia officials charged in snow-clearing bribery scheme (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/virginia-officials-charged-in-snow-clearing-bribery-scheme/2017/08/31/43119ebc-8e83-11e7-91d5-ab4e4bb76a3a_story.html)
QuoteTwo Virginia Department of Transportation officials were arrested Thursday for allegedly taking $140,000 in bribes from snow-removal contractors, according to prosecutors and court documents.
QuoteThe bribery scheme started in the 2013-2014 snow season and involved more than $9.1 million in contracts, according to the indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.
QuoteThe state officials steered snow-clearing work to contractors in exchange for bribes and the officials often got a cut of the contractor's payment from the commonwealth, prosecutors said.
QuoteAnthony Willie, superintendent at the Burke-area maintenance headquarters, and his deputy, Kenneth Adams, secretly sought "to enrich themselves by corruptly demanding . . . and agreeing to receive and accept bribes . . . in exchange for being influenced in the performance of official acts in their roles as public officials,"  according to the indictment.

I don't understand how an area headquarters Maintenance Superintendent  would have anything to do with the issuance of contracts for hired equipment for snow removal.  Too low of a position.

I would have thought that would be handled at the Residency or District Office level by an engineer-level person.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 01, 2017, 01:09:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2017, 11:44:42 PM
I don't understand how an area headquarters Maintenance Superintendent  would have anything to do with the issuance of contracts for hired equipment for snow removal.  Too low of a position.

According to the federal indictment, the two VDOT staff persons had a lot of authority to identify snow plowing contractors and assign them work (presumably delegated down to them by the Northern Virginia District?).

Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2017, 11:44:42 PM
I would have thought that would be handled at the Residency or District Office level by an engineer-level person.

The number of people working at VDOT's Northern Virginia District (and probably other VDOT districts as well) has been trending downward.  The Great Recession of 2008
resulted in a big drop in highway user taxes collected for VDOT, which in turn led to a lot  of people being laid-off.  As a result, maybe delegating to the maintenance headquarters staff became inevitable?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 01, 2017, 01:31:47 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 01, 2017, 01:09:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2017, 11:44:42 PM
I don't understand how an area headquarters Maintenance Superintendent  would have anything to do with the issuance of contracts for hired equipment for snow removal.  Too low of a position.
According to the federal indictment, the two VDOT staff persons had a lot of authority to identify snow plowing contractors and assign them work (presumably delegated down to them by the Northern Virginia District?).
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2017, 11:44:42 PM
I would have thought that would be handled at the Residency or District Office level by an engineer-level person.
The number of people working at VDOT's Northern Virginia District (and probably other VDOT districts as well) has been trending downward.  The Great Recession of 2008
resulted in a big drop in highway user taxes collected for VDOT, which in turn led to a lot  of people being laid-off.  As a result, maybe delegating to the maintenance headquarters staff became inevitable?

Those layoffs (reduction to 7,000 staff) were due to Governor Tim Kaine's grandstanding in 2009 as part of his attempt (including the closing of many Interstate rest areas) to hornswoggle the General Assembly into enacting large tax increases, which failed.

VDOT's total budget never did decline during that period, and the maintenance budget was kept well-funded.

In the last 4 years VDOT has done lots of hiring and is up to over 7,500 today.  There should be no reason why any over-delegating should have happened.

If employees engaged in corruption then they should be held liable in the legal process.

As I said above I just need an explanation of how area headquarters staff would have any power to select contractors.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 01, 2017, 02:21:26 PM
Here is a job description of that kind of position which doesn't outright say they award contracts but is it possible they have several contractors authorized by VDOT to do snow removal and the superintendent has the ability to pick which of those is called in for a particular snow event?

http://www.virginiadot.org/jobs/resources/Maintenance_Superintendent.docx
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 01, 2017, 02:49:55 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 01, 2017, 02:21:26 PM
Here is a job description of that kind of position which doesn't outright say they award contracts but is it possible they have several contractors authorized by VDOT to do snow removal and the superintendent has the ability to pick which of those is called in for a particular snow event?
http://www.virginiadot.org/jobs/resources/Maintenance_Superintendent.docx

"Monitor maintenance and hired equipment contracts for compliance with required specifications."

That would mean to inspect the work and verify that it has been done properly.  The issuance of contracts and the assignment of contractors would be a higher level task assigned to a contract administrator, and that is a Residency Office or District Office function.

People who know me know that I am skeptical in general of the output of newspapers, as far as the expertise and accuracy of their reportage.  I just want to get an accurate picture of what has happened in this case.
Title: Re: Virginia I-95
Post by: EricJV95 on September 05, 2017, 12:12:00 AM
I just noticed a NEW BIGGER guide overhead sign on 95 South at EXIT 84A at I-295 (Richmond/Petersburg Bypass). Looks pretty nice. PLUS they did it right!!! EXIT 84A is signed as  SOUTH 295 to EAST 64 Williamsburg-Norfolk- Va Beach (Which Replaced Richmond Int'l Airport / Rocky Mount, NC) good move. And it also has for 95 itself the following: SOUTH 95 to 295 and WEST 64 Richmond - Charlottesvile. Very good. However, Only one small detail. The arrows should be pointing DOWN. Those arrows are TACKY !!!! VERY TACKY!!! Other than that; Very good signage. And they should have at least added either Petersburg or Emporia on the 95 SOUTH overhead with Richmond - Charlottesville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 05, 2017, 07:22:10 AM
Quote from: EricJV95 on September 05, 2017, 12:12:00 AM
.... And they should have at least added either Petersburg or Emporia on the 95 SOUTH overhead with Richmond - Charlottesville.

They wouldn't be likely to put Emporia on the I-95 South BGS because they want you to use I-295 to go there.
Title: Re: Virginia I-95
Post by: LM117 on September 05, 2017, 08:03:59 AM
Quote from: EricJV95 on September 05, 2017, 12:12:00 AM
I just noticed a NEW BIGGER guide overhead sign on 95 South at EXIT 84A at I-295 (Richmond/Petersburg Bypass). Looks pretty nice. PLUS they did it right!!! EXIT 84A is signed as  SOUTH 295 to EAST 64 Williamsburg-Norfolk- Va Beach (Which Replaced Richmond Int'l Airport / Rocky Mount, NC) good move.

I don't fully agree with it. It's good to have Williamsburg and Norfolk on the BGS, but Rocky Mount should've been kept as the third control city, not VA Beach. Despite VA Beach's population, most people think of Norfolk when they think of Hampton Roads, not VA Beach.

Now that Rocky Mount has been taken off the BGS, there's no control city for those using I-295 South, but not looking to get on I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 05, 2017, 08:08:13 AM
A photo of this new guide sign would be useful in order to discuss.  I'm not 100%, but the way Eric described it suggests it's an overhead APL, which if true is why the arrows would be pointing up instead of down.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 05, 2017, 08:54:53 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 05, 2017, 08:08:13 AM
A photo of this new guide sign would be useful in order to discuss.  I'm not 100%, but the way Eric described it suggests it's an overhead APL, which if true is why the arrows would be pointing up instead of down.


Would also be useful to know if they replaced one BGS assembly or all of them.  There are several sets and they all say different things.  Some mention I-85 and Durham NC.

Another already had essentially what the new sign is reported minus the APL and minus a 95 SOUTH shield...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 05, 2017, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2017, 12:26:47 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 05, 2017, 08:54:53 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 05, 2017, 08:08:13 AM
A photo of this new guide sign would be useful in order to discuss.  I'm not 100%, but the way Eric described it suggests it's an overhead APL, which if true is why the arrows would be pointing up instead of down.
Would also be useful to know if they replaced one BGS assembly or all of them.  There are several sets and they all say different things.  Some mention I-85 and Durham NC.
Another already had essentially what the new sign is reported minus the APL and minus a 95 SOUTH shield...
I live about 10 miles from this, I could take a look within the next hour or two.  Basically check the directional signs on I-95 SB in the 5 miles before I-295.

Here are the signs ... the 4-mile sign is missing, I believe that was at or near the Lewistown Road bridge that is under construction, and likely will be reinstalled as part of the project.

The signs were at the approach mile points of 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and a few others.

Norfolk and Rocky Mount are well represented in the sign series.

http://www.capital-beltway.com/I95SB-I295-Sign1-092017.JPG
http://www.capital-beltway.com/I95SB-I295-Sign2-092017.JPG
http://www.capital-beltway.com/I95SB-I295-Sign3-092017.JPG
http://www.capital-beltway.com/I95SB-I295-Sign4-092017.JPG
http://www.capital-beltway.com/I95SB-I295-Sign5-092017.JPG
http://www.capital-beltway.com/I95SB-I295-Sign6-092017.JPG
http://www.capital-beltway.com/I95SB-I295-Sign7-092017.JPG
http://www.capital-beltway.com/I95SB-I295-Sign8-092017.JPG

Taken against the sun so the lighting is not great.

The last sign is I believe the subject of the sub-thread.

I don't see Petersburg ... maybe that was on the 4-mile sign?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 05, 2017, 03:33:02 PM
Looks like I stand corrected about Rocky Mount being completely erased at that interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 05, 2017, 04:04:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2017, 02:41:15 PM


I don't see Petersburg ... maybe that was on the 4-mile sign?

GMSV shows the 4-mile sign to be the same sign as the one off to the side in your pic #4 (bypass diagram).

The only one to show Petersburg is apparently right after the split for 295 - https://goo.gl/maps/ueNL8qiP1a42



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 05, 2017, 04:50:46 PM
Danke, Scott.

Looks like my earlier suspicion about an Arrow-Per-Lane (APL) sign was correct.

As long as VDOT keeps supplemental guide signs for Rocky Mount, the airport, and I-85 South (specifically Scott's photos #3 and #7), I don't see anything particularly wrong with this new overhead.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 05, 2017, 05:27:46 PM
Virginia is actively installing some APLs where option lanes are present. In the near future, APLs are also going up on I-95 at Exits 75 (SB) and 79 (both directions), as well as on I-64 at Exits 186 (EB) and 190 (WB). This is on VDOT's page under Richmond Projects, specifically the I-95 Corridor Improvements in Richmond Region project (Appendix R has a look at all the work involved with this in a nutshell also, here http://virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-95-64_overlap_study.asp ).

Technically, on I-95 SB approaching I-295, that BGS assembly right before the new APL (the one where I-85 is posted next to I-95) is also supposed to be an APL... surprised they didn't change that one also.

Edit: just realized I forgot to link the Appendix
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on September 05, 2017, 09:16:03 PM
Something else remarkable about that sign that i had yet to see on new guide signs in Virginia until that last pic...no Clearview!!!

I would have included I-85 south on that pull through.  You can't get to I-85 without staying on I-95, and since technically I-295 North to West 64 is not a pull-through option, just a different ramp at the same interchange, that seemed a little excessive.

Maybe on the pull through part, I would have said "South I-95 to South I-195 to South I-85 Downtown Richmond Durham NC"

But I must admit that's one hell of an OAPL.

My guess for the use of Va Beach was that it is, or at least used to be, Virginia's largest city.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on September 05, 2017, 09:25:59 PM
It's called a tourist destination.  I do not have any numbers available as far as traffic volumes, but I believe a majority of vehicles traveling on I-95 from Washington, then taking I-295 South, are heading toward I-64 East to Williamsburg or Va. Beach.  The new APL sign installed would make sense here as Rocky Mount, NC is on prior signage before the gore point of Interchange 84A.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 05, 2017, 09:55:56 PM
^  Per 2016 VDOT traffic volumes, of the roughly 72,000 daily vehicles on southbound I-95 approaching I-295, roughly 1/3 (24K) exit onto I-295 South.  Likewise, of the roughly 35,000 daily vehicles on southbound I-295 approaching I-64, roughly 1/3 of them (12K) exit onto I-64 East.

So, in a nutshell, a chunk of them yes.  But not a majority.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 05, 2017, 09:56:36 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on September 05, 2017, 09:16:03 PM
I would have included I-85 south on that pull through.  You can't get to I-85 without staying on I-95, and since technically I-295 North to West 64 is not a pull-through option, just a different ramp at the same interchange, that seemed a little excessive.

The sign right before that one has "South 95 to 85", with cities Richmond and Durham NC.

http://www.capital-beltway.com/I95SB-I295-Sign7-092017.JPG
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on September 05, 2017, 10:15:32 PM
That's great until the other signs get replaced.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 05, 2017, 10:22:49 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on September 05, 2017, 09:16:03 PM
....

I would have included I-85 south on that pull through.  You can't get to I-85 without staying on I-95 ....

Of course you can. You take I-295 to its southern end and then just go four miles back north on I-95. I've always found it interesting that VDOT doesn't encourage people to do that instead of going through Richmond. I used to go that way on occasion when I was in law school if I had a lot of stuff in the car because there's so much less traffic on I-295. Nowadays the 70-mph speed limit on I-295 versus the 55- and 60-mph limits on I-95 might be another factor I'd consider.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on September 05, 2017, 10:46:49 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 05, 2017, 09:55:56 PM
^  Per 2016 VDOT traffic volumes, of the roughly 72,000 daily vehicles on southbound I-95 approaching I-295, roughly 1/3 (24K) exit onto I-295 South.  Likewise, of the roughly 35,000 daily vehicles on southbound I-295 approaching I-64, roughly 1/3 of them (12K) exit onto I-64 East.

So, in a nutshell, a chunk of them yes.  But not a majority.
Well, one third of them--no majority.  Thanks.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 05, 2017, 11:11:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 05, 2017, 10:22:49 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on September 05, 2017, 09:16:03 PM
I would have included I-85 south on that pull through.  You can't get to I-85 without staying on I-95 ....
Of course you can. You take I-295 to its southern end and then just go four miles back north on I-95. I've always found it interesting that VDOT doesn't encourage people to do that instead of going through Richmond. I used to go that way on occasion when I was in law school if I had a lot of stuff in the car because there's so much less traffic on I-295. Nowadays the 70-mph speed limit on I-295 versus the 55- and 60-mph limits on I-95 might be another factor I'd consider.

Ashland to Dinwiddie --
Per Google Maps, 59 miles and 60 minutes via I-95, and 72 miles and 70 minutes via I-295.

Not only that, but recent VDOT studies are looking at ways to upgrade the southerly I-95/I-85 ramps, and it is decidedly substandard and dicey from I-85 NB to I-95 SB.  I would not use that routing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 05, 2017, 11:44:13 PM
I've never really been a fan of using I-295 south to I-95 north to reach I-85 either. The only time when it's really worth it is during rush hour. Outside of that, traffic along the I-95 corridor tends to move very well (especially now that all of those bridge replacement projects are completed).

Another one: using I-295 to VA 895 to I-95 to I-85 maybe would've been worth it (again, during rush hour) if it wasn't for that ridiculously high toll on VA 895.

Also, about the control cities listed on that new APL, my only gripe with it is Williamsburg. If they were gonna leave Rocky Mount off of it then they could've at least used Hopewell instead.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 06, 2017, 12:26:24 AM
I cleaned the last one up for you a bit:
(https://i.imgur.com/3HviJHk.jpg)

These signs are a bit confusing for this Yankee! I'm from CT and have never been past Alexandria for Virginia. :(
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on September 06, 2017, 06:06:55 AM
I've done the I-85N->I-95S->I-295N before to reach I-64E (my father had a sailboat on the Chesapeake Bay in Deltaville near the end of VA 33), but we used to use I-85N->I-95N->VA 10E->I-295N->I-64E instead, even when VA 895 was completed.  Heck, on a couple of occasions I've skipped the middleman and taken I-95 straight to I-64.  As long as it's not rush hour, I've never had a problem with I-95 in downtown Richmond, though I seriously question having to use a surface street to get from I-64W to I-95S.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 06, 2017, 06:34:55 AM
Quote from: plain on September 05, 2017, 11:44:13 PM
I've never really been a fan of using I-295 south to I-95 north to reach I-85 either. The only time when it's really worth it is during rush hour. Outside of that, traffic along the I-95 corridor tends to move very well (especially now that all of those bridge replacement projects are completed).

Another one: using I-295 to VA 895 to I-95 to I-85 maybe would've been worth it (again, during rush hour) if it wasn't for that ridiculously high toll on VA 895.

Also, about the control cities listed on that new APL, my only gripe with it is Williamsburg. If they were gonna leave Rocky Mount off of it then they could've at least used Hopewell instead.

I routinely use US 460 Bus (County Drive) to make the connection between I-85 and I-295.  Per Google it is the same time as using 85-95-295 but 2 miles shorter.

I also use 95 straight through as a change of scenery and it is much better than it used to be but it doesn't take much to make it slower...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 06:41:10 AM
Quote from: OracleUsr on September 06, 2017, 06:06:55 AM
I've done the I-85N->I-95S->I-295N before to reach I-64E (my father had a sailboat on the Chesapeake Bay in Deltaville near the end of VA 33), but we used to use I-85N->I-95N->VA 10E->I-295N->I-64E instead, even when VA 895 was completed.  Heck, on a couple of occasions I've skipped the middleman and taken I-95 straight to I-64.  As long as it's not rush hour, I've never had a problem with I-95 in downtown Richmond, though I seriously question having to use a surface street to get from I-64W to I-95S.

I don't mind paying the toll for occasional use of Route 895, like a half dozen round trips a year.

I do the same thing with the I-95 and I-495 HOT lanes, and the toll there is usually much higher like 5 times or more  than that of Route 895.

There is a current resurfacing project on the mainline of Route 895.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 06, 2017, 07:27:19 AM
My point was mainly that of course you can use I-295 southbound to reach I-95, since OracleUsr said you can't.

The times I used to use that route–always going the other direction, though–were times when I had enough stuff crammed into the car that my view out the right side and the rearview was compromised, so I opted for I-295 because the lower volume of traffic, plus fewer onramps, meant there was less need to change lanes than there might be on I-95. Just a matter of what I judged most convenient under those particular circumstances.

One time I was considering I-295 to I-95 to VA-40 but never got around to trying it. Obviously it wouldn't have been any faster.

I used to go up I-85 and then connect to VA-5 via the Harrison Bridge to visit my brother at William & Mary, but it's been 20 years and at this point I can't say I really recall which routes I used to do that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 10:39:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2017, 11:11:08 PMNot only that, but recent VDOT studies are looking at ways to upgrade the southerly I-95/I-85 ramps, and it is decidedly substandard and dicey from I-85 NB to I-95 SB.  I would not use that routing.

I used to go through that interchange a lot when I lived in Farmville a few years ago whenever I made my trips to NC and I hated it every time (even less fun driving a 17ft. Ryder truck).

I wonder why VDOT never considered extending I-295 westward to I-85. It would've allowed traffic to go from I-85 to I-295 without even having to go through Petersburg and it's interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 06, 2017, 10:45:27 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on September 05, 2017, 09:25:59 PM
It's called a tourist destination.  I do not have any numbers available as far as traffic volumes, but I believe a majority of vehicles traveling on I-95 from Washington, then taking I-295 South, are heading toward I-64 East to Williamsburg or Va. Beach.  The new APL sign installed would make sense here as Rocky Mount, NC is on prior sighttps://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.2450nage before the gore point of Interchange 84A.

From metropolitan Washington, D.C. I would normally stay far away from I-95 and I-64 around Richmond to travel to Virginia Beach.  In my experience, U.S. 301 south across the Nice Bridge and then U.S. 17 (Tidewater Trail) from Port Royal to I-64 in Newport News is a lower-stress and easier trip, with relatively little traffic until Gloucester County, and even then not that bad.  It is just under 100 miles from Port Royal to I-64 Exit 258.

Alternatively, from Northern Virginia, I-95 south to Exit 126 near Massaponax, then U.S. 17 east and south from there. 

Being Virginia, speeding is not advised, especially through  Tappahannock and around Saluda.

Because I-64 Exit 258 is east of I-664 (Exit 264), the option of using the Monitor—Merrimac Memorial Bridge—Tunnel is preserved if the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel is severely congested.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 06, 2017, 10:48:18 AM
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 10:39:46 AM
I wonder why VDOT never considered extending I-295 westward to I-85. It would've allowed traffic to go from I-85 to I-295 without even having to go through Petersburg and it's interchange.

I assume that there's relatively small demand for that movement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 06, 2017, 11:11:06 AM
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 10:39:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2017, 11:11:08 PMNot only that, but recent VDOT studies are looking at ways to upgrade the southerly I-95/I-85 ramps, and it is decidedly substandard and dicey from I-85 NB to I-95 SB.  I would not use that routing.

I used to go through that interchange a lot when I lived in Farmville a few years ago whenever I made my trips to NC and I hated it every time (even less fun driving a 17ft. Ryder truck).

I wonder why VDOT never considered extending I-295 westward to I-85. It would've allowed traffic to go from I-85 to I-295 without even having to go through Petersburg and it's interchange.

They did...

Scott gives a brief description here...
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/RPT_I295.html

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 11:14:03 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 06, 2017, 10:45:27 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on September 05, 2017, 09:25:59 PM
It's called a tourist destination.  I do not have any numbers available as far as traffic volumes, but I believe a majority of vehicles traveling on I-95 from Washington, then taking I-295 South, are heading toward I-64 East to Williamsburg or Va. Beach.  The new APL sign installed would make sense here as Rocky Mount, NC is on prior sighttps://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.2450nage before the gore point of Interchange 84A.
From metropolitan Washington, D.C. I would normally stay far away from I-95 and I-64 around Richmond to travel to Virginia Beach.  In my experience, U.S. 301 south across the Nice Bridge and then U.S. 17 (Tidewater Trail) from Port Royal to I-64 in Newport News is a lower-stress and easier trip, with relatively little traffic until Gloucester County, and even then not that bad.  It is just under 100 miles from Port Royal to I-64 Exit 258.

US-301 in southern Maryland has about 60 traffic lights now, and Waldorf and La Plata are very congested, something that I will avoid unless there is a catastrophe on I-95, as it will take -much- longer timewise.  There is no significant mileage savings for any of the trips to the south or southeast.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 06, 2017, 10:45:27 AM
Alternatively, from Northern Virginia, I-95 south to Exit 126 near Massaponax, then U.S. 17 east and south from there. 

Likewise a lot slower than the Interstates, many traffic lights, and by then you've passed the most congested part of I-95 in NoVa.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 11:22:12 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 06, 2017, 11:11:06 AM
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 10:39:46 AM
I wonder why VDOT never considered extending I-295 westward to I-85. It would've allowed traffic to go from I-85 to I-295 without even having to go through Petersburg and it's interchange.
They did...
Scott gives a brief description here...
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/RPT_I295.html

The Route 895 route was built in lieu of the I-295 extension to I-85 --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Route_895_Connector.html#Early_Studies

An I-295 extension to I-85 would still have merit, especially that 30+ years have passed and traffic has grown, but I don't think any official action has taken place since then.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 06, 2017, 11:25:53 AM
^^ IIRC, there was further consideration of a "southern Petersburg bypass" beyond what Scott references on his website, possibly related to the "TransAmerica Corridor" proposal along US 460.

QuoteUS-301 in southern Maryland has about 60 traffic lights now, and Waldorf and La Plata are very congested, something that I will avoid unless there is a catastrophe on I-95, as it will take -much- longer timewise.  There is no significant mileage savings for any of the trips to the south or southeast.

I wouldn't say it's "no significant mileage savings".  From Camp Springs to Newport News, it's about 20 miles shorter via MD 5/US 301/US 17 over taking I-95/I-295/I-64.  But it's generally slower as you note.  That said, CP has a good point in that it's much less stressful than I-95 or I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 11:30:18 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 06, 2017, 11:25:53 AM
QuoteUS-301 in southern Maryland has about 60 traffic lights now, and Waldorf and La Plata are very congested, something that I will avoid unless there is a catastrophe on I-95, as it will take -much- longer timewise.  There is no significant mileage savings for any of the trips to the south or southeast.
I wouldn't say it's "no significant mileage savings".  From Camp Springs to Newport News, it's about 20 miles shorter via MD 5/US 301/US 17 over taking I-95/I-295/I-64.  But it's generally slower as you note.  That said, CP has a good point in that it's much less stressful than I-95 or I-64.

I tried it once, and it was -much- slower timewise, probably over 100 traffic lights, and that created a lot of stress.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 06, 2017, 11:40:19 AM
Don't know if it's been mentioned, but Virginia is starting to use some extruded panels for its guide signs (the APL sign posted upthread appears to be such) instead of the signs it has traditionally used. I'm pretty sure I saw some on VA 288 a few years ago, and there are definitely some on I-81 near Abingdon.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 11:22:12 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 06, 2017, 11:11:06 AM
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 10:39:46 AM
I wonder why VDOT never considered extending I-295 westward to I-85. It would've allowed traffic to go from I-85 to I-295 without even having to go through Petersburg and it's interchange.
They did...
Scott gives a brief description here...
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/RPT_I295.html

The Route 895 route was built in lieu of the I-295 extension to I-85 --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Route_895_Connector.html#Early_Studies

An I-295 extension to I-85 would still have merit, especially that 30+ years have passed and traffic has grown, but I don't think any official action has taken place since then.

I agree that it still has merit. I'm surprised Petersburg hasn't pushed for it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 06, 2017, 01:55:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 06, 2017, 11:40:19 AM
Don't know if it's been mentioned, but Virginia is starting to use some extruded panels for its guide signs (the APL sign posted upthread appears to be such) instead of the signs it has traditionally used. I'm pretty sure I saw some on VA 288 a few years ago, and there are definitely some on I-81 near Abingdon.

First extruded panels I ever saw in Virginia (at least on VDOT-maintained roads) was about 10 (or more) years ago on I-395 (Shirley Highway) northbound (local lanes) passing the  Pentagon and approaching the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Arlington.  At the time, they looked very "out of place" on a Virginia highway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 03:51:19 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 11:22:12 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 06, 2017, 11:11:06 AM
Quote from: LM117 on September 06, 2017, 10:39:46 AM
I wonder why VDOT never considered extending I-295 westward to I-85. It would've allowed traffic to go from I-85 to I-295 without even having to go through Petersburg and it's interchange.
They did... Scott gives a brief description here...
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/RPT_I295.html
The Route 895 route was built in lieu of the I-295 extension to I-85 --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Route_895_Connector.html#Early_Studies
An I-295 extension to I-85 would still have merit, especially that 30+ years have passed and traffic has grown, but I don't think any official action has taken place since then.
I agree that it still has merit. I'm surprised Petersburg hasn't pushed for it.

I don't think that traffic has gotten to the point to where there is any real urgency yet.  I-85 to I-95 is workable usually even in peak hours, and there are all-freeway ways to bypass I-95 thru Richmond if you are willing to pay a toll (VA-895 to I-295, and VA-150 to VA-76 to I-195); and US-460 thru traffic can use I-95 to I-85 thru Petersburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 06, 2017, 04:06:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 06, 2017, 11:40:19 AM
Don't know if it's been mentioned, but Virginia is starting to use some extruded panels for its guide signs (the APL sign posted upthread appears to be such) instead of the signs it has traditionally used. I'm pretty sure I saw some on VA 288 a few years ago, and there are definitely some on I-81 near Abingdon.

What does "extruded panels" mean?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: CVski on September 06, 2017, 05:59:11 PM
Quick, https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9525371,-78.2624879,9z
clinch I-95 Staunton to Va Beach while you can! 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on September 06, 2017, 09:57:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 06, 2017, 04:06:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 06, 2017, 11:40:19 AM
Don't know if it's been mentioned, but Virginia is starting to use some extruded panels for its guide signs (the APL sign posted upthread appears to be such) instead of the signs it has traditionally used. I'm pretty sure I saw some on VA 288 a few years ago, and there are definitely some on I-81 near Abingdon.

What does "extruded panels" mean?

Extruded panels are the signs that are composed of the horizontal beams bolted together to form a sign.  This contrasts with incremental panel signs, which are made of flat sheets that are riveted together.  Extruded panel signs nearly always have square corners, while incremental panel signs often have rounded corners.

Looks like the extruded panel signs are now spreading into other VDOT districts; I thought it was strictly something that the Northern Virginia district was trying out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 06, 2017, 11:05:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 03:51:19 PM
I don't think that traffic has gotten to the point to where there is any real urgency yet.  I-85 to I-95 is workable usually even in peak hours, and there are all-freeway ways to bypass I-95 thru Richmond if you are willing to pay a toll (VA-895 to I-295, and VA-150 to VA-76 to I-195); and US-460 thru traffic can use I-95 to I-85 thru Petersburg.

The not-so-freeway route of VA-10 works too. I use that one often when I'm passing through the area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 12:10:43 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 06, 2017, 11:05:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 03:51:19 PM
I don't think that traffic has gotten to the point to where there is any real urgency yet.  I-85 to I-95 is workable usually even in peak hours, and there are all-freeway ways to bypass I-95 thru Richmond if you are willing to pay a toll (VA-895 to I-295, and VA-150 to VA-76 to I-195); and US-460 thru traffic can use I-95 to I-85 thru Petersburg.
The not-so-freeway route of VA-10 works too. I use that one often when I'm passing through the area.

The 4-lane portion will soon be widened to 8 lanes, with superstreet improvements --

Route 10 Widening, Bermuda Triangle to Meadowville
http://www.chesterfield.gov/Transportation.aspx?id=8590043054

This project involves improvements to the intersection of Route 10 and Meadowville Road and widening Route 10 between Bermuda Triangle Road and Meadowville Road to eight lanes. The project has been partially funded by the Governor's Transportation Initiative of 2011 and additional federal funds secured by the county.

A public hearing was held on March 19, 2014. The major design features were approved on August 21, 2014. Purchase of right-of-way and easements is underway with completion anticipated in Spring 2017. Utility relocations are anticipated to begin in Summer 2017 and be complete in Summer 2018. Construction is anticipated to begin Summer 2018 with completion anticipated Summer 2020.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 07, 2017, 07:27:52 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 06, 2017, 11:05:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 03:51:19 PM
I don't think that traffic has gotten to the point to where there is any real urgency yet.  I-85 to I-95 is workable usually even in peak hours, and there are all-freeway ways to bypass I-95 thru Richmond if you are willing to pay a toll (VA-895 to I-295, and VA-150 to VA-76 to I-195); and US-460 thru traffic can use I-95 to I-85 thru Petersburg.

The not-so-freeway route of VA-10 works too. I use that one often when I'm passing through the area.

VA 10 is a gamble if you use it during daytime hours.. it can get very crowded at times between the two interstates. It should be much better once that project Beltway mentioned is completed. It's definitely great to use at night though, especially if one wants to get from I-85 to I-64 east of Richmond and vice-versa.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 08:40:55 AM
Quote from: plain on September 07, 2017, 07:27:52 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 06, 2017, 11:05:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2017, 03:51:19 PM
I don't think that traffic has gotten to the point to where there is any real urgency yet.  I-85 to I-95 is workable usually even in peak hours, and there are all-freeway ways to bypass I-95 thru Richmond if you are willing to pay a toll (VA-895 to I-295, and VA-150 to VA-76 to I-195); and US-460 thru traffic can use I-95 to I-85 thru Petersburg.
The not-so-freeway route of VA-10 works too. I use that one often when I'm passing through the area.
VA 10 is a gamble if you use it during daytime hours.. it can get very crowded at times between the two interstates. It should be much better once that project Beltway mentioned is completed. It's definitely great to use at night though, especially if one wants to get from I-85 to I-64 east of Richmond and vice-versa.

How crowded?  I don't recall any major slowdowns, and the busier parts have been widened to 6 or 8 lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 07, 2017, 08:51:58 AM
Every now and then there will be major slowdowns between Old Stage and 1/301, but most of the time it's manageable rush hour traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 07, 2017, 09:35:02 AM
Like I said it's a gamble. I go to Hopewell a few times a month for work and I've gotten caught in slowdowns a few of those times in both directions, depending on what time I go through. The last time was a couple Fridays ago heading EB approaching Rivers Bend about 3ish in the afternoon 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 12:58:30 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 07, 2017, 08:51:58 AM
Every now and then there will be major slowdowns between Old Stage and 1/301, but most of the time it's manageable rush hour traffic.

Between I-95 and east of Old Stage Road, VA-10 has been widened to 8 lanes including new bridges over the railroad.

From US-1/US-301 to I-95, VA-10 is 4 lanes, but that is urban and not in the VA-10 portion between I-95 and I-295. 

The VA-10 portion between I-95 and I-295 is 3.9 miles in length, and how often does it take more than 6 minutes to travel?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 07, 2017, 04:23:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 12:58:30 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 07, 2017, 08:51:58 AM
Every now and then there will be major slowdowns between Old Stage and 1/301, but most of the time it's manageable rush hour traffic.

Between I-95 and east of Old Stage Road, VA-10 has been widened to 8 lanes including new bridges over the railroad.

From US-1/US-301 to I-95, VA-10 is 4 lanes, but that is urban and not in the VA-10 portion between I-95 and I-295. 

The VA-10 portion between I-95 and I-295 is 3.9 miles in length, and how often does it take more than 6 minutes to travel?

It could take actually take more than that on a good day, depending on how many of those lights at the eastern end of this stretch are red. But when traffic does gets thick, WB might back up from the beginning on the 4 lane section back past Rivers Bend. EB sometimes back up from Rivers Bend back onto the 4 lane section for about a mile, depending on how many people try to jam their way to the left to turn into Rivers Bend.

As far as the recently widened section near I-95, while it's definitely much better than what it was beforehand, WB actually still has some issues in the morning. The rightmost lane eventually becomes a right turn only lane onto a side street before reaching I-95, while the lane next over is the one that defaults onto 95 NB... this causes traffic to stack into that lane (basically the same problem US 250 EB traffic has trying to enter I-64 EB in Short Pump)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 07, 2017, 04:42:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 07, 2017, 12:58:30 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 07, 2017, 08:51:58 AM
Every now and then there will be major slowdowns between Old Stage and 1/301, but most of the time it's manageable rush hour traffic.

Between I-95 and east of Old Stage Road, VA-10 has been widened to 8 lanes including new bridges over the railroad.

From US-1/US-301 to I-95, VA-10 is 4 lanes, but that is urban and not in the VA-10 portion between I-95 and I-295. 

The VA-10 portion between I-95 and I-295 is 3.9 miles in length, and how often does it take more than 6 minutes to travel?
Almost always. The only routinely free-flowing section is the mile or so where there are no traffic lights between Old Stage and 618.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 07, 2017, 11:20:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 06, 2017, 04:06:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 06, 2017, 11:40:19 AM
Don't know if it's been mentioned, but Virginia is starting to use some extruded panels for its guide signs (the APL sign posted upthread appears to be such) instead of the signs it has traditionally used. I'm pretty sure I saw some on VA 288 a few years ago, and there are definitely some on I-81 near Abingdon.

What does "extruded panels" mean?

I am sure you have driven under this structure (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8700505,-77.0461702,3a,75y,20.34h,88.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su1WpjhxDPCX-n0aZIzkBpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) a few times on I-395 (conventional lanes) northbound near Boundary Channel Drive. Usually more obvious when looking at the reverse side (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8703511,-77.0458951,3a,75y,218.76h,92.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slfBfmgt0ww4Mjy4jqQSiMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of a sign panel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on September 08, 2017, 06:34:08 AM
http://www.insidenova.com/news/transportation/prince_william/route-traffic-support-builds-for-godwin-drive-extension/article_9c27168c-93c2-11e7-8978-bbb2b12a127b.html
http://www.fauquier.com/prince_william_times/news/godwin-drive-extended-a--million-bypass-to-va/article_37ba8708-9348-11e7-96ef-2f82e084496e.html
Looks like the Godwin Drive Extension idea to help relieve VA-28 congestion north of Manassas is now a step closer to becoming reality. Seemed to generally have the most support and the least impact to homes and the environment at the latest NVTA meeting last night. It also appears that any direct Godwin Drive connection to I-66 somewhere in between exits 47 and 53 is now off the table due to its proposed routing through Bull Run Regional Park.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 08, 2017, 12:36:58 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 07, 2017, 11:20:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 06, 2017, 04:06:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 06, 2017, 11:40:19 AM
Don't know if it's been mentioned, but Virginia is starting to use some extruded panels for its guide signs (the APL sign posted upthread appears to be such) instead of the signs it has traditionally used. I'm pretty sure I saw some on VA 288 a few years ago, and there are definitely some on I-81 near Abingdon.

What does "extruded panels" mean?

I am sure you have driven under this structure (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8700505,-77.0461702,3a,75y,20.34h,88.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su1WpjhxDPCX-n0aZIzkBpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) a few times on I-395 (conventional lanes) northbound near Boundary Channel Drive. Usually more obvious when looking at the reverse side (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8703511,-77.0458951,3a,75y,218.76h,92.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slfBfmgt0ww4Mjy4jqQSiMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of a sign panel.

Thanks. I've never really paid much attention to that aspect of signage, so the term meant nothing to me, but those pictures are clear as to what it means.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on September 08, 2017, 04:56:06 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 06, 2017, 12:26:24 AM
I cleaned the last one up for you a bit:
(https://i.imgur.com/3HviJHk.jpg)

These signs are a bit confusing for this Yankee! I'm from CT and have never been past Alexandria for Virginia. :(

I agree with an earlier commenter that Rocky Mount should be mentioned on this sign.  Even if it is mentioned on other signs, this sign being so prominent should have a sign for a city on each highway.  Norfolk/Rocky Mount - Richmond/Charlottesville would be sufficient for this sign, and any other supplemental cities like Petersburg, Williamsburg, or VA Beach should be on supplemental signs only.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 08, 2017, 07:12:01 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 08, 2017, 04:56:06 PM
I agree with an earlier commenter that Rocky Mount should be mentioned on this sign.  Even if it is mentioned on other signs, this sign being so prominent should have a sign for a city on each highway.  Norfolk/Rocky Mount - Richmond/Charlottesville would be sufficient for this sign, and any other supplemental cities like Petersburg, Williamsburg, or VA Beach should be on supplemental signs only.

When I took these photos of the five miles of I-95 SB signs approaching I-295, I again saw how they pass in quick succession, Rocky Mount NC is on 4 signs including the one about 1/4 mile before the last sign (the topic of the sub-thread).  IMHO there is really no doubt about I-295 being used for traffic to Rocky Mount NC, so the setup is fully adequate.  All the signs are large enough to catch your attention.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on September 08, 2017, 08:23:06 PM
Speaking of that interchange, when I lived in VA, I remember the days when Miami FL was signed at that interchange.  It was replaced by Richmond Airport in the early 2000s.

Are there any Miami signs remaining?  I know in 2015 Miami was removed from the I-95/I-85 interchange with a new Clearview APL sign, but Rocky Mount was still included on that sign.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 08, 2017, 09:08:41 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 08, 2017, 08:23:06 PM
Speaking of that interchange, when I lived in VA, I remember the days when Miami FL was signed at that interchange.  It was replaced by Richmond Airport in the early 2000s.
Are there any Miami signs remaining?  I know in 2015 Miami was removed from the I-95/I-85 interchange with a new Clearview APL sign, but Rocky Mount was still included on that sign.

It has been some years since I recall seeing any Miami or Atlanta control cities on signs in the Richmond-Petersburg area.  I don't have the time details, maybe someone else does.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 08, 2017, 09:50:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 08, 2017, 09:08:41 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 08, 2017, 08:23:06 PM
Speaking of that interchange, when I lived in VA, I remember the days when Miami FL was signed at that interchange.  It was replaced by Richmond Airport in the early 2000s.
Are there any Miami signs remaining?  I know in 2015 Miami was removed from the I-95/I-85 interchange with a new Clearview APL sign, but Rocky Mount was still included on that sign.

It has been some years since I recall seeing any Miami or Atlanta control cities on signs in the Richmond-Petersburg area.  I don't have the time details, maybe someone else does.

The two in Richmond were removed between 1999-2007.

The two Miami signs in Petersburg remained until btw July 2014 and Jun 2015 per GMSV
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 08, 2017, 10:06:34 PM
As of mid-July 2016 there was still one Miami sign that I'd call an LGS on SB I-95 just south of I-85. I don't know if it's still there because I haven't been down that way since that trip.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 08, 2017, 11:28:03 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 08, 2017, 10:06:34 PM
As of mid-July 2016 there was still one Miami sign that I'd call an LGS on SB I-95 just south of I-85. I don't know if it's still there because I haven't been down that way since that trip.

Still up in Nov 2016 - https://goo.gl/maps/WxVFYca4P3K2
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 09, 2017, 12:17:59 AM
Still there yesterday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 09, 2017, 02:01:10 AM
And I saw the one remaining Atlanta sign a few weeks ago. It's 2 miles out

http://maps.google.com/maps?layer=c&panoid=e7HvH_7VC1mcXbDcEaarPw&cbp=1%2C155.21442%2C%2C3.0%2C-2.225&cbll=37.251075%2C-77.39470299999999
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 08:42:09 AM
Quote from: plain on September 09, 2017, 02:01:10 AM
And I saw the one remaining Atlanta sign a few weeks ago. It's 2 miles out
http://maps.google.com/maps?layer=c&panoid=e7HvH_7VC1mcXbDcEaarPw&cbp=1%2C155.21442%2C%2C3.0%2C-2.225&cbll=37.251075%2C-77.39470299999999

Shows that I don't pay a lot of attention to overhead signs in my area.  I wonder if Charlotte feels slighted for being skipped on that sign?  They are closer than Atlanta and a lot larger than Durham.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 09, 2017, 12:40:10 PM
My guess is that Atlanta was chosen because it's the hub of the Southeast and has much more recognition than Charlotte. VDOT could always add Charlotte as a third control city if they wanted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 09, 2017, 02:18:16 PM
We passed through Gordonsville this morning en route to Charlottesville. There are some new LGSs in advance of the roundabout and it appears, based on looking in the mirrors, that the cutouts on northbound VA-231 are gone. Too bad.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 09, 2017, 02:36:37 PM
Speaking of cutouts, the traffic engineering department under the new mayoral administration in Richmond has made removing cutouts a priority, it seems, because the last VA 161 and VA 6 cutouts in the city are now gone. (I'm pretty sure the VA 161/VA 147 sign tree (https://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/5009897977/in/album-72157604106475244/) at Boulevard and Main/Ellwood is also gone - someone stole the VA 147 shield from it a while ago.)

The weird "To I-64" (https://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/3411162102/in/album-72157604106475244/) trailblazer on southbound US 1/301 just inside the city limits is also gone.

I haven't been on VA 147 to see if the two remaining eastbound cutouts (near VA 161 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2333789081/in/album-72157604106475244/), then on the VCU campus (https://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/5018774283/in/album-72157604106475244/)) are still there, but if they're gone too, then Richmond has no cutouts left.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 09, 2017, 04:53:12 PM
^ I used to live on the next block down from that I-64 shield. Sad to hear it's gone. The VA 147 shield near the Boulevard was still there when I drove down Cary street last week. I forgot all about the one at VCU, so I overlooked the hell out of it...I'll have to look for it sometime but as of now I don't know its status.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 09, 2017, 10:24:36 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2017, 02:18:16 PM
We passed through Gordonsville this morning en route to Charlottesville. There are some new LGSs in advance of the roundabout and it appears, based on looking in the mirrors, that the cutouts on northbound VA-231 are gone. Too bad.

Passed back through there in the other direction on the way home about two hours ago. The cutouts are definitely gone.  :-( The new LGS replaced them. Too bad they didn't also get rid of that stupid stop sign at the northbound VA-231 entry to the roundabout.

Meanwhile, we saw at least one I-64 unisign along the brief segment of said road we use on football trips. I've seen a few of those here and there. Hopefully that trend doesn't spread.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 11:26:22 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 09, 2017, 12:40:10 PM
My guess is that Atlanta was chosen because it's the hub of the Southeast and has much more recognition than Charlotte. VDOT could always add Charlotte as a third control city if they wanted.

Kind of like Maryland omitting Philadelphia on northbound I-95 and using New York as a control city.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 10, 2017, 09:09:39 AM
Regarding Atlanta versus Charlotte, don't forget that Charlotte's status as a financial hub and a reasonably prominent city is relatively recent. No doubt Atlanta was chosen for those signs at a time when Charlotte was much less prominent than it is today, although of course that would not have prevented VDOT from re-assessing it at sign replacement time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 10, 2017, 11:24:34 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 10, 2017, 09:09:39 AM
Regarding Atlanta versus Charlotte, don't forget that Charlotte's status as a financial hub and a reasonably prominent city is relatively recent. No doubt Atlanta was chosen for those signs at a time when Charlotte was much less prominent than it is today, although of course that would not have prevented VDOT from re-assessing it at sign replacement time.

What about also potential conflation of "Charlotte" and "Charlottesville"?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 10, 2017, 11:33:43 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 10, 2017, 11:24:34 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 10, 2017, 09:09:39 AM
Regarding Atlanta versus Charlotte, don't forget that Charlotte's status as a financial hub and a reasonably prominent city is relatively recent. No doubt Atlanta was chosen for those signs at a time when Charlotte was much less prominent than it is today, although of course that would not have prevented VDOT from re-assessing it at sign replacement time.

What about also potential conflation of "Charlotte" and "Charlottesville"?

Interesting point. Hadn't thought about that. I assume they could clarify by putting "Charlotte NC," although I recall the last time I was down I-81 to I-77 the signs there just said "Charlotte" without the state reference (recognizing that's considerably further away from Charlottesville).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 10, 2017, 01:19:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 10, 2017, 11:33:43 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 10, 2017, 11:24:34 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 10, 2017, 09:09:39 AM
Regarding Atlanta versus Charlotte, don't forget that Charlotte's status as a financial hub and a reasonably prominent city is relatively recent. No doubt Atlanta was chosen for those signs at a time when Charlotte was much less prominent than it is today, although of course that would not have prevented VDOT from re-assessing it at sign replacement time.

What about also potential conflation of "Charlotte" and "Charlottesville"?

Interesting point. Hadn't thought about that. I assume they could clarify by putting "Charlotte NC," although I recall the last time I was down I-81 to I-77 the signs there just said "Charlotte" without the state reference (recognizing that's considerably further away from Charlottesville).

There is signage for I-40 in Virginia (I think on US 220), designed to eliminate confusion between I-40 and VA 40, so omitting Charlotte might have been based on similar logic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 10, 2017, 01:58:08 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 10, 2017, 01:19:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 10, 2017, 11:33:43 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 10, 2017, 11:24:34 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 10, 2017, 09:09:39 AM
Regarding Atlanta versus Charlotte, don't forget that Charlotte's status as a financial hub and a reasonably prominent city is relatively recent. No doubt Atlanta was chosen for those signs at a time when Charlotte was much less prominent than it is today, although of course that would not have prevented VDOT from re-assessing it at sign replacement time.

What about also potential conflation of "Charlotte" and "Charlottesville"?

Interesting point. Hadn't thought about that. I assume they could clarify by putting "Charlotte NC," although I recall the last time I was down I-81 to I-77 the signs there just said "Charlotte" without the state reference (recognizing that's considerably further away from Charlottesville).

There is signage for I-40 in Virginia (I think on US 220), designed to eliminate confusion between I-40 and VA 40, so omitting Charlotte might have been based on similar logic.

Yep. It's on US-220 South, just north of the VA-40 exit in Rocky Mount.

https://goo.gl/maps/bh69BPQ1Cz72 (https://goo.gl/maps/bh69BPQ1Cz72)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on September 10, 2017, 08:10:22 PM
Quote from: plain on September 09, 2017, 02:01:10 AM
And I saw the one remaining Atlanta sign a few weeks ago. It's 2 miles out

http://maps.google.com/maps?layer=c&panoid=e7HvH_7VC1mcXbDcEaarPw&cbp=1%2C155.21442%2C%2C3.0%2C-2.225&cbll=37.251075%2C-77.39470299999999

Seeing as that's in Clearview, I would imagine it's going to stay there for a while.  VA hasn't done a lot of replacements of full-Clearview signage that I know of.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 10, 2017, 10:17:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 09, 2017, 11:26:22 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 09, 2017, 12:40:10 PM
My guess is that Atlanta was chosen because it's the hub of the Southeast and has much more recognition than Charlotte. VDOT could always add Charlotte as a third control city if they wanted.

Kind of like Maryland omitting Philadelphia on northbound I-95 and using New York as a control city.

Also (IMO) no excuse for that - in Maryland (or, for that matter, in Virginia, which is where the first mention of New York can be found on I-95 northbound).  At least not with the completion of I-95 in Bristol Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania starting to draw near after all those years of PennDOT and PTC doing little or nothing.

There's exactly one mileage sign on I-95 in Maryland that mentions Philadelphia, just north of the North Laurel Rest Area.  That is it. 

I would prefer to see the first control city as New York (at least it's better than "N J Turnpike", which is what MDTA used for years on the tolled JFK Highway section of I-95), and then the second control city alternate between Wilmington and Philadelphia (though it does not comply with MUTCD, I would love to see all three). 

Mileage signs can certainly show all three, though Maryland usually puts two entries on such signs, but I have seen three.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kendancy66 on September 12, 2017, 12:52:20 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 30, 2017, 12:19:57 PM
Quote from: plain on June 29, 2017, 05:15:54 PM
WTVR (Richmond) posted a very interesting story & video today, the 25th anniversary of the toll removal on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike

http://wtvr.com/2017/06/29/25-years-ago-the-last-toll-paid-on-interstate-95-in-virginia/

Thanks for sharing this.  Having driven all of the  RPT when  it was a real turnpike, it brought back memories.  Mostly  I drove the northern section, as far south  as Broad Street (Exit 74C today). I think  the coin drop toll there might have been 10¢ or maybe 25¢ (not sure now), but I also drove the entire Pike sometimes, as far as the last toll plaza on I-85 in Petersburg (IIRC, the toll on I-85 was a little higher than the other mainline barriers (at some point maybe 30¢ instead of 25¢)).
Here is what I recall:

The I-85 toll was 20 cents

I rarely crossed the southernmost I-95 barrier toll. I remember it being 15 cents though

The three other barrier tolls were 25 cents

So starting from I-85 the toll total was .95  Just like the route number

I remember that the l-85 barrier toll was removed first  and the other three barrier tolls after increased from 25 to 50 cents

SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 12, 2017, 08:35:37 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 09, 2017, 02:36:37 PM
Speaking of cutouts, the traffic engineering department under the new mayoral administration in Richmond has made removing cutouts a priority, it seems, because the last VA 161 and VA 6 cutouts in the city are now gone. (I'm pretty sure the VA 161/VA 147 sign tree (https://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/5009897977/in/album-72157604106475244/) at Boulevard and Main/Ellwood is also gone - someone stole the VA 147 shield from it a while ago.)

The weird "To I-64" (https://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/3411162102/in/album-72157604106475244/) trailblazer on southbound US 1/301 just inside the city limits is also gone.

I haven't been on VA 147 to see if the two remaining eastbound cutouts (near VA 161 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/2333789081/in/album-72157604106475244/), then on the VCU campus (https://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/5018774283/in/album-72157604106475244/)) are still there, but if they're gone too, then Richmond has no cutouts left.

Did a field check yesterday and the VA 147 cutouts are still up, although the misprinted one between VA 161 and VCU (a reused VA 5 shield) is gone. The Boulevard/Ellwood cutout sign tree for VA 161 and VA 147 is actually still up, I must've missed it the first time (it's kind of hidden).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 12, 2017, 09:28:49 AM
The Quioccasin Rd overpass just west of Parham Rd at Recency Square Mall is being demolished today. Here's a couple of the many, many idiot truckers that have struck the bridge over the years. Henrico County

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1696268777050883&id=119929711351472&fs=5
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 12, 2017, 10:17:20 AM
Quote from: plain on September 12, 2017, 09:28:49 AM
The Quioccasin Rd overpass just west of Parham Rd at Recency Square Mall is being demolished today. Here's a couple of the many, many idiot truckers that have struck the bridge over the years. Henrico County

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1696268777050883&id=119929711351472&fs=5

Sorta reminds me of the famous "can opener" bridge in Durham, NC.

http://11foot8.com/ (http://11foot8.com/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 12, 2017, 10:48:00 AM
Quote from: LM117 on September 12, 2017, 10:17:20 AM
Quote from: plain on September 12, 2017, 09:28:49 AM
The Quioccasin Rd overpass just west of Parham Rd at Recency Square Mall is being demolished today. Here's a couple of the many, many idiot truckers that have struck the bridge over the years. Henrico County

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1696268777050883&id=119929711351472&fs=5

Sorta reminds me of the famous "can opener" bridge in Durham, NC.

http://11foot8.com/ (http://11foot8.com/)

I never could fathom why so many people hit that trestle, even if one doesn't see the sign the bridge is so obviously low that it should be a no-brainer to avoid it
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 12, 2017, 12:41:35 PM
Quote from: plain on September 12, 2017, 10:48:00 AM
Quote from: LM117 on September 12, 2017, 10:17:20 AM
Quote from: plain on September 12, 2017, 09:28:49 AM
The Quioccasin Rd overpass just west of Parham Rd at Recency Square Mall is being demolished today. Here's a couple of the many, many idiot truckers that have struck the bridge over the years. Henrico County

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1696268777050883&id=119929711351472&fs=5

Sorta reminds me of the famous "can opener" bridge in Durham, NC.

http://11foot8.com/ (http://11foot8.com/)

I never could fathom why so many people hit that trestle, even if one doesn't see the sign the bridge is so obviously low that it should be a no-brainer to avoid it

Problem is that the no-brainers keep hitting it! :pan:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 12, 2017, 02:12:26 PM
Quote from: plain on September 12, 2017, 09:28:49 AM
The Quioccasin Rd overpass just west of Parham Rd at Recency Square Mall is being demolished today. Here's a couple of the many, many idiot truckers that have struck the bridge over the years. Henrico County
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1696268777050883&id=119929711351472&fs=5

I didn't know about this... are they going to rebuild the road on a more level grade?
I'll have to go over there and check it out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 12, 2017, 03:26:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2017, 02:12:26 PM
Quote from: plain on September 12, 2017, 09:28:49 AM
The Quioccasin Rd overpass just west of Parham Rd at Recency Square Mall is being demolished today. Here's a couple of the many, many idiot truckers that have struck the bridge over the years. Henrico County
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1696268777050883&id=119929711351472&fs=5

I didn't know about this... are they going to rebuild the road on a more level grade?
I'll have to go over there and check it out.

Yeah, I believe the overall goal is to remove the grade separation and ramp, rebuild the segment of Quioccasin Road at a level grade, and replace the left-hand ramp with a signalized intersection.

I think the ramp from northbound Parham Road into Regency Square Mall (that passes under Parham) will remain.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 12, 2017, 05:31:16 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 12, 2017, 03:26:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2017, 02:12:26 PM
Quote from: plain on September 12, 2017, 09:28:49 AM
The Quioccasin Rd overpass just west of Parham Rd at Recency Square Mall is being demolished today. Here's a couple of the many, many idiot truckers that have struck the bridge over the years. Henrico County
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1696268777050883&id=119929711351472&fs=5
I didn't know about this... are they going to rebuild the road on a more level grade?
I'll have to go over there and check it out.
Yeah, I believe the overall goal is to remove the grade separation and ramp, rebuild the segment of Quioccasin Road at a level grade, and replace the left-hand ramp with a signalized intersection.
I think the ramp from northbound Parham Road into Regency Square Mall (that passes under Parham) will remain.

I just went over there and looked at it.  Westbound Quioccasin Road is closed between Starling Drive and Parham Road, bridge is being dissembled.  That segment of road also has a major section of retaining wall approaching the bridge, and I would surmise that and the approach embankments will be removed.  Then the Quioccasin Road segment will be rebuilt at grade.  My question is why?   The demolition and removal itself will cost at least $2 million, maybe $3 million.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 12, 2017, 08:12:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2017, 05:31:16 PM
I just went over there and looked at it.  Westbound Quioccasin Road is closed between Starling Drive and Parham Road, bridge is being dissembled.  That segment of road also has a major section of retaining wall approaching the bridge, and I would surmise that and the approach embankments will be removed.  Then the Quioccasin Road segment will be rebuilt at grade.  My question is why?   The demolition and removal itself will cost at least $2 million, maybe $3 million.

My guess is because they're revitalizing the mall itself as well as the surrounding area, coupled with the fact that the county has to spend money to inspect and/or repair the bridge every time it gets struck.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 12, 2017, 11:12:49 PM
Quote from: plain on September 12, 2017, 08:12:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2017, 05:31:16 PM
I just went over there and looked at it.  Westbound Quioccasin Road is closed between Starling Drive and Parham Road, bridge is being dissembled.  That segment of road also has a major section of retaining wall approaching the bridge, and I would surmise that and the approach embankments will be removed.  Then the Quioccasin Road segment will be rebuilt at grade.  My question is why?   The demolition and removal itself will cost at least $2 million, maybe $3 million.
My guess is because they're revitalizing the mall itself as well as the surrounding area, coupled with the fact that the county has to spend money to inspect and/or repair the bridge every time it gets struck.

http://www.shopregencysqmall.com/renovations-and-construction/

Quote
Quote
Quote
A  series of road improvements began on Tuesday, September 5 impacting Quioccasin and North Parham roads. Regency Square, located in the southwest intersection, will continue to operate during the construction process and inconvenience to customers and merchants will be kept to a minimum.  This road project, together with other development plans and prospective tenants will transform Regency Square and bring new life to the area.

The first phase of work will include the demolition of the Quioccasin Road bridge, which provides access to the mall property west of Parham. Quioccasin's eastbound lanes will be closed between Parham and Starling Drive.  Quioccasin's eastbound traffic will be detoured north onto Starling and east onto Fargo Road.  Lane closures are expected to remain in effect for about 45 days. Bridge demolition to start shortly thereafter.

Although, two entrances to Regency Square will be closed during the early stages of road construction, the remaining five entrances will not be impacted during the transition allowing for easy access into the shopping center. One of the entrances along Quioccasin will close to prepare for Starbucks, MOD Pizza and Chipotle. Starbucks will repurpose and occupy the former Bank of America building.

Bridge demolition will allow Regency's developers to create a new signature entrance bringing a new look and feel to the existing property. The northern parking deck in front of what was the Macy's building will also come down, further increasing the mall's visibility and creating an opportunity for outside entertainment and dining.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on September 13, 2017, 11:05:20 PM
I was stuck in traffic on outbound I-66 just outside the Beltway mid-day today, and was surprised that the shoulder lanes (in BOTH directions) were open with green overhead arrows. (You haven't lived unless you've been legally using the shoulder lane, and had someone pull over from the normal right lane in front of you, then slam on their brakes to answer a phone call, but I digress...) These lanes have purple pavement, and there's a solid white line between them and the normal lanes.

It occurred to me that in normal conditions, it's not proper to cross a solid white line between lanes. I'm curious if anyone knows if there's a regulation/law/whatever that indicates that these solid white lines are NOT to be treated as "stay in your lane" lines when the arrows are lit? There's no way to get into these lanes except by crossing a solid line, and at specific short stretches before and after each exit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kkt on September 13, 2017, 11:39:17 PM
Single thick white line you can cross if you qualify for the special status of the lane (shoulder driving, HOV...)  Double thick white line you can't cross and must wait for a gap.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 14, 2017, 06:19:27 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on September 13, 2017, 11:05:20 PM
I was stuck in traffic on outbound I-66 just outside the Beltway mid-day today, and was surprised that the shoulder lanes (in BOTH directions) were open with green overhead arrows. (You haven't lived unless you've been legally using the shoulder lane, and had someone pull over from the normal right lane in front of you, then slam on their brakes to answer a phone call, but I digress...) These lanes have purple pavement, and there's a solid white line between them and the normal lanes.

It occurred to me that in normal conditions, it's not proper to cross a solid white line between lanes. I'm curious if anyone knows if there's a regulation/law/whatever that indicates that these solid white lines are NOT to be treated as "stay in your lane" lines when the arrows are lit? There's no way to get into these lanes except by crossing a solid line, and at specific short stretches before and after each exit.

My understanding is that crossing single solid white lines is not illegal in Virginia unless a sign is also posted with it saying not to do it.  Solid white lines are recommendations to not cross in that location.  Double white lines as described in the driving manual (https://driving-tests.org/virginia/va-dmv-drivers-handbook-manual/) are illegal to cross.

Interestingly, the manual still describes the rules for suicide lanes that Virginia no longer has anywhere that I am aware of...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 14, 2017, 09:55:58 AM
^ And hasn't for roughly 20 years...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 19, 2017, 06:22:31 PM
A state-name I-295 shield exists. Just seen a few minutes ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/2222aKRi7CU2
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 21, 2017, 09:52:00 AM
So apparently Chesterfield County has been studying building an "East-West Freeway" between I-95 in Chester and US 360 near Woodlake, but this is the first I've heard of it.

http://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/news/2017-09-20/Front_Page/Chester_school_lies_in_path_of_freeway_for_megasit.html

Story from 2011: http://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/news/2011-03-23/News/Eastwest_highway_likely_to_be_added_to_comprehensi.html

This has apparently been a thing for quite some time (related to the ill-fated Powhite Parkway extension to the Skinquarter area), but there isn't a whole lot of information (http://www.chesterfield.gov/Transportation.aspx?id=8590142095) about it. I haven't seen any mention of this on VDOT's website, either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 21, 2017, 10:42:36 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 21, 2017, 09:52:00 AM
This has apparently been a thing for quite some time (related to the ill-fated Powhite Parkway extension to the Skinquarter area),

Always seemed that this would be a useful extension of VA-76 to the (south)west.   Did NIMBYism kill it?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 21, 2017, 10:51:42 AM
Guessing you don't look at the county's Thoroughfare Plan much.  It's been on there at least since 2004.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 21, 2017, 11:57:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 21, 2017, 10:51:42 AM
Guessing you don't look at the county's Thoroughfare Plan much.  It's been on there at least since 2004.


I just moved to the county, so no. :P
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 21, 2017, 11:59:11 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 21, 2017, 10:51:42 AM
Guessing you don't look at the county's Thoroughfare Plan much.  It's been on there at least since 2004.

Correct, including maps showing the "East-West Freeway".  I e-mailed them a few years ago, asking about the rationale, but never got an answer.

It looks like a partial circumferential, but I don't see the need, as VA-288 seems adequate for the task today and well into the future.

If it is for development, I don't understand that as southern Chesterfield County is rural and I would think that the residents want it to remain that way, as there is plenty of developable land in the northern half of the county.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 21, 2017, 05:08:51 PM
I've know about that proposed east-west freeway for quite some time and I agree with anyone who says it's useless. The proposed routing was parallel to and less than 5 miles south of VA 288, no need at all. I am disappointed however in the decision not to extend the Powhite to Skimquarter though. With the way Chesterfield County is growing the state could've at least maintain the ROW for it instead of killing it altogether.

Speaking of the Powhite, I think it's time for the state to consider widening the extension to 6 lanes between VA 150 and US 60 (though homes will have to be taken just south of Janhke Rd)... traffic on this stretch has been ridiculous for a while now and is getting worse.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 21, 2017, 05:39:12 PM
Quote from: plain on September 21, 2017, 05:08:51 PM
I've know about that proposed east-west freeway for quite some time and I agree with anyone who says it's useless. The proposed routing was parallel to and less than 5 miles south of VA 288, no need at all. I am disappointed however in the decision not to extend the Powhite to Skimquarter though. With the way Chesterfield County is growing the state could've at least maintain the ROW for it instead of killing it altogether.
Speaking of the Powhite, I think it's time for the state to consider widening the extension to 6 lanes between VA 150 and US 60 (though homes will have to be taken just south of Janhke Rd)... traffic on this stretch has been ridiculous for a while now and is getting worse.

Has there been a decision not to build the Powhite Parkway Western Extension?  It is in the county thoroughfare plan and will be a very worthwhile project whenever they can find funding to build it.

Powhite Parkway between VA-150 and US-60 was designed with an ultimate design and R/W width to add a lane each way.  Actually extends thru the US-60 interchange area, you can see the extra space.  I agree that it needs to be widened.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 21, 2017, 06:21:48 PM
VDOT decided on upgrading certain roads to boulevards in that area instead of extending the freeway. I will find the link for that later as I'm still working at the moment unless you find it first.

As for the widening, homes has been built in the way near this lake

https://goo.gl/maps/Vuaf26nbcev
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 21, 2017, 06:40:23 PM
Quote from: plain on September 21, 2017, 06:21:48 PM
VDOT decided on upgrading certain roads to boulevards in that area instead of extending the freeway. I will find the link for that later as I'm still working at the moment unless you find it first.
As for the widening, homes has been built in the way near this lake
https://goo.gl/maps/Vuaf26nbcev

Not built in the right-of-way ... I can see the limited access fence.
I was one of the designers on the Powhite Parkway Extension.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on September 21, 2017, 06:52:56 PM
Anyone have any idea what Virginia is doing with their crosswalk markings? I've noticed some newer designs use the "continental" lines at signals, and zebra crossings at yield situations. But I've also seen all-zebra crossings close to DC, and continental markings where you would normally yield (such as at a right turn slip lane).

Here in Washington, cities have full control over their crosswalk markings and signal designs. I'm starting to get the impression that Virginia works the same, however, signal design and placement  seems to be consistent throughout the state (all-yellow signals, sometimes with backplates, sometimes wire-hung). Just curious why crosswalks seem to vary in design so often.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cl94 on September 21, 2017, 07:18:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 21, 2017, 06:52:56 PM
Anyone have any idea what Virginia is doing with their crosswalk markings? I've noticed some newer designs use the "continental" lines at signals, and zebra crossings at yield situations. But I've also seen all-zebra crossings close to DC, and continental markings where you would normally yield (such as at a right turn slip lane).

Here in Washington, cities have full control over their crosswalk markings and signal designs. I'm starting to get the impression that Virginia works the same, however, signal design and placement  seems to be consistent throughout the state (all-yellow signals, sometimes with backplates, sometimes wire-hung). Just curious why crosswalks seem to vary in design so often.

Virginia is weird in that virtually everything outside of cities and incorporated towns is maintained by the state. Yes, even small side roads are secondaries. Fairfax County in particular has 5-digit secondaries, some of which are signed. The DC area has a few cities and incorporated towns as as well as Arlington County, which is one of only 2 counties in the state to maintain its own roads (but it may as well be an independent city). The areas that maintain their own roads generally have a lot of leeway regarding road maintenance (as is typical in much of the country) and as Virginia does not have any requirements for crosswalk markings beyond what is in the MUTCD, places with local maintenance can do as they see fit.

As far as to why all signal heads are yellow (aside from emergency signals, which must be red), the State Supplement mandates yellow signals, with backplates if the speed limit or 85th percentile speed on an approach is 45 mph or higher.

If you (or anyone else) want to read more, state supplement is here (http://www.virginiadot.org/business/virginia_mutcd_supplement.asp).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ixnay on September 22, 2017, 05:53:36 AM
Can someone explain the shape of the VA primary highway shield?  Like CA's, it looks like the blade of a shovel (pointed the opposite way from CA's shield).

ixnay
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 22, 2017, 09:13:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 21, 2017, 05:39:12 PM
Quote from: plain on September 21, 2017, 05:08:51 PM
I've know about that proposed east-west freeway for quite some time and I agree with anyone who says it's useless. The proposed routing was parallel to and less than 5 miles south of VA 288, no need at all. I am disappointed however in the decision not to extend the Powhite to Skimquarter though. With the way Chesterfield County is growing the state could've at least maintain the ROW for it instead of killing it altogether.
Speaking of the Powhite, I think it's time for the state to consider widening the extension to 6 lanes between VA 150 and US 60 (though homes will have to be taken just south of Janhke Rd)... traffic on this stretch has been ridiculous for a while now and is getting worse.

Has there been a decision not to build the Powhite Parkway Western Extension?  It is in the county thoroughfare plan and will be a very worthwhile project whenever they can find funding to build it.

Powhite Parkway between VA-150 and US-60 was designed with an ultimate design and R/W width to add a lane each way.  Actually extends thru the US-60 interchange area, you can see the extra space.  I agree that it needs to be widened.

Hopefully both of those things happen. It's getting to the point where the Powhite Parkway extension to US 360 is sorely needed given how sprawling the Swift Creek Reservoir area has become. US 360 is routinely very heavily congested between VA 288 and just west of Woodlake despite being widened to 8 lanes for most of that stretch. It's quite similar to US 250 in Short Pump in Henrico County (although that segment is 6 lanes).

I definitely agree that the East-West Freeway proposal is pretty much useless. It simply wouldn't accomplish much of anything.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Henry on September 22, 2017, 09:36:34 AM
Extend the Powhite if you must, but the area simply does not need another 1/4 loop highway, with VA 288 and VA 150/895 already serving those purposes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 22, 2017, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 22, 2017, 09:13:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 21, 2017, 05:39:12 PM
Has there been a decision not to build the Powhite Parkway Western Extension?  It is in the county thoroughfare plan and will be a very worthwhile project whenever they can find funding to build it.
Powhite Parkway between VA-150 and US-60 was designed with an ultimate design and R/W width to add a lane each way.  Actually extends thru the US-60 interchange area, you can see the extra space.  I agree that it needs to be widened.
Hopefully both of those things happen. It's getting to the point where the Powhite Parkway extension to US 360 is sorely needed given how sprawling the Swift Creek Reservoir area has become. US 360 is routinely very heavily congested between VA 288 and just west of Woodlake despite being widened to 8 lanes for most of that stretch. It's quite similar to US 250 in Short Pump in Henrico County (although that segment is 6 lanes).

It wasn't but about less than 10 years ago that none of US-360 had more than 4 lanes west of VA-288.

The US-360 widenings to 6 and 8 lanes have been a -huge- improvement for traffic, and probably will be extended at least a few more miles to the west.

Nevertheless, Powhite Parkway is the 5th leg of the Richmond radial freeway system, and really does need to be extended at least to the Skinquarter area on US-360, in order to handle all the traffic demands coming up in the next 10 years or so.

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 22, 2017, 09:13:48 AM
I definitely agree that the East-West Freeway proposal is pretty much useless. It simply wouldn't accomplish much of anything.

Indeed, I really wonder where that proposal came from.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on September 22, 2017, 07:20:15 PM
Quote from: ixnay on September 22, 2017, 05:53:36 AM
Can someone explain the shape of the VA primary highway shield?  Like CA's, it looks like the blade of a shovel (pointed the opposite way from CA's shield).

ixnay
There used to be a site showing all of the historic state route markers. James Lin's site does not have a historic one for VA.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on September 22, 2017, 09:58:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on September 21, 2017, 07:18:36 PM
As far as to why all signal heads are yellow (aside from emergency signals, which must be red), the State Supplement mandates yellow signals, with backplates if the speed limit or 85th percentile speed on an approach is 45 mph or higher.

Interesting. Not strictly related to Virginia; does it vary from state to state how closely an individual municipality or county must follow a state MUTCD supplement? The best example I can think of is here in Washington, where the state does not permit permissive left turns across three or more lanes, yet there are many cities and counties that happily install such left turns. You'll never see such a thing on a state highway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cl94 on September 22, 2017, 10:12:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2017, 09:58:03 PM
Quote from: cl94 on September 21, 2017, 07:18:36 PM
As far as to why all signal heads are yellow (aside from emergency signals, which must be red), the State Supplement mandates yellow signals, with backplates if the speed limit or 85th percentile speed on an approach is 45 mph or higher.

Interesting. Not strictly related to Virginia; does it vary from state to state how closely an individual municipality or county must follow a state MUTCD supplement? The best example I can think of is here in Washington, where the state does not permit permissive left turns across three or more lanes, yet there are many cities and counties that happily install such left turns. You'll never see such a thing on a state highway.

Yes, especially if localities are dependent on state highway funding. In Virginia, even places that maintain their own roads often get state funding to maintain them. Best way to ensure compliance with any regulation is to threaten withholding of funds. Local municipalities will generally comply quite quickly if funding is at stake. Contrast that with New York, where anything that is locally-maintained (and there is a LOT, even stuff that is a US or state route) generally does not receive state funding aside from installation of shields or major reconstruction and, as such, there is zero consistency in the case of town/city/county maintenance.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on September 26, 2017, 04:30:57 PM
Quote

As far as to why all signal heads are yellow (aside from emergency signals, which must be red), the State Supplement mandates yellow signals, with backplates if the speed limit or 85th percentile speed on an approach is 45 mph or higher.

If you (or anyone else) want to read more, state supplement is here (http://www.virginiadot.org/business/virginia_mutcd_supplement.asp).

I haven't seen a "red-painted" emergency signal installed around Northern Virginia in at least 10-15 years. The only remaining red-painted emergency signals I know of remaining are on US-1 just south of I-495. I have seen them still used / installed in other parts of the state, particularly around Richmond, and used to be installed frequently in Northern Virginia.

Which brings me to another question -- with the advent of VDOT's usage of the yellow-border backplates, is VDOT going to change its state supplement to black-painted signals (similar to what Ohio did when it started using yellow-border backplates)?  I've seen one such installation (Black painted signals with yellow-border backplates) on a VDOT-maintained road (SR-648/Edsall Rd at Carolina Place in Fairfax County), though someone on this forum made reference to how there was an accident that took down the span-wire, so the replacement signals may be a contractor fluke more than anything. I've seen a couple of new signals installed since than and they have been the traditional yellow-painted signals, but with the new backplates. 

Personally, I like how Ohio does it, the black-painted signal with the yellow border backplate stands out more than a yellow-painted signal with these backplates.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 28, 2017, 08:30:58 PM
Seems that I-95 in NoVA has the worst traffic spot in the US.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Worst-Traffic-Spot-in-US-Found-on-I-95-in-Northern-Virginia-448426163.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Worst-Traffic-Spot-in-US-Found-on-I-95-in-Northern-Virginia-448426163.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 28, 2017, 08:37:32 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 28, 2017, 08:30:58 PM
Seems that I-95 in NoVA has the worst traffic spot in the US.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Worst-Traffic-Spot-in-US-Found-on-I-95-in-Northern-Virginia-448426163.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Worst-Traffic-Spot-in-US-Found-on-I-95-in-Northern-Virginia-448426163.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand)

I just moved here and this doesn't surprise me. Traffic is ridiculous here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 02, 2017, 10:17:09 AM
Quote from: dfnva on September 26, 2017, 04:30:57 PM
Quote

As far as to why all signal heads are yellow (aside from emergency signals, which must be red), the State Supplement mandates yellow signals, with backplates if the speed limit or 85th percentile speed on an approach is 45 mph or higher.

If you (or anyone else) want to read more, state supplement is here (http://www.virginiadot.org/business/virginia_mutcd_supplement.asp).

I haven't seen a "red-painted" emergency signal installed around Northern Virginia in at least 10-15 years. The only remaining red-painted emergency signals I know of remaining are on US-1 just south of I-495. I have seen them still used / installed in other parts of the state, particularly around Richmond, and used to be installed frequently in Northern Virginia.

There were red signal heads on VA-28 in the Yorkshire area of Prince William County  between Manassas Park and the Fairfax County border, but the fire station  has moved and the signal is long gone.

VDOT installed a modern emergency signal on VA-28 at Patton Lane here (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7950165,-77.44718,3a,75y,5.32h,93.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seoPPHHpS1lAIvu_FS9y08w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (the fire company moved to Patton Lane, a dead-end street running off VA-28, some years ago).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: J N Winkler on October 02, 2017, 10:30:48 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 22, 2017, 07:20:15 PMThere used to be a site showing all of the historic state route markers. James Lin's site does not have a historic one for VA.

www.aaroads.com/shields/thumbs.php?state=VA

The basic shape was essentially similar to the present (as is also the case for, e.g., Ohio), but was originally a cutout with inset border and early instances (dating from the era of unrounded BPR typefaces) had the state seal ("Sic semper tyrannis" etc.) below the number.  Given the Anglophilia traditionally favored by the elite in Virginia, I have always assumed that the shape is based on an escutcheon.  I assume an early (1920's or 1930's) traffic manual would confirm, but I have never found one for Virginia.  (Historic state traffic manuals rarely surface for sale on eBay and IME are now prime targets for auction snipers.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 02, 2017, 02:37:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 02, 2017, 10:30:48 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 22, 2017, 07:20:15 PMThere used to be a site showing all of the historic state route markers. James Lin's site does not have a historic one for VA.

www.aaroads.com/shields/thumbs.php?state=VA

The basic shape was essentially similar to the present (as is also the case for, e.g., Ohio), but was originally a cutout with inset border and early instances (dating from the era of unrounded BPR typefaces) had the state seal ("Sic semper tyrannis" etc.) below the number.  Given the Anglophilia traditionally favored by the elite in Virginia, I have always assumed that the shape is based on an escutcheon.  I assume an early (1920's or 1930's) traffic manual would confirm, but I have never found one for Virginia.  (Historic state traffic manuals rarely surface for sale on eBay and IME are now prime targets for auction snipers.)

I may be able to answer this when I return home from the vacation I am on. I have a 1956 Virginia Highways Bulletin article on the posting of routes in the early days including the route shield they used prior to the spade shape which appeared in 1925
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 02, 2017, 04:56:33 PM
Pertaining to the discussion upthread about the new APL on I-95 SB at I-295 SB, checking traffic cameras just now I see that there's another APL SB just south of EXIT 86 (VA 656)...most likely installed in the past few days. VDOT may have replaced the rest of those BGS between there and I-295 as well. I'm in Williamsburg at the moment and I'm unable to take a look...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on October 02, 2017, 05:03:05 PM
Quote from: plain on October 02, 2017, 04:56:33 PM
Pertaining to the discussion upthread about the new APL on I-95 SB at I-295 SB, checking traffic cameras just now I see that there's another APL SB just south of EXIT 86 (VA 686)...most likely installed in the past few days. VDOT may have replaced the rest of those BGS between there and I-295 as well. I'm in Williamsburg at the moment and I'm unable to take a look...
I drove through the area Saturday night. Looked like a few of the old BGS's were still around. The one that mentions Atlanta definitely was.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 02, 2017, 05:14:57 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171002/8099eddc7b22206d526cbaca1cec1f15.jpg)

This is what I'm talking about
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on October 02, 2017, 07:24:22 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 02, 2017, 10:17:09 AM
Quote from: dfnva on September 26, 2017, 04:30:57 PM
Quote

As far as to why all signal heads are yellow (aside from emergency signals, which must be red), the State Supplement mandates yellow signals, with backplates if the speed limit or 85th percentile speed on an approach is 45 mph or higher.

If you (or anyone else) want to read more, state supplement is here (http://www.virginiadot.org/business/virginia_mutcd_supplement.asp).

I haven't seen a "red-painted" emergency signal installed around Northern Virginia in at least 10-15 years. The only remaining red-painted emergency signals I know of remaining are on US-1 just south of I-495. I have seen them still used / installed in other parts of the state, particularly around Richmond, and used to be installed frequently in Northern Virginia.

There were red signal heads on VA-28 in the Yorkshire area of Prince William County  between Manassas Park and the Fairfax County border, but the fire station  has moved and the signal is long gone.

VDOT installed a modern emergency signal on VA-28 at Patton Lane here (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7950165,-77.44718,3a,75y,5.32h,93.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seoPPHHpS1lAIvu_FS9y08w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (the fire company moved to Patton Lane, a dead-end street running off VA-28, some years ago).

I remember those -- the signals on VA- 28 in Yorkshire were the second-to-last Econolite bullseye signals in Northern Virginia (which were never too common to begin with). The last still remain in operation on US-29 at I-66 in Arlington (https://goo.gl/maps/ZjQBVqsWWmH2), which have to be among the oldest signals in Northern Virginia, though some in Falls Church and Vienna may be older.

There were also red-painted firehouse signals on US-29/US-50 (Lee Hwy, now Fairfax Blvd) and Plantation Pkwy in Fairfax. It was the only intersection where I ever have seen both traditional yellow-painted signals (for the main traffic movements) and red-painted ones (for the firehouse) together at the same intersection. The signals, which were on a span wire, were replaced with the current mast arm formation in the early 1990s, with black-painted signals for all traffic movements (at that time, a new practice for Fairfax City).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 03, 2017, 05:28:17 PM
Quote from: ixnay on September 22, 2017, 05:53:36 AM
Can someone explain the shape of the VA primary highway shield?  Like CA's, it looks like the blade of a shovel (pointed the opposite way from CA's shield).

ixnay

Here is the actual answer about the shield which dates to 1925.  This comes from a Dec 1952 article in the Virginia Highways Bulletin on how Virginia's routes were marked historically:

William R. Glidden, bridge engineer for the Highway dept and member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), designed the marker from the shield of the ASCE.  He added the Virginia Seal and "Department of Highways".  Originally the route number was only 1/3 of the size of the seal and was hard to read.

They still have that shield in use.  Here is the oldest thing I could easily find of them using it...  a stamp from 1952 (wikipedia commons):

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Engineering_Centennial_3c_1952_issue_U.S._stamp.jpg/220px-Engineering_Centennial_3c_1952_issue_U.S._stamp.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 04, 2017, 12:34:49 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 03, 2017, 05:28:17 PM
William R. Glidden, bridge engineer for the Highway dept and member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), designed the marker from the shield of the ASCE.  He added the Virginia Seal and "Department of Highways".  Originally the route number was only 1/3 of the size of the seal and was hard to read.

Ah, the Good Old Days, when it was VDH (or, simply "the Highway Department" to many old-timers in Virginia).  ;-)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 05, 2017, 11:55:05 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 03, 2017, 05:28:17 PM
Quote from: ixnay on September 22, 2017, 05:53:36 AM
Can someone explain the shape of the VA primary highway shield?  Like CA's, it looks like the blade of a shovel (pointed the opposite way from CA's shield).

ixnay

Here is the actual answer about the shield which dates to 1925.  This comes from a Dec 1952 article in the Virginia Highways Bulletin on how Virginia's routes were marked historically:

William R. Glidden, bridge engineer for the Highway dept and member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), designed the marker from the shield of the ASCE.  He added the Virginia Seal and "Department of Highways".  Originally the route number was only 1/3 of the size of the seal and was hard to read.

They still have that shield in use.  Here is the oldest thing I could easily find of them using it...  a stamp from 1952 (wikipedia commons):

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Engineering_Centennial_3c_1952_issue_U.S._stamp.jpg/220px-Engineering_Centennial_3c_1952_issue_U.S._stamp.jpg)

Some other state departments also use the state shield shape in their logos - the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Department of Forestry, for example.

The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries's logo is pretty much just the state route shield with text and graphics in it.

(https://www.virginia.gov/assets/img/agencies/vdgif.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 07, 2017, 09:39:48 PM
http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/columns/column-state-funding-most-i--improvements-in-recent-memory/article_0fd6267d-2e87-5f18-9fef-af388c4c016d.html
QuoteWe have recommended 147 projects across the commonwealth, ranging from a major upgrade to the Virginia Railway Express commuter line, to the widening of Interstate 95 south of Richmond and a new bridge on I-64. This June, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the Six-Year Improvement Program, which included $15.2 billion in highway construction money.
Anyone know what this mysterious I-95 widening south of Richmond project is? It's been criticized before in the Free Lance-Star as an example of fault in VDOT's smart scale system. However, I have yet to find any evidence of the project existance on either VDOT or Smart Scale's website.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 07, 2017, 09:54:16 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on October 07, 2017, 09:39:48 PM
http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/columns/column-state-funding-most-i--improvements-in-recent-memory/article_0fd6267d-2e87-5f18-9fef-af388c4c016d.html
QuoteWe have recommended 147 projects across the commonwealth, ranging from a major upgrade to the Virginia Railway Express commuter line, to the widening of Interstate 95 south of Richmond and a new bridge on I-64. This June, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the Six-Year Improvement Program, which included $15.2 billion in highway construction money.
Anyone know what this mysterious I-95 widening south of Richmond project is? It's been criticized before in the Free Lance-Star as an example of fault in VDOT's smart scale system. However, I have yet to find any evidence of the project existance on either VDOT or Smart Scale's website.

Might be this:

http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=233&line_item_id=1490683

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 07, 2017, 10:27:06 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 07, 2017, 09:54:16 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on October 07, 2017, 09:39:48 PM
http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/columns/column-state-funding-most-i--improvements-in-recent-memory/article_0fd6267d-2e87-5f18-9fef-af388c4c016d.html
QuoteWe have recommended 147 projects across the commonwealth, ranging from a major upgrade to the Virginia Railway Express commuter line, to the widening of Interstate 95 south of Richmond and a new bridge on I-64. This June, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the Six-Year Improvement Program, which included $15.2 billion in highway construction money.
Anyone know what this mysterious I-95 widening south of Richmond project is? It's been criticized before in the Free Lance-Star as an example of fault in VDOT's smart scale system. However, I have yet to find any evidence of the project existance on either VDOT or Smart Scale's website.
Might be this:
http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=233&line_item_id=1490683

That is the one ... I saw another article about this, adding a fourth lane each way between VA-10 and VA-288.  It will be an auxiliary lane on the right between the ramps on each.  Definitely is warranted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 07, 2017, 10:41:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2017, 10:27:06 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 07, 2017, 09:54:16 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on October 07, 2017, 09:39:48 PM
http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/columns/column-state-funding-most-i--improvements-in-recent-memory/article_0fd6267d-2e87-5f18-9fef-af388c4c016d.html
QuoteWe have recommended 147 projects across the commonwealth, ranging from a major upgrade to the Virginia Railway Express commuter line, to the widening of Interstate 95 south of Richmond and a new bridge on I-64. This June, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the Six-Year Improvement Program, which included $15.2 billion in highway construction money.
Anyone know what this mysterious I-95 widening south of Richmond project is? It's been criticized before in the Free Lance-Star as an example of fault in VDOT's smart scale system. However, I have yet to find any evidence of the project existance on either VDOT or Smart Scale's website.
Might be this:
http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=233&line_item_id=1490683

That is the one ... I saw another article about this, adding a fourth lane each way between VA-10 and VA-288.  It will be an auxiliary lane on the right between the ramps on each.  Definitely is warranted.
Ah ok, guess I didn't look hard enough. Definitely agree its warranted too. I'll try and see if I can find the specific article, but now that I think about it, the I-95 project criticized by the Free Lance-Star may have actually been one south of Petersburg. Possibly could have been referring to proposed improvements of the I-95/I-85 interchange, something entirely different, or non-existent.

Edited: Found it
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2017/06/fredericksburg-region-considers-putting-money-resolving-95-congestion/
Quote"[Interstate] 95 in our area is a basket case, yet one of the biggest projects that was funded in this last round of Smart Scale was south of Richmond – Petersburg going to the North Carolina border – which isn't known for congestion,"  Kelly said. "Yet somehow within the Smart Scale process, that got funded, but we didn't."
Looks like the same project, I guess the "-Petersburg going to the North Carolina border" part confused me
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on October 17, 2017, 11:18:18 PM
Seems like the first phase of the I-64 widening in Newport News (MM 247 to 253) could open before its scheduled December completion date:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-hod-transportation-update-20171013-story.html (http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-hod-transportation-update-20171013-story.html)

Entire project (MM 234 to MM 253) should be done by 2021.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 24, 2017, 10:28:04 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on October 17, 2017, 11:18:18 PM
Seems like the first phase of the I-64 widening in Newport News (MM 247 to 253) could open before its scheduled December completion date:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-hod-transportation-update-20171013-story.html (http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-hod-transportation-update-20171013-story.html)
Entire project (MM 234 to MM 253) should be done by 2021.

I drove thru there today.  The Phase I project has surface course paving underway, looks like roadside work including guardrail is complete.  The Phase II project is well underway but in its early stages.  They cover the section between Bland Blvd. and just west of VA-199.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 24, 2017, 10:34:47 PM
I didn't realize that this project was ready to go!
....
CTB AWARDS TWO CONTRACTS WORTH $414.9 MILLION
Phase One of I-64 Widening and High Rise Bridge Replacement Project in Chesapeake is funded
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2017/ctb_awards_two_contracts120438.asp

Quote
I-64 will be widened and a new High Rise Bridge constructed in the City of Chesapeake

A $409.6 million contract was awarded to Granite/Parsons/Corman, Joint Venture of Tarrytown, NY to widen about 8 miles of Interstate 64 and construct a new High Rise Bridge adjacent to the existing span in the Hampton Roads District. The award is the largest design-build contract in Virginia Department of Transportation history.

The project will widen I-64 from four to six lanes beginning half a mile east of the Interstate 264 interchange at Bowers Hill to one mile east of the Interstate 464 interchange. The widening will add one High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane in each direction to the existing two general purpose lanes.

The new fixed-span High Rise Bridge will be built just south of the existing High Rise Bridge to carry the three lanes of I-64 west traffic over the Elizabeth River. The existing High Rise Bridge will continue to operate and will carry three lanes of I-64 east traffic upon completion of the project. The project will include replacement of the overpass bridge at Great Bridge Boulevard and realignment of the associated roadway. The existing bridges carrying I-64 over Military Highway, Yadkin Road and Shell Road will be widened.

The project is being paid for with a combination of funds from the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission and the state's SMART SCALE program.

The project is expected to be complete in summer 2021. It is designed to accommodate a future Phase 2 project, which will expand the corridor to a total of eight lanes and replace the existing High Rise Bridge.

I see on the project website that the new bridge will be built just south of the existing bridge, that it will be 6,900 feet long, and that it will have 100 feet of vertical navigational clearance over the river.  It is wide enough to accommodate four 12-foot lanes and two 15-foot shoulders in the future.

I-64 Southside Widening and High Rise Bridge Phase 1 Project
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/i-64_southside_widening_and_high_rise_bridge_phase_1_project.asp

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: October 25, 2017, 04:00:05 PM

High-Rise Bridge and I-64 widening contract approved, comes in millions lower than estimate
https://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/high-rise-bridge-and-i--widening-contract-approved-comes/article_0800bf31-458c-52eb-9fe1-58f504350387.html

Quote
By summer 2021, a key corridor in Chesapeake should see congestion relief as the Commonwealth Transportation Board voted Tuesday to award a $410 million contract to expand the High-Rise Bridge and surrounding Interstate 64 by two more lanes.

Those lanes will be high-occupancy toll lanes, which will allow free travel to vehicles with two or more passengers, but single-occupant vehicles will pay a variable toll based on the amount of congestion.

The design-build contract came in nearly $80 million below early estimates.

Granite/Parsons/Corman of Tarrytown, N.Y., will add two lanes to the 8-mile stretch and build an adjacent span of the High-Rise Bridge. The project begins just east of the Bower's Hill interchange and ends a mile east of the I-464 interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 25, 2017, 07:28:46 AM
WTOP posted their annual "ghost roads" compilation. Some nice pictures of abandoned roads and bridges:

https://wtop.com/local/2017/10/ghost-roads-iv-abandoned-highways-md-va/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 25, 2017, 09:36:08 AM
Quote from: BeltwayIt is wide enough to accommodate four 12-foot lanes and two 15-foot shoulders in the future.

Reason being that VDOT wants the new bridge to be able to accommodate 6 lanes for when the existing bridge is torn down and replaced in a future phase.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 25, 2017, 09:59:55 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 25, 2017, 09:36:08 AM
Quote from: BeltwayIt is wide enough to accommodate four 12-foot lanes and two 15-foot shoulders in the future.
Reason being that VDOT wants the new bridge to be able to accommodate 6 lanes for when the existing bridge is torn down and replaced in a future phase.

So they are not going to keep the original bridge open while building the second new bridge?  It didn't look like there was enough right-of-way to do that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 25, 2017, 10:03:51 AM
That's the impression I got reading through the project material...the existing bridge is generally in the same location as the future "eastbound bridge".  Makes sense why they'd want this first new bridge to be wide enough for 6 lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 25, 2017, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 25, 2017, 10:03:51 AM
That's the impression I got reading through the project material...the existing bridge is generally in the same location as the future "eastbound bridge".  Makes sense why they'd want this first new bridge to be wide enough for 6 lanes.

Six lanes in a temporary configuration, as with a temporary concrete median barrier that would leave only a few feet of shoulder space.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 25, 2017, 01:58:02 PM
100 feet of vertical clearance should be enough to negate the need for a drawbridge there correct?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 25, 2017, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: plain on October 25, 2017, 01:58:02 PM
100 feet of vertical clearance should be enough to negate the need for a drawbridge there correct?

Yes indeed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 25, 2017, 08:50:05 PM
QuoteSix lanes in a temporary configuration, as with a temporary concrete median barrier that would leave only a few feet of shoulder space.

No worse than what currently exists...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 25, 2017, 09:15:57 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 25, 2017, 08:50:05 PM
QuoteSix lanes in a temporary configuration, as with a temporary concrete median barrier that would leave only a few feet of shoulder space.
No worse than what currently exists...

Considerably better since it will have 2 more lanes.  Just trying to understand the design.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 25, 2017, 09:45:33 PM
Glad to not only see VDOT moving forward with this badly needed project, but also the fact that it was $80 million below estimates! Wonder if that extra money will go back into smart scale or be used for other improvements along the I-64 corridor.
Finally, is there any timetable for Phase 2 yet?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 25, 2017, 10:15:42 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on October 25, 2017, 09:45:33 PM
Glad to not only see VDOT moving forward with this badly needed project, but also the fact that it was $80 million below estimates! Wonder if that extra money will go back into smart scale or be used for other improvements along the I-64 corridor.

I am wondering if there was any competitive bidding on the project or if it was sole-source contract.

It was a design-build project, and I know a few others were sole source contracts.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: J N Winkler on October 25, 2017, 10:51:11 PM
I've been looking into this project and have found what appears to be the RFQ, or part of it (scroll down to "I-64 Southside Widening"):

http://www.virginiadot.org/business/request-for-qualifications.asp

There was an accompanying RFQ information package whose contents are spelled out in the RFQ itself and include conceptual road and bridge plans for the project as well as as-built plans for bridges in the project area.  To obtain a copy you would have had to pay $50 to the VDOT Construction Division plans room.

http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/APD_Docs/RFQ/106692_-_Attachment_2.9_-_RFQ_Information_Package_Order_Form.pdf

I really hate this way of doing design-builds.  Other agencies just put the RFQ and RFP online in their entirety, including Reference Information Documentation (RID) distributions, which typically include the as-developed design as well as relevant as-builts and can run to tens of gigabytes.  Some of these agencies even go on to post the released-for-construction (RFC) plans once construction gets underway, and the final as-builts when construction finishes and the project is finaled out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 26, 2017, 10:15:45 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32Wonder if that extra money will go back into smart scale or be used for other improvements along the I-64 corridor.

Some of it may go back into Smart Scale, but a large part of the funding was regional Hampton Roads funding, so you'd be more likely to see it go to another Hampton Roads project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on October 26, 2017, 12:14:30 PM
Yesterday while on the Inner Loop near the Eisenhower Ave Metro station, I saw BGS marked with "National Science Foundation" staged on the side the road, presumable to put in place in the coming days.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on October 26, 2017, 04:05:22 PM
This is in where my neighborhood abuts the I-395 right-of-way. Almost certainly an old boundary marker for the Virginia Department of Highways.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/SrQXwy4lu9AF_03jdex2PLZQjtwLxDYwDOHyM9fBEdBWiPrGq14OUFnDt9CYC17pSCFcENNgq-WQZ6tgGJEsKok9GpJLbGhTg-Biu7xUtSxELwn8YWWBFzBBiswWSsjXSb2AVkmUj2dhdSXR1Ea6YfqvDleWlGLd5PDeRShUcubKnTEdCBi_3TP3rQ5LOoz76_tY8vFt0QFLB2lFvAvU0Kxszi3MhW6dQM4R5h2onFIn-eoOwEDwA54R-rPe0jwQG1-RSX_6KypeaE_inoC643-5PgxEWePlpEwd2eHAQUcHl5yItHvqDZYIRSgQadkOUf5-vvhT-A_fflW393si4JEwUoRyZ9Z0yS-ASPA68cDId4nV-0aIVzYINpaRCBetTmQIS9MP_FNrQ_U0xiJAvqpX-byt7OT6_t-zDcjrpvGTUA0T5TSylfm8lf5wIupzj1LJPPdHyO2jRtrb2O2i2Mle4rOH39DjKttC1UyjCYpF8KeNS_WC9rrWROI_YzO-gKFzXGdlMpWLRaKY73W-LMHWePDx5B4Z3HawJ1OM6ELK24axqAR5Ubj9VGcHy1x2UThgOfNUcC1IbXuZAw_qU-jru9I_KG1BpIEm_XJq0w=w1134-h637-no)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 26, 2017, 04:18:45 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 28, 2017, 08:30:58 PM
Seems that I-95 in NoVA has the worst traffic spot in the US.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Worst-Traffic-Spot-in-US-Found-on-I-95-in-Northern-Virginia-448426163.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Worst-Traffic-Spot-in-US-Found-on-I-95-in-Northern-Virginia-448426163.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand)

Quote"While I-95 represented the single worst traffic spot, Inrix found that overall the D.C. area ranks third to New York and Los Angeles in terms of overall traffic congestion. "

Why am I not surprised?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on October 30, 2017, 10:49:37 AM
I-81 C/D Lanes coming to Roanoke -- in 2024

Monday's Roanoke Times had an ad for an upcoming design public hearing session in the Salem District on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, 4:30 — 6:30 p.m. at Northside High School. The page for the project explains:


http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/interstate_81_northbound_and_southbound_auxiliary_lanes-_roanoke_county.asp

Sadly for those who have to travel in/through this mix of local and through traffic, the project won't start until 2021. It is only a small step, too, since it will only cover the section between the exit for I-581 to Roanoke and the VA 419 exit for Salem. To be helpful, additional lanes (both C/D and regular travel lanes) are needed between Exit 150 at Troutville and Exit 118 at Christiansburg (the three lanes from Ironto south to C'burg help, but a third lane down the mountain [norhtbound] could help with the regular wrecks that block traffic there).

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 30, 2017, 11:45:55 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on October 30, 2017, 10:49:37 AM
Sadly for those who have to travel in/through this mix of local and through traffic, the project won't start until 2021. It is only a small step, too, since it will only cover the section between the exit for I-581 to Roanoke and the VA 419 exit for Salem. To be helpful, additional lanes (both C/D and regular travel lanes) are needed between Exit 150 at Troutville and Exit 118 at Christiansburg (the three lanes from Ironto south to C'burg help, but a third lane down the mountain [norhtbound] could help with the regular wrecks that block traffic there).
Bruce in Blacksburg

The project will certainly help, but what is really needed is 8 lanes (4 each way) on I-81 between Exit 150 at Troutville and Exit 118 at Christiansburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 30, 2017, 12:11:12 PM
I'll agree that I-81 in that area could definitely use some widening but 8 lanes may be far fetched given the terrain. The state has been talking about 8 lanes forever it seems and those talks have gone nowhere.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: vtstormchaser on October 30, 2017, 02:38:44 PM
Saw my first double left turn FYA installation in Virginia over the weekend at the Fishersville exit on I-64 (Exit 91). The double left turn from Tinkling Spring Rd northbound to I-64 WB has been swapped over to two FYA heads. I had heard the NW region was looking into this, especially at interstate exits. I'd expect to start seeing this more in the coming months.

(https://i.imgur.com/5EoDYEy.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on October 30, 2017, 04:43:42 PM
Quote from: vtstormchaser on October 30, 2017, 02:38:44 PM
Saw my first double left turn FYA installation in Virginia over the weekend at the Fishersville exit on I-64 (Exit 91). The double left turn from Tinkling Spring Rd northbound to I-64 WB has been swapped over to two FYA heads. I had heard the NW region was looking into this, especially at interstate exits. I'd expect to start seeing this more in the coming months.

https://i.imgur.com/5EoDYEy.jpg

(https://i.imgur.com/Ie17FZ6.gif)

Nice! Seems so odd to see these in Virginia, a state with hardly any double right turns on red (and therefore reads as being rather conservative with permissive movements).

https://goo.gl/YFi5e7 -- according to this document from VDOT, the Northwest region has no official guidelines for left turn phasing. So, no real surprise to see this phasing pop up where it has.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 30, 2017, 05:23:34 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on October 30, 2017, 10:49:37 AM
I-81 C/D Lanes coming to Roanoke -- in 2024

Monday's Roanoke Times had an ad for an upcoming design public hearing session in the Salem District on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, 4:30 — 6:30 p.m. at Northside High School. The page for the project explains:


  • This $62-million project will add an additional lane along northbound and southbound I-81 between exit 141 (Salem) and exit 143 (Roanoke) in Roanoke County.

    Adding a two-mile auxiliary lane in both directions will alleviate congestion and provide for safer traffic movements at these exits.

    The primary purpose of this project is to alleviate congestion and provide for safer northbound and southbound merge movements between exits 141 and 143.

    As part of the project, sound walls will be considered along northbound I-81.

    The northbound auxiliary lane will connect the exit 141 on-ramp directly to the exit 143 off-ramp and will be constructed along, and adjacent to, the existing outside through lane.

    The southbound auxiliary lane will extend the exit 143 on ramp and become the new inside through lane. The existing outside through lane will become an exit only lane that will end at the exit 141 off-ramp.

    As of 2016, between 63,000 and 70,000 vehicles travel this section of I-81 each day, making it the most heavily travelled portion of I-81 in Virginia.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/interstate_81_northbound_and_southbound_auxiliary_lanes-_roanoke_county.asp

Sadly for those who have to travel in/through this mix of local and through traffic, the project won't start until 2021. It is only a small step, too, since it will only cover the section between the exit for I-581 to Roanoke and the VA 419 exit for Salem. To be helpful, additional lanes (both C/D and regular travel lanes) are needed between Exit 150 at Troutville and Exit 118 at Christiansburg (the three lanes from Ironto south to C'burg help, but a third lane down the mountain [norhtbound] could help with the regular wrecks that block traffic there).

Bruce in Blacksburg

http://wset.com/news/local/exclusive-va-secretary-of-transportation-talks-road-plans
QuoteAubrey Layne, the state Secretary of Transportation says Virginia is working on a plan to expand Interstate 81, saying "We're working with the legislature to determine what we can do, but in the interim, we're using every nickel we can to make improvements on 81."
Is the mentioned I-81 expansion here^ the same expansion planned for Roanoke? Or if it isn't, is it yet more I-81 talk that will eventually end up getting nowhere?  Definitely would like to see some sort of I-81 expansion proposal/plan before Governor McAuliffe leaves office.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 31, 2017, 08:49:07 AM
Fishersville = Staunton District.  If that district is considering additional dual-lane FYA, start to look for them in Staunton, Harrisonburg, and Winchester....I believe they also cover the US 340 corridor north of Front Royal.

@Jmiles32:  what Aubrey Layne is likely referring to is the long-standing idea (going back numerous years now) of widening all of I-81 in Virginia.  The project recently announced could be considered a sub-part of that, but is better argued as a safety improvement (a fair number of crashes at the 81/581 interchange because of the forced merging).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on October 31, 2017, 02:31:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 31, 2017, 08:49:07 AM
@Jmiles32:  what Aubrey Layne is likely referring to is the long-standing idea (going back numerous years now) of widening all of I-81 in Virginia.  The project recently announced could be considered a sub-part of that, but is better argued as a safety improvement (a fair number of crashes at the 81/581 interchange because of the forced merging).

Yes, the mention of "Electric Road" is in reference to VA 419, which is the next exit south of the I-581 exit. It sounds like another VDOT junior engineer design:

"The southbound auxiliary lane will extend the exit 143 on ramp and become the new inside through lane. The existing outside through lane will become an exit only lane that will end at the exit 141 off-ramp."

I can't picture how this is going to work out well. The 143 on-ramp comes from I-581 and merges into the current left lane of I-81 (and was extended a few years ago to provide more merge room). Based on the comment above, through traffic will be shifted into this lane from the left lane north of the exit and traffic in the right lane will be shifted into the current left lane, leaving the current right lane as the "exit only" lane for VA 419. I'm not seeing how this solves the problem of local traffic using the interstate to get from one part of the Roanoke Valley to another (since the road system in and around Roanoke sucks) since someone going from Roanoke to Salem will still have to merge into the fast lane, then move over to the exit lane to get off at 419.

The better (but expensive) solution would be to move the southbound through lanes just to the south on a new alignment, with a bridge crossing the I-581 ramps (as the northbound lanes do now) and making the present through lanes C/D lanes to enter I-581 and exit on the right side of I-81 going south. Then the outside lane as an exit-only lane for exit 141 makes sense.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 05:49:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2017, 04:43:42 PM
Quote from: vtstormchaser on October 30, 2017, 02:38:44 PM
Saw my first double left turn FYA installation in Virginia over the weekend at the Fishersville exit on I-64 (Exit 91). The double left turn from Tinkling Spring Rd northbound to I-64 WB has been swapped over to two FYA heads. I had heard the NW region was looking into this, especially at interstate exits. I'd expect to start seeing this more in the coming months.

(https://i.imgur.com/5EoDYEy.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/Ie17FZ6.gif)

Nice! Seems so odd to see these in Virginia, a state with hardly any double right turns on red (and therefore reads as being rather conservative with permissive movements).

https://goo.gl/YFi5e7 -- according to this document from VDOT, the Northwest region has no official guidelines for left turn phasing. So, no real surprise to see this phasing pop up where it has.
Quote from: froggie on October 31, 2017, 08:49:07 AM
Fishersville = Staunton District.

What the hell is the "Northwest Region" mentioned in the VDOT document I posted above?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 31, 2017, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 05:49:27 PM

Quote from: froggie on October 31, 2017, 08:49:07 AM
Fishersville = Staunton District.

What the hell is the "Northwest Region" mentioned in the VDOT document I posted above?

See this document - the engineering/operations arm of VDOT has its own District scheme that is different from the Construction Regions of which most of us are familiar...

http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/IIM/TE-385_DTE_Responsibilities.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 09:01:19 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 31, 2017, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 05:49:27 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 31, 2017, 08:49:07 AM
Fishersville = Staunton District.

What the hell is the "Northwest Region" mentioned in the VDOT document I posted above?

See this document - the engineering/operations arm of VDOT has its own District scheme that is different from the Construction Regions of which most of us are familiar...

http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/IIM/TE-385_DTE_Responsibilities.pdf

I see. So basically, Staunton is a part of the NWRO? I didn't see anything in that document that indicates that either the Staunton or the NWRO region/district had been retired.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 31, 2017, 09:07:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 09:01:19 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 31, 2017, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 05:49:27 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 31, 2017, 08:49:07 AM
Fishersville = Staunton District.

What the hell is the "Northwest Region" mentioned in the VDOT document I posted above?

See this document - the engineering/operations arm of VDOT has its own District scheme that is different from the Construction Regions of which most of us are familiar...

http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/IIM/TE-385_DTE_Responsibilities.pdf

I see. So basically, Staunton is a part of the NWRO? I didn't see anything in that document that indicates that either the Staunton or the NWRO region/district had been retired.

Neither is retired.  The document I provided seems to be about assigning the responsibility of one specific endeavor (traffic engineering) to somebody in the District scheme instead of someone in the Region scheme.  Traffic operations continue on with the Region scheme.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 31, 2017, 09:19:42 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 31, 2017, 09:07:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 09:01:19 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 31, 2017, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2017, 05:49:27 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 31, 2017, 08:49:07 AM
Fishersville = Staunton District.
What the hell is the "Northwest Region" mentioned in the VDOT document I posted above?
See this document - the engineering/operations arm of VDOT has its own District scheme that is different from the Construction Regions of which most of us are familiar...
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/IIM/TE-385_DTE_Responsibilities.pdf
I see. So basically, Staunton is a part of the NWRO? I didn't see anything in that document that indicates that either the Staunton or the NWRO region/district had been retired.
Neither is retired.  The document I provided seems to be about assigning the responsibility of one specific endeavor (traffic engineering) to somebody in the District scheme instead of someone in the Region scheme.  Traffic operations continue on with the Region scheme.

There is a map here --
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/transportation/vdot.html
"VDOT established 5 operation regions with Transportation Operation Centers for Advanced Transportation Management Systems, rather than rely upon the traditional boundaries of the nine highway districts."

I wish I could provide more details about regionalization, which actually began in 2006, with an ambitious plan to regionalize more functions.  At this point I don't think very many regional job positions have been authorized, and it may have a narrow usage basically just around the TOCs.  The TOCs are major offices and there is one per region.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on November 15, 2017, 04:34:46 PM
Traffic flow in Blacksburg will improve next month. The new Southgate interchange on U.S. 460 is scheduled to open on or around December 13, which will eliminate the only stoplight on U.S. 460 for 37 miles between Christiansburg and Narrows (not counting the flashing yellow light in Pembroke). The diverging diamond interchange will carry traffic to the Virginia Tech campus on a new roadway that will connect to the existing Southgate Drive at Duck Pond Drive via a new roundabout. There is another roundabout that will eventually connect to the Corporate Research Center, replacing current Tech Center Drive (which will be severed by a runway extension at the Virginia Tech airport).

See the Roanoke Times article at https://goo.gl/sX2im9

Bruce, rejoicing in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 15, 2017, 04:53:22 PM
Quote from: Takumi on May 16, 2015, 07:50:26 PM
In my local newsletter I got in the mail yesterday, it's mentioned that VA 144's intersection with the access ramps to I-95 (located here) (http://goo.gl/maps/TgJjw) will be replaced with a roundabout. Construction is slated* to start in March and finish in late 2017.

*although going by how the reconfiguration of about 10 blocks of US 1/301 in the city is going, we'll be lucky to have this done by 2020.

VDOT: I-95/TEMPLE AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT COMPLETE IN COLONIAL HEIGHTS (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2017/i-95-temple_avenue_interchange_improvements121140.asp)

Well it was finished before 2020.   :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on November 15, 2017, 04:55:11 PM
Yeah, it finished last week. I drove through it the other day. I'll take some pictures.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 15, 2017, 05:19:00 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on November 15, 2017, 04:34:46 PM
Traffic flow in Blacksburg will improve next month. The new Southgate interchange on U.S. 460 is scheduled to open on or around December 13, which will eliminate the only stoplight on U.S. 460 for 37 miles between Christiansburg and Narrows (not counting the flashing yellow light in Pembroke). The diverging diamond interchange will carry traffic to the Virginia Tech campus on a new roadway that will connect to the existing Southgate Drive at Duck Pond Drive via a new roundabout. There is another roundabout that will eventually connect to the Corporate Research Center, replacing current Tech Center Drive (which will be severed by a runway extension at the Virginia Tech airport).
See the Roanoke Times article at https://goo.gl/sX2im9
Bruce, rejoicing in Blacksburg

That is definitely good news. 
Are there any traffic signals between Narrows and the WV border?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 15, 2017, 05:20:50 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 15, 2017, 04:53:22 PM
Quote from: Takumi on May 16, 2015, 07:50:26 PM
In my local newsletter I got in the mail yesterday, it's mentioned that VA 144's intersection with the access ramps to I-95 (located here) (http://goo.gl/maps/TgJjw) will be replaced with a roundabout. Construction is slated* to start in March and finish in late 2017.
*although going by how the reconfiguration of about 10 blocks of US 1/301 in the city is going, we'll be lucky to have this done by 2020.
VDOT: I-95/TEMPLE AVENUE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT COMPLETE IN COLONIAL HEIGHTS (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2017/i-95-temple_avenue_interchange_improvements121140.asp)
Well it was finished before 2020.   :-D

This is nicely done and a real improvement, to what is a former turnpike trumpet interchange. I rode thru there a couple weeks ago when it was nearly all open.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 15, 2017, 08:11:20 PM
QuoteAre there any traffic signals between Narrows and the WV border?

Just the one at VA 61 in Narrows.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on November 16, 2017, 11:24:22 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 15, 2017, 08:11:20 PM
QuoteAre there any traffic signals between Narrows and the WV border?

Just the one at VA 61 in Narrows.

Right, the next traffic light on U.S. 460 is just outside Princeton at the Greasy Ridge Road intersection, location of the West Virginia Welcome Center, followed by a series of lights at the turnpike and beyond.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on November 16, 2017, 11:38:08 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on November 15, 2017, 04:34:46 PM
Traffic flow in Blacksburg will improve next month. The new Southgate interchange on U.S. 460 is scheduled to open on or around December 13, which will eliminate the only stoplight on U.S. 460 for 37 miles between Christiansburg and Narrows (not counting the flashing yellow light in Pembroke). The diverging diamond interchange will carry traffic to the Virginia Tech campus on a new roadway that will connect to the existing Southgate Drive at Duck Pond Drive via a new roundabout. There is another roundabout that will eventually connect to the Corporate Research Center, replacing current Tech Center Drive (which will be severed by a runway extension at the Virginia Tech airport).

See the Roanoke Times article at https://goo.gl/sX2im9

Bruce, rejoicing in Blacksburg
Not sure if this has been answered elsewhere, but does anyone know what the reason they went with a DDI over a trumpet was? Presumably it's so they can extend Southgate Dr to the southwest, but I'm not aware of any plans to do so, nor where such an extension would even possibly go.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 17, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on November 16, 2017, 11:38:08 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on November 15, 2017, 04:34:46 PM
Traffic flow in Blacksburg will improve next month. The new Southgate interchange on U.S. 460 is scheduled to open on or around December 13, which will eliminate the only stoplight on U.S. 460 for 37 miles between Christiansburg and Narrows (not counting the flashing yellow light in Pembroke). The diverging diamond interchange will carry traffic to the Virginia Tech campus on a new roadway that will connect to the existing Southgate Drive at Duck Pond Drive via a new roundabout. There is another roundabout that will eventually connect to the Corporate Research Center, replacing current Tech Center Drive (which will be severed by a runway extension at the Virginia Tech airport).
See the Roanoke Times article at https://goo.gl/sX2im9
Bruce, rejoicing in Blacksburg
Not sure if this has been answered elsewhere, but does anyone know what the reason they went with a DDI over a trumpet was? Presumably it's so they can extend Southgate Dr to the southwest, but I'm not aware of any plans to do so, nor where such an extension would even possibly go.

This document shows that there were 4 alternatives that were studied --
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/southgate/SG_Alternatives.pdf
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/southgate_connector_-_blacksburg.asp

1. Standard Diamond Interchange
2. Diverging Diamond Interchange
3. Rotary Interchange
4. Partial Cloverleaf Interchange

Excerpts:

"Each of the four concepts was found to have a generally similar footprint with regard to potential environmental impacts, though the footprint of the diverging diamond would be the smallest and the partial cloverleaf the largest. The study also found that, in general, each of the alternatives provides adequate levels of service and would improve congestion; however, the diverging diamond provides the least overall amount of travel time for all vehicles and serves the two heaviest movements between US 460 Bypass and Southgate Drive with the least amount of delay."

"The diverging diamond concept was shown to be one of the safest interchange configurations based on the fact that it would spread out the conflict points, provide better sight distance and shorter pedestrian crossings, and allow for the ability to incorporate traffic calming features."

Also near the bottom of the document there are maps that show a planned western extension of Southgate Drive, and a ultimate 4-way design for the DDI at US-460.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on November 17, 2017, 10:35:30 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on November 16, 2017, 11:38:08 PM
Not sure if this has been answered elsewhere, but does anyone know what the reason they went with a DDI over a trumpet was? Presumably it's so they can extend Southgate Dr to the southwest, but I'm not aware of any plans to do so, nor where such an extension would even possibly go.

The New River Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization has put forth in the recent past plans for a parkway-type road to run west from the U.S. 460 bypass along the base of Price Mountain to connect with Prices Fork Road south of the Prices Fork community. This new road would serve as a bypass of the village and the growing congestion on Prices Fork Road in Blacksburg west of the bypass (created by through traffic, three schools, a large house/apartment community, and a new student housing project). Short term, there are people who live west of the bypass (like me) who are pushing for a short connector from the end of new Southgate to Merrimac Road to provide an alternative route, especially for emergency services.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 17, 2017, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
This document shows that there were 4 alternatives that were studied --
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/southgate/SG_Alternatives.pdf
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/southgate_connector_-_blacksburg.asp
...
3. Rotary Interchange

I was about to quote this post and correct you by saying "no, roundabout interchange". But sure enough, a "rotary" was indeed a consideration. An odd consideration for a proposal from 2011. Interchanges with a slightly larger, single "modern" roundabout have been built in some places, such as Emporia, Kansas (see here (https://goo.gl/j8mutY)). But I can't remember the last time a full, British-style oblong-shaped rotary/roundabout was proposed for this country. Many were built in New England throughout the 20th century, but I thought they stopped building them a long time ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 17, 2017, 04:30:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 17, 2017, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
This document shows that there were 4 alternatives that were studied --
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/southgate/SG_Alternatives.pdf
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/southgate_connector_-_blacksburg.asp
3. Rotary Interchange
I was about to quote this post and correct you by saying "no, roundabout interchange". But sure enough, a "rotary" was indeed a consideration. An odd consideration for a proposal from 2011. Interchanges with a slightly larger, single "modern" roundabout have been built in some places, such as Emporia, Kansas (see here (https://goo.gl/j8mutY)). But I can't remember the last time a full, British-style oblong-shaped rotary/roundabout was proposed for this country. Many were built in New England throughout the 20th century, but I thought they stopped building them a long time ago.

In the NEPA EIS process, the agency is supposed to develop a range of alternatives and go through a scoping process to narrow it down to a preferred alternative.  Some of the alternatives may be of marginal feasibility, but it is still an important process to undergo in order to provide a comprehensive evaluation of a proposed highway project.

https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/docueis.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 17, 2017, 04:44:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 17, 2017, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
This document shows that there were 4 alternatives that were studied --
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/southgate/SG_Alternatives.pdf
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/southgate_connector_-_blacksburg.asp
...
3. Rotary Interchange

I was about to quote this post and correct you by saying "no, roundabout interchange". But sure enough, a "rotary" was indeed a consideration. An odd consideration for a proposal from 2011. Interchanges with a slightly larger, single "modern" roundabout have been built in some places, such as Emporia, Kansas (see here (https://goo.gl/j8mutY)). But I can't remember the last time a full, British-style oblong-shaped rotary/roundabout was proposed for this country. Many were built in New England throughout the 20th century, but I thought they stopped building them a long time ago.

I seem to recall the discussions for the interchange between Charlottesville's Meadowcreek Parkway, McIntire Road, and the US-250 bypass included consideration of a roundabout interchange that would have used an elongated roundabout on the Parkway/McIntire level, similar to the longer roundabouts you encounter at some motorway junctions (the M4 east of Swindon at the A419 and A346 comes to mind as a good example). The idea was dropped, but I don't recall why.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 17, 2017, 04:52:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2017, 04:30:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 17, 2017, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
This document shows that there were 4 alternatives that were studied --
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Salem/southgate/SG_Alternatives.pdf
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/southgate_connector_-_blacksburg.asp
3. Rotary Interchange

I was about to quote this post and correct you by saying "no, roundabout interchange". But sure enough, a "rotary" was indeed a consideration. An odd consideration for a proposal from 2011. Interchanges with a slightly larger, single "modern" roundabout have been built in some places, such as Emporia, Kansas (see here (https://goo.gl/j8mutY)). But I can't remember the last time a full, British-style oblong-shaped rotary/roundabout was proposed for this country. Many were built in New England throughout the 20th century, but I thought they stopped building them a long time ago.

In the NEPA EIS process, the agency is supposed to develop a range of alternatives and go through a scoping process to narrow it down to a preferred alternative.  Some of the alternatives may be of marginal feasibility, but it is still an important process to undergo in order to provide a comprehensive evaluation of a proposed highway project.

https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/docueis.asp

No, absolutely. I totally understand how alternatives work. I was just surprised to see this as an alternative, and not something like a SPUI or a dumbell/dogbone (both equally compact).

Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2017, 04:44:30 PM
I seem to recall the discussions for the interchange between Charlottesville's Meadowcreek Parkway, McIntire Road, and the US-250 bypass included consideration of a roundabout interchange that would have used an elongated roundabout on the Parkway/McIntire level, similar to the longer roundabouts you encounter at some motorway junctions (the M4 east of Swindon at the A419 and A346 comes to mind as a good example). The idea was dropped, but I don't recall why.

The traditional rotaries fell out of favor because of how poorly they handled large amounts of traffic. They continue to be popular in the UK because they are relatively cheap and can be signalised to improve throughput. But the US wasn't into that signals-on-roundabout stuff, so they stopped building them in the 70s-80s.

As to why they haven't come back, US states seem to be more into "modern roundabouts", and these large elongated roundabouts seen in the UK don't really fit those standards.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 17, 2017, 05:03:11 PM
Yeah, I'm aware of the issues generally, I just don't recall the specifics they discussed as to that particular location.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 17, 2017, 06:22:52 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 17, 2017, 04:44:30 PM


I seem to recall the discussions for the interchange between Charlottesville's Meadowcreek Parkway, McIntire Road, and the US-250 bypass included consideration of a roundabout interchange that would have used an elongated roundabout on the Parkway/McIntire level, similar to the longer roundabouts you encounter at some motorway junctions (the M4 east of Swindon at the A419 and A346 comes to mind as a good example). The idea was dropped, but I don't recall why.

This presentation has that design in it, which was selected by the Steering committe.  However, the Charlottesville City Council chose the design that was actually built.  Document does not say why that I saw...

http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/local_assistance/UCI/July2012/Route_250_Interchange_Project_Presentation_Janiczek_7-12-12.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 18, 2017, 01:54:02 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 17, 2017, 04:52:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 17, 2017, 04:30:57 PM
In the NEPA EIS process, the agency is supposed to develop a range of alternatives and go through a scoping process to narrow it down to a preferred alternative.  Some of the alternatives may be of marginal feasibility, but it is still an important process to undergo in order to provide a comprehensive evaluation of a proposed highway project.
https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/docueis.asp
No, absolutely. I totally understand how alternatives work. I was just surprised to see this as an alternative, and not something like a SPUI or a dumbell/dogbone (both equally compact).

Alternatives in a Draft EIS can encompass a range of ideas, some of which may at times seem odd or questionable.  It doesn't mean that all of them are things that are all that likely to be built, just to show a range of thinking on the project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 25, 2017, 06:59:29 PM
I haven't seen any news articles about this but ...

Repaving of the Powhite Parkway Extension has been completed, between VA-150 and west of VA-288. 

This 10-mile extension opened in 1988 and has continuously reinforced concrete pavement.   Substantial amounts of concrete patching have been needed in the last 10 to 12 years or so due to deterioration.

Needed extensive concrete patching was performed in the last 2 years, and several projects for asphalt resurfacing have been performed, about 1.5 inch overlay.  Now all work is complete and the pavement looks very good and rides smoothly and much more quietly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on November 25, 2017, 10:30:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2017, 06:59:29 PM
I haven't seen any news articles about this but ...

Repaving of the Powhite Parkway Extension has been completed, between VA-150 and west of VA-288. 

This 10-mile extension opened in 1988 and has continuously reinforced concrete pavement.   Substantial amounts of concrete patching have been needed in the last 10 to 12 years or so due to deterioration.

Needed extensive concrete patching was performed in the last 2 years, and several projects for asphalt resurfacing have been performed, about 1.5 inch overlay.  Now all work is complete and the pavement looks very good and rides smoothly and much more quietly.
Similar resurfacing has recently been completed along I-295 from I-95 to I-64 (MM 28).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 26, 2017, 03:27:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2017, 06:59:29 PM
I haven't seen any news articles about this but ...

Repaving of the Powhite Parkway Extension has been completed, between VA-150 and west of VA-288. 

This 10-mile extension opened in 1988 and has continuously reinforced concrete pavement.   Substantial amounts of concrete patching have been needed in the last 10 to 12 years or so due to deterioration.

Needed extensive concrete patching was performed in the last 2 years, and several projects for asphalt resurfacing have been performed, about 1.5 inch overlay.  Now all work is complete and the pavement looks very good and rides smoothly and much more quietly.

I can definitely vouch for that. VA 76 was quite a bumpy drive for a while, almost as bad as VA 288 was before it was repaved south of US 360.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 26, 2017, 09:54:17 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 26, 2017, 03:27:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2017, 06:59:29 PM
I haven't seen any news articles about this but ...
Repaving of the Powhite Parkway Extension has been completed, between VA-150 and west of VA-288. 
This 10-mile extension opened in 1988 and has continuously reinforced concrete pavement.   Substantial amounts of concrete patching have been needed in the last 10 to 12 years or so due to deterioration.
Needed extensive concrete patching was performed in the last 2 years, and several projects for asphalt resurfacing have been performed, about 1.5 inch overlay.  Now all work is complete and the pavement looks very good and rides smoothly and much more quietly.
I can definitely vouch for that. VA 76 was quite a bumpy drive for a while, almost as bad as VA 288 was before it was repaved south of US 360.

Yes indeed, the last rehab project on southern VA-288 was completed earlier this year.

Same original pavement type as the Powhite Extension, same rehab process, very nice ride now!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 30, 2017, 08:30:33 PM
I am still working with VDOT on my advocacy of getting Interstate designations for VA-895 and VA-288.

They did a detailed study on the 6 highways that I submitted, and there were multiple design issues on the others that are lower than Interstate standards.  VA-267, VA-164, VA-195.  Things like geometrics and shoulder widths, at least in certain places.  Interstate spurs IMHO have lower priority than outer loops (like Routes 288 and 895) that clearly have inter-state traffic roles in addition to local and regional roles.  Routes 288 and 895 do meet all Interstate standards.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2017, 11:11:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 30, 2017, 08:30:33 PM
I am still working with VDOT on my advocacy of getting Interstate designations for VA-895 and VA-288.

They did a detailed study on the 6 highways that I submitted, and there were multiple design issues on the others that are lower than Interstate standards.  VA-267, VA-164, VA-195.  Things like geometrics and shoulder widths, at least in certain places.  Interstate spurs IMHO have lower priority than outer loops (like Routes 288 and 895) that clearly have inter-state traffic roles in addition to local and regional roles.  Routes 288 and 895 do meet all Interstate standards.

I have driven all of them but the one I know best is VA-267.  I suspect some of the interchanges might not be up to snuff, perhaps especially the one at VA-286 (Exit 11, Fairfax County Parkway). 

What were they thinking when they built that (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Reston,+VA/@38.9533113,-77.3735537,17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b64047261665e5:0x63dfafe8a871ae9f!8m2!3d38.9586307!4d-77.3570028) as a simple, almost rural, type of diamond interchange?

There are also places where VA-267 has narrower-than-standard shoulders (a legacy of what is now an 8-lane freeway on what once a 4-lane freeway) and there's a least one low bridge, VA-702 (Beulah Street)  over the westbound lanes is signed 13' 9" (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9425901,-77.2827523,3a,75y,254.68h,89.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srHJBx15_5Xd8cRccROJ6jg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and 14' 9" (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9420954,-77.2835827,3a,75y,118.21h,93.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scff5IuTNzlARyqNBBaHF8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) eastbound.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 30, 2017, 11:37:09 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2017, 11:11:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 30, 2017, 08:30:33 PM
I am still working with VDOT on my advocacy of getting Interstate designations for VA-895 and VA-288.
They did a detailed study on the 6 highways that I submitted, and there were multiple design issues on the others that are lower than Interstate standards.  VA-267, VA-164, VA-195.  Things like geometrics and shoulder widths, at least in certain places.  Interstate spurs IMHO have lower priority than outer loops (like Routes 288 and 895) that clearly have inter-state traffic roles in addition to local and regional roles.  Routes 288 and 895 do meet all Interstate standards.
I have driven all of them but the one I know best is VA-267.  I suspect some of the interchanges might not be up to snuff, perhaps especially the one at VA-286 (Exit 11, Fairfax County Parkway). 
What were they thinking when they built that (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Reston,+VA/@38.9533113,-77.3735537,17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b64047261665e5:0x63dfafe8a871ae9f!8m2!3d38.9586307!4d-77.3570028) as a simple, almost rural, type of diamond interchange?

The Fairfax County Parkway is mostly a surface arterial, there are closely spaced interchanges with other arterials in that area, the interchange dates back to when the Dulles Toll Road had 4 lanes (2 each way), most importantly it looks like maybe $200 million in right-of-way costs to expand to a high capacity interchange.  Diamond ramps can be widened to 3 or 4 lanes wide and handle a ton of traffic, FDOT did that on several interchanges on I-95 in the Melbourne area where there was insufficient room to expand the interchange without large scale right-of-way impacts.

Quote from: Beltway on November 30, 2017, 08:30:33 PM
There are also places where VA-267 has narrower-than-standard shoulders (a legacy of what is now an 8-lane freeway on what once a 4-lane freeway) and there's a least one low bridge, VA-702 (Beulah Street)  over the westbound lanes is signed 13' 9" (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9425901,-77.2827523,3a,75y,254.68h,89.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srHJBx15_5Xd8cRccROJ6jg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and 14' 9" (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9420954,-77.2835827,3a,75y,118.21h,93.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scff5IuTNzlARyqNBBaHF8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) eastbound.

Right.  The VDOT study cited 8-foot wide paved right shoulders in some areas.  Same with VA-164.  I draw the line with paved right shoulders that are less than 10 feet wide, with regard to Interstate standards.  Need to widen them to 10 feet first, IMHO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 01, 2017, 07:26:26 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 30, 2017, 11:37:09 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2017, 11:11:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 30, 2017, 08:30:33 PM
I am still working with VDOT on my advocacy of getting Interstate designations for VA-895 and VA-288.
They did a detailed study on the 6 highways that I submitted, and there were multiple design issues on the others that are lower than Interstate standards.  VA-267, VA-164, VA-195.  Things like geometrics and shoulder widths, at least in certain places.  Interstate spurs IMHO have lower priority than outer loops (like Routes 288 and 895) that clearly have inter-state traffic roles in addition to local and regional roles.  Routes 288 and 895 do meet all Interstate standards.
I have driven all of them but the one I know best is VA-267.  I suspect some of the interchanges might not be up to snuff, perhaps especially the one at VA-286 (Exit 11, Fairfax County Parkway). 
What were they thinking when they built that (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Reston,+VA/@38.9533113,-77.3735537,17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b64047261665e5:0x63dfafe8a871ae9f!8m2!3d38.9586307!4d-77.3570028) as a simple, almost rural, type of diamond interchange?

The Fairfax County Parkway is mostly a surface arterial, there are closely spaced interchanges with other arterials in that area, the interchange dates back to when the Dulles Toll Road had 4 lanes (2 each way), most importantly it looks like maybe $200 million in right-of-way costs to expand to a high capacity interchange.  Diamond ramps can be widened to 3 or 4 lanes wide and handle a ton of traffic, FDOT did that on several interchanges on I-95 in the Melbourne area where there was insufficient room to expand the interchange without large scale right-of-way impacts.

VA-286 (Fairfax County Parkway) is an expressway.  Not a freeway, but more than an arterial.   

VA-267 has an AAWDT of about 116,000 (VDOT, 2016).

VA-286 has an AAWDT of about 70,000 (also VDOT, 2016). 

Putting in an diamond interchange between two roads which carry that much traffic is folly (and I realize that this interchange dates back to the early 1990's, over 20 years ago) - but even so, the projected traffic for 20 years into the future should have informed the design process and resulted in something more-robust than a diamond interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 01, 2017, 10:49:48 AM
I can definitely see how parts of VA 164 would be substandard, particularly in the Port Norfolk area, but I can't imagine it would be prohibitively expensive to upgrade that segment to Interstate standards, especially if the main issue is shoulder width.

Same with VA 195, although the VDOT-maintained portion of VA 195 between VA 146/VA 76 and the end of state maintenance is in major need of resurfacing.

On another note, I'm a little curious about what happened to the plans to upgrade Chesterfield County SR 653 and Fairfax County SR 613 to primary status. A study was done a few years ago and found that upgrading was warranted, but it doesn't look like any action was taken. SR 653 really should be primary from US 60 to US 360...or perhaps down to VA 288 (including a portion of SR 604).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 10:50:29 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 01, 2017, 07:26:26 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 30, 2017, 11:37:09 PM
The Fairfax County Parkway is mostly a surface arterial, there are closely spaced interchanges with other arterials in that area, the interchange dates back to when the Dulles Toll Road had 4 lanes (2 each way), most importantly it looks like maybe $200 million in right-of-way costs to expand to a high capacity interchange.  Diamond ramps can be widened to 3 or 4 lanes wide and handle a ton of traffic, FDOT did that on several interchanges on I-95 in the Melbourne area where there was insufficient room to expand the interchange without large scale right-of-way impacts.
VA-286 (Fairfax County Parkway) is an expressway.  Not a freeway, but more than an arterial.   
VA-267 has an AAWDT of about 116,000 (VDOT, 2016).
VA-286 has an AAWDT of about 70,000 (also VDOT, 2016). 
Putting in an diamond interchange between two roads which carry that much traffic is folly (and I realize that this interchange dates back to the early 1990's, over 20 years ago) - but even so, the projected traffic for 20 years into the future should have informed the design process and resulted in something more-robust than a diamond interchange.

Right, but how much traffic utilizes those ramps?  Is there a congestion issue?  The other nearby arterials with interchanges with the Toll Road provide a relief factor.  Within 2 miles to the east are the interchanges with Reston Parkway and Wiehle Avenue, and 1 1/2 miles to the west is the interchange with Centreville Road.   IOW, four interchanges with arterials within about 3 1/2 miles, plus parallel (to the tollroad) arterials (Sunrise Valley Drive to the south, and Sunset Hills Road and Herndon Parkway and Worldgate Drive to the north) that provide off-tollroad traffic distribution in that whole area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 11:04:29 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 01, 2017, 10:49:48 AM
I can definitely see how parts of VA 164 would be substandard, particularly in the Port Norfolk area, but I can't imagine it would be prohibitively expensive to upgrade that segment to Interstate standards, especially if the main issue is shoulder width.

Urban Interstates can have a design speed as low as 50 mph, so the Port Norfolk area should be ok, plus I believe the right shoulders are 10 feet wide.  The tunnels would be lower design but they are a special case, as in the similar designs in the I-264 Downtown tunnels.

It is the Western Freeway west of Port Norfolk that has the 8-foot shoulders.

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 01, 2017, 10:49:48 AM
Same with VA 195, although the VDOT-maintained portion of VA 195 between VA 146/VA 76 and the end of state maintenance is in major need of resurfacing.

They completely replaced the concrete pavement several years ago, in dozens of overnight single lane section jobs.  Given that that procedure can't provide pavement that is very smooth, either it needs diamond-bit grinding or an asphalt overlay.  I thought that was what they were going to do, but for some reason they did not.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 01, 2017, 11:52:11 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 01, 2017, 10:49:48 AM
....

On another note, I'm a little curious about what happened to the plans to upgrade Chesterfield County SR 653 and Fairfax County SR 613 to primary status. A study was done a few years ago and found that upgrading was warranted, but it doesn't look like any action was taken. SR 653 really should be primary from US 60 to US 360...or perhaps down to VA 288 (including a portion of SR 604).

Fairfax County 613 was dropped from consideration. I asked Lee District Supervisor Jeff McKay about it at a community meeting a year or two ago and he said Fairfax County had decided to oppose upgrading it for several reasons. While the CTB isn't bound by that, he said they usually defer to what the county prefers.

Edited to correct myself: It was three years ago. See my prior post linked below.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9283.msg2020528#msg2020528
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 01, 2017, 12:30:14 PM
The 360/653 intersection was upgraded a couple years ago. I figured the primary designation would happen then, but it didn't. I'd also advocate Robious Road and Huguenot Trail east of 288 to become/return to being primary.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 01, 2017, 01:02:06 PM
This just appeared.

http://twitter.com/vadotnova/status/936655094959009792
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 01:47:47 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 01, 2017, 12:30:14 PM
The 360/653 intersection was upgraded a couple years ago. I figured the primary designation would happen then, but it didn't.

An extension of VA-147 ?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 01, 2017, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 01:47:47 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 01, 2017, 12:30:14 PM
The 360/653 intersection was upgraded a couple years ago. I figured the primary designation would happen then, but it didn't.

An extension of VA-147 ?

Yes. 

See https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9283.0
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 02:12:46 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 01, 2017, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 01:47:47 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 01, 2017, 12:30:14 PM
The 360/653 intersection was upgraded a couple years ago. I figured the primary designation would happen then, but it didn't.
An extension of VA-147 ?
Yes. 
See https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9283.0

Why stop at US-360 and not extend to VA-288?

I wonder how the residents feel about it?  Hundreds of houses along that section of VA-653, if I lived there I might be opposed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 01, 2017, 02:27:01 PM
CTB to consider truncating VA 237 east to Glebe Rd.

Technically 2 blocks off US 50 is not included in this proposal.

See page 785 of the December agenda - http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/dec/action_agenda.pdf

The workshop and meeting in December also starts up the motion on Virginia's participation with the US 301 Nice Bridge replacement -  Virginia is being requested to expend $14.2M.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 01, 2017, 04:35:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 02:12:46 PM
I wonder how the residents feel about it?  Hundreds of houses along that section of VA-653, if I lived there I might be opposed.

Why would they be opposed? Is the Courthouse Rd name being dropped in favor of Huguenot Rd? I could see that being an issue but if not then there shouldn't be a problem.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 01, 2017, 05:29:08 PM
http://www.dailypress.com/news/traffic/dp-nws-widening-ceremony-20171120-story.html
QuoteAlmost two years after first breaking ground on the Interstate 64 widening project, officials returned to Newport News on Friday morning to cut the ribbon on Segment I, marking the completion of the $122 million project.

The 5.6-mile stretch has a new 12-foot-wide travel lane and shoulder in both directions. The stretch, which spans just west of Jefferson Avenue to east of Yorktown Road, also has six repaired bridges and two culverts

About 100,000 cars move through the 5-mile stretch daily, according to state Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne.

One I-64 segment down, a lot more to go. Hopefully VDOT will be able to get the funding to six-lane the rest of I-64 between Williamsburg and Richmond in the near future.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 01, 2017, 06:18:05 PM
Quote from: plain on December 01, 2017, 04:35:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 02:12:46 PM
I wonder how the residents feel about it?  Hundreds of houses along that section of VA-653, if I lived there I might be opposed.

Why would they be opposed? Is the Courthouse Rd name being dropped in favor of Huguenot Rd? I could see that being an issue but if not then there shouldn't be a problem.
Yeah, I don't see any reason for opposition for it. It's just changing funding allocations and a few dozen shields. (And yes, I agree that extending it to 288 is also sensible, but it wasn't proposed.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 09:26:48 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 01, 2017, 06:18:05 PM
Quote from: plain on December 01, 2017, 04:35:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 02:12:46 PM
I wonder how the residents feel about it?  Hundreds of houses along that section of VA-653, if I lived there I might be opposed.
Why would they be opposed? Is the Courthouse Rd name being dropped in favor of Huguenot Rd? I could see that being an issue but if not then there shouldn't be a problem.
Yeah, I don't see any reason for opposition for it. It's just changing funding allocations and a few dozen shields. (And yes, I agree that extending it to 288 is also sensible, but it wasn't proposed.)

What is the benefit for making it VA-147?  It is not some major long distance route.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 01, 2017, 09:51:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 10:50:29 AM
Right, but how much traffic utilizes those ramps?  Is there a congestion issue?  The other nearby arterials with interchanges with the Toll Road provide a relief factor.  Within 2 miles to the east are the interchanges with Reston Parkway and Wiehle Avenue, and 1 1/2 miles to the west is the interchange with Centreville Road.   IOW, four interchanges with arterials within about 3 1/2 miles, plus parallel (to the tollroad) arterials (Sunrise Valley Drive to the south, and Sunset Hills Road and Herndon Parkway and Worldgate Drive to the north) that provide off-tollroad traffic distribution in that whole area.

Thousands of vehicles a in the traditional peak-flow directions over the course of five hours. It impacts traffic on the mainline of VA-286 every weekday morning and afternoon, and it got worse after VA-286 was completed from VA-267 to VA-7, because then it became (for some drivers) part of a way to shunpike the Dulles Greenway and its high tolls (especially for travel less than the full length), using VA-286 and VA-7.

Beyond that, there is a lot of employment in Reston and Herndon near the interchange too - which means that not all traffic follows that traditional AM eastbound and PM westbound travel any longer, though that's where the congestion was the  last time I looked at it closely.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 01, 2017, 10:52:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 30, 2017, 11:37:09 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2017, 11:11:54 PM
I have driven all of them but the one I know best is VA-267.  I suspect some of the interchanges might not be up to snuff, perhaps especially the one at VA-286 (Exit 11, Fairfax County Parkway). 
What were they thinking when they built that (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Reston,+VA/@38.9533113,-77.3735537,17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b64047261665e5:0x63dfafe8a871ae9f!8m2!3d38.9586307!4d-77.3570028) as a simple, almost rural, type of diamond interchange?

The Fairfax County Parkway is mostly a surface arterial, there are closely spaced interchanges with other arterials in that area, the interchange dates back to when the Dulles Toll Road had 4 lanes (2 each way), most importantly it looks like maybe $200 million in right-of-way costs to expand to a high capacity interchange.  Diamond ramps can be widened to 3 or 4 lanes wide and handle a ton of traffic, FDOT did that on several interchanges on I-95 in the Melbourne area where there was insufficient room to expand the interchange without large scale right-of-way impacts.
Agreed, the diamond interchange at VA-286(Exit 11, Fairfax County Parkway) is very outdated. Considering the limited amount of right of way in the proximity of the interchange, a split-level(3 level) diamond interchange would definitely be an improvement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 02, 2017, 06:52:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 09:26:48 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 01, 2017, 06:18:05 PM
Quote from: plain on December 01, 2017, 04:35:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 02:12:46 PM
I wonder how the residents feel about it?  Hundreds of houses along that section of VA-653, if I lived there I might be opposed.
Why would they be opposed? Is the Courthouse Rd name being dropped in favor of Huguenot Rd? I could see that being an issue but if not then there shouldn't be a problem.
Yeah, I don't see any reason for opposition for it. It's just changing funding allocations and a few dozen shields. (And yes, I agree that extending it to 288 is also sensible, but it wasn't proposed.)

What is the benefit for making it VA-147?  It is not some major long distance route.

Now that part I actually agree with anyway. What's really weird about this extension is the fact that VA 147 is (and is signed as) an E-W route. Really the only good thing about the existing VA 147 designation is it gives people a route number to follow into central Richmond as an alternate to US 60 or the toll roads.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 02, 2017, 07:15:26 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 01, 2017, 10:52:16 PM
Agreed, the diamond interchange at VA-286(Exit 11, Fairfax County Parkway) is very outdated. Considering the limited amount of right of way in the proximity of the interchange, a split-level(3 level) diamond interchange would definitely be an improvement.

A 3-level diamond would indeed be ideal for that interchange but would be very difficult and costly to pull off. VA 286 would have to rise at least another 16 feet.. that construction alone would definitely interrupt the traffic flow on that road. Plus there is very little room for ramps to/from VA 286 south, which is needed for such an interchange (still room available in the northern part of the interchange though).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 02, 2017, 07:30:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 09:26:48 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 01, 2017, 06:18:05 PM
Quote from: plain on December 01, 2017, 04:35:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 02:12:46 PM
I wonder how the residents feel about it?  Hundreds of houses along that section of VA-653, if I lived there I might be opposed.
Why would they be opposed? Is the Courthouse Rd name being dropped in favor of Huguenot Rd? I could see that being an issue but if not then there shouldn't be a problem.
Yeah, I don't see any reason for opposition for it. It's just changing funding allocations and a few dozen shields. (And yes, I agree that extending it to 288 is also sensible, but it wasn't proposed.)

What is the benefit for making it VA-147?  It is not some major long distance route.
It's a very busy corridor, one which I frequently use going to the Midlothian area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 02, 2017, 08:30:49 AM
Quote from: plain on December 02, 2017, 07:15:26 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 01, 2017, 10:52:16 PM
Agreed, the diamond interchange at VA-286(Exit 11, Fairfax County Parkway) is very outdated. Considering the limited amount of right of way in the proximity of the interchange, a split-level(3 level) diamond interchange would definitely be an improvement.

A 3-level diamond would indeed be ideal for that interchange but would be very difficult and costly to pull off. VA 286 would have to rise at least another 16 feet.. that construction alone would definitely interrupt the traffic flow on that road. Plus there is very little room for ramps to/from VA 286 south, which is needed for such an interchange (still room available in the northern part of the interchange though).

One possibility that might work in the tight space there is a three-level stack interchange.  I have only seen one of those, at the junction of U.S. 29 and MD-200 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B004'39.9%22N+76%C2%B057'09.7%22W/@39.077758,-76.9570724,16z/data=!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89b7c53c2de460c3:0x7a7216413ba1b0ba!2sSilver+Spring,+MD+20904!3b1!8m2!3d39.0533891!4d-76.9758274!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.0777582!4d-76.9526947) in the Silver Spring area of Montgomery County, Maryland, and it works well (though the traffic volumes on MD-200 are not (yet) as high as on VA-286 or VA-267).

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 09:18:54 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 01, 2017, 09:51:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 10:50:29 AM
Right, but how much traffic utilizes those ramps?  Is there a congestion issue?  The other nearby arterials with interchanges with the Toll Road provide a relief factor.  Within 2 miles to the east are the interchanges with Reston Parkway and Wiehle Avenue, and 1 1/2 miles to the west is the interchange with Centreville Road.   IOW, four interchanges with arterials within about 3 1/2 miles, plus parallel (to the tollroad) arterials (Sunrise Valley Drive to the south, and Sunset Hills Road and Herndon Parkway and Worldgate Drive to the north) that provide off-tollroad traffic distribution in that whole area.
Thousands of vehicles a in the traditional peak-flow directions over the course of five hours. It impacts traffic on the mainline of VA-286 every weekday morning and afternoon, and it got worse after VA-286 was completed from VA-267 to VA-7, because then it became (for some drivers) part of a way to shunpike the Dulles Greenway and its high tolls (especially for travel less than the full length), using VA-286 and VA-7.
Beyond that, there is a lot of employment in Reston and Herndon near the interchange too - which means that not all traffic follows that traditional AM eastbound and PM westbound travel any longer, though that's where the congestion was the  last time I looked at it closely.

You seem to be sidestepping the question of just how much actual congestion and possible backups occur at that interchange and how often, and if there is how recently has it become an issue?

Like I said the access to the Toll Road in the Reston area is spread over 4 arterial interchanges.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 09:22:45 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 02, 2017, 08:30:49 AM
Quote from: plain on December 02, 2017, 07:15:26 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 01, 2017, 10:52:16 PM
Agreed, the diamond interchange at VA-286(Exit 11, Fairfax County Parkway) is very outdated. Considering the limited amount of right of way in the proximity of the interchange, a split-level(3 level) diamond interchange would definitely be an improvement.
A 3-level diamond would indeed be ideal for that interchange but would be very difficult and costly to pull off. VA 286 would have to rise at least another 16 feet.. that construction alone would definitely interrupt the traffic flow on that road. Plus there is very little room for ramps to/from VA 286 south, which is needed for such an interchange (still room available in the northern part of the interchange though).
One possibility that might work in the tight space there is a three-level stack interchange.  I have only seen one of those, at the junction of U.S. 29 and MD-200 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B004'39.9%22N+76%C2%B057'09.7%22W/@39.077758,-76.9570724,16z/data=!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89b7c53c2de460c3:0x7a7216413ba1b0ba!2sSilver+Spring,+MD+20904!3b1!8m2!3d39.0533891!4d-76.9758274!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.0777582!4d-76.9526947) in the Silver Spring area of Montgomery County, Maryland, and it works well (though the traffic volumes on MD-200 are not (yet) as high as on VA-286 or VA-267).

As you can see on the ICC site that took a lot more right-of-way than is available on this DTR site.  It takes long distance on semi-directional ramps to make acceptable grades on a 3-level interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 09:28:29 AM
Quote from: Takumi on December 02, 2017, 07:30:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 09:26:48 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 01, 2017, 06:18:05 PM
Quote from: plain on December 01, 2017, 04:35:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 01, 2017, 02:12:46 PM
I wonder how the residents feel about it?  Hundreds of houses along that section of VA-653, if I lived there I might be opposed.
Why would they be opposed? Is the Courthouse Rd name being dropped in favor of Huguenot Rd? I could see that being an issue but if not then there shouldn't be a problem.
Yeah, I don't see any reason for opposition for it. It's just changing funding allocations and a few dozen shields. (And yes, I agree that extending it to 288 is also sensible, but it wasn't proposed.)
What is the benefit for making it VA-147?  It is not some major long distance route.
It's a very busy corridor, one which I frequently use going to the Midlothian area.

That doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for extending the VA-147 designation for 4 miles.  Existing VA-147 is a fairly short route itself.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 02, 2017, 10:13:32 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 09:18:54 AM
You seem to be sidestepping the question of just how much actual congestion and possible backups occur at that interchange and how often, and if there is how recently has it become an issue?

Like I said the access to the Toll Road in the Reston area is spread over 4 arterial interchanges.

I have seen the congestion there with my own eyes - repeatedly - especially bad as I suggested above, VA-286 southbound to VA-267 eastbound, which subjects northbound VA-286 to long waits thanks to the left-turning traffic.  The other roads that intersect VA-267 (and have interchanges) are minor arterials.  VA-286 is not. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 02, 2017, 10:16:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 09:22:45 AM
As you can see on the ICC site that took a lot more right-of-way than is available on this DTR site.  It takes long distance on semi-directional ramps to make acceptable grades on a 3-level interchange.

It was built that way precisely because there was inadequate space for what had been envisioned when the land was put in reservation in the 1960's or early 1970's - and because there still had to be stormwater controls in the interchange (which were not required when the land was reserved either).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 02, 2017, 10:46:17 AM
Quote from: plain on December 02, 2017, 07:15:26 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 01, 2017, 10:52:16 PM
Agreed, the diamond interchange at VA-286(Exit 11, Fairfax County Parkway) is very outdated. Considering the limited amount of right of way in the proximity of the interchange, a split-level(3 level) diamond interchange would definitely be an improvement.

A 3-level diamond would indeed be ideal for that interchange but would be very difficult and costly to pull off. VA 286 would have to rise at least another 16 feet.. that construction alone would definitely interrupt the traffic flow on that road. Plus there is very little room for ramps to/from VA 286 south, which is needed for such an interchange (still room available in the northern part of the interchange though).

Less room than it may appear. There's a wetlands issue complicating development adjacent to the northwest portion of that interchange (indeed that's probably why that land hasn't already been developed).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 02, 2017, 11:35:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 09:28:29 AM


That doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for extending the VA-147 designation for 4 miles.  Existing VA-147 is a fairly short route itself.

It met all the decision criteria set by the CTB in their study of the 30 secondary routes in the NHS system for potential move to the primary system.  Traffic counts to include truck/bus volumes are one of the main criteria.  Because the VA 147 extension would not be in an independent city, there would be more funding per lane-mile and the state would also get to choose the priority of upgrades/maintenance instead of Chesterfield County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 12:19:56 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 02, 2017, 10:13:32 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 09:18:54 AM
You seem to be sidestepping the question of just how much actual congestion and possible backups occur at that interchange and how often, and if there is how recently has it become an issue?
Like I said the access to the Toll Road in the Reston area is spread over 4 arterial interchanges.
I have seen the congestion there with my own eyes - repeatedly - especially bad as I suggested above, VA-286 southbound to VA-267 eastbound, which subjects northbound VA-286 to long waits thanks to the left-turning traffic.  The other roads that intersect VA-267 (and have interchanges) are minor arterials.  VA-286 is not. 

The connecting and parallel arterials that I detailed provide considerable capacity to connect to the Toll Road in the Reston area.  We need to quantify how bad is "bad" and how long is "long waits".  Also how extensive in terms of hours.

The Reston area is a congested area just in general and probably always will be.

Since Fairfax County was a major participant in building the Fairfax County Parkway, why didn't they protect the right-of-way so that these interchanges could be expanded to full cloverleafs in the future if needed?  Instead they allowed large business buildings to be built in these areas.

In any event, enough info has come forth here and in my inquiry to VDOT, that I will most likely drop my advocacy for redesignating VA-267 as I-595.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 02, 2017, 12:47:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 12:19:56 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 02, 2017, 10:13:32 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 09:18:54 AM
You seem to be sidestepping the question of just how much actual congestion and possible backups occur at that interchange and how often, and if there is how recently has it become an issue?
Like I said the access to the Toll Road in the Reston area is spread over 4 arterial interchanges.
I have seen the congestion there with my own eyes - repeatedly - especially bad as I suggested above, VA-286 southbound to VA-267 eastbound, which subjects northbound VA-286 to long waits thanks to the left-turning traffic.  The other roads that intersect VA-267 (and have interchanges) are minor arterials.  VA-286 is not. 

The connecting and parallel arterials that I detailed provide considerable capacity to connect to the Toll Road in the Reston area.  We need to quantify how bad is "bad" and how long is "long waits".  Also how extensive in terms of hours.

The Reston area is a congested area just in general and probably always will be.

Since Fairfax County was a major participant in building the Fairfax County Parkway, why didn't they protect the right-of-way so that these interchanges could be expanded to full cloverleafs in the future if needed?  Instead they allowed large business buildings to be built in these areas.

In any event, enough info has come forth here and in my inquiry to VDOT, that I will most likely drop my advocacy for redesignating VA-267 as I-595.
Your likely correct that Fairfax County probably didn't worry much about preserving any right-of-way for possible future interchanges along the Fairfax County Parkway due to all the multiple other four-lane parallel roads in close proximity to it. VA-28 only a couple miles west, has been a much more prominent focus.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 12:58:58 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 02, 2017, 12:47:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 12:19:56 PM
Since Fairfax County was a major participant in building the Fairfax County Parkway, why didn't they protect the right-of-way so that these interchanges could be expanded to full cloverleafs in the future if needed?  Instead they allowed large business buildings to be built in these areas.
In any event, enough info has come forth here and in my inquiry to VDOT, that I will most likely drop my advocacy for redesignating VA-267 as I-595.
Your likely correct that Fairfax County probably didn't worry much about preserving any right-of-way for possible future interchanges along the Fairfax County Parkway due to all the multiple other four-lane parallel roads in close proximity to it. VA-28 only a couple miles west, has been a much more prominent focus.

I agree, and VA-28 ultimately will be an 8-lane freeway between I-66 and VA-7; and if ever there is a connecting freeway to I-270/I-370, it will most likely seamlessly connect to VA-28 and not to the Fairfax County Parkway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 05:37:27 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 02, 2017, 11:35:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 09:28:29 AM
That doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for extending the VA-147 designation for 4 miles.  Existing VA-147 is a fairly short route itself.
It met all the decision criteria set by the CTB in their study of the 30 secondary routes in the NHS system for potential move to the primary system.  Traffic counts to include truck/bus volumes are one of the main criteria.  Because the VA 147 extension would not be in an independent city, there would be more funding per lane-mile and the state would also get to choose the priority of upgrades/maintenance instead of Chesterfield County.

That would be logical then, although I wonder why they wouldn't extend it to VA-288 at Five Points.

Courthouse Road used to be all 2 lanes, and they widened to 4 lanes the segment at VA-76 when that was built in the mid-1980s, and the rest in the early 1990s between US-360 and US-60.  They may want to widen the rest to 6 lanes in the near future.

The bridge at Falling Creek was built wide enough for a future 6 lanes --
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4544719,-77.5879834,62m/data=!3m1!1e3

Having a primary road intersecting may give higher state funding priority to building the loops at the VA-76 interchange.  This interchange is one of the projects that I designed in the early 1980s when I worked in VDOT Location & Design, and the loops and connecting C-D roadways were designed then but deferred to a future stage, to save on construction costs.  The outer connector ramps connect to signalized intersections for the left turns.  The bridge over VA-76 is wide enough for the auxiliary lanes between the loops.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4653065,-77.5947753,987m/data=!3m1!1e3

Interesting interchange with the mainline toll plaza and the C-D roadways that have local toll plazas for each connection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 02, 2017, 06:12:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 05:37:27 PM
That would be logical then, although I wonder why they wouldn't extend it to VA-288 at Five Points.

It appears that the route is not in the NHS south of US 360, per https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/virginia/richmond_va.pdf

This was the first selection criteria used by the CTB...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 08:59:25 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 02, 2017, 06:12:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 02, 2017, 05:37:27 PM
That would be logical then, although I wonder why they wouldn't extend it to VA-288 at Five Points.
It appears that the route is not in the NHS south of US 360, per https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/virginia/richmond_va.pdf
This was the first selection criteria used by the CTB...

Looks like the only county secondary road on that map that is in the NHS.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 02, 2017, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 02, 2017, 10:46:17 AM
Less room than it may appear. There's a wetlands issue complicating development adjacent to the northwest portion of that interchange (indeed that's probably why that land hasn't already been developed).

Though the presence of that stream (Sugarland Run) did not deter the construction of the  screwy interchange north of VA-267 at VA-675 (Sunset Hills Road).  And at least one of the streams that feeds into that wetland comes from the south side of the VA-267 (and friends) right-of-way near the Sprint building.  It also appears that there is at least one structure holding-up a high-voltage transmission line smack in  the middle of the wetland.

Aside: Sugarland Run was badly impacted by a petroleum product pipeline rupture near the site of Reston Hospital in the 1990's, long before VA-286 was extended north of the Toll Road. Details here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1993/04/02/spill-traced-to-a-scrape-on-pipeline/b1b46a0a-c4a0-4359-b043-fbfaf8889525/?utm_term=.286513bac4d9).
Reston, Virginia

From a book (https://www.nap.edu/read/11046/chapter/3#27) that provides a summary  of pipeline issues is this:
QuoteOn March 28, 1993, Colonial Pipeline Company's 36-inch pipeline ruptured in Reston, Virginia, causing the release of about 407,700 gallons of diesel fuel into Sugarland Run, a tributary of the Potomac River. The release caused significant environmental damage and threatened water supplies in parts of Northern Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. According to NTSB, the probable cause of the break was excavation damage that had taken place at some undetermined time. During the 6-year period before the rupture, more than 200 contractors and groups had worked in the vicinity of the section of pipeline that ruptured, constructing a medical complex.

Getting back to the interchange, I am not saying that it is easy or cheap, but I think MWAA could hire a consulting engineer (maybe with some help from VDOT) to come up with some concepts to improve the interchange. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 06, 2017, 01:32:08 PM
This is new. Wonder what prompted this. I recall people disliked it when Virginia tried putting an emissions sticker in this spot back in the early 1980s.

http://twitter.com/deedeverell/status/938465618520616962
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 06, 2017, 01:58:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 06, 2017, 01:32:08 PM
This is new. Wonder what prompted this. I recall people disliked it when Virginia tried putting an emissions sticker in this spot back in the early 1980s.

http://twitter.com/deedeverell/status/938465618520616962

Good! Stickers in the bottom center look like shit, IMO. NC used to have them in the bottom left corner too before they did away with stickers altogether and went electronic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 06, 2017, 02:50:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 06, 2017, 01:32:08 PM
This is new. Wonder what prompted this. I recall people disliked it when Virginia tried putting an emissions sticker in this spot back in the early 1980s.

http://twitter.com/deedeverell/status/938465618520616962

Supposedly it's due to technological advances in motor vehicles, namely crash avoidance technology. Those systems use the center of the windshield, and placing stickers there could interfere with it.

Here's VSP's press release:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10It4363L2wMlkBm6uXF5mgB4Qq6dgJ1v/view
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 06, 2017, 03:08:39 PM
IIRC West Virginia already puts them there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 06, 2017, 03:14:13 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 06, 2017, 03:08:39 PM
IIRC West Virginia already puts them there.

I believe most states that use stickers do. (Begs the question of whether we need stickers. I'm all for the inspection. It keeps serious junkers off the road. But I'm not convinced the sticker is really needed.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 06, 2017, 03:37:32 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 02, 2017, 10:39:14 PM
Getting back to the [VA-267/VA-286] interchange, I am not saying that it is easy or cheap, but I think MWAA could hire a consulting engineer (maybe with some help from VDOT) to come up with some concepts to improve the interchange. 

If nothing else a very high capacity diamond interchange upgrade such as what I said earlier about I-95 at Melbourne, FL.

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9985359,-80.6305788,274m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 06, 2017, 03:45:07 PM
^^ Ours (Vermont) are in the upper middle of the windshield...usually (depending on the vehicle) just under the rear view mirror such that said mirror partially blocks seeing the sticker from the driver's point of view.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 06, 2017, 10:45:02 PM
I think having it at the bottom left of the windshield also makes it easier for cops driving in the opposite direction to see if it's expired or not smdh
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 07, 2017, 05:17:07 PM
CTB AWARDS FOUR CONTRACTS WORTH $374.7 MILLION
Contracts awarded for widening of eastbound I-66 Inside the Beltway and I-64 Segment III
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2017/ctb_awards_four_contracts121584.asp

Eastbound I-66 Inside the Beltway will be widened between the Dulles Connector Road and Fairfax Drive --
An $85.7 million contract was awarded to Lane Construction Corp. of Chantilly to add a through lane along approximately four miles of eastbound Interstate 66 between the Dulles Connector Road (Route 267) and Fairfax Drive (Route 237) in Fairfax and Arlington counties, in VDOT's Northern Virginia District.

I-64 will be widened to three lanes for more than eight miles in York County --
A $178.3 million contract was awarded to Shirley Contracting Co. LLC of Lorton for I-64 Capacity Improvements Segment III. The project will extend the three lane section of Interstate 64 for about 8.2 miles west of the I-64 Capacity Improvement Segment II endpoint in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.

A new I-264 interchange will be constructed at Witchduck Road in the City of Virginia Beach --
A $105.4 million contract was awarded to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut for the Interstate 264 / Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension Project in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 08, 2017, 10:00:07 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2017, 05:17:07 PM
CTB AWARDS FOUR CONTRACTS WORTH $374.7 MILLION

A new I-264 interchange will be constructed at Witchduck Road in the City of Virginia Beach --
A $105.4 million contract was awarded to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut for the Interstate 264 / Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension Project in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.

Really? Is there a massive need for yet another interchange in Virginia Beach? Meanwhile, improving an unsafe intersection (there is at least one wreck per week) in Montgomery County was flatly turned down in favor of a bandaid "R cut" that only moves the problem to different locations on U.S. 460. The residents of Blacksburg who have been fighting this problem for years will be so happy to know that Virginia Beach is being taken care of so well. Merry Christmas and screw you Southwest Virginia.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 08, 2017, 10:16:56 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 08, 2017, 10:00:07 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2017, 05:17:07 PM
CTB AWARDS FOUR CONTRACTS WORTH $374.7 MILLION

A new I-264 interchange will be constructed at Witchduck Road in the City of Virginia Beach --
A $105.4 million contract was awarded to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut for the Interstate 264 / Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension Project in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.

Really? Is there a massive need for yet another interchange in Virginia Beach? Meanwhile, improving an unsafe intersection (there is at least one wreck per week) in Montgomery County was flatly turned down in favor of a bandaid "R cut" that only moves the problem to different locations on U.S. 460. The residents of Blacksburg who have been fighting this problem for years will be so happy to know that Virginia Beach is being taken care of so well. Merry Christmas and screw you Southwest Virginia.

To answer your question, yes, I think a rebuilt interchange on VA-44 I-264 at Witchduck Road (great name) is needed.  Note that VDOT is not proposing a new interchange, but  a reconstruction of an old one.

Nor am I discounting the need for work in Southwest Virginia, even in relatively prosperous Montgomery  County, Virginia.  I have heard similar complaints from residents of Northern Virginia, who similarly assert that the Commonwealth tries to ignore their needs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 08, 2017, 10:30:10 AM
The crash rate for the existing ramp configuration at 264/Witchduck is fairly significant, especially eastbound.  It should also be noted that this is effectively "Phase 2" of a larger project that is revising the access from 64 "West" (i.e. from Chesapeake) to 264 East.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 08, 2017, 10:34:35 AM
Not sure I'd call the Witchduck Road (VA 190) interchange on I-264 a "new" interchange as there's already an interchange there, although it's a really weird half-diamond, half-parclo interchange that has some major capacity issues. I'm guessing this is a project to rebuild the interchange into something with better traffic capacity.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 08, 2017, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 08, 2017, 10:00:07 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2017, 05:17:07 PM
CTB AWARDS FOUR CONTRACTS WORTH $374.7 MILLION

A new I-264 interchange will be constructed at Witchduck Road in the City of Virginia Beach --
A $105.4 million contract was awarded to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut for the Interstate 264 / Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension Project in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.

Really? Is there a massive need for yet another interchange in Virginia Beach? Meanwhile, improving an unsafe intersection (there is at least one wreck per week) in Montgomery County was flatly turned down in favor of a bandaid "R cut" that only moves the problem to different locations on U.S. 460. The residents of Blacksburg who have been fighting this problem for years will be so happy to know that Virginia Beach is being taken care of so well. Merry Christmas and screw you Southwest Virginia.

Bruce in Blacksburg


They worded it poorly.  It is an existing interchange whose configuration dates to the opening of the VA 44 toll road.  They are extending the C/D system from I-64 and Newtown Rd and reconfiguring the Witchduck Rd intechange to accommodate that project is what this is for.

These 3 interchanges were a mess back in 1991 when I lived over there.

I do support converting the intersection you are citing into some sort of interchange.  Wasn't there some push back from non-VDOT entities on that?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 08, 2017, 11:26:08 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 08, 2017, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 08, 2017, 10:00:07 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2017, 05:17:07 PM
CTB AWARDS FOUR CONTRACTS WORTH $374.7 MILLION
A new I-264 interchange will be constructed at Witchduck Road in the City of Virginia Beach --
A $105.4 million contract was awarded to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut for the Interstate 264 / Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension Project in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.
Really? Is there a massive need for yet another interchange in Virginia Beach? Meanwhile, improving an unsafe intersection (there is at least one wreck per week) in Montgomery County was flatly turned down in favor of a bandaid "R cut" that only moves the problem to different locations on U.S. 460. The residents of Blacksburg who have been fighting this problem for years will be so happy to know that Virginia Beach is being taken care of so well. Merry Christmas and screw you Southwest Virginia.
Bruce in Blacksburg
They worded it poorly.  It is an existing interchange whose configuration dates to the opening of the VA 44 toll road.  They are extending the C/D system from I-64 and Newtown Rd and reconfiguring the Witchduck Rd intechange to accommodate that project is what this is for.
These 3 interchanges were a mess back in 1991 when I lived over there.
I do support converting the intersection you are citing into some sort of interchange.  Wasn't there some push back from non-VDOT entities on that?

New interchange in the sense that it will replace the existing interchange with a higher capacity interchange.  Mike's description is accurate, it involves expansion to a segment of I-264 as well.

2016 VDOT traffic data --
192,000 AADT on I-264 west of Witchduck Road
29,000 AADT on VA-190 Witchduck Road at I-264

Very busy highways and very high priority.

Citizens who question the fairness of funding allocations statewide can and should address this matter to the CTB, in person, by postal mail, by e-mail. 

I attended the CTB meetings Tuesday and Wednesday, and in an "informal discussion" part of the meeting the Secretary of Transportation and Chairman of the CTB, C. Aubrey Layne, specifically mentioned the issue of spending levels in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia getting some criticism from other parts of the state, and he defended it basically saying that it matches the high level of population and traffic in those areas.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 08, 2017, 11:29:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 08, 2017, 11:26:08 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 08, 2017, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 08, 2017, 10:00:07 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2017, 05:17:07 PM
CTB AWARDS FOUR CONTRACTS WORTH $374.7 MILLION
A new I-264 interchange will be constructed at Witchduck Road in the City of Virginia Beach --
A $105.4 million contract was awarded to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut for the Interstate 264 / Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension Project in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.
Really? Is there a massive need for yet another interchange in Virginia Beach? Meanwhile, improving an unsafe intersection (there is at least one wreck per week) in Montgomery County was flatly turned down in favor of a bandaid "R cut" that only moves the problem to different locations on U.S. 460. The residents of Blacksburg who have been fighting this problem for years will be so happy to know that Virginia Beach is being taken care of so well. Merry Christmas and screw you Southwest Virginia.
Bruce in Blacksburg
They worded it poorly.  It is an existing interchange whose configuration dates to the opening of the VA 44 toll road.  They are extending the C/D system from I-64 and Newtown Rd and reconfiguring the Witchduck Rd intechange to accommodate that project is what this is for.
These 3 interchanges were a mess back in 1991 when I lived over there.
I do support converting the intersection you are citing into some sort of interchange.  Wasn't there some push back from non-VDOT entities on that?

New interchange in the sense that it will replace the existing interchange with a higher capacity interchange.  Mike's description is accurate, it involves expansion to a segment of I-264 as well.

2016 VDOT traffic data --
192,000 AADT on I-264 west of Witchduck Road
29,000 AADT on VA-190 Witchduck Road at I-264

Very busy highways and very high priority.

Citizens who question the fairness of funding allocations statewide can and should address this matter to the CTB, in person, by postal mail, by e-mail. 

I attended the CTB meetings Tuesday and Wednesday, and in an "informal discussion" part of the meeting the Secretary of Transportation and Chairman of the CTB, C. Aubrey Layne, specifically mentioned the issue of spending levels in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia getting some criticism from other parts of the state, and be defended it basically saying that it matches the high level of population and traffic in those areas.

I don't know Virginia's financial situation but why don't you do both? It seems to be common sense to improve the high trafficked interchange and to fix a safety problem at another.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 08, 2017, 11:44:50 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 01, 2017, 02:27:01 PM
CTB to consider truncating VA 237 east to Glebe Rd.

Technically 2 blocks off US 50 is not included in this proposal.

See page 785 of the December agenda - http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/dec/action_agenda.pdf

The workshop and meeting in December also starts up the motion on Virginia's participation with the US 301 Nice Bridge replacement -  Virginia is being requested to expend $14.2M.



Looks like this is happening - the CTB approved the truncation of VA 237 back to VA 120 at its last meeting, effective July 1, 2018.

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/dec/reso/resolution_12_rt_237.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: J N Winkler on December 08, 2017, 11:59:16 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2017, 05:17:07 PMCTB AWARDS FOUR CONTRACTS WORTH $374.7 MILLION

Contracts awarded for widening of eastbound I-66 Inside the Beltway and I-64 Segment III
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2017/ctb_awards_four_contracts121584.asp

Eastbound I-66 Inside the Beltway will be widened between the Dulles Connector Road and Fairfax Drive --
An $85.7 million contract was awarded to Lane Construction Corp. of Chantilly to add a through lane along approximately four miles of eastbound Interstate 66 between the Dulles Connector Road (Route 267) and Fairfax Drive (Route 237) in Fairfax and Arlington counties, in VDOT's Northern Virginia District.

I-64 will be widened to three lanes for more than eight miles in York County --
A $178.3 million contract was awarded to Shirley Contracting Co. LLC of Lorton for I-64 Capacity Improvements Segment III. The project will extend the three lane section of Interstate 64 for about 8.2 miles west of the I-64 Capacity Improvement Segment II endpoint in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.

A new I-264 interchange will be constructed at Witchduck Road in the City of Virginia Beach --
A $105.4 million contract was awarded to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut for the Interstate 264 / Witchduck Road Interchange and Ramp Extension Project in VDOT's Hampton Roads District.

Not for the first time, I wish VDOT (and other state DOTs in general) would quote project key numbers in press releases of this kind that indicate milestone progression for marquee projects.  This makes it easier to pull up the signing plans.

For the three projects quoted above (the fourth is a paving maintenance contract in the Richmond district), here is the information:

Eastbound I-66 within Beltway--UPCs 108424, 110629--design-build

I-64 capacity improvements Segment III--UPCs 106689, 109790--design-build

I-264/Witchduck Road--UPC 17630--design-bid-build

As others have commented, the last-listed project involves the service interchanges on I-264 just east of the I-64 interchange at the Norfolk/Virginia Beach boundary.  Compared to what exists now, VDOT is adding a new ramp from Newtown Road to eastbound I-264, is connecting Greenwich Road (south of I-264) to Columbia Street (north of I-264) via a new bridge across I-264, and is converting the loop ramp from eastbound I-264 to Witchduck Road into a link ramp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 08, 2017, 12:36:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 08, 2017, 11:59:16 AM
Not for the first time, I wish VDOT (and other state DOTs in general) would quote project key numbers in press releases of this kind that indicate milestone progression for marquee projects.  This makes it easier to pull up the signing plans.
For the three projects quoted above (the fourth is a paving maintenance contract in the Richmond district), here is the information:
Eastbound I-66 within Beltway--UPCs 108424, 110629--design-build
I-64 capacity improvements Segment III--UPCs 106689, 109790--design-build
I-264/Witchduck Road--UPC 17630--design-bid-build

The CTB minutes from that day did mention the UPCs on the two that were not bid, and the bid numbers on the ones that were bid. 
See the second to last page --
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/dec/draft_minutes_ctb_action_meeting_dec_2017.pdf

I was at the meeting so I knew by their discussion which projects they were referring to, and the award amounts.  The thing that is irritating is that the CTB minutes do not give the project descriptions or the award amounts!

The meeting minutes were posted on the same day.  I wanted to post the award announcements in online groups, but I had to wait until the next day when VDOT posted the news release (and why not on the same day given such high-profile projects?).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 08, 2017, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 08, 2017, 11:26:08 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 08, 2017, 10:51:58 AM

They worded it poorly.  It is an existing interchange whose configuration dates to the opening of the VA 44 toll road.

I do support converting the intersection you are citing into some sort of interchange.  Wasn't there some push back from non-VDOT entities on that?

Citizens who question the fairness of funding allocations statewide can and should address this matter to the CTB, in person, by postal mail, by e-mail. 

I attended the CTB meetings Tuesday and Wednesday, and in an "informal discussion" part of the meeting the Secretary of Transportation and Chairman of the CTB, C. Aubrey Layne, specifically mentioned the issue of spending levels in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia getting some criticism from other parts of the state, and he defended it basically saying that it matches the high level of population and traffic in those areas.

It was VDOT that pushed back against solutions other than the "R cut" to fix that intersection. The CTB reps and others were contacted by citizens who were pushing for a better solution than just moving the location of future accidents -- the Salem District rep couldn't be bothered to respond, let alone visit the area or meet with the citizens.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 08, 2017, 04:22:40 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 08, 2017, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 08, 2017, 11:26:08 AM
Citizens who question the fairness of funding allocations statewide can and should address this matter to the CTB, in person, by postal mail, by e-mail. 
I attended the CTB meetings Tuesday and Wednesday, and in an "informal discussion" part of the meeting the Secretary of Transportation and Chairman of the CTB, C. Aubrey Layne, specifically mentioned the issue of spending levels in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia getting some criticism from other parts of the state, and he defended it basically saying that it matches the high level of population and traffic in those areas.
It was VDOT that pushed back against solutions other than the "R cut" to fix that intersection. The CTB reps and others were contacted by citizens who were pushing for a better solution than just moving the location of future accidents -- the Salem District rep couldn't be bothered to respond, let alone visit the area or meet with the citizens.
Bruce in Blacksburg

Then the local citizens have worked with the process as fully as can be expected, and usually the district office is the one who should assign employees to work on a task such as this.

Is this the intersection at the northern end of the US-460 Blacksburg Bypass?  I recall previous discussions here where it was questioned as to whether the traffic volumes warranted a grade separation.  My opinion is that unless the traffic volumes are low by rural arterial norms that the bypass terminus intersections should be grade separated interchanges.

Here is one where the bypass terminus was built with an at-grade intersection, and where an interchange was built about 15 years later --
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7007208,-77.0993574,1074m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 08, 2017, 07:56:02 PM
https://potomaclocal.com/2017/12/06/here-comes-a-wider-six-lane-fairfax-county-parkway/
QuoteA portion of the congested Fairfax County Parkway, which was once planned as an outer beltway for Washington, D.C., will be widened to six lanes.

The Virginia Department of Transportation plans to widen about five miles of the parkway between Routes 123 and 29. Additionally, an interchange will be added at Popes Head Road, where today a signal light causes major backups during the morning and afternoon commutes.

A public information session hearing on the $191 million project is scheduled from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 7, 2017, at the Northern Virginia Department of Transportation Northern Virginia Headquarters at 4975 Alliance Drive in Fairfax.

There you can learn about the project that is expected to open in late 2023
Anyone know if there is an interchange planned to replace the traffic light at Burke Centre Parkway? Apparently:
QuoteWhen the project is complete, "you'll be able to go all the way from Route 123 to Route 50 without a traffic stop,"  added Herrity.
yet both this article and the project's page on VDOT's website fail to mention anything about the intersection. However, I do see a TBD Phase 2 mentioned on VDOT's website so perhaps in that project the final traffic light between VA-123 and US-50 will be addressed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kendancy66 on December 08, 2017, 08:42:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 06, 2017, 03:45:07 PM
^^ Ours (Vermont) are in the upper middle of the windshield...usually (depending on the vehicle) just under the rear view mirror such that said mirror partially blocks seeing the sticker from the driver's point of view.
IIRC New Hampshire does that also

SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on December 08, 2017, 08:55:28 PM
I know there are several who disagree with me, but a traffic light at the northern end of Business US 460 in Blacksburg, with ample "Prepare To Stop When Flashing" signage/beacons, would fix the problem.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on December 08, 2017, 09:07:09 PM
Quote from: kendancy66 on December 08, 2017, 08:42:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 06, 2017, 03:45:07 PM
^^ Ours (Vermont) are in the upper middle of the windshield...usually (depending on the vehicle) just under the rear view mirror such that said mirror partially blocks seeing the sticker from the driver's point of view.
IIRC New Hampshire does that also.

Much as I like that, that'd be a problem in Virginia, since it's awkward for inspection stations to place stickers behind the mirror. Also, in the local jurisdictions that require a sticker to certify payment of personal property tax (Fairfax County is a big and welcome exception), that sticker usually goes right next to the state inspection sticker. That, combined with people like me who like to mount their E-ZPass transponders behind the mirror, would make behind-the-mirror space rather crowded.

But I can see people not liking the old, and now new, policy of putting the state inspection sticker (plus the local sticker) on the lower driver's side corner of the windshield, where it will distract drivers. Why not the lower passenger side corner?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 09, 2017, 01:41:18 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 08, 2017, 07:56:02 PM
https://potomaclocal.com/2017/12/06/here-comes-a-wider-six-lane-fairfax-county-parkway/
QuoteA portion of the congested Fairfax County Parkway, which was once planned as an outer beltway for Washington, D.C., will be widened to six lanes.

The Virginia Department of Transportation plans to widen about five miles of the parkway between Routes 123 and 29. Additionally, an interchange will be added at Popes Head Road, where today a signal light causes major backups during the morning and afternoon commutes.

A public information session hearing on the $191 million project is scheduled from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 7, 2017, at the Northern Virginia Department of Transportation Northern Virginia Headquarters at 4975 Alliance Drive in Fairfax.

There you can learn about the project that is expected to open in late 2023
Anyone know if there is an interchange planned to replace the traffic light at Burke Centre Parkway? Apparently:
QuoteWhen the project is complete, "you'll be able to go all the way from Route 123 to Route 50 without a traffic stop,"  added Herrity.
yet both this article and the project's page on VDOT's website fail to mention anything about the intersection. However, I do see a TBD Phase 2 mentioned on VDOT's website so perhaps in that project the final traffic light between VA-123 and US-50 will be addressed.

Herrity is partially in error.  The design options as displayed (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/Fairfax_County_Parkway_Widening_-_Displays_Combined.pdf) at this past week's public meeting show no interchange at Burke Centre Pkwy, but instead have a couple of intersection options that would eliminate the southbound traffic signal but keep one northbound.

The freeway section along Fairfax County Pkwy would effectively be extended south to Ladues End Ln/Nomes Ct by this project.  That intersection would remain, but would be converted into either RIRO on each side or an RCUT/J-turn.

Quote from: kendancy66IIRC New Hampshire does that also

Yes they do.

Quote from: hbelkinsI know there are several who disagree with me, but a traffic light at the northern end of Business US 460 in Blacksburg, with ample "Prepare To Stop When Flashing" signage/beacons, would fix the problem.

It wouldn't, for two reasons.  First, new signals have a tendency to increase rear-end crashes.  Second, there would be the problem of "driver expectation".  Eastbound, the signal is just after coming off a long downhill grade, while westbound is coming off a freeway-grade section that begins at I-81.

Quote from: oscarMuch as I like that, that'd be a problem in Virginia, since it's awkward for inspection stations to place stickers behind the mirror.

It may be awkward, but if Vermont inspection stations can do it, I don't see why other states couldn't if they choose to move placement there.  You have a stronger argument for those jurisdictions where the car tax sticker gets placed next to the inspection sticker...having been active duty when I lived in Virginia, I fortunately never had to deal with that as I was exempt from the car tax.  And Virginia Beach and Norfolk (the other places I lived) did away with the sticker as well.

Below is how it's done in Vermont...placed just below the rear view mirror (for the most part...I've seen it placed elsewhere in some cars that have the rear view mirror anchored lower on the windshield.  Fits quite nicely and, as with the EZPass placement, minimizes driver distraction because it's behind the rear view for the most part.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2Finspection_sticker.jpg&hash=5396f610a4352ab1364500e546cfef3d2053073d)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 09, 2017, 01:57:56 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 09, 2017, 01:41:18 PM
It may be awkward, but if Vermont inspection stations can do it, I don't see why other states couldn't if they choose to move placement there.

Or you could just have a state that doesn't do inspections. :bigass:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: J N Winkler on December 09, 2017, 02:10:31 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 09, 2017, 01:41:18 PMBelow is how it's done in Vermont...placed just below the rear view mirror (for the most part...I've seen it placed elsewhere in some cars that have the rear view mirror anchored lower on the windshield.  Fits quite nicely and, as with the E-ZPass placement, minimizes driver distraction because it's behind the rear view for the most part.

I don't see driver distraction as an issue so much as waste of area behind the inside rearview mirror, which is essentially the only place to mount a toll transponder where it is certain to be read and is not in driver's line of sight to anything.  The behind-the-mirror area guarantees space only for two windshield-mounted objects of typical sticker/toll transponder size and if one of those two spaces is taken up by a sticker, then there is no room for a second transponder.  This is less of a problem for someone living in Vermont, where the shortest inside-the-US driving distance to an area where electronic tolling is not interoperable with E-ZPass is 850 miles, than it is for someone living in Virginia, where this minimum distance is about 300 miles.

Stickers are technologically obsolescent in any case.  States have been getting rid of them in favor of online lookup and even the Department of Defense is phasing out DD 2220.  But if stickers must be mounted on the windshield, then it is preferable that they be as low as possible to maximize the chances that the only thing they block driver's line of sight to is the hood.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 09, 2017, 02:30:13 PM
The other thing about the area behind (or I guess in front of) the mirror is that some cars have various electronics there. My wife's TLX has two cameras there, I believe, related to lane-keeping assist and adaptive cruise control (I think....I'd have to look at the manual to confirm). The sticker would wind up low enough on cars like that to be right in your line of sight.

I'm not a proponent of eliminating the inspection. It's a minor hassle, sure, but we all know there are people who don't maintain their cars properly and will try to drive utterly unsafe junkers if given the chance. In Virginia you don't see many cars with missing bumpers, smashed-out lights, etc., because they fail inspection and you have to fix it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: J N Winkler on December 09, 2017, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 09, 2017, 02:30:13 PMThe other thing about the area behind (or I guess in front of) the mirror is that some cars have various electronics there. My wife's TLX has two cameras there, I believe, related to lane-keeping assist and adaptive cruise control (I think....I'd have to look at the manual to confirm). The sticker would wind up low enough on cars like that to be right in your line of sight.

Aren't there trim pieces around these cameras to prevent objects from being put between them and the windshield?

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 09, 2017, 02:30:13 PMI'm not a proponent of eliminating the inspection. It's a minor hassle, sure, but we all know there are people who don't maintain their cars properly and will try to drive utterly unsafe junkers if given the chance.  In Virginia you don't see many cars with missing bumpers, smashed-out lights, etc., because they fail inspection and you have to fix it.

I have mixed feelings about vehicle inspection in general.  I like the idea of getting rid of vehicles that have damaged or missing safety equipment, that lack catalytic converters, or that have been illegally converted to "roll coal."  But in states that have emissions inspections, "clean and ready" OBD II (system in full readiness, no pending DTCs) is typically a minimum requirement, and that often leads to owners of otherwise roadworthy older cars chasing problems with rear oxygen sensors (highly likely to fail and hard to diagnose) just to get past inspection.  There is also potential for mission creep, with inspections being used for consumer-protection purposes unrelated to safety or emissions, such as preventing cars from being sold with leaky or nonfunctional A/C.

In any event, the sticker is an issue separate from the inspection regime, since in the absence of the former, enforcement can simply be carried out by license plate or VIN.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 09, 2017, 03:04:44 PM
QuoteAren't there trim pieces around these cameras to prevent objects from being put between them and the windshield?

Of course. My point was that said trim pieces would force the sticker to be placed lower on the windshield rather than behind/in front of the mirror.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on December 10, 2017, 10:49:33 AM
With this action, the CTB should have, additionally, (1) Truncated VA-237 to a western terminus at US-29 and I-66 and (2) Renumbered the only other remaining non-multiplexed portion of VA-237 (Pickett Rd in Fairfax).

I've always though VA-237 was an odd, if not, pointless, route, much of it is multiplexed with US-29 and it's posted sporadically, at best. 

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 08, 2017, 11:44:50 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 01, 2017, 02:27:01 PM
CTB to consider truncating VA 237 east to Glebe Rd.

Technically 2 blocks off US 50 is not included in this proposal.

See page 785 of the December agenda - http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/dec/action_agenda.pdf

The workshop and meeting in December also starts up the motion on Virginia's participation with the US 301 Nice Bridge replacement -  Virginia is being requested to expend $14.2M.



Looks like this is happening - the CTB approved the truncation of VA 237 back to VA 120 at its last meeting, effective July 1, 2018.

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2017/dec/reso/resolution_12_rt_237.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 13, 2017, 07:45:32 PM
http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/blacksburg/region-s-second-diverging-diamond-debuts-as-new-entrance-to/article_bffd4853-f5bb-5e86-9c3a-5be7c080e94a.html
QuoteTraffic will begin flowing Thursday at the newly constructed interchange situated between U.S. 460 and Southgate Drive in Blacksburg that will serve as a main entrance to Virginia Tech.

Part of the extensive project is a unique diverging diamond for traffic flow on the Tech campus (top). It's the second such design in Southwest Virginia after the Interstate 581-Valley View Drive interchange that opened in November 2016 in Roanoke.


The first vehicle that crossed the new U.S. 460 overpass during a ceremony on Wednesday was a driverless vehicle and the second was a local bus (above). The present Southgate Drive intersection and traffic light – a notorious traffic snarl – will no longer be used.

The Blacksburg project has been in the works for years and is designed to improve U.S. 460 traffic flow and safety, and expedite gameday traffic to and from Virginia Tech football games
This will now be the fourth DDI in Virginia with more on the way. I am really impressed by these interchanges as the one near my neck of the woods(I-66/US-15), seems to have definitely improved traffic flow in and around the Haymarket area. Regarding traffic flow in Blacksburg, now that this project has fixed the traffic light problem, I agree that an interchange at the northern end of the Blacksburg Bypass would be a very nice safety improvement for US-460, even if perhaps as of now traffic volumes don't necessarily warrant it.

Also something of interest: Governor-Elect Northam has named his transportation team
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/12/13/va-governor-elect-ralph-northam-names-his-transportation-team/?utm_term=.299724da5ce5
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 13, 2017, 09:45:43 PM
I'd like to go to this but can't due to work. If anyone here can go, will you give us a summary?

http://twitter.com/vadotnova/status/941036302438424576
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 14, 2017, 09:05:45 AM
Gov.-elect Ralph Northam has named Shannon Valentine as the new Secretary of Transportation and Stephen Birch as commissioner of VDOT.

http://shoredailynews.com/northam-names-new-sec-of-transportation/ (http://shoredailynews.com/northam-names-new-sec-of-transportation/)

QuoteVirginia Gov.-elect Ralph Northam has named a former House delegate and current member of the Commonwealth Transportation Board as his secretary of transportation.

Northam announced his choice of Shannon Valentine on Wednesday, saying he's committed to improving the state's thorny transportation issues.

Valentine represented the Lynchburg area in the state House from 2006 to 2010. She is from Lynchburg.

Transportation has been a key policy issue for several past governors, as some of the state's urban and suburban areas have some of the worst traffic in the country.

Northam also named Stephen Brich, an engineer from Hampton Roads, as commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Jennifer Mitchell, who is currently the director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, will stay on in that role.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 14, 2017, 09:38:43 AM
I know Jennifer Mitchell personally from her time on the Alexandria Transportation Commission.  Good person to keep in that role.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 14, 2017, 11:51:20 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 14, 2017, 09:05:45 AM
Gov.-elect Ralph Northam has named Shannon Valentine as the new Secretary of Transportation and Stephen Birch as commissioner of VDOT.
http://shoredailynews.com/northam-names-new-sec-of-transportation/ (http://shoredailynews.com/northam-names-new-sec-of-transportation/)
QuoteVirginia Gov.-elect Ralph Northam has named a former House delegate and current member of the Commonwealth Transportation Board as his secretary of transportation.

Stephen Birch??  First time I heard of him.  Very surprised to hear that Charlie Kilpatrick is not being retained as commissioner, a class act all the way around and someone who worked his way up thru the VDOT engineer ranks.

Shannon Valentine made sure to make her voice heard many times at the CTB meeting last week, during times when board members commented at various times at the meetings.

[no need to post a disclaimer as I have been fully retired from VDOT and any state employment since May! :-)]
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on December 14, 2017, 01:31:54 PM
Drove on the new Southgate Drive DDI this morning.
Some notes:

Will update this post when I get home with pictures.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 15, 2017, 10:03:21 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 14, 2017, 08:08:21 PM
It is possible that Virginia is who decided to call it 79 first.  See pages 21-22 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-04-1958-01.pdf which describes the approval of the corridor and the assignment of 79 to it.  I have not seen any information that I recall about North Carolina deciding to call it that other than the map I found at the start of this thread.

[Pulling this from the I-79 thread since this is more Virginia and less I-79.] It was interesting reading those minutes, which show that Lynchburg was being stiffed on interstate access way back in the '40s and '50s. It was interesting to see Christiansburg tagged in the list but not Lynchburg.

I have also heard it bandied about but haven't been able to confirm that one routing for I-81 called for it to take off on a more northerly route around Dublin (exit 98) to more closely follow U.S. 11 east to Fairlawn, then follow the VA 114 corridor to U.S. 460 then continue east toward Salem and Roanoke. This would have put the interstate between Blacksburg and Christiansburg (improving access to Virginia Tech) instead of on the south side of Christiansburg (which was a problem until the improvements to U.S. 460 were completed between the Blacksburg and Christiansburg bypasses).

I have also wondered about Virginia's designs, which had the interstates passing around (and in some cases, a distance away) towns and cities instead of a closer routing, for example Roanoke, Winchester, Bristol, Wytheville, etc. Granted, some of those areas have grown to fill in the area between downtown and the interstate (Roanoke, not so much), but it seems so inconvenient.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 15, 2017, 10:18:26 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 14, 2017, 01:31:54 PM
Drove on the new Southgate Drive DDI this morning.
Some notes:

  • As is the case with new installs of these types of intersections, everyone else driving on it looked like they were driving back from a root canal.
  • BGSs for the new interchange haven't been installed yet, but will be numbered as Exit 6. Have to image that the Price's Fork and Tom's Creek interchanges will receive numbers in the future.
  • Southgate Drive will still be signed as VA-314 East from US-460 (though signage disappears after the interchange)
  • The curve on the ramps to/from EB 460 is deceptively tight, hopefully they will add warning signs or something.
  • Signage is an inconsistent mix of FHWA and Clearview

Will update this post when I get home with pictures.

Drove Southgate in the dark last night to get to U.S. 460 westbound -- now I need to do it in daylight. It will be nice not having to slow down/stop at that traffic light, which caused a bunching of traffic from people who couldn't/wouldn't increase their speed back up to 65 between the light and the Prices Fork exit.

While the concept of the project is great, there are some parts of it that will be interesting to see how they play out and there are some parts that show this project must have been designed by a junior engineer with a degree from UVa*. The roundabouts may be a great concept (and they work OK downtown and at one Virginia Tech campus intersection) but the layout of the one at Duck Pond Dr. seems a bit off and not really conducive to moving large amounts of football traffic from campus to 460. Same goes for the one at the new road to the Corporate Research Center. Time will tell. The tight ramp is odd, since there is only an open farm field there and it wouldn't have taken much to extend the road just a bit to make for a more gradual curve in the ramp. I just hope that the contractor did a good job on compacting the soil behind the bridge abutments to avoid early settling. It didn't take too long on the "new" 460 between Blacksburg and Christiansburg for it to be a driving adventure when approaching the various bridges -- the abrupt dip and hump wasn't fun to hit at speed. A couple of years ago new asphalt was applied at two of the bridges to fill in the dips.

Bruce in Blacksburg


*I had a friend who was a transportation engineering graduate from Tennessee. He worked for the N&W Railway and worked with someone who had an engineering degree from UVa. Dwight claimed that UVa taught "social engineering" -- how to serve tea and how to dance at a cotillion but didn't teach practical engineering, based on how little his colleague knew.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 15, 2017, 10:31:03 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 15, 2017, 10:03:21 AM

[Pulling this from the I-79 thread since this is more Virginia and less I-79.] It was interesting reading those minutes, which show that Lynchburg was being stiffed on interstate access way back in the '40s and '50s. It was interesting to see Christiansburg tagged in the list but not Lynchburg.


Note that the CTB did adopt the Lynchburg route  (see the 2 maps of the routing from Scott's website here - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/i64vastudy.html) in June 1959.  They made changes to the route in Dec 1960 but only right at Richmond.  In March 1961 (CTB) it was noted that the Bureau of Public Roads rejected Virginia's request to adopt the southern route for I-64. The CTB then voted to vigorously investigate the disapproval, using the governor and attorney general as necessary.
In April 1961, the CTB voted 5-2 against a motion to adopt the northern route of I-64, even given the reaffirmation by the Bureau of Public Roads that I-64 is to use the northern route. The defeated motion noted that delays in building I-64 were becoming noticeable by the public and that the issue had been under study since Oct 1957. Despite again rejecting the northern route, there are no other CTB references I can find to this and projects for I-64 along the northern route started appearing in 1962, so I guess sometime in late 1961 the Bureau of Public Roads said a final no.

If you are not comfortable finding the old CTB references I can get the links for you if you are interested in reading the actual minutes discussing this.

The middle finger to Lynchburg came from the feds, not from the CTB...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 15, 2017, 11:12:02 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 15, 2017, 10:18:26 AM
*I had a friend who was a transportation engineering graduate from Tennessee. He worked for the N&W Railway and worked with someone who had an engineering degree from UVa. Dwight claimed that UVa taught "social engineering" -- how to serve tea and how to dance at a cotillion but didn't teach practical engineering, based on how little his colleague knew.

You can't really judge the whole program based on the quality of one graduate.  I have heard generally good things about UVA engineering schools and their graduates.

From Wikipedia --
The University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS), established in 1836, is the oldest engineering school in the South and the fourth oldest in the United States. [...]  In 1836, the Board of Visitors made civil engineering a formal course of study at the University of Virginia.

...
I don't have any dog in the contest between UVA and VPI.  I have two family members that got baccalaureates from VPI in 1974 and one family member that got a masters from UVA in 1980.  I myself got my degrees from VCU.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 15, 2017, 11:19:01 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 15, 2017, 10:31:03 AM
Note that the CTB did adopt the Lynchburg route  (see the 2 maps of the routing from Scott's website here - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/i64vastudy.html) in June 1959.  They made changes to the route in Dec 1960 but only right at Richmond.  In March 1961 (CTB) it was noted that the Bureau of Public Roads rejected Virginia's request to adopt the southern route for I-64. The CTB then voted to vigorously investigate the disapproval, using the governor and attorney general as necessary.
In April 1961, the CTB voted 5-2 against a motion to adopt the northern route of I-64, even given the reaffirmation by the Bureau of Public Roads that I-64 is to use the northern route. The defeated motion noted that delays in building I-64 were becoming noticeable by the public and that the issue had been under study since Oct 1957. Despite again rejecting the northern route, there are no other CTB references I can find to this and projects for I-64 along the northern route started appearing in 1962, so I guess sometime in late 1961 the Bureau of Public Roads said a final no.
If you are not comfortable finding the old CTB references I can get the links for you if you are interested in reading the actual minutes discussing this.
The middle finger to Lynchburg came from the feds, not from the CTB...

My link also shows an accurate route of the initial iteration of the northern route.  Notice how it passes north of Charlottesville and Waynesboro, that was later changed to the south thereof.  The initial iteration route across the Afton Mountain summit was retained.  The initial iteration route between Lexington and Clifton Forge as seen on the link was a direct route and included a mountain tunnel near Collierstown, later revised to the as-built dogleg route across North Mountain with no tunnel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 15, 2017, 11:27:11 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 15, 2017, 10:03:21 AM
I have also wondered about Virginia's designs, which had the interstates passing around (and in some cases, a distance away) towns and cities instead of a closer routing, for example Roanoke, Winchester, Bristol, Wytheville, etc. Granted, some of those areas have grown to fill in the area between downtown and the interstate (Roanoke, not so much), but it seems so inconvenient.
Bruce in Blacksburg

Fairly standard for Interstate routings around the country, about 2 to 3 miles from the CBD of small cities and about 4 to 5 miles from the CBD of medium-small cities.  Two of them got Interstate spurs to connect to the CBD.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on December 18, 2017, 12:46:51 PM
Drove through the new intersection between US-11 and US-220A and noticed a familiar shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwesj.org%2Froads%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F12%2Fva167.jpg&hash=c7888cf9a005f6db92f15a97279feb5522090485)
Given the number of additional similar shields (There were a set heading the opposite direction and one for VA-167 SOUTH at the other end of the road), it appears that Gateway Crossing has been designated as a revived VA-167. Why? I have no idea. Maybe VDOT just likes the number. (based upon their refusal to remove VA-167 from official maps despite the fact it hasn't existed in Hampton since the '90s)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 18, 2017, 04:47:57 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 18, 2017, 12:46:51 PM
Given the number of additional similar shields (There were a set heading the opposite direction and one for VA-167 SOUTH at the other end of the road), it appears that Gateway Crossing has been designated as a revived VA-167. Why? I have no idea. Maybe VDOT just likes the number. (based upon their refusal to remove VA-167 from official maps despite the fact it hasn't existed in Hampton since the '90s)

Considering that I had to use Gateway Crossing as the detour for US 11 when I drove through here the day after the Beckley Meet, I guess I can technically consider this new VA 167 already clinched. :nod:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on December 18, 2017, 05:50:07 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 18, 2017, 12:46:51 PM
Drove through the new intersection between US-11 and US-220A...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwesj.org%2Froads%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F12%2Fva167.jpg&hash=c7888cf9a005f6db92f15a97279feb5522090485)

Does VDOT use time-of-day phasing for that left turn flashing yellow arrow? Maybe the crosswalk was activated and the red arrow displayed as a precaution (I see that in my area a lot).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 18, 2017, 09:13:50 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 18, 2017, 12:46:51 PM
Drove through the new intersection between US-11 and US-220A and noticed a familiar shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwesj.org%2Froads%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F12%2Fva167.jpg&hash=c7888cf9a005f6db92f15a97279feb5522090485)
Given the number of additional similar shields (There were a set heading the opposite direction and one for VA-167 SOUTH at the other end of the road), it appears that Gateway Crossing has been designated as a revived VA-167. Why? I have no idea. Maybe VDOT just likes the number. (based upon their refusal to remove VA-167 from official maps despite the fact it hasn't existed in Hampton since the '90s)

IMO this would've been a Y route 30 years ago...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 18, 2017, 11:29:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 15, 2017, 11:12:02 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 15, 2017, 10:18:26 AM
*I had a friend who was a transportation engineering graduate from Tennessee. He worked for the N&W Railway and worked with someone who had an engineering degree from UVa. Dwight claimed that UVa taught "social engineering" -- how to serve tea and how to dance at a cotillion but didn't teach practical engineering, based on how little his colleague knew.

You can't really judge the whole program based on the quality of one graduate.  I have heard generally good things about UVA engineering schools and their graduates.

In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "It's a joke, son!"

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 18, 2017, 11:31:20 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 15, 2017, 10:18:26 AM
Drove Southgate in the dark last night to get to U.S. 460 westbound -- now I need to do it in daylight. It will be nice not having to slow down/stop at that traffic light, which caused a bunching of traffic from people who couldn't/wouldn't increase their speed back up to 65 between the light and the Prices Fork exit.

The Blacksburg Volunteer Rescue Squad created a YouTube video that shows the various routings through the new interchange:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaOBAHSr1k&feature=youtu.be

Bruce in Blacksburg (member of the Special Ops division of BVRS)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 18, 2017, 11:50:03 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 18, 2017, 11:31:20 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 15, 2017, 10:18:26 AM
Drove Southgate in the dark last night to get to U.S. 460 westbound -- now I need to do it in daylight. It will be nice not having to slow down/stop at that traffic light, which caused a bunching of traffic from people who couldn't/wouldn't increase their speed back up to 65 between the light and the Prices Fork exit.
The Blacksburg Volunteer Rescue Squad created a YouTube video that shows the various routings through the new interchange:
[...]
Bruce in Blacksburg (member of the Special Ops division of BVRS)

Good video.  Did they finish all the final asphalt surfaces?  Looks like they did ... and that is good they were able to complete that in December rather than wait until spring.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 19, 2017, 10:28:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 18, 2017, 11:50:03 PM
Good video.  Did they finish all the final asphalt surfaces?  Looks like they did ... and that is good they were able to complete that in December rather than wait until spring.

It stayed mild enough to get most of the paving done to be able to open the new road and ramps. But it all isn't final yet, per an email from VDOT in response to my question about the 460 lanes shifting into the median.

"The lane shift on Route 460 to the median is temporary.  The Department still has milling and paving operations to be completed on Route 460 as well as all surface asphalt to be placed on the newly relocated Southgate Road.  This work will not happen until spring when temperatures are within specifications for paving and final line markings."

So we have a shiny new interchange, which is good, with more work to make it better to come when the weather improves. It is nice that it was opened now instead of waiting until all the work was completed (there is still sign work, landscaping, and other things to be done).

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 10:47:13 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 19, 2017, 10:28:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 18, 2017, 11:50:03 PM
Good video.  Did they finish all the final asphalt surfaces?  Looks like they did ... and that is good they were able to complete that in December rather than wait until spring.
It stayed mild enough to get most of the paving done to be able to open the new road and ramps. But it all isn't final yet, per an email from VDOT in response to my question about the 460 lanes shifting into the median.
"The lane shift on Route 460 to the median is temporary.  The Department still has milling and paving operations to be completed on Route 460 as well as all surface asphalt to be placed on the newly relocated Southgate Road.  This work will not happen until spring when temperatures are within specifications for paving and final line markings."
So we have a shiny new interchange, which is good, with more work to make it better to come when the weather improves. It is nice that it was opened now instead of waiting until all the work was completed (there is still sign work, landscaping, and other things to be done).
Bruce in Blacksburg

That is good because normally the air temperature needs to be at least 40 degrees and rising before asphalt pavement will be placed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on December 19, 2017, 11:19:50 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 10:47:13 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 19, 2017, 10:28:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 18, 2017, 11:50:03 PM
Good video.  Did they finish all the final asphalt surfaces?  Looks like they did ... and that is good they were able to complete that in December rather than wait until spring.
It stayed mild enough to get most of the paving done to be able to open the new road and ramps. But it all isn't final yet, per an email from VDOT in response to my question about the 460 lanes shifting into the median.
"The lane shift on Route 460 to the median is temporary.  The Department still has milling and paving operations to be completed on Route 460 as well as all surface asphalt to be placed on the newly relocated Southgate Road.  This work will not happen until spring when temperatures are within specifications for paving and final line markings."
So we have a shiny new interchange, which is good, with more work to make it better to come when the weather improves. It is nice that it was opened now instead of waiting until all the work was completed (there is still sign work, landscaping, and other things to be done).
Bruce in Blacksburg

That is good because normally the air temperature needs to be at least 40 degrees and rising before asphalt pavement will be placed.

Tell that to the City of Danville. They were repaving a section of Business US 58 last Friday morning around 8:30 a.m.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 03:47:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2017, 11:19:50 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 10:47:13 AM
That is good because normally the air temperature needs to be at least 40 degrees and rising before asphalt pavement will be placed.
Tell that to the City of Danville. They were repaving a section of Business US 58 last Friday morning around 8:30 a.m.

What was the temperature?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on December 19, 2017, 04:49:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 03:47:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2017, 11:19:50 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 10:47:13 AM
That is good because normally the air temperature needs to be at least 40 degrees and rising before asphalt pavement will be placed.
Tell that to the City of Danville. They were repaving a section of Business US 58 last Friday morning around 8:30 a.m.

What was the temperature?

Definitely below 40.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 19, 2017, 05:45:19 PM
^ 32F at the Danville airport at the time per weather observation data.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 06:37:22 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2017, 04:49:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 03:47:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2017, 11:19:50 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 10:47:13 AM
That is good because normally the air temperature needs to be at least 40 degrees and rising before asphalt pavement will be placed.
Tell that to the City of Danville. They were repaving a section of Business US 58 last Friday morning around 8:30 a.m.
What was the temperature?
Definitely below 40.

Could you tell who was administering the project?  I see you did write, City of Danville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 19, 2017, 08:34:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 06:37:22 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2017, 04:49:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 03:47:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2017, 11:19:50 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 10:47:13 AM
That is good because normally the air temperature needs to be at least 40 degrees and rising before asphalt pavement will be placed.
Tell that to the City of Danville. They were repaving a section of Business US 58 last Friday morning around 8:30 a.m.
What was the temperature?
Definitely below 40.

Could you tell who was administering the project?  I see you did write, City of Danville.

I believe the city is. Local news articles and the city's website mention repaving US-58 Business (Riverside Drive), as well as repaving US-29 Business (Central Boulevard) between Riverside Drive and Central Boulevard and there was no mention of VDOT whatsoever.

http://www.godanriver.com/news/danville/milling-paving-begins-on-central-boulevard-riverside-drive/article_d1faf740-dba9-11e7-afd2-4f20fadc6d7f.html (http://www.godanriver.com/news/danville/milling-paving-begins-on-central-boulevard-riverside-drive/article_d1faf740-dba9-11e7-afd2-4f20fadc6d7f.html)

http://www.godanriver.com/news/road-work-to-delay-riverside/article_5a555494-d6f2-11e7-8640-df30958a37bf.html (http://www.godanriver.com/news/road-work-to-delay-riverside/article_5a555494-d6f2-11e7-8640-df30958a37bf.html)

https://www.danvilleva.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=3360 (https://www.danvilleva.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=3360)

I can also confirm what HB and froggie said about the temperature. I've been freezing my ass off here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 10:27:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 19, 2017, 08:34:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 06:37:22 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2017, 04:49:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 03:47:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 19, 2017, 11:19:50 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 10:47:13 AM
That is good because normally the air temperature needs to be at least 40 degrees and rising before asphalt pavement will be placed.
Tell that to the City of Danville. They were repaving a section of Business US 58 last Friday morning around 8:30 a.m.
What was the temperature?
Definitely below 40.
Could you tell who was administering the project?  I see you did write, City of Danville.
I believe the city is. Local news articles and the city's website mention repaving US-58 Business (Riverside Drive), as well as repaving US-29 Business (Central Boulevard) between Riverside Drive and Central Boulevard and there was no mention of VDOT whatsoever.
[...]
I can also confirm what HB and froggie said about the temperature. I've been freezing my ass off here.

The "Construction Inspector's Bible" has clarification, what I said above is not exactly true, at least in the case of VDOT specs.  The base that the asphalt course is being placed on, needs to be at least 40 degrees F.  The air temp could be lower than that.

315.04–Placement Limitations

The Contractor shall not place asphalt concrete mixtures when weather or surface conditions are such
that the material cannot be properly handled, finished, or compacted. The surface upon which asphalt
mixtures is to be placed shall be free of standing water, dirt, and mud and the base temperature shall
conform to the following:

(a) Asphalt Concrete Produced with Warm Mix Asphalt Additives or Processes:
1. When the base temperature is 40 degrees F and above: The Engineer will permit laydown
at any temperature below the maximum limits given in Section 211.08.
2. When the mixture temperature is below 200 degrees F: The Contractor will not be
allowed to place the material.

(b) Asphalt Concrete Produced without Warm Mix Asphalt Additives or Processes:
1. When the base temperature is above 80 degrees F: The Engineer will allow laydown of
the mixture at any temperature conforming to the limits specified in Section 211.
2. When the base temperature is between 40 degrees F and 80 degrees F: The Contractor
shall use the Nomograph, Table III-2, to determine the minimum laydown temperature of
the asphalt concrete mixes. At no time shall the base temperature for base (BM) and intermediate
(IM) mixes be less than 40 degrees F. At no time shall the laydown temperature
for base (BM) and intermediate (IM) mixes be less than 250 degrees F.

2016 VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/const/VDOT_2016_RB_Specs.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 20, 2017, 11:22:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 10:27:55 PM
The "Construction Inspector's Bible" has clarification, what I said above is not exactly true, at least in the case of VDOT specs.  The base that the asphalt course is being placed on, needs to be at least 40 degrees F.  The air temp could be lower than that.

Thanks for the clarification, paving is going on in Roanoke this week (although we are having a mild spell now with temps in the 50s. At this end of the state it seems the limit on late-season paving depends more on an asphalt plant being open and operating.

Bruce in Blacksburg



ROANOKE, Va. (WDBJ7) - Drivers who use King Street NE near Orange Avenue will need to find another route for a few days starting Tuesday.

The road will be closed as crews from Faulconer Construction will be paving King Street, NE between Orange Avenue and Springtree Drive from December 19 through December 21.

The work will be done during the day.

City leaders encourage drivers to expect congestion the area and take detours around the work.

http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Portion-of-King-Street-NE-to-close-for-paving-in-Roanoke-465036443.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 20, 2017, 12:02:52 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 20, 2017, 11:22:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2017, 10:27:55 PM
The "Construction Inspector's Bible" has clarification, what I said above is not exactly true, at least in the case of VDOT specs.  The base that the asphalt course is being placed on, needs to be at least 40 degrees F.  The air temp could be lower than that.
Thanks for the clarification, paving is going on in Roanoke this week (although we are having a mild spell now with temps in the 50s. At this end of the state it seems the limit on late-season paving depends more on an asphalt plant being open and operating.
Bruce in Blacksburg

That second factor is true in other parts of the Middle Atlantic region as well, most asphalt plants close during the winter.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 09:27:18 AM
There's talk of another attempt at creating a transportation authority for western/SW VA. I don't expect this to get very far in the General Assembly...

http://www.dailyprogress.com/newsvirginian/news/state/hanger-considers-transportation-authority-to-help-with-i/article_7918a416-e82d-11e7-a8d9-ab986dcadfb3.html (http://www.dailyprogress.com/newsvirginian/news/state/hanger-considers-transportation-authority-to-help-with-i/article_7918a416-e82d-11e7-a8d9-ab986dcadfb3.html)

QuoteSen. Emmett Hanger is researching the possibility of a Western Virginia Transportation Authority that could collect revenue from an increased state gas tax and funnel it to Interstate 81 and other western Virginia transportation needs.

Hanger, R-Mount Solon, broached the possibility of an authority similar to those in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia during a legislative breakfast Wednesday morning sponsored by the Greater Augusta Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Hanger said the authority would require General Assembly approval. His research centers on how much revenue could be generated by a western Virginia regional increase in the gas tax. The senator said the increase could be "a couple of pennies or a nickel." The increase would encompass a wide swath of western Virginia.

In addition to improvements for I-81, Hanger said the authority could help with a needed traffic artery in Southwest Virginia: the Coalfields Expressway. There could also be funding for putting an extension of Interstate 73 south of Roanoke toward Martinsville to the North Carolina border.

Hanger said the ultimate need for I-81 is an added lane in either direction and more road shoulder.

"Initially, we could expedite projects on the drawing board such as for truck climbing lanes," he said.

Ultimately, Hanger said the greater needs of I-81 could be considered should enough gas tax revenue and federal revenue be obtained.

The senator said there is no time to wait.

"We're at a point now where we want to put it out to people and see if they are willing to pay for it," Hanger said. The senator said the issues on I-81 are multiple and include the volume of traffic and the delays for travelers daily because of a lack of road capacity.

During a meeting in October at Blue Ridge Community College, Shenandoah Valley legislators talked to Virginia Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne about the clogged conditions and accidents on I-81. One of the facts disclosed at that meeting was that 40 percent of Virginia's truck traffic now uses I-81.

Hanger hopes to get some more answers about the authority and the revenue generated by a gas tax increase in time for the start of the 2018 Virginia General Assembly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 10:02:38 AM
Passing a gas tax increase in SW VA?  :-D

I say no to this. The only outcome I see is the authority getting money from the state, which really means a transfer from Northern VA, Richmond, etc (already the case for school funding).


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 29, 2017, 10:59:36 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 09:27:18 AM
There's talk of another attempt at creating a transportation authority for western/SW VA. I don't expect this to get very far in the General Assembly...
Perhaps not today, but as localities in Virginia not named NOVA and Hampton Roads start to wonder why none or very few of their desired projects are getting funded by smart scale, I think we'll start to see more statewide(even in very anti-tax areas) political support for these regional transportation authorities in the future. Serious conversations about them have already happened in places like Fredricksburg, Martinsville, and now Western Virginia.

However, there are still some who think VDOT is hiding an unlimited supply of money and believe a much better option is just to skip smart scale and force VDOT to build a project...
http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-two-more-lanes-desperately-needed-on-i/article_56f40768-a391-5ed7-a7be-a24eebed12ff.html
QuoteDELEGATE Mark Cole, R—Spotsylvania, has introduced a bill (HB 103) to do what Virginia should have done a while ago: Add an additional north and southbound lane to Interstate 95 from Massaponax to the Springfield interchange.

"Such project shall be funded from existing appropriations to the Commonwealth Transportation Board and shall not be subject to the prioritization process established pursuant to § 33.2-214.1 of the Code of Virginia,"  the bill says.

The "prioritization process"  the bill bypasses is Smart Scale, which is supposed to allocate transportation funding based on objective metrics instead of political considerations.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 11:26:45 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 09:27:18 AM
There's talk of another attempt at creating a transportation authority for western/SW VA. I don't expect this to get very far in the General Assembly...

Expect a lot of pushback from Southwest Virginia if an increase in the gas tax is suggested -- the region is looking at a 4- to 6-cent increase in the retail price of gasoline next year. The pipeline that supplies the tank farms in Montvale, which provides the fuel for gas stations in the Roanoke Valley, New River Valley, and beyond, will be shut down in the very near future. This will require fuel trucks to travel further to load, increasing the cost of transportation. See the Roanoke Times article at https://goo.gl/db4xYE

Interesting that Hanger, who represents the Shenandoah Valley, is pushing for this authority for "Southwest Virginia." It would be interesting to see what he considers to be "Southwest Virginia" and what an authority would do for I-81 up the valley in his area.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 11:46:02 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 11:26:45 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 09:27:18 AM
There's talk of another attempt at creating a transportation authority for western/SW VA. I don't expect this to get very far in the General Assembly...

Expect a lot of pushback from Southwest Virginia if an increase in the gas tax is suggested -- the region is looking at a 4- to 6-cent increase in the retail price of gasoline next year. The pipeline that supplies the tank farms in Montvale, which provides the fuel for gas stations in the Roanoke Valley, New River Valley, and beyond, will be shut down in the very near future. This will require fuel trucks to travel further to load, increasing the cost of transportation. See the Roanoke Times article at https://goo.gl/db4xYE

Interesting that Hanger, who represents the Shenandoah Valley, is pushing for this authority for "Southwest Virginia." It would be interesting to see what he considers to be "Southwest Virginia" and what an authority would do for I-81 up the valley in his area.

For better or for worse, NVTA (http://www.thenovaauthority.org/index.php) is funding projects in Northern Virginia that were not going to get funded anytime soon by VDOT or DRPT.

Regarding I-81, I think there's pretty universal agreement that the current (mostly) four-lane I-81 is inadequate for a number of good reasons.  The idea of tolling truck traffic (only) crashed and burned many years ago, and I think that some sort of solution needs to be arrived at to get the engineering and design for a widening of all of it to 6 (or even 8) lanes under way. 

Some potential ways to accomplish the funding of this:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:46:21 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 29, 2017, 10:59:36 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 09:27:18 AM
There's talk of another attempt at creating a transportation authority for western/SW VA. I don't expect this to get very far in the General Assembly...
Perhaps not today, but as localities in Virginia not named NOVA and Hampton Roads start to wonder why none or very few of their desired projects are getting funded by smart scale, I think we'll start to see more statewide(even in very anti-tax areas) political support for these regional transportation authorities in the future. Serious conversations about them have already happened in places like Fredricksburg, Martinsville, and now Western Virginia.

However, there are still some who think VDOT is hiding an unlimited supply of money and believe a much better option is just to skip smart scale and force VDOT to build a project...
http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-two-more-lanes-desperately-needed-on-i/article_56f40768-a391-5ed7-a7be-a24eebed12ff.html
QuoteDELEGATE Mark Cole, R—Spotsylvania, has introduced a bill (HB 103) to do what Virginia should have done a while ago: Add an additional north and southbound lane to Interstate 95 from Massaponax to the Springfield interchange.

"Such project shall be funded from existing appropriations to the Commonwealth Transportation Board and shall not be subject to the prioritization process established pursuant to § 33.2-214.1 of the Code of Virginia,"  the bill says.

The "prioritization process"  the bill bypasses is Smart Scale, which is supposed to allocate transportation funding based on objective metrics instead of political considerations.

Let every region fund its own projects. That would end this rural autonomy experiment in a heartbeat.

Smart Scale funds projects in Northern VA and Hampton Roads because that's where the need is, as well as return-on-investment. An extra lane on I-95 in rural areas is nice to have, not need to have. What and who is is Spotsylvania anyway?

Facilitating commuting in the major metro areas, that's where the ROI is.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:50:05 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 11:46:02 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 11:26:45 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 09:27:18 AM
There's talk of another attempt at creating a transportation authority for western/SW VA. I don't expect this to get very far in the General Assembly...

Expect a lot of pushback from Southwest Virginia if an increase in the gas tax is suggested -- the region is looking at a 4- to 6-cent increase in the retail price of gasoline next year. The pipeline that supplies the tank farms in Montvale, which provides the fuel for gas stations in the Roanoke Valley, New River Valley, and beyond, will be shut down in the very near future. This will require fuel trucks to travel further to load, increasing the cost of transportation. See the Roanoke Times article at https://goo.gl/db4xYE

Interesting that Hanger, who represents the Shenandoah Valley, is pushing for this authority for "Southwest Virginia." It would be interesting to see what he considers to be "Southwest Virginia" and what an authority would do for I-81 up the valley in his area.

For better or for worse, NVTA (http://www.thenovaauthority.org/index.php) is funding projects in Northern Virginia that were not going to get funded anytime soon by VDOT or DRPT.

Regarding I-81, I think there's pretty universal agreement that the current (mostly) four-lane I-81 is inadequate for a number of good reasons.  The idea of tolling truck traffic (only) crashed and burned many years ago, and I think that some sort of solution needs to be arrived at to get the engineering and design for a widening of all of it to 6 (or even 8) lanes under way. 

Some potential ways to accomplish the funding of this:

  • Increase in motor fuel taxes in the counties and cities in the I-81 corridor only with a regional authority similar to NVTA;
Not going to happen
  • Increase in motor fuel taxes statewide to fund this and other needed projects of statewide significance;
Possibly, but no guarantee that the monies would to go I-81
  • A PPTA-type tolling deal (to toll all traffic, not just trucks); or
Not going to happen
  • A "traditional" toll road run by the Commonwealth or some other authority (perhaps the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel District might be an institutional model?).
Not going to happen
[/list]

Sorry, but the intrinsic anti-tax/anti-toll road screeds coming out of the rural/red parts of this state are tying the hands of any possible solution to the issue. Nothing happens to I-81 until the General Assembly funds it as part of an overall state infrastructure project, which will include non-highway mega-projects in the Northern VA and others (WMATA/VRE, Hampton Roads Light Rail, etc).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 11:55:16 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:46:21 AMLet every region fund its own projects. That would end this rural autonomy experiment in a heartbeat.

Smart Scale funds projects in Northern VA and Hampton Roads because that's where the need is, as well as return-on-investment. An extra lane on I-95 in rural areas is nice to have, not need to have. What and who is is Spotsylvania anyway?

Facilitating commuting in the major metro areas, that's where the ROI is.

So basically, MFFY? :eyebrow:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 11:56:55 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:50:05 AM
Sorry, but the intrinsic anti-tax/anti-toll road screeds coming out of the rural/red parts of this state are tying the hands of any possible solution to the issue. Nothing happens to I-81 until the General Assembly funds it as part of an overall state infrastructure project, which will include non-highway mega-projects in the Northern VA and others (WMATA/VRE, Hampton Roads Light Rail, etc).

Maybe, though the originators of such screeds just suffered a pretty massive defeat at the  hands of Virginia voters in the House of Delegates races (never mind that the Virginia House districts were very gerrymandered to assure that many of them would be "safe" for the likes of outgoing Delegate Bob Marshall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Marshall_(Virginia_politician)) (R-13)) .
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 11:55:16 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:46:21 AMLet every region fund its own projects. That would end this rural autonomy experiment in a heartbeat.

Smart Scale funds projects in Northern VA and Hampton Roads because that's where the need is, as well as return-on-investment. An extra lane on I-95 in rural areas is nice to have, not need to have. What and who is is Spotsylvania anyway?

Facilitating commuting in the major metro areas, that's where the ROI is.

So basically, MFFY? :eyebrow:

Keep things in perspective. My zip code in South Arlington (effectively 5 neighborhoods and a golf course) has a population of just a hair under 21K (http://www.city-data.com/zips/22206.html), that's more than 40 counties in VA, plus however many ind. cities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_counties_in_Virginia#List_of_counties). Money should go where the people are.

Southside and SW VA have been losing population for decades anyway. Dying areas. An extra lane or interchange won't change anything.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 12:15:16 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 11:55:16 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:46:21 AMLet every region fund its own projects. That would end this rural autonomy experiment in a heartbeat.

Smart Scale funds projects in Northern VA and Hampton Roads because that's where the need is, as well as return-on-investment. An extra lane on I-95 in rural areas is nice to have, not need to have. What and who is is Spotsylvania anyway?

Facilitating commuting in the major metro areas, that's where the ROI is.

So basically, MFFY? :eyebrow:

Keep things in perspective. My zip code in South Arlington (effective 5 neighborhoods and a golf course) has a population of just a hair under 21K (http://www.city-data.com/zips/22206.html), that's more than 40 counties in VA, plus however many ind. cities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_counties_in_Virginia#List_of_counties). Money should go where the people are.

I am quite familiar with  the demographics of the Commonwealth in general, and Northern Virginia in  particular.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
Southside and SW VA have been losing population for decades anyway. Dying areas. An extra lane or interchange won't change anything.

I strongly disagree.  Truck  traffic is not going away anytime soon, and like it or not, I-81 is a highway corridor of statewide (in Virginia) and national significance. 

There's also the matter of better highway infrastructure being one way that we can help depressed areas like Southwest Virginia.

Metrorail lines and Purple lines will do nothing for those communities.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:31:12 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 12:15:16 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 11:55:16 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:46:21 AMLet every region fund its own projects. That would end this rural autonomy experiment in a heartbeat.

Smart Scale funds projects in Northern VA and Hampton Roads because that's where the need is, as well as return-on-investment. An extra lane on I-95 in rural areas is nice to have, not need to have. What and who is is Spotsylvania anyway?

Facilitating commuting in the major metro areas, that's where the ROI is.

So basically, MFFY? :eyebrow:

Keep things in perspective. My zip code in South Arlington (effective 5 neighborhoods and a golf course) has a population of just a hair under 21K (http://www.city-data.com/zips/22206.html), that's more than 40 counties in VA, plus however many ind. cities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_counties_in_Virginia#List_of_counties). Money should go where the people are.

I am quite familiar with  the demographics of the Commonwealth in general, and Northern Virginia in  particular.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
Southside and SW VA have been losing population for decades anyway. Dying areas. An extra lane or interchange won't change anything.

I strongly disagree.  Truck  traffic is not going away anytime soon, and like it or not, I-81 is a highway corridor of statewide (in Virginia) and national significance. 

There's also the matter of better highway infrastructure being one way that we can help depressed areas like Southwest Virginia.

Metrorail lines and Purple lines will do nothing for those communities.

The "one way" to help SW Virginia is to give "one-way" bus and train tickets to productive areas of state. You could build a 16-lane interstate and it wouldn't reopen coal mines or textile plants...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 12:46:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 11:55:16 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:46:21 AMLet every region fund its own projects. That would end this rural autonomy experiment in a heartbeat.

Smart Scale funds projects in Northern VA and Hampton Roads because that's where the need is, as well as return-on-investment. An extra lane on I-95 in rural areas is nice to have, not need to have. What and who is is Spotsylvania anyway?

Facilitating commuting in the major metro areas, that's where the ROI is.

So basically, MFFY? :eyebrow:
Southside and SW VA have been losing population for decades anyway. Dying areas. An extra lane or interchange won't change anything.

Bullshit. Tell the people in Blacksburg that an interchange at the dangerous US-460/N. Main Street intersection won't change anything and see what kind of response you get. Blacksburg got royally screwed over by VDOT on that deal and they haven't forgot it. Or tell those in Lynchburg that finishing the US-29 freeway bypass won't ease traffic on existing US-29 and see what their response is. Also, widening I-81 won't change anything? Yeah, the BS flag is definitely flying high on that one.

SW VA may be losing population, but there are still a lot of people that live and work here. Not everybody can just pack up and leave at the drop of a hat and some are not in a position to leave at all. Attitudes like yours are a big reason why a clown got elected POTUS.

With comments like this, it shouldn't be too difficult for the average Joe to see why the rest of the state, especially SW VA, feels the way they do towards NOVA...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 12:46:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 11:55:16 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:46:21 AMLet every region fund its own projects. That would end this rural autonomy experiment in a heartbeat.

Smart Scale funds projects in Northern VA and Hampton Roads because that's where the need is, as well as return-on-investment. An extra lane on I-95 in rural areas is nice to have, not need to have. What and who is is Spotsylvania anyway?

Facilitating commuting in the major metro areas, that's where the ROI is.

So basically, MFFY? :eyebrow:
Southside and SW VA have been losing population for decades anyway. Dying areas. An extra lane or interchange won't change anything.

Bullshit. Tell the people in Blacksburg that an interchange at the dangerous US-460/N. Main Street intersection won't change anything and see what kind of response you get. Blacksburg got royally screwed over by VDOT on that deal and they haven't forgot it. Or tell those in Lynchburg that finishing the US-29 freeway bypass won't ease traffic on existing US-29 and see what their response is. Also, widening I-81 won't change anything? Yeah, the BS flag is definitely flying high on that one.

SW VA may be losing population, but there are still a lot of people that live and work here. Attitudes like yours are a big reason why a clown got elected POTUS.

With comments like this, it shouldn't be too difficult for the average Joe to see why the rest of the state, especially SW VA, feels the way they do towards NOVA...

Blacksburg projects are fine since VT is one of the few bright spots in that corner of the state.

Concerning attitudes, I couldn't care less. I don't have anything to do with that region, and my guess is that SW VA doesn't want anything to do with Northern VA (except our tax dollars!)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 12:54:51 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 12:46:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 11:55:16 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:46:21 AMLet every region fund its own projects. That would end this rural autonomy experiment in a heartbeat.

Smart Scale funds projects in Northern VA and Hampton Roads because that's where the need is, as well as return-on-investment. An extra lane on I-95 in rural areas is nice to have, not need to have. What and who is is Spotsylvania anyway?

Facilitating commuting in the major metro areas, that's where the ROI is.

So basically, MFFY? :eyebrow:
Southside and SW VA have been losing population for decades anyway. Dying areas. An extra lane or interchange won't change anything.

Bullshit. Tell the people in Blacksburg that an interchange at the dangerous US-460/N. Main Street intersection won't change anything and see what kind of response you get. Blacksburg got royally screwed over by VDOT on that deal and they haven't forgot it. Or tell those in Lynchburg that finishing the US-29 freeway bypass won't ease traffic on existing US-29 and see what their response is. Also, widening I-81 won't change anything? Yeah, the BS flag is definitely flying high on that one.

SW VA may be losing population, but there are still a lot of people that live and work here. Attitudes like yours are a big reason why a clown got elected POTUS.

With comments like this, it shouldn't be too difficult for the average Joe to see why the rest of the state, especially SW VA, feels the way they do towards NOVA...

Concerning attitudes, I couldn't care less. I don't have anything to do with that region

That much is obvious.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:56:49 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 12:54:51 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 12:46:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 11:55:16 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:46:21 AMLet every region fund its own projects. That would end this rural autonomy experiment in a heartbeat.

Smart Scale funds projects in Northern VA and Hampton Roads because that's where the need is, as well as return-on-investment. An extra lane on I-95 in rural areas is nice to have, not need to have. What and who is is Spotsylvania anyway?

Facilitating commuting in the major metro areas, that's where the ROI is.

So basically, MFFY? :eyebrow:
Southside and SW VA have been losing population for decades anyway. Dying areas. An extra lane or interchange won't change anything.

Bullshit. Tell the people in Blacksburg that an interchange at the dangerous US-460/N. Main Street intersection won't change anything and see what kind of response you get. Blacksburg got royally screwed over by VDOT on that deal and they haven't forgot it. Or tell those in Lynchburg that finishing the US-29 freeway bypass won't ease traffic on existing US-29 and see what their response is. Also, widening I-81 won't change anything? Yeah, the BS flag is definitely flying high on that one.

SW VA may be losing population, but there are still a lot of people that live and work here. Attitudes like yours are a big reason why a clown got elected POTUS.

With comments like this, it shouldn't be too difficult for the average Joe to see why the rest of the state, especially SW VA, feels the way they do towards NOVA...

Blacksburg projects are fine since VT is one of the few bright spots in that corner of the state.

Concerning attitudes, I couldn't care less. I don't have anything to do with that region

That much is obvious.

It's not personal, although you make it seem like people in SW VA and Southside have resentment towards NOVA. I can tell you that up here that nobody cares about the rest of the state (in the sense that the discussion never comes up one way or another). It's just not on the radar. The core of the matter is there aren't many votes and there isn't much money down that way. What constituency is there?

NOVA/Richmond/Newport News makes the state these days. I should add that I'm a lifelong Virginian and I've been to Richmond once in my life and never to Newport News. I just have nothing to do with any other region than NOVA. Such is life.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:31:12 PM
The "one way" to help SW Virginia is to give "one-way" bus and train tickets to productive areas of state. You could build a 16-lane interstate and it wouldn't reopen coal mines or textile plants...

I said nothing about re-opening any coal mines or textile plants. 

Coal is a victim of the enormous amounts of natural gas that are being extracted with fracking (in states like Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania), and I do not think anyone is going to change that. Unfortunately, it seems that employment generated by fracking is quite small (this is based on my informal observations of fracking wells in West Virginia). It is also cheaper to burn gas than coal for an assortment of reasons - starting with the lack of any toxic ash from gas-fired boilers, and carbon emissions are lower.  And it seems that coal mined in places like Wyoming is cheaper to extract than what is mined in Appalachia.

I doubt that large textile mills will return to any part of the United States anytime soon, though there may be some "specialty" mills (and there are people like me that are willing to pay a little more for garments that are not made in China).

But I am of the opinion that Southwest Virginia can be doing other things (and I do not claim to know what those other things might be - and not just growth in knowledge industries at and near Virginia Tech).  One is probably related to forestry and products from same, though I do not claim to know how much employment will result from that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2017, 01:17:54 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 12:54:51 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 12:46:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 11:55:16 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:46:21 AMLet every region fund its own projects. That would end this rural autonomy experiment in a heartbeat.

Smart Scale funds projects in Northern VA and Hampton Roads because that's where the need is, as well as return-on-investment. An extra lane on I-95 in rural areas is nice to have, not need to have. What and who is is Spotsylvania anyway?

Facilitating commuting in the major metro areas, that's where the ROI is.

So basically, MFFY? :eyebrow:
Southside and SW VA have been losing population for decades anyway. Dying areas. An extra lane or interchange won't change anything.

Bullshit. Tell the people in Blacksburg that an interchange at the dangerous US-460/N. Main Street intersection won't change anything and see what kind of response you get. Blacksburg got royally screwed over by VDOT on that deal and they haven't forgot it. Or tell those in Lynchburg that finishing the US-29 freeway bypass won't ease traffic on existing US-29 and see what their response is. Also, widening I-81 won't change anything? Yeah, the BS flag is definitely flying high on that one.

SW VA may be losing population, but there are still a lot of people that live and work here. Attitudes like yours are a big reason why a clown got elected POTUS.

With comments like this, it shouldn't be too difficult for the average Joe to see why the rest of the state, especially SW VA, feels the way they do towards NOVA...

Concerning attitudes, I couldn't care less. I don't have anything to do with that region

That much is obvious.

He's pretty much stated he doesn't care about the road network in NOVA as well.  If money doesn't flow to mass transit, and it's not going to help his commute, screw everyone else.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 01:23:03 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2017, 01:17:54 PM
He's pretty much stated he doesn't care about the road network in NOVA as well.  If money doesn't flow to mass transit, and it's not going to help his commute, screw everyone else.

Without all that highway traffic (and the taxes from same that subsidize transit), there is no transit service, not in Northern Virginia, and probably not in any other part of the Commonwealth of Virginia (exceptions made for college and university bus systems, which may be funded differently).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 01:33:03 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2017, 01:17:54 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 12:54:51 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 12:46:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 11:55:16 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:46:21 AMLet every region fund its own projects. That would end this rural autonomy experiment in a heartbeat.

Smart Scale funds projects in Northern VA and Hampton Roads because that's where the need is, as well as return-on-investment. An extra lane on I-95 in rural areas is nice to have, not need to have. What and who is is Spotsylvania anyway?

Facilitating commuting in the major metro areas, that's where the ROI is.

So basically, MFFY? :eyebrow:
Southside and SW VA have been losing population for decades anyway. Dying areas. An extra lane or interchange won't change anything.

Bullshit. Tell the people in Blacksburg that an interchange at the dangerous US-460/N. Main Street intersection won't change anything and see what kind of response you get. Blacksburg got royally screwed over by VDOT on that deal and they haven't forgot it. Or tell those in Lynchburg that finishing the US-29 freeway bypass won't ease traffic on existing US-29 and see what their response is. Also, widening I-81 won't change anything? Yeah, the BS flag is definitely flying high on that one.

SW VA may be losing population, but there are still a lot of people that live and work here. Attitudes like yours are a big reason why a clown got elected POTUS.

With comments like this, it shouldn't be too difficult for the average Joe to see why the rest of the state, especially SW VA, feels the way they do towards NOVA...

Concerning attitudes, I couldn't care less. I don't have anything to do with that region

That much is obvious.

He's pretty much stated he doesn't care about the road network in NOVA as well.  If money doesn't flow to mass transit, and it's not going to help his commute, screw everyone else.

If you need to know, I solo reverse commute on 395. It was a conscious decision on my part in order to avoid traffic. Thus my commute isn't really affected in any way by any of the major projects around here, so I don't have a horse in the race, transit, road, or otherwise. Additionally, the road grid in Arlington/Alexandria makes local driving a non-issue (hardly ever sit in traffic for errands).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 02:17:07 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:56:49 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 12:54:51 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:53:06 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 12:46:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:06:55 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 29, 2017, 11:55:16 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 11:46:21 AMLet every region fund its own projects. That would end this rural autonomy experiment in a heartbeat.

Smart Scale funds projects in Northern VA and Hampton Roads because that's where the need is, as well as return-on-investment. An extra lane on I-95 in rural areas is nice to have, not need to have. What and who is is Spotsylvania anyway?

Facilitating commuting in the major metro areas, that's where the ROI is.

So basically, MFFY? :eyebrow:
Southside and SW VA have been losing population for decades anyway. Dying areas. An extra lane or interchange won't change anything.

Bullshit. Tell the people in Blacksburg that an interchange at the dangerous US-460/N. Main Street intersection won't change anything and see what kind of response you get. Blacksburg got royally screwed over by VDOT on that deal and they haven't forgot it. Or tell those in Lynchburg that finishing the US-29 freeway bypass won't ease traffic on existing US-29 and see what their response is. Also, widening I-81 won't change anything? Yeah, the BS flag is definitely flying high on that one.

SW VA may be losing population, but there are still a lot of people that live and work here. Attitudes like yours are a big reason why a clown got elected POTUS.

With comments like this, it shouldn't be too difficult for the average Joe to see why the rest of the state, especially SW VA, feels the way they do towards NOVA...

Blacksburg projects are fine since VT is one of the few bright spots in that corner of the state.

Concerning attitudes, I couldn't care less. I don't have anything to do with that region

That much is obvious.

It's not personal, although you make it seem like people in SW VA and Southside have resentment towards NOVA.

I don't have to make it seem that way. There IS some resentment. Granted, some of the resentment is misguided for various reasons, but it's there nevertheless. That divide was even used in a campaign ad earlier this year during a race for the 12th District seat in the House of Delegates between former WDBJ news anchor Chris Hurst and incumbent Joseph Yost. Yost launched a negative TV ad against Hurst, claiming Hurst would redirect education money towards NOVA at the expense of SW VA. Obviously not many people believed it, considering Hurst won.

State sen. Bill Stanley has also made his grievances over SW VA's road funding (or lack of) well-known during his hopeless attempts to get the ball rolling on I-73.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 02:21:59 PM
Part of the issue is that due to Dillon Rule laws, all authorities basically emanate from Richmond and must go through the General Assembly. Hence, Arlington needs permission to tax itself, etc etc.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 29, 2017, 04:49:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 11:46:02 AM
Regarding I-81, I think there's pretty universal agreement that the current (mostly) four-lane I-81 is inadequate for a number of good reasons.  The idea of tolling truck traffic (only) crashed and burned many years ago, and I think that some sort of solution needs to be arrived at to get the engineering and design for a widening of all of it to 6 (or even 8) lanes under way. 
Some potential ways to accomplish the funding of this:

  • Increase in motor fuel taxes in the counties and cities in the I-81 corridor only with a regional authority similar to NVTA;
  • Increase in motor fuel taxes statewide to fund this and other needed projects of statewide significance;
  • A PPTA-type tolling deal (to toll all traffic, not just trucks); or
  • A "traditional" toll road run by the Commonwealth or some other authority (perhaps the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel District might be an institutional model?).

VDOT tried that with the 1998 TEA-21 program for tolling three Interstate corridors to finance the widening of the highway, they obtained one of the three pilots for I-81, and studied various tolling schemes including a conventional 3-3 widening and tolling of all vehicles.

Between local opposition all along the corridor, and opposition from many elected officials, and opposition from motorist advocacy groups, and opposition from trucking industry groups, there was no way that even one segment of the highway was going to get tolled.

When that wasn't going to work, VDOT got FHWA to shift the pilot project from I-81 to the I-95 corridor.  They got the same treatment there, it was no go.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 06:29:09 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 02:21:59 PM
Part of the issue is that due to Dillon Rule laws, all authorities basically emanate from Richmond and must go through the General Assembly. Hence, Arlington needs permission to tax itself, etc etc.

At least in Virginia, there's no such thing as a Dillon Rule law.  Dillon Rule in Virginia is rooted in an 1896 appellate court opinion.

See this page (http://www.virginiaplaces.org/government/dillon.html).

Quote    ...a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers, and no others: First, those granted in express words; Second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; Third, those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation, not simply convenient, but indispensable. Any fair, reasonable doubt concern ing the existence of power is resolved by the courts against the corporation, and the power is denied.

QuoteThe Virginia Supreme Court has applied the Dillon Rule since 1896; for over a century, the rule has been cited in lawsuits filed in state courts in Virginia. The decision was triggered by a case involving the City of Winchester. The arsonist was caught, thanks to information provided by Mr. T. H. Redmond, but Winchester wanted to renege on its offer and keep its $500.

QuoteThe Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals (as the state's highest court was known in 1896) determined that the city had no explicit authority from the General Assembly to pay a reward. Winchester got to keep its $500, and the City of Winchester v. Redmond decision established the Dillon Rule for Virginia courts:

A municipal corporation has no powers except those conferred upon it expressly or by fair implication by its charter, or the general laws of the State, and such other powers as are essential to the attainment and maintenance of its declared objects and purposes. It can do no act, make no contract, nor incur any liability that is not thus authorized. If it be even doubtful whether a given power has been conferred, the doubt must be resolved against the power.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 09:27:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 29, 2017, 12:31:12 PM
The "one way" to help SW Virginia is to give "one-way" bus and train tickets to productive areas of state. You could build a 16-lane interstate and it wouldn't reopen coal mines or textile plants...

I said nothing about re-opening any coal mines or textile plants. 

Coal is a victim of the enormous amounts of natural gas that are being extracted with fracking (in states like Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania), and I do not think anyone is going to change that. Unfortunately, it seems that employment generated by fracking is quite small (this is based on my informal observations of fracking wells in West Virginia). It is also cheaper to burn gas than coal for an assortment of reasons - starting with the lack of any toxic ash from gas-fired boilers, and carbon emissions are lower.  And it seems that coal mined in places like Wyoming is cheaper to extract than what is mined in Appalachia.

I doubt that large textile mills will return to any part of the United States anytime soon, though there may be some "specialty" mills (and there are people like me that are willing to pay a little more for garments that are not made in China).

But I am of the opinion that Southwest Virginia can be doing other things (and I do not claim to know what those other things might be - and not just growth in knowledge industries at and near Virginia Tech).  One is probably related to forestry and products from same, though I do not claim to know how much employment will result from that.

Coal has been dying for years as the cost to go further and deeper have gone up while the price per ton dropped depending on foreign competition.

Shipping residents of Southwest Virginia to other parts of the state is a pretty simplistic way of looking at solutions. Leaving large parts of the state vacant while increasing the population in already overburdened areas doesn't help anyone.

There are some areas that are working the tourism angle, taking advantage of stripmined areas and other undeveloped parts of their county to offer ATV riding in the woods. It will help help to have decent roads to get the tourists there. If we had a representative worth anything in the 9th district and members of the General Assembly who were more interested in their constituents than toeing the party line, maybe other things would happen, like improved broadband service that would make the area attractive to businesses.

Because of the disparity between NOVA schools and the schools in Southwest and Southside Virginia, there is resentment over how taxes are allocated. The feeling is that since property values are higher in NOVA, leading to greater local contributions to the schools, then the state should adjust the funding formula to change the balance.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 10:31:29 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 09:27:03 PM
Coal has been dying for years as the cost to go further and deeper have gone up while the price per ton dropped depending on foreign competition.

Though  it is better to burn Appalachian coal than that really nasty brown coal that the Germans mine and use.

Quote from: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 09:27:03 PM
Shipping residents of Southwest Virginia to other parts of the state is a pretty simplistic way of looking at solutions. Leaving large parts of the state vacant while increasing the population in already overburdened areas doesn't help anyone.

Some of that happens "naturally" anyway.  I personally know people that have moved to Northern Virginia from other (and less-prosperous) parts of the  Commonwealth, because Northern Virginia has employment.   But overall, I do not think that shipping people out is such a great idea (though that may have to happen with  Tangier because of sea level rise).

Quote from: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 09:27:03 PM
There are some areas that are working the tourism angle, taking advantage of stripmined areas and other undeveloped parts of their county to offer ATV riding in the woods. It will help help to have decent roads to get the tourists there. If we had a representative worth anything in the 9th district and members of the General Assembly who were more interested in their constituents than toeing the party line, maybe other things would happen, like improved broadband service that would make the area attractive to businesses.

Is that enough to sustain a community all year-round?

Broadband should be a national priority for the entire nation, though it is not with the current powers that be in Washington.

Quote from: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 09:27:03 PM
Because of the disparity between NOVA schools and the schools in Southwest and Southside Virginia, there is resentment over how taxes are allocated. The feeling is that since property values are higher in NOVA, leading to greater local contributions to the schools, then the state should adjust the funding formula to change the balance.

Not sure how effective that is.  Maryland does it (though we have only 24 county and county-equivilant jurisdictions), but the "bad" districts are still "bad."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 30, 2017, 06:35:33 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 10:31:29 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 09:27:03 PM
Coal has been dying for years as the cost to go further and deeper have gone up while the price per ton dropped depending on foreign competition.

Though it is better to burn Appalachian coal than that really nasty brown coal that the Germans mine and use.

Actually, it might be better to develop alternative means to generate energy, perhaps with plants to manufacture solar cells and/or wind turbines built in Southwest Virginia. There really aren't enough coal mines to sustain the economy like it was a century ago.

Quote from: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 09:27:03 PM
Shipping residents of Southwest Virginia to other parts of the state is a pretty simplistic way of looking at solutions. Leaving large parts of the state vacant while increasing the population in already overburdened areas doesn't help anyone.

Quote
Some of that happens "naturally" anyway.  I personally know people that have moved to Northern Virginia from other (and less-prosperous) parts of the  Commonwealth, because Northern Virginia has employment.   But overall, I do not think that shipping people out is such a great idea (though that may have to happen with  Tangier because of sea level rise).

That is what has happened in southern West Virginia (and to a smaller extent in the coal fields of Virginia) -- since there is nothing to keep young people in the region, so they bail for other points, leaving an aging population in an area with declining property values.

Quote from: VTGoose on December 29, 2017, 09:27:03 PM
There are some areas that are working the tourism angle, taking advantage of stripmined areas and other undeveloped parts of their county to offer ATV riding in the woods. It will help help to have decent roads to get the tourists there. If we had a representative worth anything in the 9th district and members of the General Assembly who were more interested in their constituents than toeing the party line, maybe other things would happen, like improved broadband service that would make the area attractive to businesses.
Quote
Is that enough to sustain a community all year-round?

Broadband should be a national priority for the entire nation, though it is not with the current powers that be in Washington.

Year-round tourism isn't a big enough thing, but it has revived some communities. If a business (restaurant, bed-and-breakfast, etc.) can do well in a several-month period, there might be enough to sustain them through the down months.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 11:58:19 PM
Copied from another thread, for discussion here.  My opinions about the "Route 29 Solutions" projects.


Quote from: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 01:54:35 AM
As for US-29, the Piedmont Environmental Council will never allow an interstate to be built. Danville and Lynchburg were absolutely livid when Charlottesville & Albemarle County kept fighting against the proposed US-29 bypass of Charlottesville.

The "Route 29 Solutions" projects being built in lieu of the bypass, are a very selfish scheme, much more intended to provide a good circulator system for locals, than to benefit thru traffic.  The total cost is about the same for each, about $200 million.  The recently completed Berkmar Drive Extension provides a nice north-south local collector just to the west of US-29, and the under construction Hillsdale Drive Extension will provide a nice north-south local collector just to the east of US-29.  The recently completed Rio Road interchange with US-29 provides a convenient Rio Road east-west connector between the two roads above, and overpass over US-29.

Funding for study and preliminary engineering for improvements to the intersection of Hydraulic Road and Route 29 is included in the Route 29 Solutions package.  At the request of the City of Charlottesville, VDOT agreed to include the extension of Hillsdale Drive south to Holiday Drive in the Hydraulic Road intersection study.  If that interchange is built, again it will be much more intended to a provide good circulator system for locals, than to benefit thru traffic.

There will still be at least 5 intersections on US-29 with multi-phase signals, on the section that would have been bypassed, that will only increase in congestion in the future.  While the "Route 29 Solutions" projects will provide some traffic relief to US-29, it will still be dysfunctional for long-distance and interregional traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 10, 2018, 12:55:11 PM
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2018/ctb_awards_contract_for122351.asp

CTB AWARDS CONTRACT FOR I-95 SOUTHBOUND RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER CROSSING
Project will add three I-95 southbound travel lanes in the Fredericksburg area from north of exit 133 to south of exit 130 to reduce congestion

RICHMOND, Virginia — The Commonwealth Transportation Board has awarded a contract worth approximately $101.6 million to Wagman Heavy Civil Inc. of North Dinwiddie to build the Interstate 95 southbound Rappahannock River Crossing project in Stafford County, the City of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County.

The project seeks to reduce I-95 congestion in the Fredericksburg area by providing local traffic with additional lanes to travel between Route 17 and Route 3 without merging into the interstate's general purpose lanes.

The Rappahannock River Crossing will build three new general purpose lanes for I-95 south stretching six miles in the current median of I-95. The new lanes would begin in the vicinity of Truslow Road, just north of Exit 133 at Route 17 in Stafford. The new lanes will end 1.2 miles south of Exit 130 at Route 3 in Fredericksburg, with the project terminus in Spotsylvania.

The three existing I-95 southbound lanes in this area will be converted to local traffic lanes, also known as collector-distributor lanes.

A new bridge will be built over the Rappahannock River parallel to the existing I-95 southbound bridge to carry the new general purpose traffic lanes.

Additionally, the bridges that carry I-95 north and south over Route 17 will be replaced as part of the project. Both bridges are structurally deficient, which does not imply that the bridges are likely to collapse or are unsafe, but that there are elements of the bridges that need to be monitored and/or repaired.

Construction will begin in summer 2018 and will be completed in 2022.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 11, 2018, 03:17:50 PM
Here's a weird bill pending this year. HB 27 (https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?181+sum+HB27) would change the inspection sticker location from the windshield to the rear window in the lower corner on the driver's side. (Recall this year they are switching it from the bottom center of the windshield to the bottom corner on the driver's side.)

I think the rear-window idea is a terrible idea because most vehicle inspectors I've ever seen use a razor blade to remove the sticker. Using a razor blade on the rear window would damage the defroster wires on many vehicles, and I highly doubt most inspectors would be especially careful to avoid causing such damage.

Other bills of interest: HB 55 would increase the speed limit on US-501 from South Boston to the North Carolina state line to 60 mph; HB 73 would allow 60 mph on US-301, US-17, VA-3, and VA-207 where they are nonlimited access multilane divided highways (currently US-17 can only have a 60-mph limit between Port Royal and Saluda); HB 103 would require VDOT immediately to begin a project to add a lane in each direction on I-95 between Exit 126 and the Beltway (I'm not sure how this would affect the state's contract with Transurban); HB 177 would prohibit drivers from using handheld communications devices like phones and from driving with an animal on one's lap; HB 207 would establish a fine of up to $100 for failing to clear snow and ice from your vehicle before driving it; HB 308 would make it illegal to pass another vehicle by using a bike lane; HB 428 would add the phrase "and the minimum speed limit shall be 45 miles per hour" to the first sentence of Va. Code 46.2-870; and SB 46 would require you to stop for, rather than yield to, pedestrians who are crossing the street lawfully (the main difference from current law being that you would have to stop and remain stopped until the pedestrian is out of the street, whereas now you simply have to yield the right-of-way and need not necessarily stop if you can yield without stopping).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 05:44:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2018, 03:17:50 PM
Other bills of interest: HB 55 would increase the speed limit on US-501 from South Boston to the North Carolina state line to 60 mph; HB 73 would allow 60 mph on US-301, US-17, VA-3, and VA-207 where they are nonlimited access multilane divided highways (currently US-17 can only have a 60-mph limit between Port Royal and Saluda);

This is silly, normally the GA sets a maximum allowed speed limit for a whole class of highway, such as when about 6 years ago they changed the law to allow any limited access highway with 4 or more lanes, up to 70 mph for cars, trucks and buses; and in order to raise the limit, pursuant to a traffic engineering study.  That is where the current 70 mph limits came from in VA.

About 10 to 12 years ago the GA changed the law and allowed up to 60 mph limits on nonlimited-access multilane divided segments of US-29, US-360, US-460, part of US-58, and part of US-17, again pursuant to a traffic engineering study.

Now they want to do more on a selected basis?

How about simply allowing up to 60 mph on any nonlimited-access multilane divided highway, pursuant to a traffic engineering study?

That will take a lot of work to study every segment, as that type of highway has a lot more variability in design standards than an Interstate highway, but they can prioritize the work starting with the most important highways.  They can hire a consultant if there is not enough VDOT in-house staffing to do the work.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 11, 2018, 06:13:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2018, 03:17:50 PM
Here's a weird bill pending this year. HB 27 (https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?181+sum+HB27) would change the inspection sticker location from the windshield to the rear window in the lower corner on the driver's side. (Recall this year they are switching it from the bottom center of the windshield to the bottom corner on the driver's side.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifsb.in%2Ffacepalm%2Fpicard-facepalm-o.gif&hash=539a3697dfdaa3dfc8bdd4762587fdbbc8293dcb)

QuoteHB 103 would require VDOT immediately to begin a project to add a lane in each direction on I-95 between Exit 126 and the Beltway (I'm not sure how this would affect the state's contract with Transurban);

(https://i.imgur.com/GfKGsiJ.gif)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 06:26:36 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 11, 2018, 06:13:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2018, 03:17:50 PM
Here's a weird bill pending this year. HB 103 would require VDOT immediately to begin a project to add a lane in each direction on I-95 between Exit 126 and the Beltway (I'm not sure how this would affect the state's contract with Transurban); (https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?%5Bquote)

Bypass Smart Scale?  Of course they are probably referring to beginning the location/EIS study, but those can cost $10s of millions.  That needs to go thru  Smart Scale as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on January 11, 2018, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2018, 03:17:50 PM
Here's a weird bill pending this year. HB 27 (https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?181+sum+HB27) would change the inspection sticker location from the windshield to the rear window in the lower corner on the driver's side. (Recall this year they are switching it from the bottom center of the windshield to the bottom corner on the driver's side.)

I think the rear-window idea is a terrible idea because most vehicle inspectors I've ever seen use a razor blade to remove the sticker. Using a razor blade on the rear window would damage the defroster wires on many vehicles, and I highly doubt most inspectors would be especially careful to avoid causing such damage.

I agree. Also, the rear window space that would be assigned to the inspection sticker (and, I assume, the county/city sticker alongside the inspection sticker) is where my condo association asks residents to place the condo sticker, which seems to be common for condo associations in my area.

On my car, the inspection sticker would go either on the glass hatch window where the defroster wires are, or on the plastic window below the "spoiler" separating it from the glass window, which inspectors' razor blades would scratch up.

I wonder why the inspection and county/city stickers couldn't stay on the front window, but go on the passenger side where they would not distract the driver and obstruct the driver's view over the hood.  I just had a safety inspection on my car, with the new sticker placed in the lower driver's side corner, and the new location is definitely more distracting and obstructive than the old bottom center location.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 11, 2018, 06:35:19 PM
Quote from: oscar on January 11, 2018, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2018, 03:17:50 PM
Here's a weird bill pending this year. HB 27 (https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?181+sum+HB27) would change the inspection sticker location from the windshield to the rear window in the lower corner on the driver's side. (Recall this year they are switching it from the bottom center of the windshield to the bottom corner on the driver's side.)

I think the rear-window idea is a terrible idea because most vehicle inspectors I've ever seen use a razor blade to remove the sticker. Using a razor blade on the rear window would damage the defroster wires on many vehicles, and I highly doubt most inspectors would be especially careful to avoid causing such damage.

I agree. Also, the rear window space that would be assigned to the inspection sticker (and, I assume, the county/city sticker alongside the inspection sticker) is where my condo association asks residents to place the condo sticker, which seems to be common for condo associations in my area.

On my car, the inspection sticker would go either on the glass hatch window where the defroster wires are, or on the plastic window below the "spoiler" separating it from the glass window, which inspectors' razor blades would scratch up.

I wonder why the inspection and county/city stickers couldn't stay on the front window, but go on the passenger side where they would not distract the driver and obstruct the driver's view over the hood.

Better yet, eliminate stickers altogether and go full electronic like some of the other states have done.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 11, 2018, 06:36:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 06:26:36 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 11, 2018, 06:13:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2018, 03:17:50 PM
Here's a weird bill pending this year. HB 103 would require VDOT immediately to begin a project to add a lane in each direction on I-95 between Exit 126 and the Beltway (I'm not sure how this would affect the state's contract with Transurban); (https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?%5Bquote)

Bypass Smart Scale?  Of course they are probably referring to beginning the location/EIS study, but those can cost $10s of millions.  That needs to go thru  Smart Scale as well.

Here's an excellent op-ed that covers the issue well and why they feel SmartScale has screwed them.

http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-two-more-lanes-desperately-needed-on-i/article_56f40768-a391-5ed7-a7be-a24eebed12ff.html (http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-two-more-lanes-desperately-needed-on-i/article_56f40768-a391-5ed7-a7be-a24eebed12ff.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 07:41:07 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 11, 2018, 06:36:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 06:26:36 PM
Bypass Smart Scale?  Of course they are probably referring to beginning the location/EIS study, but those can cost $10s of millions.  That needs to go thru  Smart Scale as well.
Here's an excellent op-ed that covers the issue well and why they feel SmartScale has screwed them.
http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-two-more-lanes-desperately-needed-on-i/article_56f40768-a391-5ed7-a7be-a24eebed12ff.html (http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-two-more-lanes-desperately-needed-on-i/article_56f40768-a391-5ed7-a7be-a24eebed12ff.html)

An editorial from a local Fredericksburg newspaper.  I have wondered myself if something like capital transportation project allocation decisions can really be reduced to a formula, but supposedly the model has been well-tested for all kinds of projects both large and small.

If it is not scoring highly then maybe they should analyze and find out why.  On the other hand there are transportation needs all over the state, and in the overall scheme of things, maybe a highway that already has 3 lanes each way doesn't score very highly.

I would like to see 4 general purpose lanes on I-95 each way from I-295 to I-495, it certainly is warranted.  But I am sure it would be expensive, 76 miles between I-295 and VA-123 that would need to be widened.  At $20 to $25 million per mile, that would be $1.52 billion to $1.9 billion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 11, 2018, 08:27:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 07:41:07 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 11, 2018, 06:36:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 06:26:36 PM
Bypass Smart Scale?  Of course they are probably referring to beginning the location/EIS study, but those can cost $10s of millions.  That needs to go thru  Smart Scale as well.
Here's an excellent op-ed that covers the issue well and why they feel SmartScale has screwed them.
http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-two-more-lanes-desperately-needed-on-i/article_56f40768-a391-5ed7-a7be-a24eebed12ff.html (http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-two-more-lanes-desperately-needed-on-i/article_56f40768-a391-5ed7-a7be-a24eebed12ff.html)

An editorial from a local Fredericksburg newspaper.  I have wondered myself if something like capital transportation project allocation decisions can really be reduced to a formula, but supposedly the model has been well-tested for all kinds of projects both large and small.

If it is not scoring highly then maybe they should analyze and find out why.  On the other hand there are transportation needs all over the state, and in the overall scheme of things, maybe a highway that already has 3 lanes each way doesn't score very highly.
Regional transportation authorities such as the NVTA and HRTAC are a major reason why so many big dollar projects are funded in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. While there have been some talks of establishing an RTA in the Fredricksburg region, it seems like a majority of the localities there are against it. Do there need to be some tweaks to the smart scale formula? Certainly. However overall, I have little sympathy for those who want all these major expensive transportation projects, yet don't want to help pay for them. The result? Either PP3 deals or proposed legislation that tries to bypass the smart scale system.
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 07:41:07 PM
I would like to see 4 general purpose lanes on I-95 each way from I-295 to I-495, it certainly is warranted.  But I am sure it would be expensive, 76 miles between I-295 and VA-123 that would need to be widened.  At $20 to $25 million per mile, that would be $1.52 billion to $1.9 billion.
and that's not even including the astronomical compensation the state would have to pay Transburban...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 11, 2018, 08:27:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 07:41:07 PM
An editorial from a local Fredericksburg newspaper.  I have wondered myself if something like capital transportation project allocation decisions can really be reduced to a formula, but supposedly the model has been well-tested for all kinds of projects both large and small.
If it is not scoring highly then maybe they should analyze and find out why.  On the other hand there are transportation needs all over the state, and in the overall scheme of things, maybe a highway that already has 3 lanes each way doesn't score very highly.
Regional transportation authorities such as the NVTA and HRTAC are a major reason why so many big dollar projects are funded in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. While there have been some talks of establishing an RTA in the Fredricksburg region, it seems like a majority of the localities there are against it. Do there need to be some tweaks to the smart scale formula? Certainly. However overall, I have little sympathy for those who want all these major expensive transportation projects, yet don't want to help pay for them. The result? Either PP3 deals or proposed legislation that tries to bypass the smart scale system.

I think that would set a bad precedent.  The Smart Scale system was legislated and designed to cover all highway and transportation projects that come under the governance of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, including PPTA projects.  Either have it cover 100% of projects or get rid of it altogether, IMHO.

Last time they did something like that was in the 1980s when a separate Six-Year Program was devised for the U.S. Route 58 Corridor Development Program.  It wasn't held to the same standards as the main SYP, and there were a variety of budgeting errors and games played with it.  The US-58 projects were rolled back into the main SYP in 1992.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 11, 2018, 08:27:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 07:41:07 PM
I would like to see 4 general purpose lanes on I-95 each way from I-295 to I-495, it certainly is warranted.  But I am sure it would be expensive, 76 miles between I-295 and VA-123 that would need to be widened.  At $20 to $25 million per mile, that would be $1.52 billion to $1.9 billion.
and that's not even including the astronomical compensation the state would have to pay Transburban...

What evidence is there that would be a compensation event?   Even with 4 general purpose lanes each way, there is enough traffic demand that the HOT lanes should continue to get very high usage.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 11, 2018, 10:31:10 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 11, 2018, 08:27:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 07:41:07 PM
I would like to see 4 general purpose lanes on I-95 each way from I-295 to I-495, it certainly is warranted.  But I am sure it would be expensive, 76 miles between I-295 and VA-123 that would need to be widened.  At $20 to $25 million per mile, that would be $1.52 billion to $1.9 billion.
and that's not even including the astronomical compensation the state would have to pay Transburban...
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 07:41:07 PM
What evidence is there that would be a compensation event?   Even with 4 general purpose lanes each way, there is enough traffic demand that the HOT lanes should continue to get very high usage.

http://potomaclocal.com/2017/01/13/virginia-wont-consider-widening-i-95-blames-express-lanes/
QuoteIn a response, the CTB noted it wouldn't even consider the project because of the negative impacts it could have to the Express Lanes.

"As a result of this review, it has been determined that...[widening] I-95 from Occoquan River bridge to Route 234 is not eligible for the following reasons: The project's estimate would result in a compensation event for the I-95 Express Lanes..."  the letter stated.
QuoteAccording to an agreement with the state, if there is the talk of widening I-95, Transurban gets the first crack at adding new lanes to Interstate 95, which it would operate as toll lanes. If the company opts not to add new lanes, "[VDOT] may add additional lanes as a department project...such Additional Lanes will constitute a compensation event,"  according to a copy of the agreement McCord shared with Potomac Local.
It's a shame because judging by the latest PP3 deals the state has made(like the one VDOT and Transburban announced yesterday regarding the FredEX HOT lanes extension), had the original I-95 HOT lanes PP3 contract been negotiated today, I think the deal would've been far more favorable to the state than it is currently.   
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 10:42:25 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 11, 2018, 10:31:10 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 11, 2018, 08:27:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 07:41:07 PM
I would like to see 4 general purpose lanes on I-95 each way from I-295 to I-495, it certainly is warranted.  But I am sure it would be expensive, 76 miles between I-295 and VA-123 that would need to be widened.  At $20 to $25 million per mile, that would be $1.52 billion to $1.9 billion.
and that's not even including the astronomical compensation the state would have to pay Transburban...
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 07:41:07 PM
What evidence is there that would be a compensation event?   Even with 4 general purpose lanes each way, there is enough traffic demand that the HOT lanes should continue to get very high usage.
http://potomaclocal.com/2017/01/13/virginia-wont-consider-widening-i-95-blames-express-lanes/
QuoteIn a response, the CTB noted it wouldn't even consider the project because of the negative impacts it could have to the Express Lanes.
"As a result of this review, it has been determined that...[widening] I-95 from Occoquan River bridge to Route 234 is not eligible for the following reasons: The project's estimate would result in a compensation event for the I-95 Express Lanes..."  the letter stated.
QuoteAccording to an agreement with the state, if there is the talk of widening I-95, Transurban gets the first crack at adding new lanes to Interstate 95, which it would operate as toll lanes. If the company opts not to add new lanes, "[VDOT] may add additional lanes as a department project...such Additional Lanes will constitute a compensation event,"  according to a copy of the agreement McCord shared with Potomac Local.
It's a shame because judging by the latest PP3 deals the state has made(like the one VDOT and Transburban announced yesterday regarding the FredEX HOT lanes extension), had the original I-95 HOT lanes PP3 contract been negotiated today, I think the deal would've been far more favorable to the state than it is currently.   

VDOT needs to work through the process and do an in-depth traffic study.  I'll bet that if not already there, they are only a few years away to where traffic growth will rise to where the HOT lanes have high enough usage to where 4th lanes won't affect it negatively.  CTB members are not traffic engineers.

One problem with the 3-lane general purpose roadways, is that the reversible roadway only helps in one direction at a time.  Another problem is that is no wider than when the highway was opened in 1965, and if the reversible roadway is SB then the NB traffic doesn't benefit from it, and vice versa; and in the opposite direction you have no more lanes than was there in 1965.  The HOT lanes don't help the opposite direction, and there are plenty of times including in off-peak hours that 4 lanes are needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 12, 2018, 06:20:54 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 10:42:25 PM
VDOT needs to work through the process and do an in-depth traffic study.  I'll bet that if not already there, they are only a few years away to where traffic growth will rise to where the HOT lanes have high enough usage to where 4th lanes won't affect it negatively.  CTB members are not traffic engineers.

One problem with the 3-lane general purpose roadways, is that the reversible roadway only helps in one direction at a time.  Another problem is that is no wider than when the highway was opened in 1965, and if the reversible roadway is SB then the NB traffic doesn't benefit from it, and vice versa; and in the opposite direction you have no more lanes than was there in 1965.  The HOT lanes don't help the opposite direction, and there are plenty of times including in off-peak hours that 4 lanes are needed.
Possible ways to increase capacity on the I-95 corridor(At least the Fredricksburg to Woodbridge segment) that I believe would not result in a compensation event:
1. Continuing to widen US-1 to six lanes
2. Adding auxiliary lanes on I-95 between each exit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:39:11 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 12, 2018, 06:20:54 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 10:42:25 PM
VDOT needs to work through the process and do an in-depth traffic study.  I'll bet that if not already there, they are only a few years away to where traffic growth will rise to where the HOT lanes have high enough usage to where 4th lanes won't affect it negatively.  CTB members are not traffic engineers.
One problem with the 3-lane general purpose roadways, is that the reversible roadway only helps in one direction at a time.  Another problem is that is no wider than when the highway was opened in 1965, and if the reversible roadway is SB then the NB traffic doesn't benefit from it, and vice versa; and in the opposite direction you have no more lanes than was there in 1965.  The HOT lanes don't help the opposite direction, and there are plenty of times including in off-peak hours that 4 lanes are needed.
Possible ways to increase capacity on the I-95 corridor(At least the Fredricksburg to Woodbridge segment) that I believe would not result in a compensation event:
1. Continuing to widen US-1 to six lanes
2. Adding auxiliary lanes on I-95 between each exit.

Capacity per lane mile per hour is about 800 vehicles on a nonlimited-access highway.  On a freeway, about 2,000 to 2,200.  Widening US-1 would not have much of an effect on I-95.

I-95 needs more thru capacity.  Adding auxiliary lanes on I-95 between each exit would help but would not address that.

I would like to see an in-depth traffic study to see what if any impact would occur to the HOT lanes with 4th lane widening of the general purpose roadways, and on a year to year basis in the future.   Also quantify the cost of a compensation event, make an estimate to see how affordable it would be for VDOT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 12, 2018, 08:47:21 AM
One problem with adding lanes between, but not through, the interchanges is that you create a pinch point at each interchange as people using the additional lane have to move over and other people try not to let them in.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 09:35:46 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 12, 2018, 08:47:21 AM
One problem with adding lanes between, but not through, the interchanges is that you create a pinch point at each interchange as people using the additional lane have to move over and other people try not to let them in.

Plus still having 3 lanes of thru capacity.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 12, 2018, 10:32:43 AM
Quote from: oscar on January 11, 2018, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2018, 03:17:50 PM
Here's a weird bill pending this year. HB 27 (https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?181+sum+HB27) would change the inspection sticker location from the windshield to the rear window in the lower corner on the driver's side. (Recall this year they are switching it from the bottom center of the windshield to the bottom corner on the driver's side.)

I think the rear-window idea is a terrible idea because most vehicle inspectors I've ever seen use a razor blade to remove the sticker. Using a razor blade on the rear window would damage the defroster wires on many vehicles, and I highly doubt most inspectors would be especially careful to avoid causing such damage.

I agree. Also, the rear window space that would be assigned to the inspection sticker (and, I assume, the county/city sticker alongside the inspection sticker) is where my condo association asks residents to place the condo sticker, which seems to be common for condo associations in my area.

On my car, the inspection sticker would go either on the glass hatch window where the defroster wires are, or on the plastic window below the "spoiler" separating it from the glass window, which inspectors' razor blades would scratch up.

I wonder why the inspection and county/city stickers couldn't stay on the front window, but go on the passenger side where they would not distract the driver and obstruct the driver's view over the hood.  I just had a safety inspection on my car, with the new sticker placed in the lower driver's side corner, and the new location is definitely more distracting and obstructive than the old bottom center location.

I'm off work today, so I just spent half an hour composing an e-mail to the members of the House Committee on Transportation and my local legislators asking them to oppose HB 27 because of the "defroster wires" problem and because a rear-window decal would cause visibility problems in cars with small rear windows (such as convertibles, although mine is exempt from inspection due to having antique plates). I acknowledged that the bill is well-intended but argued that it would cause more problems than it would solve. Consider how much harder it is in most vehicles to reach the lower corners of the rear window compared to any portion of the windshield. I highly doubt state inspectors would be willing to stop using their long-handled razor blades, and I doubt the State Police (who are in charge of the safety inspection program) would allow for the use of "static stickers" that are easier to remove because they would be concerned about people fraudulently moving the stickers from car to car.

I suggested that the real solution would be to combine the safety inspection with the registration process, just like they did with the emissions inspection. Get your safety inspection done and have the results transmitted electronically to the DMV before you can renew your registration; as a side benefit, this should eliminate the need for the decals altogether because the fact that your car is currently registered would indicate it passed safety inspection. As I type this paragraph now, though, I see a problem: Registration and emissions inspection are required only every two years (and, if you live in a county or city where emissions inspection isn't required, your registration only has to be renewed every THIRD year if you want to renew for three years). Safety inspection is an annual requirement. That didn't occur to me when I sent my e-mail, and it would pose something of a logistical problem. I don't think it takes away from my overall point about how HB 27 is flawed, though. They ought to give people time to adjust to the new decal location before making changes. The new location has only been in use for twelve days (really eleven, since inspection stations were closed Jan. 1).

If any of you from Virginia have any motivation to e-mail the Committee on Transportation about this bill, I'll give you the members' e-mail addresses. Let me know.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 12, 2018, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:39:11 AM
I-95 needs more thru capacity.  Adding auxiliary lanes on I-95 between each exit would help but would not address that.
^Agreed which is a large part of why VDOT is actively studying how to improve the US-301/VA-207 corridor as the main alternative for long distance traffic wishing to bypass the Northern Virginia area.
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:39:11 AM
I would like to see an in-depth traffic study to see what if any impact would occur to the HOT lanes with 4th lane widening of the general purpose roadways, and on a year to year basis in the future.   Also quantify the cost of a compensation event, make an estimate to see how affordable it would be for VDOT.
IMHO it wouldn't require an in-depth traffic study to figure out that by adding a 4th lane past Woodbridge, arguably the worst consistent bottleneck in the region and in order to avoid it, a big reason why so many single drivers are willing to pay to use the HOT lanes, Transburban could indeed face a large loss of HOT lanes revenue if it is removed by simply just extending the 4th lane south. The FredEX project will get rid of the Garrisonville and hopefully the Fredricksburg bottlenecks, therefore after 2022 making Woodbridge really the only major one left due to that lane drop.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 11:06:10 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 12, 2018, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:39:11 AM
I-95 needs more thru capacity.  Adding auxiliary lanes on I-95 between each exit would help but would not address that.
^Agreed which is a large part of why VDOT is actively studying how to improve the US-301/VA-207 corridor as the main alternative for long distance traffic wishing to bypass the Northern Virginia area.

Unless all of it is freeway between I-95/VA-207 and MD I-695, it won't provide much traffic relief to I-95, if any, considering that MD US-301 in southern MD has at least 50 traffic signals.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 12, 2018, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:39:11 AM
I would like to see an in-depth traffic study to see what if any impact would occur to the HOT lanes with 4th lane widening of the general purpose roadways, and on a year to year basis in the future.   Also quantify the cost of a compensation event, make an estimate to see how affordable it would be for VDOT.
IMHO it wouldn't require an in-depth traffic study to figure out that by adding a 4th lane past Woodbridge, arguably the worst consistent bottleneck in the region and in order to avoid it, a big reason why so many single drivers are willing to pay to use the HOT lanes, Transburban could indeed face a large loss of HOT lanes revenue if it is removed by simply just extending the 4th lane south. The FredEX project will get rid of the Garrisonville and hopefully the Fredricksburg bottlenecks, therefore after 2022 making Woodbridge really the only major one left due to that lane drop.

Look, I am a systems analyst and data analyst, and I can't accept a comment like "it wouldn't require an in-depth traffic study".  I want to see a VDOT study of exactly what the impacts would be to the HOT lane usage and the revenue, and quantify exactly what would be the cost of any compensation event.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 13, 2018, 12:24:35 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 11:06:10 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 12, 2018, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:39:11 AM
I-95 needs more thru capacity.  Adding auxiliary lanes on I-95 between each exit would help but would not address that.
^Agreed which is a large part of why VDOT is actively studying how to improve the US-301/VA-207 corridor as the main alternative for long distance traffic wishing to bypass the Northern Virginia area.

Unless all of it is freeway between I-95/VA-207 and MD I-695, it won't provide much traffic relief to I-95, if any, considering that MD US-301 in southern MD has at least 50 traffic signals.

Perhaps VDOT hopes that by upgrading their portion of the US-301/VA-207 corridor, the pressure will then be all on Maryland to consider at least somewhat improve their section, even if it's just to the MD-5 split north of Waldorf.

Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 11:06:10 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 12, 2018, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:39:11 AM
I would like to see an in-depth traffic study to see what if any impact would occur to the HOT lanes with 4th lane widening of the general purpose roadways, and on a year to year basis in the future.   Also quantify the cost of a compensation event, make an estimate to see how affordable it would be for VDOT.
IMHO it wouldn't require an in-depth traffic study to figure out that by adding a 4th lane past Woodbridge, arguably the worst consistent bottleneck in the region and in order to avoid it, a big reason why so many single drivers are willing to pay to use the HOT lanes, Transburban could indeed face a large loss of HOT lanes revenue if it is removed by simply just extending the 4th lane south. The FredEX project will get rid of the Garrisonville and hopefully the Fredricksburg bottlenecks, therefore after 2022 making Woodbridge really the only major one left due to that lane drop.
Look, I am a systems analyst and data analyst, and I can't accept a comment like "it wouldn't require an in-depth traffic study".  I want to see a VDOT study of exactly what the impacts would be to the HOT lane usage and the revenue, and quantify exactly what would be the cost of any compensation event.

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way opposed to a VDOT study regarding the potential impact widening I-95 would have on the HOT lanes. I just don't think that you(and Transburban) will like the findings.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 13, 2018, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 13, 2018, 12:24:35 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 11:06:10 PM
Unless all of it is freeway between I-95/VA-207 and MD I-695, it won't provide much traffic relief to I-95, if any, considering that MD US-301 in southern MD has at least 50 traffic signals.
Perhaps VDOT hopes that by upgrading their portion of the US-301/VA-207 corridor, the pressure will then be all on Maryland to consider at least somewhat improve their section, even if it's just to the MD-5 split north of Waldorf.

Good luck getting Maryland to do any highway improvement that they don't want to make.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 13, 2018, 12:24:35 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 11:06:10 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 12, 2018, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:39:11 AM
I would like to see an in-depth traffic study to see what if any impact would occur to the HOT lanes with 4th lane widening of the general purpose roadways, and on a year to year basis in the future.   Also quantify the cost of a compensation event, make an estimate to see how affordable it would be for VDOT.
IMHO it wouldn't require an in-depth traffic study to figure out that by adding a 4th lane past Woodbridge, arguably the worst consistent bottleneck in the region and in order to avoid it, a big reason why so many single drivers are willing to pay to use the HOT lanes, Transburban could indeed face a large loss of HOT lanes revenue if it is removed by simply just extending the 4th lane south. The FredEX project will get rid of the Garrisonville and hopefully the Fredricksburg bottlenecks, therefore after 2022 making Woodbridge really the only major one left due to that lane drop.
Look, I am a systems analyst and data analyst, and I can't accept a comment like "it wouldn't require an in-depth traffic study".  I want to see a VDOT study of exactly what the impacts would be to the HOT lane usage and the revenue, and quantify exactly what would be the cost of any compensation event.
Don't get me wrong, I am in no way opposed to a VDOT study regarding the potential impact widening I-95 would have on the HOT lanes. I just don't think that you(and Transburban) will like the findings.

NO GOOD!  VDOT does the study, then we can talk about it.  Until then it is just blowing smoke.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 13, 2018, 09:38:16 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 11:06:10 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 12, 2018, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:39:11 AM
I-95 needs more thru capacity.  Adding auxiliary lanes on I-95 between each exit would help but would not address that.
^Agreed which is a large part of why VDOT is actively studying how to improve the US-301/VA-207 corridor as the main alternative for long distance traffic wishing to bypass the Northern Virginia area.

Unless all of it is freeway between I-95/VA-207 and MD I-695, it won't provide much traffic relief to I-95, if any, considering that MD US-301 in southern MD has at least 50 traffic signals.

This would be a "nice to have", but won't really benefit I-95.  In the grand scheme of things, there isn't a whole lot of long-distance traffic on I-95 through the D.C. area compared to local traffic (I've estimated no more than 30K in the past).  And there's enough latent demand in the D.C. area and Northern Virginia to where any diversion of through traffic you get from I-95 will quickly fill back up with local traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 13, 2018, 10:48:32 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 13, 2018, 12:34:18 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 13, 2018, 12:24:35 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 11:06:10 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 12, 2018, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:39:11 AM
I would like to see an in-depth traffic study to see what if any impact would occur to the HOT lanes with 4th lane widening of the general purpose roadways, and on a year to year basis in the future.   Also quantify the cost of a compensation event, make an estimate to see how affordable it would be for VDOT.
IMHO it wouldn't require an in-depth traffic study to figure out that by adding a 4th lane past Woodbridge, arguably the worst consistent bottleneck in the region and in order to avoid it, a big reason why so many single drivers are willing to pay to use the HOT lanes, Transburban could indeed face a large loss of HOT lanes revenue if it is removed by simply just extending the 4th lane south. The FredEX project will get rid of the Garrisonville and hopefully the Fredricksburg bottlenecks, therefore after 2022 making Woodbridge really the only major one left due to that lane drop.
Look, I am a systems analyst and data analyst, and I can't accept a comment like "it wouldn't require an in-depth traffic study".  I want to see a VDOT study of exactly what the impacts would be to the HOT lane usage and the revenue, and quantify exactly what would be the cost of any compensation event.
Don't get me wrong, I am in no way opposed to a VDOT study regarding the potential impact widening I-95 would have on the HOT lanes. I just don't think that you(and Transburban) will like the findings.

NO GOOD!  VDOT does the study, then we can talk about it.  Until then it is just blowing smoke.

Fair enough, although the findings of this study may give us somewhat of a ballpark answer:
http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/fredericksburg/spotsylvania-lawmaker-proposes-bill-to-add-lanes-to--mile/article_9231bc58-f743-59d3-a4f7-a353e5588bc5.html
QuoteVDOT spokeswoman Kelly Hannon wrote in an email that the cost per mile of Cole's proposal would vary based on "the surrounding terrain, development, utilities, environmental context, required right-of-way and other factors."

"The agency will work to provide the General Assembly with cost and impact information as the legislation is under consideration,"  she added.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 13, 2018, 01:05:35 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2018, 09:38:16 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 11:06:10 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 12, 2018, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:39:11 AM
I-95 needs more thru capacity.  Adding auxiliary lanes on I-95 between each exit would help but would not address that.
^Agreed which is a large part of why VDOT is actively studying how to improve the US-301/VA-207 corridor as the main alternative for long distance traffic wishing to bypass the Northern Virginia area.
Unless all of it is freeway between I-95/VA-207 and MD I-695, it won't provide much traffic relief to I-95, if any, considering that MD US-301 in southern MD has at least 50 traffic signals.
This would be a "nice to have", but won't really benefit I-95.  In the grand scheme of things, there isn't a whole lot of long-distance traffic on I-95 through the D.C. area compared to local traffic (I've estimated no more than 30K in the past).  And there's enough latent demand in the D.C. area and Northern Virginia to where any diversion of through traffic you get from I-95 will quickly fill back up with local traffic.

I agree that a bypass won't necessarily affect I-95 traffic much in the long term, but that ~30,000 VPD would certainly have a major benefit if they had a reliable freeway bypass of the D.C. area, and that would probably include 6,000 to 8,000 large trucks.  It would be a huge benefit for the long distance traffic in the I-95 corridor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 13, 2018, 01:09:23 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 13, 2018, 10:48:32 AM
Fair enough, although the findings of this study may give us somewhat of a ballpark answer:
http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/fredericksburg/spotsylvania-lawmaker-proposes-bill-to-add-lanes-to--mile/article_9231bc58-f743-59d3-a4f7-a353e5588bc5.html
QuoteVDOT spokeswoman Kelly Hannon wrote in an email that the cost per mile of Cole's proposal would vary based on "the surrounding terrain, development, utilities, environmental context, required right-of-way and other factors."
"The agency will work to provide the General Assembly with cost and impact information as the legislation is under consideration,"  she added.

Legislation to do an end-run around Smart Scale, for 44 miles of I-95 widening?  Again, I think that is a bad idea; either they should use Smart Scale 100% of the time or they should get rid of it altogether.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 17, 2018, 09:48:11 AM
Does anybody know what the law is on Virginia regarding school zone speed limits when the schools are on a delayed opening or early closing? In other words, Fairfax County opened two hours late today. The "school zone speed limit 25 when flashing" sign outside Edison HS was flashing at 8:00 this morning, even though school wasn't opening until 10:00, presumably because they can't reprogram the signs on such short notice or else they just don't bother for one day. So the question is, do you have to obey the 25-mph school zone speed limit at 8:00 under those circumstances? I assume the answer is probably "yes," but it was certainly pretty clear that a lot of people on the road this morning felt otherwise. (I was going to the gas station and the lady in front of me slowed to 25. The guy behind me was already following too closely and almost rear-ended me when I slowed because of her. The normal speed limit is 35 and I might have split the difference and gone 30 had she not been ahead of me.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 17, 2018, 01:25:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2018, 09:48:11 AM
Does anybody know what the law is on Virginia regarding school zone speed limits when the schools are on a delayed opening or early closing? In other words, Fairfax County opened two hours late today. The "school zone speed limit 25 when flashing" sign outside Edison HS was flashing at 8:00 this morning, even though school wasn't opening until 10:00, presumably because they can't reprogram the signs on such short notice or else they just don't bother for one day. So the question is, do you have to obey the 25-mph school zone speed limit at 8:00 under those circumstances? I assume the answer is probably "yes," but it was certainly pretty clear that a lot of people on the road this morning felt otherwise. (I was going to the gas station and the lady in front of me slowed to 25. The guy behind me was already following too closely and almost rear-ended me when I slowed because of her. The normal speed limit is 35 and I might have split the difference and gone 30 had she not been ahead of me.)

Good question.  I see the "school zone speed limit 25 when flashing" signs activating even on national holidays when school is not in session and there is no activity at the school, at least where I live (Richmond).  I suppose the municipality could send a worker out to each school to disable the warning on such a day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 18, 2018, 10:45:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2018, 01:25:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2018, 09:48:11 AM
Does anybody know what the law is on Virginia regarding school zone speed limits when the schools are on a delayed opening or early closing? In other words, Fairfax County opened two hours late today. The "school zone speed limit 25 when flashing" sign outside Edison HS was flashing at 8:00 this morning, even though school wasn't opening until 10:00, presumably because they can't reprogram the signs on such short notice or else they just don't bother for one day. So the question is, do you have to obey the 25-mph school zone speed limit at 8:00 under those circumstances? I assume the answer is probably "yes," but it was certainly pretty clear that a lot of people on the road this morning felt otherwise. (I was going to the gas station and the lady in front of me slowed to 25. The guy behind me was already following too closely and almost rear-ended me when I slowed because of her. The normal speed limit is 35 and I might have split the difference and gone 30 had she not been ahead of me.)

Good question.  I see the "school zone speed limit 25 when flashing" signs activating even on national holidays when school is not in session and there is no activity at the school, at least where I live (Richmond).  I suppose the municipality could send a worker out to each school to disable the warning on such a day.

Checked the Code of Virginia and it only talks about the how and when of such signs (see https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-873/ ) but it doesn't discuss anything about school not in session. I would suggest that it is a local issue and the cops would be aware of a school closing or delay -- and they would have to be pretty mean to run radar in a school zone when school is closed just to catch people who don't drop their speed (knowing school is closed). Even if a ticket is issued, it would seem to be an easy argument to make in front of a judge (but I'll let someone else give it a shot).

Bruce in frigid Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 18, 2018, 11:32:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2018, 01:25:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2018, 09:48:11 AM
Does anybody know what the law is on Virginia regarding school zone speed limits when the schools are on a delayed opening or early closing? In other words, Fairfax County opened two hours late today. The "school zone speed limit 25 when flashing" sign outside Edison HS was flashing at 8:00 this morning, even though school wasn't opening until 10:00, presumably because they can't reprogram the signs on such short notice or else they just don't bother for one day. So the question is, do you have to obey the 25-mph school zone speed limit at 8:00 under those circumstances? I assume the answer is probably "yes," but it was certainly pretty clear that a lot of people on the road this morning felt otherwise. (I was going to the gas station and the lady in front of me slowed to 25. The guy behind me was already following too closely and almost rear-ended me when I slowed because of her. The normal speed limit is 35 and I might have split the difference and gone 30 had she not been ahead of me.)

Good question.  I see the "school zone speed limit 25 when flashing" signs activating even on national holidays when school is not in session and there is no activity at the school, at least where I live (Richmond).  I suppose the municipality could send a worker out to each school to disable the warning on such a day.

I've noticed such signs activating in the City of Richmond at weird hours, actually. I don't know if local police are using them as speed traps or what, but it's weird to be driving up a street at about 8pm and seeing those lights flashing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 01:25:08 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 18, 2018, 10:45:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2018, 01:25:27 PM
I see the "school zone speed limit 25 when flashing" signs activating even on national holidays when school is not in session and there is no activity at the school, at least where I live (Richmond).  I suppose the municipality could send a worker out to each school to disable the warning on such a day.
Checked the Code of Virginia and it only talks about the how and when of such signs (see https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-873/ ) but it doesn't discuss anything about school not in session. I would suggest that it is a local issue and the cops would be aware of a school closing or delay -- and they would have to be pretty mean to run radar in a school zone when school is closed just to catch people who don't drop their speed (knowing school is closed). Even if a ticket is issued, it would seem to be an easy argument to make in front of a judge (but I'll let someone else give it a shot).
Bruce in frigid Blacksburg

I do volunteer uniformed work for Richmond Police Department, not as a sworn officer, not with any arrest powers, but with a variety of other duties that include some traffic control functions.  Officers have a key to gain access to traffic signal controllers if for some official reason they need to override the normal sequencing, plus training as to using the manual options.  So it would be possible for officers or DPW workers to turn the school signals off on a weekday that it is not needed, or on at 8:00 pm if there is some major school function at that time.

The only caveat I would provide is that in a city the size of Richmond there are probably at least 30 such school zones, that would need manual intervention. 

But the controllers are programmed to know not to activate on weekend days, and not in the summer.  Holidays would vary in date from year to year and the system would need some kind of direct update capability and not just rote programming.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on January 21, 2018, 07:03:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 01:25:08 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 18, 2018, 10:45:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2018, 01:25:27 PM
I see the "school zone speed limit 25 when flashing" signs activating even on national holidays when school is not in session and there is no activity at the school, at least where I live (Richmond).  I suppose the municipality could send a worker out to each school to disable the warning on such a day.
Checked the Code of Virginia and it only talks about the how and when of such signs (see https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-873/ ) but it doesn't discuss anything about school not in session. I would suggest that it is a local issue and the cops would be aware of a school closing or delay -- and they would have to be pretty mean to run radar in a school zone when school is closed just to catch people who don't drop their speed (knowing school is closed). Even if a ticket is issued, it would seem to be an easy argument to make in front of a judge (but I'll let someone else give it a shot).
Bruce in frigid Blacksburg

I do volunteer uniformed work for Richmond Police Department, not as a sworn officer, not with any arrest powers, but with a variety of other duties that include some traffic control functions.  Officers have a key to gain access to traffic signal controllers if for some official reason they need to override the normal sequencing, plus training as to using the manual options.  So it would be possible for officers or DPW workers to turn the school signals off on a weekday that it is not needed, or on at 8:00 pm if there is some major school function at that time.

The only caveat I would provide is that in a city the size of Richmond there are probably at least 30 such school zones, that would need manual intervention. 

But the controllers are programmed to know not to activate on weekend days, and not in the summer.  Holidays would vary in date from year to year and the system would need some kind of direct update capability and not just rote programming.

There is no reason that school holidays cannot be pre-programmed in advance at these signals.  School districts generally set their schedule months before the start of school and they could program in certain dates that will not cause the lights to flash.  (I agree that weather closings do not give as much time.)  It's just a matter of will, whether they care to program the lights for these dates by adding in a date and month function to the controller, or take the easy way out and only program day of the week and time of day.

On a side note, it would be nice if there was an easy way to determine when school is in session.  And for traffic and parking purposes it's not limited to regular classes, but even after-school activities, clubs, sports, and/or summer school.  In many busy cities there are parking restrictions on "school days" and it would be nice to have those spaces available when you know for a fact that there is no school in session, but aren't sure if some kind of activity would make it a school day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 21, 2018, 08:57:30 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 21, 2018, 07:03:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 18, 2018, 01:25:08 PM
I do volunteer uniformed work for Richmond Police Department, not as a sworn officer, not with any arrest powers, but with a variety of other duties that include some traffic control functions.  Officers have a key to gain access to traffic signal controllers if for some official reason they need to override the normal sequencing, plus training as to using the manual options.  So it would be possible for officers or DPW workers to turn the school signals off on a weekday that it is not needed, or on at 8:00 pm if there is some major school function at that time.
The only caveat I would provide is that in a city the size of Richmond there are probably at least 30 such school zones, that would need manual intervention. 
But the controllers are programmed to know not to activate on weekend days, and not in the summer.  Holidays would vary in date from year to year and the system would need some kind of direct update capability and not just rote programming.
There is no reason that school holidays cannot be pre-programmed in advance at these signals.  School districts generally set their schedule months before the start of school and they could program in certain dates that will not cause the lights to flash.  (I agree that weather closings do not give as much time.)  It's just a matter of will, whether they care to program the lights for these dates by adding in a date and month function to the controller, or take the easy way out and only program day of the week and time of day.
On a side note, it would be nice if there was an easy way to determine when school is in session.  And for traffic and parking purposes it's not limited to regular classes, but even after-school activities, clubs, sports, and/or summer school.  In many busy cities there are parking restrictions on "school days" and it would be nice to have those spaces available when you know for a fact that there is no school in session, but aren't sure if some kind of activity would make it a school day.

That would depend on the signal controller, the functionality I outlined would most likely require a network connection and a central computer so that an employee could communicate those dates to all the signal controllers, since holidays would vary in date from year to year and snow days would only be known when they happened.  Without central control, every signal controller would have to be manually updated annually for holidays and ad hoc for snow and other emergency days.

I don't know the details of how these systems work, but from what I am hearing and seeing, each signal controller has rote programming that knows "it is a weekday" and "it is not summer [date-span]", and has no network connection to any central computer.

A small town might only have a few school zones, to where manual updating might be the way to go, but in a city the size of Richmond with 100 or more such signals, I think that the city should do a study and see what it would cost to upgrade to what I outlined, probably involve replacing all the signal controllers and utilize a wireless wide area network.

[Final VDOT job was Systems Analyst in VDOT IT Support Center in the Central Office]
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 22, 2018, 11:15:43 AM
Quote from: mrsman on January 21, 2018, 07:03:52 PM
There is no reason that school holidays cannot be pre-programmed in advance at these signals.  School districts generally set their schedule months before the start of school and they could program in certain dates that will not cause the lights to flash.  (I agree that weather closings do not give as much time.)  It's just a matter of will, whether they care to program the lights for these dates by adding in a date and month function to the controller, or take the easy way out and only program day of the week and time of day.

Actually there is a big reason why things can't be pre-programmed -- MONEY. Someone would have to spend the money to upgrade the whole signal system to allow the school zone signals to be programmed from a central location, and that assumes there is some type of network connection available at all locations. Around here, the signs could probably be set up to tap into the wireless network at each school (if the signs are close enough to pick up a signal). But many would argue that it would be better to spend that money on things that directly benefit students or the locality (depending on who pays for the signals) than on expensive software and controllers just to make it convenient for some drivers.

Here in the wilds of Virginia, the signals are controlled by simple timers that understand "on" time and "off" time for several times on weekdays and know to be "off" on weekends. When school is out for the summer, someone (town PD, county deputy, school maintenance) goes to each signal and turns it off. When school resumes in August, someone has to turn the signals back on again. It's a simple system but it works. Sure, it would be nice if someone in the central office (or at home on a snow day) could turn all the school zone signs off with the click of a mouse, but funds are tight as it is without siphoning money off to something that really can't be justified.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 22, 2018, 12:51:14 PM
The Richmond Times-Dispatch has posted 184 images from its archives of aerial views of Richmond, many of which include roads and highways.

See http://www.richmond.com/from-the-archives/from-the-archive-more-than-images-of-richmond-from-the/collection_8b4a91c0-d9e8-11e6-92d4-e379755a7c8a.html#6
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 22, 2018, 01:19:36 PM
Truck tolls to be studied for I-81

Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Rockingham, has introduced a bill in the current session of the Virginia General Assembly to study adding a toll to fund improvements to I-81. Tthe Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment would be charged to do a feasibility study of utilizing truck tolls to fund transportation infrastructure projects along I-81.

See http://www.newsleader.com/story/news/local/2018/01/22/new-bill-look-81-tolls-trucks/1053554001/

Obenshain has also filed a bill (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?181+ful+SB561) to have VDOT establish "zones where all tractor trucks are restricted to the right lane only. Such restricted zones shall serve as a substitute for the construction of truck climbing lanes."

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 22, 2018, 01:27:04 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 22, 2018, 01:19:36 PM

Obenshain has also filed a bill (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?181+ful+SB561) to have VDOT establish "zones where all tractor trucks are restricted to the right lane only. Such restricted zones shall serve as a substitute for the construction of truck climbing lanes."

They pretty much already have that, in the areas where black-on-white regulatory signs require vehicles to use the right lane when being operated below XX mph (typically the speed limit). Didn't keep me from getting behind some micropassing trucks on I-77 between Wytheville and Hillsville last month.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 22, 2018, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 22, 2018, 01:19:36 PM
Truck tolls to be studied for I-81
Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Rockingham, has introduced a bill in the current session of the Virginia General Assembly to study adding a toll to fund improvements to I-81. Tthe Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment would be charged to do a feasibility study of utilizing truck tolls to fund transportation infrastructure projects along I-81.

I thought that was already tried and rejected in the early and mid 2000s, when they had the benefit of a FHWA pilot program that allowed three such projects in the U.S.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: HTM Duke on January 23, 2018, 05:08:57 PM
Last week, I noticed two VMS's announcing the closure of the VA-236 west exit from I-395 south that (last) weekend.  Today, driving through the area again, I've noticed that work on the fourth lane extension on I-395 south from VA-236 to I-495 has finally begun.  As of now, just some removed guardrail and jersey walls installed.  And as I thought, this work is also part of the 395 HOT lane conversion project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 25, 2018, 04:53:46 PM
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/peake-files-resolution-to-study-u-s-eastern-bypass-in/article_07f78fa6-0171-11e8-b7fe-0356c1ba1d52.html
QuoteState Sen. Mark Peake, R-Lynchburg, on Jan. 8 filed a resolution and a budget amendment to study building a U.S. 29 eastern bypass around Charlottesville.

Peake said SJ32, which asks the Virginia Department of Transportation to research the feasibility of such a project, is the next step after the state killed the Western Bypass of U.S. 29.

"The promises were made more than 30 years ago – Danville did its bypass, Amherst did its bypass, Culpeper has its bypass and Charlottesville's been the one sticking point,"  Peake said. "We need to finish the project, and now we need to study an eastern bypass. This is the first step of following through with what was done in 2014 to 2015 when the $230 million from the Western Bypass was taken to do those local Charlottesville projects."

Funny how this was proposed by a State Senator from Lynchburg when their own US-29 bypass isn't even fully complete and IMHO much more important.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 25, 2018, 06:52:21 PM
Peake is an idiot. The first few miles of US-29 from US-460 on south is a parking lot riddled with traffic lights, trucks, businesses and other at-grades, and constant speed limit changes. Lynchburg also has a bigger population and more traffic. Yet he wants to focus on another city with less population that will fight tooth and nail against any bypass. :banghead: :banghead:

I stopped going to Lynchburg because of the bottleneck. It's just not worth the hassle anymore. Greensboro is about the same distance from me and is MUCH easier getting in and out. I also use less gas going to Greensboro.

SW/Southside VA just can't catch a break. Whenever the state isn't screwing us over, our own politicans are doing it. Go figure. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 25, 2018, 08:55:27 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 25, 2018, 06:52:21 PM
Peake is an idiot. The first few miles of US-29 from US-460 on south is a parking lot riddled with traffic lights, trucks, businesses and other at-grades, and constant speed limit changes. Lynchburg also has a bigger population and more traffic. Yet he wants to focus on another city with less population that will fight tooth and nail against any bypass. :banghead: :banghead:

I stopped going to Lynchburg because of the bottleneck. It's just not worth the hassle anymore. Greensboro is about the same distance from me and is MUCH easier getting in and out. I also use less gas going to Greensboro.

SW/Southside VA just can't catch a break. Whenever the state isn't screwing us over, our own politicans are doing it. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Peake obviously wants a US-29 interstate which is understandable as Lynchburg is one of the largest cities in the U.S without one. However what I find interesting is how hell-bent these politicians are on upgrading portions of US-29 north of Lynchburg to interstate standards where not only is the terrain much more challenging, but as you mentioned places like Charlottesville have and will continue to fight tooth and nail against it. While it would seem to be both easier and more realistic for Lynchburg to get an interstate via extending future I-785 up from Danville, this idea doesn't appear to resonate nearly as much interest. My guess is that it likely has something to do with an economic preference to be connected to Charlottesville and points north rather than Southside and points south.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 26, 2018, 03:33:22 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 25, 2018, 08:55:27 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 25, 2018, 06:52:21 PM
Peake is an idiot. The first few miles of US-29 from US-460 on south is a parking lot riddled with traffic lights, trucks, businesses and other at-grades, and constant speed limit changes. Lynchburg also has a bigger population and more traffic. Yet he wants to focus on another city with less population that will fight tooth and nail against any bypass. :banghead: :banghead:

I stopped going to Lynchburg because of the bottleneck. It's just not worth the hassle anymore. Greensboro is about the same distance from me and is MUCH easier getting in and out. I also use less gas going to Greensboro.

SW/Southside VA just can't catch a break. Whenever the state isn't screwing us over, our own politicans are doing it. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Peake obviously wants a US-29 interstate which is understandable as Lynchburg is one of the largest cities in the U.S without one. However what I find interesting is how hell-bent these politicians are on upgrading portions of US-29 north of Lynchburg to interstate standards where not only is the terrain much more challenging, but as you mentioned places like Charlottesville have and will continue to fight tooth and nail against it. While it would seem to be both easier and more realistic for Lynchburg to get an interstate via extending future I-785 up from Danville, this idea doesn't appear to resonate nearly as much interest. My guess is that it likely has something to do with an economic preference to be connected to Charlottesville and points north rather than Southside and points south.

There was a bill introduced in the General Assembly back in 2011 to extend I-785 to Altavista but it didn't get anywhere and all talk of extending I-785 north of the Danville area disappeared since. I thought that attempt was stupid anyway since Altavista doesn't meet FHWA criteria as a logical termini for an interstate, unlike Lynchburg. There was a small thread on this forum in 2011 covering that proposal.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4062.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4062.0)

The politicians around here are a few beers short of a six-pack.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 26, 2018, 11:53:27 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2018, 09:38:16 AM
This would be a "nice to have", but won't really benefit I-95.  In the grand scheme of things, there isn't a whole lot of long-distance traffic on I-95 through the D.C. area compared to local traffic (I've estimated no more than 30K in the past).  And there's enough latent demand in the D.C. area and Northern Virginia to where any diversion of through traffic you get from I-95 will quickly fill back up with local traffic.

I strongly disagree.

For starters, network redundancy (or lack thereof), which is one of the  reasons that the freeways near D.C. do not work especially well.

Regarding through traffic, cars, perhaps, but plenty of commercial vehicles are through trips, and even those that have a destination in or near D.C. frequently have to transit much of the region to get to their destination (think trucks headed for the  Safeway warehouse on U.S. 301 in the Upper Marlboro area of Prince George's County or the Giant warehouses now mostly in the Jessup area of Howard County (the Landover complex that was once the headquarters of Giant is vacant and for sale)).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 26, 2018, 05:50:45 PM
Regarding my posts above about HB27, this week the House Transportation Subcommittee to which it was assigned voted unanimously to recommend "passing it by indefinitely,"  which I understand is basically equivalent to recommending rejection. That's good news.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 26, 2018, 09:09:31 PM
I was on VA 76 today, going to check out the recently completed segment of Woolridge Road, and noticed it now has mileposts every .2 miles. However, they run in reverse. The last milepost, just before Charter Colony Parkway, is 12.2, and the mileage decreases as the route goes north/east.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 27, 2018, 09:45:15 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2018, 05:50:45 PM
Regarding my posts above about HB27, this week the House Transportation Subcommittee to which it was assigned voted unanimously to recommend "passing it by indefinitely,"  which I understand is basically equivalent to recommending rejection. That's good news.

Good. It was a stupid idea. I wish VA would go full electronic and do away with stickers altogether.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on January 28, 2018, 02:22:14 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 27, 2018, 09:45:15 AM
Good. It was a stupid idea. I wish VA would go full electronic and do away with stickers altogether.

All states should, though it's a hard sell in states that charge for stickers (like PA, which charges inspection stations $7 for a sticker - akin to a "stamp tax").
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 30, 2018, 11:15:23 AM
There's another attempt to raise the Reckless Driving threshold to 85mph.

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/general-assembly/senate-backs-bill-to-raise-reckless-driving-threshold-to-mph/article_a5bca637-2a03-5129-b698-897058919707.html (http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/general-assembly/senate-backs-bill-to-raise-reckless-driving-threshold-to-mph/article_a5bca637-2a03-5129-b698-897058919707.html)

QuoteThe Senate on Tuesday voted 23-16 to pass a bill that would raise the threshold for reckless driving in Virginia from 80 to 85 mph.

Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Roanoke County, said his Senate Bill 104 was necessary because someone shouldn't potentially be convicted of a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine, for going 11 miles over the standard 70 mph speed limit on interstates.

Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, who handles traffic cases as part of his law practice, agreed. He said imposing a reckless driving statute at 80 mph doesn't deter anyone from speeding because most of those who are ticketed don't realize that going over 80 would mean reckless driving.

Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Rockingham, said he wanted to keep the law as it is, and said the reckless driving charge over 80 mph stops people from excessive speeds on Interstate 81 and saves lives.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 30, 2018, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: LM117 on January 30, 2018, 11:15:23 AM
There's another attempt to raise the Reckless Driving threshold to 85mph.

....

Long-overdue, although the whole idea of establishing that a particular speed is automatically reckless is a bit absurd anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on January 30, 2018, 09:42:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 30, 2018, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: LM117 on January 30, 2018, 11:15:23 AM
There's another attempt to raise the Reckless Driving threshold to 85mph.

....

Long-overdue, although the whole idea of establishing that a particular speed is automatically reckless is a bit absurd anyway.

Yeah, I don't get that idea either. Washington allows any speed above the limit to be classified as "reckless", but I rarely hear of it being applied at all (officer's discretion). Having a definite, set number to define "reckless" works against the idea that roads can be built for any speed (which they can be).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 30, 2018, 09:55:17 PM
Officers in VA also have discretion, but it's rarely used. It's also worth mentioning that the Senate has passed similar bills before, but the House of Delegates have killed every previous attempt in committee. I don't think it's ever gotten to the floor.

Maybe they'll be a better chance now since last November's shakeup.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 31, 2018, 11:09:54 AM
Quote from: LM117Officers in VA also have discretion, but it's rarely used.

I wouldn't say "rarely"....may depend on the jurisdiction.  I certainly know that Charles City County uses such discretion...there was one guy in court the day I was who was caught going 24 over.  Per the law, that's an automatic reckless, but the ticketing officer didn't write it as such and the judge made it a point to note this to the accused.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 31, 2018, 11:22:50 AM
Quote from: LM117 on January 30, 2018, 11:15:23 AM

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/general-assembly/senate-backs-bill-to-raise-reckless-driving-threshold-to-mph/article_a5bca637-2a03-5129-b698-897058919707.html (http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/general-assembly/senate-backs-bill-to-raise-reckless-driving-threshold-to-mph/article_a5bca637-2a03-5129-b698-897058919707.html)

QuoteSen. Mark Obenshain, R-Rockingham, said he wanted to keep the law as it is, and said the reckless driving charge over 80 mph stops people from excessive speeds on Interstate 81 and saves lives.

I didn't realize that I-81 went through an alternative universe when it got up near Harrisonburg.

Even when conditions allow (mainly when there isn't a lot of congestion) and I'm pushing 75, I still have people blow past doing well over 80. I'll bet there is any number of State Troopers who will attest that they regularly clock people exceeding 80 -- despite the reckless driving charge.

I would suggest that the biggest problem with safety on I-81 is people who don't know how to drive, especially flatlanders who encounter the various grades south of Roanoke (both four-wheelers and truckers). There really isn't a cure for stupid.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 31, 2018, 03:04:54 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 31, 2018, 11:22:50 AM
I didn't realize that I-81 went through an alternative universe when it got up near Harrisonburg.
Even when conditions allow (mainly when there isn't a lot of congestion) and I'm pushing 75, I still have people blow past doing well over 80. I'll bet there is any number of State Troopers who will attest that they regularly clock people exceeding 80 -- despite the reckless driving charge.
I would suggest that the biggest problem with safety on I-81 is people who don't know how to drive, especially flatlanders who encounter the various grades south of Roanoke (both four-wheelers and truckers). There really isn't a cure for stupid.
Bruce in Blacksburg

I agree.  I am regularly amazed at the number of drivers who don't even know how to use a turn signal, probably 40 or 50% of all drivers.  It doesn't matter if there are no other vehicles nearby, but many times a driver makes a sudden unexpected move that would have been easily explained beforehand if he had bothered to use his turn signal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 31, 2018, 03:53:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2018, 09:42:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 30, 2018, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: LM117 on January 30, 2018, 11:15:23 AM
There's another attempt to raise the Reckless Driving threshold to 85mph.

....

Long-overdue, although the whole idea of establishing that a particular speed is automatically reckless is a bit absurd anyway.

Yeah, I don't get that idea either. Washington allows any speed above the limit to be classified as "reckless", but I rarely hear of it being applied at all (officer's discretion). Having a definite, set number to define "reckless" works against the idea that roads can be built for any speed (which they can be).

It also takes away from the idea of "recklessness" as a legal concept. That is, the legal concept of recklessness means that you either act intentionally without paying any attention to the likely injurious consequences that may occur from your conduct or you knowingly disregard the risk of those consequences. I'd argue that the mere fact of driving faster than a specific speed does not, in and of itself, automatically create a likelihood of injurious consequences merely because of the speed (assuming the speed is the sole factor at issue–that is, setting aside issues like bad weather or visibility or heavy traffic or whatever).

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I once saw a judge ask a cop in Fairfax General District Court why he hadn't written a guy a reckless driving ticket. The guy had been going 98 mph on I-66 west of Fair Oaks. The cop said it was late at night, the weather was clear with a full moon, there was no traffic, and the guy was driving a new Corvette, so the cop concluded the guy was trying out his new car and he was not posing a danger to himself or anyone else. The judge accepted the explanation. I still say good for both the cop and the judge for getting it right.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on February 01, 2018, 05:57:14 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2018, 03:53:46 PMI'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I once saw a judge ask a cop in Fairfax General District Court why he hadn't written a guy a reckless driving ticket. The guy had been going 98 mph on I-66 west of Fair Oaks. The cop said it was late at night, the weather was clear with a full moon, there was no traffic, and the guy was driving a new Corvette, so the cop concluded the guy was trying out his new car and he was not posing a danger to himself or anyone else. The judge accepted the explanation. I still say good for both the cop and the judge for getting it right.

Wow! :wow: Fairfax is one of the last places I'd expect to do that. I've always heard that they're very tough. Hell, there's a retired cop from NOVA who is a member of City-Data forum (posts in VA subforum) and he always mentions how tough Fairfax courts are whenever someone asks for advice on speeding and RD charges in that area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 01, 2018, 07:25:52 AM
Quote from: LM117 on February 01, 2018, 05:57:14 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2018, 03:53:46 PMI'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I once saw a judge ask a cop in Fairfax General District Court why he hadn't written a guy a reckless driving ticket. The guy had been going 98 mph on I-66 west of Fair Oaks. The cop said it was late at night, the weather was clear with a full moon, there was no traffic, and the guy was driving a new Corvette, so the cop concluded the guy was trying out his new car and he was not posing a danger to himself or anyone else. The judge accepted the explanation. I still say good for both the cop and the judge for getting it right.
Wow! :wow: Fairfax is one of the last places I'd expect to do that. I've always heard that they're very tough. Hell, there's a retired cop from NOVA who is a member of City-Data forum (posts in VA subforum) and he always mentions how tough Fairfax courts are whenever someone asks for advice on speeding and RD charges in that area.

So what was he charged with?  Obviously something if he was in front of the General District Court.  If the police and magistrate don't press a particular charge then the judge won't do it himself, so that point is moot.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 01, 2018, 07:26:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2018, 07:25:52 AM
Quote from: LM117 on February 01, 2018, 05:57:14 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2018, 03:53:46 PMI'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I once saw a judge ask a cop in Fairfax General District Court why he hadn't written a guy a reckless driving ticket. The guy had been going 98 mph on I-66 west of Fair Oaks. The cop said it was late at night, the weather was clear with a full moon, there was no traffic, and the guy was driving a new Corvette, so the cop concluded the guy was trying out his new car and he was not posing a danger to himself or anyone else. The judge accepted the explanation. I still say good for both the cop and the judge for getting it right.
Wow! :wow: Fairfax is one of the last places I'd expect to do that. I've always heard that they're very tough. Hell, there's a retired cop from NOVA who is a member of City-Data forum (posts in VA subforum) and he always mentions how tough Fairfax courts are whenever someone asks for advice on speeding and RD charges in that area.

So what was he charged with?  Obviously something if he was in front of the General District Court.  If the police and magistrate don't press a particular charge then the judge won't do it himself.

Plain old speeding.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 01, 2018, 07:27:55 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 01, 2018, 07:26:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2018, 07:25:52 AM
Quote from: LM117 on February 01, 2018, 05:57:14 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2018, 03:53:46 PMI'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I once saw a judge ask a cop in Fairfax General District Court why he hadn't written a guy a reckless driving ticket. The guy had been going 98 mph on I-66 west of Fair Oaks. The cop said it was late at night, the weather was clear with a full moon, there was no traffic, and the guy was driving a new Corvette, so the cop concluded the guy was trying out his new car and he was not posing a danger to himself or anyone else. The judge accepted the explanation. I still say good for both the cop and the judge for getting it right.
Wow! :wow: Fairfax is one of the last places I'd expect to do that. I've always heard that they're very tough. Hell, there's a retired cop from NOVA who is a member of City-Data forum (posts in VA subforum) and he always mentions how tough Fairfax courts are whenever someone asks for advice on speeding and RD charges in that area.
So what was he charged with?  Obviously something if he was in front of the General District Court.  If the police and magistrate don't press a particular charge then the judge won't do it himself.
Plain old speeding.

And a fine based on the number of mph over?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 01, 2018, 07:38:56 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2018, 07:27:55 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 01, 2018, 07:26:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2018, 07:25:52 AM
Quote from: LM117 on February 01, 2018, 05:57:14 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2018, 03:53:46 PMI'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I once saw a judge ask a cop in Fairfax General District Court why he hadn't written a guy a reckless driving ticket. The guy had been going 98 mph on I-66 west of Fair Oaks. The cop said it was late at night, the weather was clear with a full moon, there was no traffic, and the guy was driving a new Corvette, so the cop concluded the guy was trying out his new car and he was not posing a danger to himself or anyone else. The judge accepted the explanation. I still say good for both the cop and the judge for getting it right.
Wow! :wow: Fairfax is one of the last places I'd expect to do that. I've always heard that they're very tough. Hell, there's a retired cop from NOVA who is a member of City-Data forum (posts in VA subforum) and he always mentions how tough Fairfax courts are whenever someone asks for advice on speeding and RD charges in that area.
So what was he charged with?  Obviously something if he was in front of the General District Court.  If the police and magistrate don't press a particular charge then the judge won't do it himself.
Plain old speeding.

And a fine based on the number of mph over?

From what I recall, yes. As you correctly note, the judge won't increase the charge. I'm not sure he legally can.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2018, 10:21:27 PM
Washington Post: Monster trucks for Virginia's roads? Some lawmakers want to study them; opponents see them as menace. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tripping/wp/2018/02/01/monster-trucks-for-virginias-roads-some-lawmakers-want-to-study-them-opponents-see-them-as-menace/)

QuoteMonster trucks could come to Virginia's highways if some lawmakers get their way.

QuoteThese are not the fun kind of monster trucks that intentionally crush cars, motor homes and other vehicles for the entertainment of fans who crowd into arenas to see them. These would be 18-wheeler trucks rolling down ordinary highways with loads of 91,000 pounds and perhaps more.

QuoteSupporters say the super trucks are important to keep commerce flowing, particularly for enterprises such as the Port of Virginia. They also argue that the heavier trucks would pose no additional threat to highway safety or infrastructure than existing 18-wheelers. Those advocates say they would just like to give Virginia flexibility to test the use and effect of super trucks, regardless of the federal government's stance.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on February 01, 2018, 11:09:28 PM
Egads.  NYSDOT called them "super loads" about 10 years ago.  Didn't know they had actual proponents.  The permitting alone and procedures to prevent bridge failures is a huge headache for all involved.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 01, 2018, 11:30:34 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2018, 10:21:27 PM
Washington comPost: Monster trucks for Virginia's roads? Some lawmakers want to study them; opponents see them as menace. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tripping/wp/2018/02/01/monster-trucks-for-virginias-roads-some-lawmakers-want-to-study-them-opponents-see-them-as-menace/)
QuoteMonster trucks could come to Virginia's highways if some lawmakers get their way.
QuoteThese are not the fun kind of monster trucks that intentionally crush cars, motor homes and other vehicles for the entertainment of fans who crowd into arenas to see them. These would be 18-wheeler trucks rolling down ordinary highways with loads of 91,000 pounds and perhaps more.
QuoteSupporters say the super trucks are important to keep commerce flowing, particularly for enterprises such as the Port of Virginia. They also argue that the heavier trucks would pose no additional threat to highway safety or infrastructure than existing 18-wheelers. Those advocates say they would just like to give Virginia flexibility to test the use and effect of super trucks, regardless of the federal government's stance.

The poorly written article did not say if the trucks would be longer or wider, just that the weight limit would be increased from 80,000 to 91,000 pounds.  If they are not longer or wider, then it would be a misnomer to call them "monster trucks".  As far as the effects on pavements and bridges, that needs to be studied, IMHO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on February 02, 2018, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2018, 11:30:34 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 01, 2018, 10:21:27 PM
Washington comPost: Monster trucks for Virginia's roads? Some lawmakers want to study them; opponents see them as menace. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tripping/wp/2018/02/01/monster-trucks-for-virginias-roads-some-lawmakers-want-to-study-them-opponents-see-them-as-menace/)
QuoteMonster trucks could come to Virginia's highways if some lawmakers get their way.
QuoteThese are not the fun kind of monster trucks that intentionally crush cars, motor homes and other vehicles for the entertainment of fans who crowd into arenas to see them. These would be 18-wheeler trucks rolling down ordinary highways with loads of 91,000 pounds and perhaps more.
QuoteSupporters say the super trucks are important to keep commerce flowing, particularly for enterprises such as the Port of Virginia. They also argue that the heavier trucks would pose no additional threat to highway safety or infrastructure than existing 18-wheelers. Those advocates say they would just like to give Virginia flexibility to test the use and effect of super trucks, regardless of the federal government's stance.

The poorly written article did not say if the trucks would be longer or wider, just that the weight limit would be increased from 80,000 to 91,000 pounds.  If they are not longer or wider, then it would be a misnomer to call them "monster trucks".  As far as the effects on pavements and bridges, that needs to be studied, IMHO.
It isn't like loads like this haven't existed already.  NY had about half-a-dozen a year back in 2006 or so; don't know if that number has gone up or down.  In some cases, the escorted load would have to slow down to a crawl when it came to certain bridges.  NYSDOT would give them a specific route, but the permits were nuts.  All sorts of permits are needed for these things at various levels of government.  Very cumbersome and expensive to undertake.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 02, 2018, 12:26:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 01, 2018, 11:09:28 PM
Egads.  NYSDOT called them "super loads" about 10 years ago.  Didn't know they had actual proponents.  The permitting alone and procedures to prevent bridge failures is a huge headache for all involved.

I have no particular reason  to think this is a bad idea (the Pennsylvania Turnpike has long allowed 100,000 pounds gross on its roads without a permit), save one.   

There should be no discussion about heavier truck gross weights, or longer combinations (especially as it applies to I-81 in Virginia) until funding is identified by VDOT and is in place to design, engineer and construct a widening of all of I-81 in the Commonwealth to 6 or ideally 8 lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 02, 2018, 12:45:19 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 02, 2018, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2018, 11:30:34 PM
The poorly written article did not say if the trucks would be longer or wider, just that the weight limit would be increased from 80,000 to 91,000 pounds.  If they are not longer or wider, then it would be a misnomer to call them "monster trucks".  As far as the effects on pavements and bridges, that needs to be studied, IMHO.
It isn't like loads like this haven't existed already.  NY had about half-a-dozen a year back in 2006 or so; don't know if that number has gone up or down.  In some cases, the escorted load would have to slow down to a crawl when it came to certain bridges.  NYSDOT would give them a specific route, but the permits were nuts.  All sorts of permits are needed for these things at various levels of government.  Very cumbersome and expensive to undertake.

Occasional super-heavy loads can be permitted above 120,000 pounds in some cases in most states, I believe.  But then they would also have many more that 18 wheels.

Example --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THaXA-knmWs
weighs over 327,000lbs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 02, 2018, 12:53:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2018, 12:45:19 AM
Occasional super-heavy loads can be permitted above 120,000 pounds in some cases in most states, I believe.  But then they would also have many more that 18 wheels.

VDOT permitted an extremely heavy high-voltage transformer, which had to go by  highway from  a railroad siding on NS in Marshall at VA-55 to a location in Loudoun County.  That load was a monster, I think it scaled out between 300,000 and 400,000 pounds.  Predictably, the PEC was all worried about the load damaging "their" scenic secondary roads (might have gone east on VA-55, then north on VA-626 to Middleburg, then east on U.S. 50 and then a few more secondary routes to reach its destination, which might have been the big substation in Arcola (this has been a few years ago)) and the PEC wanted it sent "some other way" (because some tree branches had to be cut and utility lines temporarily moved, as this  thing was tall in addition to being heavy).   Regardless of the PEC's complaining, the load made it from the railroad siding to its intended destination safely.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on February 02, 2018, 02:22:30 PM
MDOT SHA even had a press release for one heavy load like that.
http://www.marylandroads.com/pages/release.aspx?newsId=2627

I seem to recall that wasn't the first heavy load like that in Harford county.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 02, 2018, 11:19:29 PM
As expected, it looks like Northern Virginia would very much like to get a significant piece of that $232 million from the FredEX deal to put towards easing the infamous Woodbridge bottleneck.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/will-virginia-finally-address-the-mess-on-i-95-at-the-occoquan-river/2018/02/02/2daa90a4-0540-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html?utm_term=.34861e3e6549
QuoteOn Jan. 8, now-former governor Terry McAuliffe (D) announced an agreement with the I-95 Express Lane concessionaire to extend the express toll lanes to Fredericksburg. As part of the agreement, the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing will be built and $232 million will be allocated to I-95 corridor improvements.

This $232 million provides an opportunity for Virginia to work with the I-95 Express Lane concessionaire to study, design and implement a solution for I-95 between Prince William Parkway and U.S. 1 in both directions that benefits both parties. As a start, VDOT and Prince William County have submitted a project for inclusion into the Council of Governments' long-range plan to add an auxiliary lane to southbound I-95 between Route 123 and Prince William Parkway.

A solution to this bottleneck may not reduce traffic volume during peak periods in the long run, but it could improve safety, reduce accidents, provide better access to and from Prince William County and reduce congestion during off-peak hours. Adding additional general-purpose lanes is not a cost-effective solution, but a mixture of auxiliary lanes, interchange reconfigurations and ramp metering could make this painful bottleneck that affects the lives of so many Prince William County residents and other users of I-95 more tolerable.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 04, 2018, 04:39:43 PM
Quote from: BrianP on February 02, 2018, 02:22:30 PM
MDOT SHA even had a press release for one heavy load like that.
http://www.marylandroads.com/pages/release.aspx?newsId=2627

I seem to recall that wasn't the first heavy load like that in Harford county.

Probably a big transformer headed for the nuclear generating station (or the switchyard next door) at Peach Bottom on the Susquehanna River in York County, Pennsylvania. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 10, 2018, 03:02:43 PM
Maybe I missed a news article, or a website or two, but who has details on these decorations along US 301 at Exit 45 on I-95 in Kingwood?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NB_US_301_Spires_West_of_I-95_Exit_45_South_of_Petersburg.jpg

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 10, 2018, 03:51:31 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 10, 2018, 03:02:43 PM
Maybe I missed a news article, or a website or two, but who has details on these decorations along US 301 at Exit 45 on I-95 in Kingwood?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NB_US_301_Spires_West_of_I-95_Exit_45_South_of_Petersburg.jpg




http://www.progress-index.com/news/20160821/plan-to-make-exit-45-lure-for-visitors-shifts-to-high-gear

http://www.progress-index.com/news/20170226/gateway-project-reaches-milestone-with-installation-of-spires

One of my favorite commercial signs from the far past still stands at this exit...

https://goo.gl/maps/1qGp5AFVJov
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 14, 2018, 08:42:10 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 10, 2018, 03:51:31 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 10, 2018, 03:02:43 PM
Maybe I missed a news article, or a website or two, but who has details on these decorations along US 301 at Exit 45 on I-95 in Kingwood?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NB_US_301_Spires_West_of_I-95_Exit_45_South_of_Petersburg.jpg




http://www.progress-index.com/news/20160821/plan-to-make-exit-45-lure-for-visitors-shifts-to-high-gear

http://www.progress-index.com/news/20170226/gateway-project-reaches-milestone-with-installation-of-spires

One of my favorite commercial signs from the far past still stands at this exit...

https://goo.gl/maps/1qGp5AFVJov
I've apparently been taking this exit for granted for over a decade.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 17, 2018, 11:55:39 AM
http://www.insidenova.com/news/transportation/bi-county-parkway-off-the-table-but-policymakers-still-seek/article_6c6d8eae-1337-11e8-9e44-1308df348d42.html
QuoteWe need the connectivity, so if the answer is no Bi-County Parkway, we need some other way to make that connection,"  said county Supervisor Marty Nohe, R-Coles, and the chairman of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority. "It's a political hurdle, though."

Nohe expects that the widening of Interstate 66 outside the Beltway to Gainesville will help some in that regard, as will the bypass for Va. 28 that his NVTA is studying right now. He hopes that improvements to Va. 28 will help ease access to Dulles International Airport, a key factor for Bi-County Parkway boosters. But he still believes transportation planners need to consider "another option"  for people looking to get to Loudoun.

"We've decided the Bi-County Parkway is not going to be that option, so now there's an effort to identify a new alternative,"  Nohe said. "Later this year, we'll have an update to the transportation section of our comprehensive plan, and I expect then we'll have some type of new north-south connectivity to supplant the Bi-County Parkway on the table

If Prince William County doesn't want to build the Bi-county parkway than widening US-15(plus the two-mile section of US-50 from Lenah to US-15) is only other reasonable alternative.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 02:13:51 PM
I attended the CTB meetings yesterday and today.

Design/build contract was awarded --

Route 15/17/29 Warrenton Interchange, Fauquier County
Construction of grade-separated interchange at Rt. 15/17/29 (Eastern Bypass), Rt. 15/17/29 Business and Rt. 880 (Lord Fairfax Drive.)

On Feb. 21, the Commonwealth Transportation Board awarded a $19.6 million contract to Shirley Contracting Company, LLC of Lorton to construct the Warrenton Interchange Project.

Construction is anticipated to begin this fall.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/warrentoninterchange.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 21, 2018, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 02:13:51 PM
I attended the CTB meetings yesterday and today.

Design/build contract was awarded --

Route 15/17/29 Warrenton Interchange, Fauquier County
Construction of grade-separated interchange at Rt. 15/17/29 (Eastern Bypass), Rt. 15/17/29 Business and Rt. 880 (Lord Fairfax Drive.)

On Feb. 21, the Commonwealth Transportation Board awarded a $19.6 million contract to Shirley Contracting Company, LLC of Lorton to construct the Warrenton Interchange Project.

Construction is anticipated to begin this fall.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/warrentoninterchange.asp
Glad to see construction of this greatly needed interchange finally about to get underway. However VDOT shouldn't stop with this one, more grade-separated interchanges are needed along US-15/US-29 in Opal, Remington, Brandy Station etc.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 06:15:28 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 21, 2018, 06:08:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 02:13:51 PM
Route 15/17/29 Warrenton Interchange, Fauquier County
Construction of grade-separated interchange at Rt. 15/17/29 (Eastern Bypass), Rt. 15/17/29 Business and Rt. 880 (Lord Fairfax Drive.)
Glad to see construction of this greatly needed interchange finally about to get underway. However VDOT shouldn't stop with one, more grade-separated interchanges are needed along US-15/US-29 in Opal, Remington, Brandy Station etc.

Opal was recently built, but agree about that whole section of US-29 that is a relocated limited access highway, which includes the Brandy Station Bypass and the Remington Bypass.

Brandy Station was even built with the right-of-way and design for a future interchange --
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.504152,-77.8946925,486m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 21, 2018, 06:25:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 06:15:28 PM
Opal was recently built,
My thinking was the existing light there would get replaced with an overpass and the partial trumpet interchange with US-17 would be upgraded to a full trumpet interchange. However I'm positive all the businesses in that area would probably pull a Breezewood and fight tooth and nail against any such idea.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 06:50:57 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 21, 2018, 06:25:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 06:15:28 PM
Opal was recently built,
My thinking was the existing light there would get replaced with an overpass and the partial trumpet interchange with US-17 would be upgraded to a full trumpet interchange. However I'm positive all the businesses in that area would probably pull a Breezewood and fight tooth and nail against any such idea.

The only movement that might need a grade separation is from US-17 to US-29 south.  Do you think that is needed?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 21, 2018, 08:22:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 06:50:57 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 21, 2018, 06:25:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 06:15:28 PM
Opal was recently built,
My thinking was the existing light there would get replaced with an overpass and the partial trumpet interchange with US-17 would be upgraded to a full trumpet interchange. However I'm positive all the businesses in that area would probably pull a Breezewood and fight tooth and nail against any such idea.

The only movement that might need a grade separation is from US-17 to US-29 south.  Do you think that is needed?
It would be nice, but definitely not needed as one making that movement could easily at Bealeton take VA-28 south to US-29 near Remington. In terms of getting rid of the light I guess an interchange like this could also technically work:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9759636,-76.2887539,278m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 22, 2018, 09:06:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 02:13:51 PM
I attended the CTB meetings yesterday and today.

Design/build contract was awarded --

Route 15/17/29 Warrenton Interchange, Fauquier County
Construction of grade-separated interchange at Rt. 15/17/29 (Eastern Bypass), Rt. 15/17/29 Business and Rt. 880 (Lord Fairfax Drive.)

On Feb. 21, the Commonwealth Transportation Board awarded a $19.6 million contract to Shirley Contracting Company, LLC of Lorton to construct the Warrenton Interchange Project.

Construction is anticipated to begin this fall.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/warrentoninterchange.asp

It's about time. That area tends to be a traffic nightmare and a lot of drivers don't expect the signalized intersection (despite plenty of warning through signage...).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 03:27:53 PM
A lot of major resurfacing contracts, but just two construction contracts.

Feb. 22, 2018
CTB AWARDS 23 CONTRACTS WORTH $167.5 MILLION
Projects, paving planned in seven VDOT districts

RICHMOND, Virginia — The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved 23 contracts at their monthly meeting Wednesday totaling $167.5 million for projects and paving in the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) Culpeper, Fredericksburg, Lynchburg, Northern Virginia, Richmond, Salem and Staunton districts.

A $19.6 million contract was awarded to Shirley Contracting Co. LLC of Lorton to design and build a new interchange in Fauquier County where Route 15 / 17 / 29 intersects Business Route 15 / 17 / 29 to the west, and Lord Fairfax Drive (Route 808) to the east.   The new interchange is needed to increase overall safety and improve traffic flow.  The project is expected to be complete in fall 2020.

Lynchburg District Project will complete final phase of Odd Fellows Road Interchange and Improvement Project.  An $8.7 million contract was awarded to W.C. English Inc. of Lynchburg to reconstruct Odd Fellows Road from Mayflower Drive to Business Route 29 (Lynchburg Expressway), to result in a road with one lane in each direction and a two-way turn lane in the center.  The project, in the city of Lynchburg, will also replace a bridge over the railroad, and include the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Odd Fellows Road and Albert Lankford Road/Murray Place.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2018/ctb_awards_23_contracts123619.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on February 22, 2018, 03:36:20 PM
I'd rather see a contract awarded to finish the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass, but that's just me...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 22, 2018, 10:19:01 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 22, 2018, 03:36:20 PM
I'd rather see a contract awarded to finish the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass, but that's just me...

With the new VA Secretary of Transportation being from Lynchburg, I think that talks regarding finishing the US-29 Lynchburg bypass, arguably the most important project in the entire region, will at the very least be more seriously discussed/considered over the next four years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 11:24:04 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 22, 2018, 10:19:01 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 22, 2018, 03:36:20 PM
I'd rather see a contract awarded to finish the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass, but that's just me...

With the new VA Secretary of Transportation being from Lynchburg, I think that talks regarding finishing the US-29 Lynchburg bypass, arguably the most important project in the entire region, will at the very least be more seriously discussed/considered over the next four years.

I certainly hope so. Lynchburg is an even bigger bottleneck than Charlottesville, IMO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 12:07:40 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 11:24:04 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 22, 2018, 10:19:01 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 22, 2018, 03:36:20 PM
I'd rather see a contract awarded to finish the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass, but that's just me...
With the new VA Secretary of Transportation being from Lynchburg, I think that talks regarding finishing the US-29 Lynchburg bypass, arguably the most important project in the entire region, will at the very least be more seriously discussed/considered over the next four years.
I certainly hope so. Lynchburg is an even bigger bottleneck than Charlottesville, IMO.

Huh??  Nothing is worse than Whoville!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on February 24, 2018, 11:54:43 AM
Quote from: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 11:24:04 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 22, 2018, 10:19:01 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 22, 2018, 03:36:20 PM
I'd rather see a contract awarded to finish the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass, but that's just me...

With the new VA Secretary of Transportation being from Lynchburg, I think that talks regarding finishing the US-29 Lynchburg bypass, arguably the most important project in the entire region, will at the very least be more seriously discussed/considered over the next four years.

I certainly hope so. Lynchburg is an even bigger bottleneck than Charlottesville, IMO.
Based on my experience driving both, this seems like a major stretch. The most annoying bit about Charlottesville is that it's stoplights pretty much every half mile or so until you reach Ruckersville, a distance of about 15 miles, whereas US-29 in Lynchburg is about 5 miles of stoplights until you're free past Yellow Branch. Granted, an extension of the Lynchburg Bypass seems far more likely given the NIMBY attitudes most Charlottesville residents hold about a new bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 24, 2018, 12:10:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 12:07:40 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 11:24:04 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 22, 2018, 10:19:01 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 22, 2018, 03:36:20 PM
I'd rather see a contract awarded to finish the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass, but that's just me...
With the new VA Secretary of Transportation being from Lynchburg, I think that talks regarding finishing the US-29 Lynchburg bypass, arguably the most important project in the entire region, will at the very least be more seriously discussed/considered over the next four years.
I certainly hope so. Lynchburg is an even bigger bottleneck than Charlottesville, IMO.

Huh??  Nothing is worse than Whoville!

Lynchburg was worse than Charlottesville until the Madison Heights Bypass opened.  The current US 29 that needs to be bypassed south of US 460 is not really any different than lots of places in Virginia...US 17 and VA 3 out of Fredericksburg are comparable to Lynchburg today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 12:24:53 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 24, 2018, 12:10:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 12:07:40 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 11:24:04 AM
I certainly hope so. Lynchburg is an even bigger bottleneck than Charlottesville, IMO.
Huh??  Nothing is worse than Whoville!
Lynchburg was worse than Charlottesville until the Madison Heights Bypass opened. 

Was, as in past tense.  The US-29 Lynchburg / Madison Heights Bypass opened in 2005.

Quote from: Mapmikey on February 24, 2018, 12:10:43 PM
The current US 29 that needs to be bypassed south of US 460 is not really any different than lots of places in Virginia...US 17 and VA 3 out of Fredericksburg are comparable to Lynchburg today.

Charlottesville never will work right without a bypass.  Even if the Hydraulic Road area and the connection to the existing bypass gets fixed, there will still be at least 5 multi-phased signalized intersections on US-29 that will only get more congested in the future.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 24, 2018, 12:58:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 24, 2018, 12:10:43 PM
The current US 29 that needs to be bypassed south of US 460 is not really any different than lots of places in Virginia...US 17 and VA 3 out of Fredericksburg are comparable to Lynchburg today.

A key difference here is that US-17 and VA-3 out of Fredericksburg are both mostly six lanes while US-29 south of Lynchburg is four lanes the entire way. Since widening existing US-29 is out of the question, finishing the Lynchburg bypass seems to be the only reasonable solution that would also at the same time, offer the best hope of one day bringing an interstate(I-785) to Lynchburg. IMO its crazy how this project has been on the backburner for so long.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 01:10:59 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 24, 2018, 12:58:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 24, 2018, 12:10:43 PM
The current US 29 that needs to be bypassed south of US 460 is not really any different than lots of places in Virginia...US 17 and VA 3 out of Fredericksburg are comparable to Lynchburg today.
A key difference here is that US-17 and VA-3 out of Fredericksburg are both mostly six lanes while US-29 south of Lynchburg is four lanes the entire way. Since widening existing US-29 is out of the question, finishing the Lynchburg bypass seems to be the only reasonable solution that would also at the same time, offer the best hope of a one day bringing an interstate(I-785) to Lynchburg. IMO its crazy how this project has been on the backburner for so long.

The Fredericksburg area is suffering due to the lack of the Outer Connector, particularly the Northwest Quadrant which would have greatly relieved traffic on those segments of VA-3 and US-17, and provided alternatives for VA-3 and US-17, at least for a substantial number of the trips.  The RE/T groups managed to block the project over 10 years ago.

The southern section of the US-29 Lynchburg / Madison Heights Bypass, south of US-460, is certainly a worthwhile and needed project.  Probably looking at about $300 million at this point.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 24, 2018, 02:11:05 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 24, 2018, 12:58:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 24, 2018, 12:10:43 PM
The current US 29 that needs to be bypassed south of US 460 is not really any different than lots of places in Virginia...US 17 and VA 3 out of Fredericksburg are comparable to Lynchburg today.

A key difference here is that US-17 and VA-3 out of Fredericksburg are both mostly six lanes while US-29 south of Lynchburg is four lanes the entire way. Since widening existing US-29 is out of the question, finishing the Lynchburg bypass seems to be the only reasonable solution that would also at the same time, offer the best hope of one day bringing an interstate(I-785) to Lynchburg. IMO its crazy how this project has been on the backburner for so long.

Both US 17 and VA 3, which while definitely now 6 lanes, are still very crowded several miles off of their I-95 interchanges...

2016 AADTs:

US 29 from VA 24 to US 460:  from 20k-31k
US 29 from US 250 to US 33:  from 29k-61k
US 17 from I-95 to Hartwood: from 24k-38k (US 17 is now noticeably better with its widening but VA 3 is not)
VA 3 from I-95 to where the 6-lane segment ends: 41k-87k

I agree that the Lynchburg bypass is a worthwhile endeavor and that the lack of a Charlottesville bypass condemns US 29 to a perpetual mess.

Outer Connector (or am I thinking of a different project that runs from I-95 southwest across US 17  to VA 3) for Fredericksburg would especially be helpful to VA 3 (I can't recall if it was supposed to connect with I-95 well south of the city in which case US 17 could then get more benefit).  All of the projects in the Fredericksburg area coming up will only improve how I-95 flows through here, with just a little bit of improvement for VA 3 flow right at I-95 and the adjacent Central Park shopping area.  but in a world of limited resources this is all that is feasible for now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2018, 02:54:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 24, 2018, 01:10:59 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 24, 2018, 12:58:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 24, 2018, 12:10:43 PM
The current US 29 that needs to be bypassed south of US 460 is not really any different than lots of places in Virginia...US 17 and VA 3 out of Fredericksburg are comparable to Lynchburg today.
A key difference here is that US-17 and VA-3 out of Fredericksburg are both mostly six lanes while US-29 south of Lynchburg is four lanes the entire way. Since widening existing US-29 is out of the question, finishing the Lynchburg bypass seems to be the only reasonable solution that would also at the same time, offer the best hope of a one day bringing an interstate(I-785) to Lynchburg. IMO its crazy how this project has been on the backburner for so long.

The Fredericksburg area is suffering due to the lack of the Outer Connector, particularly the Northwest Quadrant which would have greatly relieved traffic on those segments of VA-3 and US-17, and provided alternatives for VA-3 and US-17, at least for a substantial number of the trips.  The RE/T groups managed to block the project over 10 years ago.

The southern section of the US-29 Lynchburg / Madison Heights Bypass, south of US-460, is certainly a worthwhile and needed project.  Probably looking at about $300 million at this point.

Wasn't Celebrate Virginia Parkway built on some of the Outer Connector's proposed routing/ROW?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 03:48:02 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2018, 02:54:57 PM
Wasn't Celebrate Virginia Parkway built on some of the Outer Connector's proposed routing/ROW?

The Outer Connector was proposed several miles north of there.

Line 4 was approved by VDOT, then Line 1 was approved by CTB, in 2002
-- https://tinyurl.com/ybnowfom
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 25, 2018, 03:52:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 03:48:02 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2018, 02:54:57 PM
Wasn't Celebrate Virginia Parkway built on some of the Outer Connector's proposed routing/ROW?

The Outer Connector was proposed several miles north of there.

Line 4 was approved by VDOT, then Line 1 was approved by CTB, in 2002
-- https://tinyurl.com/ybnowfom

I believe this is the most recent reminiscent any potential Outer Connector(2013).
https://www.fampo.gwregion.org/wp-content/uploads/bypass.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ixnay on February 25, 2018, 03:57:16 PM
Does anybody refer to VA 123 as "Route One-Two-Three".  My stepfather's brother (who lived in Vienna, VA, and RIP to both of you) always did, and my stepdad picked that up, but I've never heard anyone else call it that.

ixnay
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 25, 2018, 07:27:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 03:48:02 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2018, 02:54:57 PM
Wasn't Celebrate Virginia Parkway built on some of the Outer Connector's proposed routing/ROW?

The Outer Connector was proposed several miles north of there.

Line 4 was approved by VDOT, then Line 1 was approved by CTB, in 2002
-- https://tinyurl.com/ybnowfom

Line 3 that was ultimately not selected is very close to the Celebrate Virginia Pkwy.

Line 1 would be very beneficial for VA 3 and would benefit local US 17 traffic only.   US 17's issues (at least southbound) are related to through traffic, though the 6-laning of US 17 north 2 miles has cut down on this congestion considerably and the Rappahannock Project will improve that even further.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 25, 2018, 08:42:43 PM
Quote from: ixnay on February 25, 2018, 03:57:16 PM
Does anybody refer to VA 123 as "Route One-Two-Three".  My stepfather's brother (who lived in Vienna, VA, and RIP to both of you) always did, and my stepdad picked that up, but I've never heard anyone else call it that.

Always referred to it as "one-twenty-three." 

This may be in part because VA-123 has so many names along its path.  From memory(!) but in order from south to north the names assigned to VA-123 are:

Prince William County
Gordon Boulevard

Fairfax County
Ox Road

City of Fairfax
Chain Bridge Road

Return to Fairfax County
Chain Bridge Road
Town of Vienna
Maple Avenue
Return to unincorporated Fairfax County
Chain Bridge Road
Dolley Madison Boulevard
Chain Bridge Road

Arlington County
Chain Bridge Road
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 25, 2018, 07:27:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 03:48:02 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2018, 02:54:57 PM
Wasn't Celebrate Virginia Parkway built on some of the Outer Connector's proposed routing/ROW?
The Outer Connector was proposed several miles north of there.
Line 4 was approved by VDOT, then Line 1 was approved by CTB, in 2002
-- https://tinyurl.com/ybnowfom
Line 3 that was ultimately not selected is very close to the Celebrate Virginia Pkwy.
Line 1 would be very beneficial for VA 3 and would benefit local US 17 traffic only.   US 17's issues (at least southbound) are related to through traffic, though the 6-laning of US 17 north 2 miles has cut down on this congestion considerably and the Rappahannock Project will improve that even further.

VDOT staff chose Line 4 as the best solution that had minimal environmental impacts.  CTB made one of its rare overrides of a VDOT location selection and chose Line 1 as the best solution from a traffic standpoint, which would have included the direct extensibility to a future OC southwest quadrant, with the political decision that would have acquired 130 acres of privately held Lick Run battlefield land (a fairly prominent ACW action was fought there in the area around the proposed interchange with VA-3 and OC).

All of it went away when funding was removed around 2004.  Surely the RE/T groups would have sued in federal court over Line 1 if it advanced to a completed NEPA process, Final EIS and ROD.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on February 25, 2018, 10:06:52 PM


Quote from: ixnay on February 25, 2018, 03:57:16 PM
Does anybody refer to VA 123 as "Route One-Two-Three".  My stepfather's brother (who lived in Vienna, VA, and RIP to both of you) always did, and my stepdad picked that up, but I've never heard anyone else call it that.

ixnay

Heard "Chain Bridge Road" more commonly when I lived in the area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 10:21:13 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 25, 2018, 10:06:52 PM
Quote from: ixnay on February 25, 2018, 03:57:16 PM
Does anybody refer to VA 123 as "Route One-Two-Three".  My stepfather's brother (who lived in Vienna, VA, and RIP to both of you) always did, and my stepdad picked that up, but I've never heard anyone else call it that.
Heard "Chain Bridge Road" more commonly when I lived in the area.

One-twenty-three.   That is what I have heard.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 25, 2018, 10:31:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 25, 2018, 10:06:52 PM


Quote from: ixnay on February 25, 2018, 03:57:16 PM
Does anybody refer to VA 123 as "Route One-Two-Three".  My stepfather's brother (who lived in Vienna, VA, and RIP to both of you) always did, and my stepdad picked that up, but I've never heard anyone else call it that.

ixnay

Heard "Chain Bridge Road" more commonly when I lived in the area.

Problem with Chain Bridge Road is that the name runs along three different sections of VA-123.   Its "famous" parts are probably the segments through the City of Fairfax and through most of the downtown area of Tysons Corner. 

For added amusement, Chain Bridge Road runs parallel to the Dolley Madison Boulevard part of VA-123 as a much smaller road, having secondary system route numbers like 3547 and 3563. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 25, 2018, 10:33:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 10:21:13 PM
One-twenty-three.   That is what I have heard.

That is what VDOT and Fairfax County staff people used to call it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 25, 2018, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 25, 2018, 10:33:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 10:21:13 PM
One-twenty-three.   That is what I have heard.

That is what VDOT and Fairfax County staff people used to call it.

Agreed. One-twenty-three is what most of the locals called it back when I lived in Woodbridge. Similarly, VA-234 is commonly referred to as "Two-thirty-four".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on February 25, 2018, 11:31:45 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 25, 2018, 10:31:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 25, 2018, 10:06:52 PM


Quote from: ixnay on February 25, 2018, 03:57:16 PM
Does anybody refer to VA 123 as "Route One-Two-Three".  My stepfather's brother (who lived in Vienna, VA, and RIP to both of you) always did, and my stepdad picked that up, but I've never heard anyone else call it that.

ixnay

Heard "Chain Bridge Road" more commonly when I lived in the area.

Problem with Chain Bridge Road is that the name runs along three different sections of VA-123.   Its "famous" parts are probably the segments through the City of Fairfax and through most of the downtown area of Tysons Corner. 

For added amusement, Chain Bridge Road runs parallel to the Dolley Madison Boulevard part of VA-123 as a much smaller road, having secondary system route numbers like 3547 and 3563.
Well, for the parts that were 123, that is what they called it when I lived in Falls Church.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 11:50:44 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 25, 2018, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 25, 2018, 10:33:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 10:21:13 PM
One-twenty-three.   That is what I have heard.
That is what VDOT and Fairfax County staff people used to call it.
Agreed. One-twenty-three is what most of the locals called it back when I lived in Woodbridge. Similarly, VA-234 is commonly referred to as "Two-thirty-four".

Pretty much the convention for any 3-digit route, state, U.S. or Interstate, name the first digit and then name the second two.  "Four-ninety-five".  "Two-seventy".  "Two-eleven".  "Three-ninety-five".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 26, 2018, 07:33:42 AM
Always heard "one twenty-three" and I seldom hear the street names unless someone wants to give additional info to pinpoint a location.

As Beltway notes, the same applies to Route "two thirty-six" (another that changes names–Duke Street, Little River Turnpike, Main Street, and perhaps North Street), although there I do hear the names more, especially Duke Street in Alexandria. I once knew a guy who referred to Route 236 as "Lert," as in sounding out "LRT," meaning "Little River Turnpike," but he was strange anyway.

The one exception I've heard to what Beltway notes is that I've heard some people pronounce the numbers individually (non-local example would be "four one seven") if there's a chance the two-digit part could be confused with something else due to sound (example, "seventeen" might sound like "seventy"). Odd thing is, it doesn't seem to matter whether a road with the other similar-sounding number is actually nearby, but it still makes sense to me so the person to whom you're giving verbal directions won't look for the wrong number. I'm accustomed to spelling my street's name for similar reasons–it starts with a "Th," but multiple people have heard it as a "Ph," so now I even say "'T' as in 'tango.'"
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ixnay on February 26, 2018, 09:23:47 PM
I hope in eternity my stepuncle will tell me where he picked up "One-Two-Three".  I'm surprised NoVA locals don't use that phrase.

ixnay
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 26, 2018, 09:31:51 PM
Quote from: ixnay on February 26, 2018, 09:23:47 PM
I hope in eternity my stepuncle will tell me where he picked up "One-Two-Three".  I'm surprised NoVA locals don't use that phrase.
ixnay

Either way is fine.  I've heard 911 said two ways, "Nine-one-one" and "Nine-eleven".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 28, 2018, 11:52:16 AM
A few months back I posted a link on this thread to WTVR's story about the 25th anniversary of toll removal on the RPT. A few comments later I told cpzilliacus that I didn't know how much the toll was at the plaza where I-95 left the turnpike in Petersburg. Last night I found this photo in the Valentine Museum's archives of the plaza (naturally there's a wreck). It looks to be right after the reconstruction of the I-85/US 301 interchanges.

What is "No Scrip"? Are they talking about the toll tickets?

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180228/8d3322dd2ef5a158a682363aa1a982e0.jpg)

SM-S820L

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 28, 2018, 12:09:45 PM
I thought Austin Powers was frozen when that generation of Nova was new.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on February 28, 2018, 02:56:41 PM
Quote from: plain on February 28, 2018, 11:52:16 AM
A few months back I posted a link on this thread to WTVR's story about the 25th anniversary of toll removal on the RPT. A few comments later I told cpzilliacus that I didn't know how much the toll was at the plaza where I-95 left the turnpike in Petersburg. Last night I found this photo in the Valentine Museum's archives of the plaza (naturally there's a wreck). It looks to be right after the reconstruction of the I-85/US 301 interchanges.

What is "No Scrip"? Are they talking about the toll tickets?

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180228/8d3322dd2ef5a158a682363aa1a982e0.jpg)

SM-S820L

I would presume that "scrip" means paper money. In other words, coins only.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on February 28, 2018, 03:22:19 PM
Huh.  Didn't think of it as paper money.

There was a legendary time over a decade ago when NY state employees were paid in "scrip" -- essentially an IOU to your bank supplied by the State.  Maybe it is saying no IOUs?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on February 28, 2018, 03:57:44 PM
Traditionally, scrip was a form of money paid by employers (normally coal companies) that was only usable at that company's stores. It was normally a custom coin made for the particular company.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 28, 2018, 04:26:55 PM
Did the RPT have pre-paid books of toll tickets that were sold at a discount from the posted toll (and sometimes with an expiration date)?

I think that's what may be "scrip" on the sign in this image may refer to.  I  always paid cash when drove the RPT, since I did not use it all that often. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on February 28, 2018, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on February 28, 2018, 03:57:44 PM
Traditionally, scrip was a form of money paid by employers (normally coal companies) that was only usable at that company's stores. It was normally a custom coin made for the particular company.
True, too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 28, 2018, 04:29:05 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 28, 2018, 04:26:55 PM
Did the RPT have pre-paid books of toll tickets that were sold at a discount from the posted toll (and sometimes with an expiration date)?
I think that's what may be "scrip" on the sign in this image may refer to.  I  always paid cash when drove the RPT, since I did not use it all that often. 

Yes, I still have a couple books of toll tickets.  They were only usable at a manned toll booth, you handed the ticket to the person.
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 03, 2018, 10:44:01 AM
Southbound I-95 remains closed in Dale City due to the Potomac Mills Mall sign leaning over due to wind damage–they want to make sure it can't fall into the highway. Tolls have been waived on the HO/T lanes, but traffic in the mainline must exit at the Prince William Parkway.

Twitter has some pictures, but they're kind of grainy.


Edited to add: VDOT says I-95 will not reopen until winds are consistently below 13 mph to allow a crane to remove the sign! I found this photo from the highway.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180303/d74bfc7888866864bb97580cbfb7a09d.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 03, 2018, 12:46:57 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2018, 10:44:01 AM
Southbound I-95 remains closed in Dale City due to the Potomac Mills Mall sign leaning over due to wind damage–they want to make sure it can't fall into the highway. Tolls have been waived on the HO/T lanes, but traffic in the mainline must exit at the Prince William Parkway.

How high were the winds?  That would take some very high winds to bend a structure like that.

CBBTD reported gusts up to 75 mph there yesterday.  Those are the kinds of velocities that could damage a sign like that..
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 03, 2018, 12:55:59 PM
I don't know what they got at Potomac Mills. I know gusts of over 60 mph were recorded in the District of Columbia and Dulles reported a maximum gust of 71 mph.

Our neighbor's house took a pounding (seen from our deck this morning):

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180303/f493ce094dead9e6a144a4cf71b94c50.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 03, 2018, 01:01:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2018, 12:55:59 PM
I don't know what they got at Potomac Mills. I know gusts of over 60 mph were recorded in the District of Columbia and Dulles reported a maximum gust of 71 mph.

I'm not sure what the highest was in the Richmond area, but some of what I saw I estimated to be in the 35 to 40 mph range.  I know there were numerous power outages and reports of big trees knocked down.

I saw a apartment building on Roanoke Street that was damaged heavily by a large tree which had already been mostly removed this morning.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 03, 2018, 02:59:41 PM
Quantico had a gust up to 63 MPH.  Also saw reports of 60 and 59 from Ft. Belvoir and Mason Neck respectively.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 03, 2018, 03:13:58 PM
I read of gusts of 44 in the Tri-Cities. My neighbor's dogwood tree fell over.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 03, 2018, 03:56:18 PM
summary of locations in Virginia in the greater Washington area:  https://patch.com/virginia/fredericksburg/top-nova-dc-wind-gusts-town-town-march-2-2018

Highest was 78 mph in Madison County...every jurisdiction listed had at least 58 mph.

Damage was relatively minor in Fredericksburg...fortunate it wasn't raining and hasn't in a few day or more trees would've been uprooted for sure...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 03, 2018, 06:05:44 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 03, 2018, 02:59:41 PM
Quantico had a gust up to 63 MPH.  Also saw reports of 60 and 59 from Ft. Belvoir and Mason Neck respectively.

I was strange to see such high winds coming out of a clear sky.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 03, 2018, 06:47:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2018, 03:17:50 PM
Here's a weird bill pending this year. HB 27 (https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?181+sum+HB27) would change the inspection sticker location from the windshield to the rear window in the lower corner on the driver's side. (Recall this year they are switching it from the bottom center of the windshield to the bottom corner on the driver's side.)

I think the rear-window idea is a terrible idea because most vehicle inspectors I've ever seen use a razor blade to remove the sticker. Using a razor blade on the rear window would damage the defroster wires on many vehicles, and I highly doubt most inspectors would be especially careful to avoid causing such damage.

Other bills of interest: HB 55 would increase the speed limit on US-501 from South Boston to the North Carolina state line to 60 mph; HB 73 would allow 60 mph on US-301, US-17, VA-3, and VA-207 where they are nonlimited access multilane divided highways (currently US-17 can only have a 60-mph limit between Port Royal and Saluda); HB 103 would require VDOT immediately to begin a project to add a lane in each direction on I-95 between Exit 126 and the Beltway (I'm not sure how this would affect the state's contract with Transurban); HB 177 would prohibit drivers from using handheld communications devices like phones and from driving with an animal on one's lap; HB 207 would establish a fine of up to $100 for failing to clear snow and ice from your vehicle before driving it; HB 308 would make it illegal to pass another vehicle by using a bike lane; HB 428 would add the phrase "and the minimum speed limit shall be 45 miles per hour" to the first sentence of Va. Code 46.2-870; and SB 46 would require you to stop for, rather than yield to, pedestrians who are crossing the street lawfully (the main difference from current law being that you would have to stop and remain stopped until the pedestrian is out of the street, whereas now you simply have to yield the right-of-way and need not necessarily stop if you can yield without stopping).

Updating the above:

HB55 and HB73 passed both houses and are awaiting the governor's signature. HB27, HB103, HB177, HB207, HB308, HB428, and SB46 failed in committee. I wish they would pass something along the lines of HB207.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 03, 2018, 07:06:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2018, 06:47:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2018, 03:17:50 PM
Other bills of interest: HB 55 would increase the speed limit on US-501 from South Boston to the North Carolina state line to 60 mph; HB 73 would allow 60 mph on US-301, US-17, VA-3, and VA-207 where they are nonlimited access multilane divided highways (currently US-17 can only have a 60-mph limit between Port Royal and Saluda);
Updating the above:
HB55 and HB73 passed both houses and are awaiting the governor's signature.

Like I said on this subject in this thread on Jan. 11th --

This is silly, normally the GA sets a maximum allowed speed limit for a whole class of highway, such as when about 6 years ago they changed the law to allow any limited access highway with 4 or more lanes, up to 70 mph for cars, trucks and buses; and in order to raise the limit, pursuant to a traffic engineering study.  That is where the current 70 mph limits came from in VA.

About 10 to 12 years ago the GA changed the law and allowed up to 60 mph limits on nonlimited-access multilane 4 or more lane divided segments of US-29, US-360, US-460, part of US-58, and part of US-17, again pursuant to a traffic engineering study.

Now they want to do more on a selected basis?

How about simply allowing up to 60 mph on any nonlimited-access multilane divided highway with 4 or more lanes, pursuant to a traffic engineering study?

That will take a lot of work to study every segment, as that type of highway has a lot more variability in design standards than an Interstate highway, but they can prioritize the work starting with the most important highways.  They can hire a consultant if there is not enough VDOT in-house staffing to do the work in a timely fashion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on March 03, 2018, 07:13:36 PM
Sounds to me like the deadly mix of a part-time legislature that insists on using its limited time in session to micromanage, not just local governments per the "Dillon Rule" but also state agencies. Also, VDOT is really conservative on setting speed limits, it's unlikely it'll go gonzo if the legislature gives it more leeway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 03, 2018, 07:22:32 PM
Quote from: oscar on March 03, 2018, 07:13:36 PM
Sounds to me like the deadly mix of a part-time legislature that insists on using its limited time in session to micromanage, not just local governments per the "Dillon Rule" but also state agencies. Also, VDOT is really conservative on setting speed limits, it's unlikely it'll go gonzo if the legislature gives it more leeway.

It didn't take long on the 70 mph speed limit, granted that was for a class with fairly uniform design standards.  If a maximum speed limit has been at a certain level for decades, then there would be the desire to conduct a traffic engineering study before raising it, that is understandable.  My comment about staffing is the likely reason, such studies on nonlimited-access highways would take considerable time and staffing.  That is why I suggested them hiring a consultant if needed; that is what they do in general.

On the original Arterial Highway System, it appears that these highways have not yet been included:  US-19, US-220, US-33, US-211, VA-7, VA-234 and US-13.
...

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the maximum speed limit shall be 70 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on: (i) interstate highways, (ii) multilane, divided, limited access highways, and (iii) high-occupancy vehicle lanes if such lanes are physically separated from regular travel lanes. The maximum speed limit shall be 60 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on U.S. Route 23, U.S. Route 29, U.S. Route 58, U.S. Alternate Route 58, U.S. Route 360, U.S. Route 460, and on U.S. Route 17 between the Town of Port Royal and Saluda where they are nonlimited access, multilane, divided highways.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-870/


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on March 03, 2018, 11:47:07 PM
Times like these make me glad I no longer live in DC.  Yikes.  Stay safe, everyone.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 06:18:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2018, 06:47:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2018, 03:17:50 PM
Here's a weird bill pending this year. HB 27 (https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?181+sum+HB27) would change the inspection sticker location from the windshield to the rear window in the lower corner on the driver's side. (Recall this year they are switching it from the bottom center of the windshield to the bottom corner on the driver's side.)

I think the rear-window idea is a terrible idea because most vehicle inspectors I've ever seen use a razor blade to remove the sticker. Using a razor blade on the rear window would damage the defroster wires on many vehicles, and I highly doubt most inspectors would be especially careful to avoid causing such damage.

Other bills of interest: HB 55 would increase the speed limit on US-501 from South Boston to the North Carolina state line to 60 mph; HB 73 would allow 60 mph on US-301, US-17, VA-3, and VA-207 where they are nonlimited access multilane divided highways (currently US-17 can only have a 60-mph limit between Port Royal and Saluda); HB 103 would require VDOT immediately to begin a project to add a lane in each direction on I-95 between Exit 126 and the Beltway (I'm not sure how this would affect the state's contract with Transurban); HB 177 would prohibit drivers from using handheld communications devices like phones and from driving with an animal on one's lap; HB 207 would establish a fine of up to $100 for failing to clear snow and ice from your vehicle before driving it; HB 308 would make it illegal to pass another vehicle by using a bike lane; HB 428 would add the phrase "and the minimum speed limit shall be 45 miles per hour" to the first sentence of Va. Code 46.2-870; and SB 46 would require you to stop for, rather than yield to, pedestrians who are crossing the street lawfully (the main difference from current law being that you would have to stop and remain stopped until the pedestrian is out of the street, whereas now you simply have to yield the right-of-way and need not necessarily stop if you can yield without stopping).

Updating the above:

HB55 and HB73 passed both houses and are awaiting the governor's signature. HB27, HB103, HB177, HB207, HB308, HB428, and SB46 failed in committee. I wish they would pass something along the lines of HB207.

What about the latest attempt to raise the Reckless Driving limit to 85mph? Did that pass or did revenue win over common sense once again?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 04, 2018, 08:02:29 AM
Quote from: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 06:18:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2018, 06:47:23 PM
HB55 and HB73 passed both houses and are awaiting the governor's signature. HB27, HB103, HB177, HB207, HB308, HB428, and SB46 failed in committee. I wish they would pass something along the lines of HB207.
What about the latest attempt to raise the Reckless Driving limit to 85mph? Did that pass or did revenue win over common sense once again?

Cut the crap.  If you can't keep from going more than 10 miles over the limit then you have no one to blame but yourself.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 04, 2018, 09:40:02 AM
Quote from: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 06:18:25 AM
What about the latest attempt to raise the Reckless Driving limit to 85mph? Did that pass or did revenue win over common sense once again?

Not surprisingly, it failed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 09:49:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 04, 2018, 08:02:29 AM
Quote from: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 06:18:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2018, 06:47:23 PM
HB55 and HB73 passed both houses and are awaiting the governor's signature. HB27, HB103, HB177, HB207, HB308, HB428, and SB46 failed in committee. I wish they would pass something along the lines of HB207.
What about the latest attempt to raise the Reckless Driving limit to 85mph? Did that pass or did revenue win over common sense once again?

Cut the crap.  If you can't keep from going more than 10 miles over the limit then you have no one to blame but yourself.

No, I won't "cut the crap" . Does 80 in a 70 warrant a speeding charge? Yes. Does it warrant a Class 1 criminal misdemeanor charge? Hell no.

I'd much rather share the road with someone going 80 in a 70 that's not causing a problem than I would someone that's doing the speed limit or less while playing on their phone and swerving all over the goddamn place or causing other problems.

Previous efforts to raise the Reckless Driving threshold were killed mainly because of money and before you spew the usual "baloney any way you slice it"  BS, take a look here:

https://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/bill-to-amend-va-s-reckless-driving-law-shot-down/article_1c957453-bab5-5df6-a209-c821f02e295f.html (https://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/bill-to-amend-va-s-reckless-driving-law-shot-down/article_1c957453-bab5-5df6-a209-c821f02e295f.html)

QuoteThe Criminal Subcommittee of the House Committee on Courts of Justice voted 7-2 against the bill. Opponents cited several concerns, including a possible fiscal impact and that faster speeds lead to more crashes.

A previous budget amendment that cut down on the amount of revenue local governments could keep was repealed when Hopewell's budget took a hit. Their delegate, Riley Ingram, was the main one responsible for it.

http://www.progress-index.com/news/20161001/another-chance-for-hopewells-million-dollar-mile (http://www.progress-index.com/news/20161001/another-chance-for-hopewells-million-dollar-mile)

QuoteThis past spring, local governments won the latest battle over the state's major roads when the General Assembly abruptly reversed its course, returning to its former stance that localities are entitled to keep the fines and fees they collect for violations of local ordinances.

"We've sent a message loud and clear that this is a local issue, that we're not infringing on the State Police in any form,"  said Del. Riley Ingram, the Republican representative for Hopewell in the House of Delegates and one of the sponsors of the 2016 bill that axed the practice of remitting local fines and fees to the state.

"Local governments have got to have money,"  he said simply. "There's no question about it."

If a town, city, or county absolutely cannot survive without relying heavily on ticket revenue, then they have a very serious problem that they're either not addressing or choosing to ignore.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 09:50:13 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 04, 2018, 09:40:02 AM
Quote from: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 06:18:25 AM
What about the latest attempt to raise the Reckless Driving limit to 85mph? Did that pass or did revenue win over common sense once again?

Not surprisingly, it failed.

Shocker. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 04, 2018, 02:00:56 PM
Apparently it passed the Senate 23—16 but died in a House committee 5—0. (https://pilotonline.com/news/government/virginia/article_a67f78cd-ff64-5b82-a0b0-ee6d38af1825.html)

I don't like that something that passes one house can die in committee in the other house without getting a full vote. If one house finds something meritorious enough to pass it, then it deserves a full vote in the other house. These chickenshit committees have too much power.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2018, 02:58:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 04, 2018, 02:00:56 PM
Apparently it passed the Senate 23—16 but died in a House committee 5—0. (https://pilotonline.com/news/government/virginia/article_a67f78cd-ff64-5b82-a0b0-ee6d38af1825.html)

I don't like that something that passes one house can die in committee in the other house without getting a full vote. If one house finds something meritorious enough to pass it, then it deserves a full vote in the other house. These chickenshit committees have too much power.

I assume that there are more than a few members of the Virginia Bar that earn a living representing clients (many of them residents of places other than the Commonwealth) charged with reckless driving and other "serious" traffic offenses like DUI and the like. They would probably have a lot of paying customers even without the reckless driving provisions being Class 1 misdemeanors, but this may well be an even more lucrative business, especially in counties and cities with Interstate highways and other freeway-class roads, where it is relatively easy  to go fast enough to qualify for a reckless driving by speed charge.

My second assumption is that lobbyists for these lawyers were able to successfully work the members of that House of Delegates committee to get the bill killed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 04, 2018, 03:00:07 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 09:49:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 04, 2018, 08:02:29 AM
Quote from: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 06:18:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2018, 06:47:23 PM
HB55 and HB73 passed both houses and are awaiting the governor's signature. HB27, HB103, HB177, HB207, HB308, HB428, and SB46 failed in committee. I wish they would pass something along the lines of HB207.
What about the latest attempt to raise the Reckless Driving limit to 85mph? Did that pass or did revenue win over common sense once again?
Cut the crap.  If you can't keep from going more than 10 miles over the limit then you have no one to blame but yourself.
No, I won't "cut the crap" . Does 80 in a 70 warrant a speeding charge? Yes. Does it warrant a Class 1 criminal misdemeanor charge? Hell no.
I'd much rather share the road with someone going 80 in a 70 that's not causing a problem than I would someone that's doing the speed limit or less while playing on their phone and swerving all over the goddamn place or causing other problems.
Previous efforts to raise the Reckless Driving threshold were killed mainly because of money and before you spew the usual "baloney any way you slice it"  BS, take a look here:

At least you admitted that it was crap, that's a start.  And that article was not about the reckless driving charge, and I like the word "baloney" because it is milder than what some people deserve.  I don't trust people's driving who demand the "right" to grossly exceed the speed limit.  Someone who vociferously "complains" about having to set their cruise control at 79 is not likely to be someone who only wants to go 82 to 85, that probably wouldn't matter much to them, probably they want to go 90+.  Given that about half of the drivers out there don't even know how to use a turn signal, it is highly doubtful that but very few can safely drive at that speed.  I sure don't like to hear them whining about it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 04, 2018, 03:46:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2018, 02:58:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 04, 2018, 02:00:56 PM
Apparently it passed the Senate 23—16 but died in a House committee 5—0. (https://pilotonline.com/news/government/virginia/article_a67f78cd-ff64-5b82-a0b0-ee6d38af1825.html)

I don't like that something that passes one house can die in committee in the other house without getting a full vote. If one house finds something meritorious enough to pass it, then it deserves a full vote in the other house. These chickenshit committees have too much power.

I assume that there are more than a few members of the Virginia Bar that earn a living representing clients (many of them residents of places other than the Commonwealth) charged with reckless driving and other "serious" traffic offenses like DUI and the like. They would probably have a lot of paying customers even without the reckless driving provisions being Class 1 misdemeanors, but this may well be an even more lucrative business, especially in counties and cities with Interstate highways and other freeway-class roads, where it is relatively easy  to go fast enough to qualify for a reckless driving by speed charge.

My second assumption is that lobbyists for these lawyers were able to successfully work the members of that House of Delegates committee to get the bill killed.

Heh. Long-time Delgate David Albo of Springfield (who recently retired from the House) came in for special criticism. He was the main sponsor of those so-called "abusive driver fees" that created mega-controversy a few years ago–I'm sure you recall the fuss about those. The reason he in particular got criticized over that is that he's an attorney who specializes in traffic ticket defense work, so the "abusive driver fees" law was potentially beneficial to his business. Classic conflict of interest.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 04:15:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 04, 2018, 03:00:07 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 09:49:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 04, 2018, 08:02:29 AM
Quote from: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 06:18:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2018, 06:47:23 PM
HB55 and HB73 passed both houses and are awaiting the governor's signature. HB27, HB103, HB177, HB207, HB308, HB428, and SB46 failed in committee. I wish they would pass something along the lines of HB207.
What about the latest attempt to raise the Reckless Driving limit to 85mph? Did that pass or did revenue win over common sense once again?
Cut the crap.  If you can't keep from going more than 10 miles over the limit then you have no one to blame but yourself.
No, I won't "cut the crap" . Does 80 in a 70 warrant a speeding charge? Yes. Does it warrant a Class 1 criminal misdemeanor charge? Hell no.
I'd much rather share the road with someone going 80 in a 70 that's not causing a problem than I would someone that's doing the speed limit or less while playing on their phone and swerving all over the goddamn place or causing other problems.
Previous efforts to raise the Reckless Driving threshold were killed mainly because of money and before you spew the usual "baloney any way you slice it"  BS, take a look here:

At least you admitted that it was crap, that's a start.  And that article was not about the reckless driving charge, and I like the word "baloney" because it is milder than what some people deserve.

The point I made in my post was that the loss of revenue is a big reason why efforts to raise the Reckless Driving limit keeps getting shot down. The first article I linked had everything to do with it. More money is made off of Reckless Driving charges than regular speeding charges. When VA raised the speed limit to 70 while keeping the RD limit at 80, places like Hopewell (who famously uses I-295 as a cash cow) hit a gold mine.

The second article referred to local governments getting back the right to keep most of the ticket revenue issued in their jurisdictions once again, which goes hand-in-hand with their fight (with support from criminal defense lawyers) to keep the Reckless Driving limit from getting raised.

I made the claim that revenue is a big reason why all attempts to raise the RD limit get killed. I backed it up. If you still refuse to believe it and want to call it baloney, then that's your problem, not mine.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 04:21:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2018, 02:58:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 04, 2018, 02:00:56 PM
Apparently it passed the Senate 23—16 but died in a House committee 5—0. (https://pilotonline.com/news/government/virginia/article_a67f78cd-ff64-5b82-a0b0-ee6d38af1825.html)

I don't like that something that passes one house can die in committee in the other house without getting a full vote. If one house finds something meritorious enough to pass it, then it deserves a full vote in the other house. These chickenshit committees have too much power.

I assume that there are more than a few members of the Virginia Bar that earn a living representing clients (many of them residents of places other than the Commonwealth) charged with reckless driving and other "serious" traffic offenses like DUI and the like. They would probably have a lot of paying customers even without the reckless driving provisions being Class 1 misdemeanors, but this may well be an even more lucrative business, especially in counties and cities with Interstate highways and other freeway-class roads, where it is relatively easy  to go fast enough to qualify for a reckless driving by speed charge.

My second assumption is that lobbyists for these lawyers were able to successfully work the members of that House of Delegates committee to get the bill killed.

Sounds about right.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfilpus on March 04, 2018, 06:25:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 03, 2018, 12:46:57 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2018, 10:44:01 AM
Southbound I-95 remains closed in Dale City due to the Potomac Mills Mall sign leaning over due to wind damage–they want to make sure it can't fall into the highway. Tolls have been waived on the HO/T lanes, but traffic in the mainline must exit at the Prince William Parkway.

How high were the winds?  That would take some very high winds to bend a structure like that.

CBBTD reported gusts up to 75 mph there yesterday.  Those are the kinds of velocities that could damage a sign like that..

My niece, who lives in Montclair, had a foot plus diameter pine blow down in her front yard. It grazed the house and destroyed the railing on her porch. There were some 75 mph wind gusts around that area.

Fixed quote.  -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on March 04, 2018, 08:22:16 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2018, 10:44:01 AM
Southbound I-95 remains closed in Dale City due to the Potomac Mills Mall sign leaning over due to wind damage–they want to make sure it can't fall into the highway. Tolls have been waived on the HO/T lanes, but traffic in the mainline must exit at the Prince William Parkway.

Twitter has some pictures, but they're kind of grainy.


Edited to add: VDOT says I-95 will not reopen until winds are consistently below 13 mph to allow a crane to remove the sign! I found this photo from the highway.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180303/d74bfc7888866864bb97580cbfb7a09d.jpg)

The Potomac Mills sign got pulled down today by trucks:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXfI35tX4AA6AOO.jpg:large)

Source Tweet: https://twitter.com/amaxsmith/status/970465112225173504
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 04, 2018, 08:48:49 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 04:15:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 04, 2018, 03:00:07 PM
At least you admitted that it was crap, that's a start.  And that article was not about the reckless driving charge, and I like the word "baloney" because it is milder than what some people deserve.
The point I made in my post was that the loss of revenue is a big reason why efforts to raise the Reckless Driving limit keeps getting shot down. The first article I linked had everything to do with it. More money is made off of Reckless Driving charges than regular speeding charges. When VA raised the speed limit to 70 while keeping the RD limit at 80, places like Hopewell (who famously uses I-295 as a cash cow) hit a gold mine.

If you are stupid enough to go over 80 when the limit is 70 then you need to blame yourself, not someone else.  That article was from 2013 and does not say what you claimed, and it does mention the attempt to curb extreme speeds.  The mathematical reasoning is deficient; when maybe one in a thousand violators gets a summons, changing the limit by 5 miles is not going to affect how many summonses are issued, the police could issue more or less based on how much enforcement they are willing to put there. 

One of the posters in this thread mentioned on another forum that he has gotten 13 speeding tickets in his driving career.  I was flabbergasted, as I have been driving for 50 years and over one million miles and I finally got my first speeding ticket a couple years ago, and even that was due to a few unlucky factors including that I missed a speed reduction sign that I later verified was in plain view.

Spare me your complaints.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2018, 09:33:16 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 04, 2018, 03:46:16 PM
Heh. Long-time Delgate David Albo of Springfield (who recently retired from the House) came in for special criticism. He was the main sponsor of those so-called "abusive driver fees" that created mega-controversy a few years ago–I'm sure you recall the fuss about those. The reason he in particular got criticized over that is that he's an attorney who specializes in traffic ticket defense work, so the "abusive driver fees" law was potentially beneficial to his business. Classic conflict of interest.

I remember that fiasco very well.  With VDOT being bled so badly that its senior staff warned the Senators and Delegates that Virginia was going to have to leave federal transportation dollars "on  the table" because they had no state dollars to match them with, those abusive driver fees were intended to be a "substitute" for increased Virginia state per-gallon motor fuel taxes - instead of such an increase, just make traffic offenders pay (and pay and pay and pay). 

After that crashed and burned (I sometimes wonder if that law might have been struck-down by the federal courts as a violation of the Eighth Amendment had such a case gotten to the Fourth Circuit), Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) was able to get an increase through both houses of the Virginia General Assembly by making it a "stealth" tax, to be imposed on the wholesale sale of gasoline and Diesel fuel and not on at-the-pump sales.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 04, 2018, 11:14:42 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2018, 09:33:16 PM
With VDOT being bled so badly that its senior staff warned the Senators and Delegates that Virginia was going to have to leave federal transportation dollars "on  the table" because they had no state dollars to match them with,

Wha?? During that span of years, VDOT's annual budget never dropped below $4 billion, and the construction budget never dropped below $1 billion, and they were never in danger of losing federal funds.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 11:23:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 04, 2018, 08:48:49 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 04:15:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 04, 2018, 03:00:07 PM
At least you admitted that it was crap, that's a start.  And that article was not about the reckless driving charge, and I like the word "baloney" because it is milder than what some people deserve.
The point I made in my post was that the loss of revenue is a big reason why efforts to raise the Reckless Driving limit keeps getting shot down. The first article I linked had everything to do with it. More money is made off of Reckless Driving charges than regular speeding charges. When VA raised the speed limit to 70 while keeping the RD limit at 80, places like Hopewell (who famously uses I-295 as a cash cow) hit a gold mine.

If you are stupid enough to go over 80 when the limit is 70 then you need to blame yourself, not someone else.

I don't exceed 80 in VA, so spare the lecture.

QuoteThat article was from 2013 and does not say what you claimed

I'm well aware what year the article was from and yes, it DOES say what I claimed. For the umpteenth and final time, I claimed that revenue was a big reason that previous attempts to raise the Reckless Driving threshold failed. Here is the key tidbit from the article again since you chose to ignore it the first time:

QuoteThe Criminal Subcommittee of the House Committee on Courts of Justice voted 7-2 against the bill. Opponents cited several concerns, including a possible fiscal impact and that faster speeds lead to more crashes.

Notice the bolded. "Fiscal impact" . Fiscal=$$$. Case closed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 04, 2018, 11:34:42 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 11:23:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 04, 2018, 08:48:49 PM
If you are stupid enough to go over 80 when the limit is 70 then you need to blame yourself, not someone else.
I don't exceed 80 in VA, so spare the lecture.
QuoteThat article was from 2013 and does not say what you claimed
I'm well aware what year the article was from and yes, it DOES say what I claimed. For the umpteenth and final time, I claimed that revenue was a big reason that previous attempts to raise the Reckless Driving threshold failed. Here is the key tidbit from the article again since you chose to ignore it the first time:
QuoteThe Criminal Subcommittee of the House Committee on Courts of Justice voted 7-2 against the bill. Opponents cited several concerns, including a possible fiscal impact and that faster speeds lead to more crashes.
Notice the bolded. "Fiscal impact" . Fiscal=$$$. Case closed.

The only thing that is closed is your mind, and like a steel trap.

1) It is a newspaper.  What more to say?
2) "Fiscal impact" could mean a number of different things, and negative or positive.
3) If you like the cite then you have to acknowledge the part about increased accidents, and the "fiscal impact" may have been the costs related to higher accident totals, such as for emergency services (police, firefighting, ambulance, towing), coroner, traffic delays and social costs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on March 05, 2018, 10:17:01 AM
Quote from: LM117 on March 04, 2018, 09:49:24 AM

I'd much rather share the road with someone going 80 in a 70 that's not causing a problem than I would someone that's doing the speed limit or less while playing on their phone and swerving all over the goddamn place or causing other problems.

Virginia is trying to do something about those who insist on using their phones for just about everything while driving. Right now, the law only prohibits texting while driving. HB 181, "Improper driving; use of handheld communication device while driving vehicle" (hung up in the Senate) would expand the law to cover any use of a smartphone.

"The current law is very difficult to enforce,"  Collins [Del. Chris Collins, R-Frederick County, sponsor of the bill] said earlier this week. "If you pull someone over and catch them on Facebook, that is not a crime."

https://pilotonline.com/news/government/virginia/article_7352f4b1-cce8-5189-b699-5adb79ca3155.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 07, 2018, 11:13:26 PM
https://www.enr.com/articles/44124-contractor-to-bear-chesapeake-bay-project-spoil-disposal-cost

Contractor To Bear Chesapeake Bay Project Spoil Disposal Cost
March 7, 2018

With tunneling on a new one-mile tube for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel set to begin next year, project officials are readying plans for handling an estimated 500,000 cu yd of potentially tainted spoil to be produced by a 42-ft-dia tunnel-boring machine, currently under construction in Germany.  The Dragados USA Inc. and Schiavone Construction Co. LLC design-build joint venture's "worst-case"  permitting strategy assumes all bored material will contain sufficient levels of petroleum-based TBM lubricants to require disposal at a designated landfill.  Once tunneling begins, sample testing coordinated with state environmental officials will determine whether contaminant levels will allow for other, less expensive disposal options.  Regardless of where the bored material goes, all disposal costs are to be borne by the Dragados-Schiavone team under its $756-million contract.

....

The CBBTD is having a naming contest for the TBM, and they typically are assigned a female name.

I like Borella  ... is that a real name?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on March 07, 2018, 11:31:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 07, 2018, 11:13:26 PM
https://www.enr.com/articles/44124-contractor-to-bear-chesapeake-bay-project-spoil-disposal-cost

Contractor To Bear Chesapeake Bay Project Spoil Disposal Cost
March 7, 2018

With tunneling on a new one-mile tube for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel set to begin next year, project officials are readying plans for handling an estimated 500,000 cu yd of potentially tainted spoil to be produced by a 42-ft-dia tunnel-boring machine, currently under construction in Germany.  The Dragados USA Inc. and Schiavone Construction Co. LLC design-build joint venture's "worst-case"  permitting strategy assumes all bored material will contain sufficient levels of petroleum-based TBM lubricants to require disposal at a designated landfill.  Once tunneling begins, sample testing coordinated with state environmental officials will determine whether contaminant levels will allow for other, less expensive disposal options.  Regardless of where the bored material goes, all disposal costs are to be borne by the Dragados-Schiavone team under its $756-million contract.

....

The CBBTD is having a naming contest for the TBM, and they typically are assigned a female name.

I like Borella  ... is that a real name?
Dang, only open to 6th graders. I wonder if they're socially aware enough to choose Borey McBoreFace.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MNHighwayMan on March 07, 2018, 11:43:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 07, 2018, 11:31:29 PM
Dang, only open to 6th graders. I wonder if they're socially aware enough to choose Borey McBoreFace.

10/10  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 08, 2018, 01:24:59 PM
Anyone else here visit the Walkerton Bridge?

The new bridge was built in 1996, is about 1,200 feet long, and cost about $2 million for the bridge and approaches project.  Part of the old bridge is preserved on the site.

Interesting to drive and has interesting photo opportunities.

Walkerton Bridge, Spanning Mattaponi River at State Route 629, Walkerton, King and Queen County, VA
https://www.loc.gov/item/va1618/
....

The swing span only carries pedestrian traffic formerly carries State Route 629 on Walkerton Road
The Walkerton Bridge, originally known as the Mattaponi River Bridge, is one of a handful of swing-truss crossings remaining in Virginia and an early project conducted by the Virginia Department of Transportation after they assumed control of the county road system in 1932. With the proposed demise of the Great Wicomico bridge, the Walkerton crossing is a manually operated swing that is not assisted by electrical or mechanical power. The Walkerton Bridge has become a rare artifact, representing a type of bridge technology that once was ubiquitous, but now is on the verge of extinction.
http://bridgehunter.com/va/king-and-queen/mattaponi-river/
....

https://www.shothotspot.com/hotspot/king-william-county-va-usa/walkerton-bridge
....

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7233604,-77.0249191,1448a,35y,18.65h/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 08, 2018, 09:47:49 PM
Three scenarios for transportation improvements at the Route 29-Hydraulic Road intersection have been recently released to the public for review and commentary:
http://www.route29solutions.org/documents/march_8_community_meeting_displays.pdf

While I'm not exactly in love with any of these three scenarios, I'll admit I had similar initial doubts about the US-29/Rio Road interchange(which I now believe to be a huge improvement to the unfortunate US-29 situation in Charlottesville). If I had to pick one, I'd probably lean towards Scenario 1(Grade Separated Interchange).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 08, 2018, 10:19:06 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 08, 2018, 09:47:49 PM
Three scenarios for transportation improvements at the Route 29-Hydraulic Road intersection have been recently released to the public for review and commentary:
http://www.route29solutions.org/documents/march_8_community_meeting_displays.pdf
While I'm not exactly in love with any of these three scenarios, I'll admit I had similar initial doubts about the US-29/Rio Road interchange(which I now believe to be a huge improvement to the unfortunate US-29 situation in Charlottesville). If I had to pick one, I'd probably lean towards Scenario 1(Grade Separated Interchange).

Be nice if they would include cost estimates.  This was a $170 million project back in 2003.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 08, 2018, 11:00:31 PM
^ They do for some elements.  Last page of the PDF includes construction and some utility cost estimates, but admittedly not PE or ROW costs.

It's also worth noting that these proposals are of a different scale than what was considered 15 years ago, though if you add in all the additional "side projects" with the current proposal, it may well add up.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 08, 2018, 11:50:13 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 08, 2018, 11:00:31 PM
^ They do for some elements.  Last page of the PDF includes construction and some utility cost estimates, but admittedly not PE or ROW costs.
It's also worth noting that these proposals are of a different scale than what was considered 15 years ago, though if you add in all the additional "side projects" with the current proposal, it may well add up.

Oh OK ... the "Grade-Separated Intersection"  or the "Grade-Separated Roundabout"  is about 1/2 the cost of the Rio Road project.  That doesn't sound logical.

The 2003 project also addressed the NB movement from the US-29 bypass onto the US-29 arterial.  That document does not.  All that traffic has to pass thru a tight low-speed one-lane loop, and that needs to be fixed, and that will be expensive.

This local planning team is only concerned about providing better circulation for the local traffic.  They have little if any concern about the needs of the thru traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 09, 2018, 07:34:29 AM
I notice Scenario 1 calls for left-turners on Hydraulic to use the roundabouts to make U-turns. That doesn't sound like something that'll work out well in practice.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 09, 2018, 11:53:46 AM
http://www.godanriver.com/news/state/general_assembly/compromise-sets-gas-tax-floor-at-level-in-hampton-roads/article_26b2b2bd-39ef-5601-919d-59c05a45fa10.html (http://www.godanriver.com/news/state/general_assembly/compromise-sets-gas-tax-floor-at-level-in-hampton-roads/article_26b2b2bd-39ef-5601-919d-59c05a45fa10.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2018, 07:59:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 08, 2018, 01:24:59 PM
Anyone else here visit the Walkerton Bridge?

Crossed it about 1973 or 1974.  The operators were having a tough time getting the bridge to lock down in the closed position after a vessel had passed, so traffic had to wait quite a while until the operators were able to get the  swing span secured.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 13, 2018, 04:21:25 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 14, 2018, 08:42:10 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 10, 2018, 03:51:31 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 10, 2018, 03:02:43 PM
Maybe I missed a news article, or a website or two, but who has details on these decorations along US 301 at Exit 45 on I-95 in Kingwood?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NB_US_301_Spires_West_of_I-95_Exit_45_South_of_Petersburg.jpg




http://www.progress-index.com/news/20160821/plan-to-make-exit-45-lure-for-visitors-shifts-to-high-gear

http://www.progress-index.com/news/20170226/gateway-project-reaches-milestone-with-installation-of-spires

One of my favorite commercial signs from the far past still stands at this exit...

https://goo.gl/maps/1qGp5AFVJov
I've apparently been taking this exit for granted for over a decade.
I think that one used to have statues of Yogi Bear, Boo Boo Bear, and Cindy Bear there. One night I was on a Greyhound bus along I-95 and some guy was telling his kid who they were. I forgot the name of Yogi's female counterpart and mistakenly called her "Daisy." The guy suspected I was on some kind of mind altering psychotropic prescription medication.

Or maybe this was somewhere else along the way, I forget.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 14, 2018, 05:03:36 PM
SMS:  Hopefully they will upgrade it to Interstate standards.  It is currently a 6-lane expressway.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/u.s._route_460-58-13_connector_study.asp

U.S. Route 460/58/13 Connector Study

About the Study
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have initiated an Environmental Assessment for the U.S. Route 460/58/13 corridor, examining potential transportation improvements in the Cities of Chesapeake and Suffolk.

The area of interest for this study includes the segment of U.S. Route 460/58/13 from near the Bowers Hill interchange of Interstate 664 to the interchange of Portsmouth Boulevard (Business U.S. Route 460) and the Suffolk Northern Bypass (U.S. Route 460/58/13).

The study will be presenting concepts and strategies for potential alternatives to address existing and future transportation needs in the corridor for the next 20 years.

Study History
Recognizing the potential need for improvements along the U.S. Route 460/58/13 corridor, the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) Board approved the U.S. Route 460/58/13 Connector, including interchanges at the SPSA Regional Landfill and Hampton Roads Executive Airport, as a regional priority project in October 2013. HRTPO subsequently approved these improvements as a candidate project and included them in the amended Hampton Roads 2034 Long-Range Transportation Plan in September 2014.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 14, 2018, 08:18:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 14, 2018, 05:03:36 PM
SMS:  Hopefully they will upgrade it to Interstate standards.  It is currently a 6-lane expressway.
^Agreed and if it is, it'll be interesting to see if any calls arise for a western I-264 extension to Suffolk.


https://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/article_a3d02807-7daf-57f3-9880-7e3c00f9b91e.html
I was not aware that there are plan to upgrade the Bower's Hill interchange. Apparently according to this article(although perhaps a little dated):
QuoteImprovements to Bower's Hill Interchange, by 2031; $568 million
The estimated cost leads me to believe that these "improvements" are probably a complete interchange overhaul. Is the interchange today really that bad?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on March 14, 2018, 08:58:49 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 14, 2018, 08:18:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 14, 2018, 05:03:36 PM
SMS:  Hopefully they will upgrade it to Interstate standards.  It is currently a 6-lane expressway.
^Agreed and if it is, it'll be interesting to see if any calls arise for a western I-264 extension to Suffolk.


https://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/article_a3d02807-7daf-57f3-9880-7e3c00f9b91e.html
I was not aware that there are plan to upgrade the Bower's Hill interchange. Apparently according to this article(although perhaps a little dated):
QuoteImprovements to Bower's Hill Interchange, by 2031; $568 million
The estimated cost leads me to believe that these "improvements" are probably a complete interchange overhaul. Is the interchange today really that bad?
It's not great; when I worked in Chesapeake, I drove through that interchange daily, and the combination of both lanes from I-264 dropping and fairly heavy volume merging in from the loop ramp from 58 EB meant that that section was pretty consistently jammed during rush hour. In fact, it was often faster to use the ramp to 58 EB, make a u-turn at Jolliff, and take the ramp back onto 664 when heading northbound. It's generally fine otherwise, though again, the 58 EB -> 664 NB merge can get hairy at times. Not sure what the proposed improvements are, but hopefully they involve the removal of most of the existing loop ramps, especially the SB pair that have pretty bad weaving problems.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 14, 2018, 09:47:46 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on March 14, 2018, 08:58:49 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 14, 2018, 08:18:47 PM
QuoteImprovements to Bower's Hill Interchange, by 2031; $568 million
The estimated cost leads me to believe that these "improvements" are probably a complete interchange overhaul. Is the interchange today really that bad?
It's not great; when I worked in Chesapeake, I drove through that interchange daily, and the combination of both lanes from I-264 dropping and fairly heavy volume merging in from the loop ramp from 58 EB meant that that section was pretty consistently jammed during rush hour. In fact, it was often faster to use the ramp to 58 EB, make a u-turn at Jolliff, and take the ramp back onto 664 when heading northbound. It's generally fine otherwise, though again, the 58 EB -> 664 NB merge can get hairy at times. Not sure what the proposed improvements are, but hopefully they involve the removal of most of the existing loop ramps, especially the SB pair that have pretty bad weaving problems.

I didn't see the $568 million figure in the article ... that sounds more like a figure for the Improvements to Bower's Hill Interchange plus the US-58/US-13/US-460 Connector (the interchanges at the landfill and at the airport, i.e. a full freeway upgrade to the highway between the Suffolk Bypass and the Bower's Hill Interchange).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 14, 2018, 10:05:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 14, 2018, 09:47:46 PM
I didn't see the $568 million figure in the article ... that sounds more like a figure for the Improvements to Bower's Hill Interchange plus the US-58/US-13/US-460 Connector (the interchanges at the landfill and at the airport, i.e. a full freeway upgrade to the highway between the Suffolk Bypass and the Bower's Hill Interchange).

It was listed on the left side of the article. Seems like the Bower's Hill Interchange and the US-58/US-13/US-460 Connector are separate projects.
QuoteTHE PLAN
Widening of I-64 to six lanes from Newport News through Williamsburg, done by 2022; $624 million
Improvements to I-64/264 interchange, by 2021; $347 million
Widening the High-Rise Bridge and I-64, by 2020; $600 million
Study the U.S. 460/58/13 connector, by 2019; $5 million
Expansion of HRBT, by 2024; $4 billion
Phase II of widening the High-Rise Bridge and I-64, by 2031; $1.5 billion
Improvements to Bower's Hill Interchange, by 2031; $568 million
Build the U.S. 460/58/13 connector, by 2035; $368 million

Improvements to the I-64/Ft. Eustis Boulevard Interchange, by 2035; $297 million
Inclusion of $7 million to study the Patriots Crossing, expansion of I-664 and Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel and expansion of VA 164; those projects would be in a long term vision plan
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 14, 2018, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 14, 2018, 10:05:41 PM
It was listed on the left side of the article. Seems like the Bower's Hill Interchange and the US-58/US-13/US-460 Connector are separate projects.
QuoteTHE PLAN
Widening of I-64 to six lanes from Newport News through Williamsburg, done by 2022; $624 million
Improvements to I-64/264 interchange, by 2021; $347 million
Widening the High-Rise Bridge and I-64, by 2020; $600 million
Study the U.S. 460/58/13 connector, by 2019; $5 million
Expansion of HRBT, by 2024; $4 billion
Phase II of widening the High-Rise Bridge and I-64, by 2031; $1.5 billion
Improvements to Bower's Hill Interchange, by 2031; $568 million
Build the U.S. 460/58/13 connector, by 2035; $368 million

Improvements to the I-64/Ft. Eustis Boulevard Interchange, by 2035; $297 million
Inclusion of $7 million to study the Patriots Crossing, expansion of I-664 and Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel and expansion of VA 164; those projects would be in a long term vision plan

I can't imagine what would be done to the Bower's Hill Interchange that would cost that much.  It is a very large interchange complex that was completed in two stages in 1980 and in 1992.  Adding lanes on some of the ramp-highways would seem to be needed in the future.  Maybe that project also includes upgrading the I-64/I-264/I-664 interchange?  I hadn't thought that was considered part of the Bower's Hill Interchange, though.

Same for the U.S. 460/58/13 connector.  Now if those costs were inflation-factored out to 2035 and 2031, then those figures might be more realistic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 15, 2018, 01:10:57 PM
If VDOT intends to address the eastbound weaving at Bower's Hill (which is much more pronounced than the westbound weave), that would explain some of the high cost.

I came up with a concept back in the fall that addresses both the weaves and incorporates HO/T lanes (plus eliminates the left-side exit/entrance on WB 264 and "WB" 64), but I don't remember if I posted it here or not.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 15, 2018, 05:16:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 15, 2018, 01:10:57 PM
If VDOT intends to address the eastbound weaving at Bower's Hill (which is much more pronounced than the westbound weave), that would explain some of the high cost.
I came up with a concept back in the fall that addresses both the weaves and incorporates HO/T lanes (plus eliminates the left-side exit/entrance on WB 264 and "WB" 64), but I don't remember if I posted it here or not.

On the 8-lane section of I-664 between the Bower's Hill Interchange and the original I-64/I-264/US-58 interchange that was built in the late 1960s?  Like I suggested that is really two separate interchanges, and that project may have a much larger scope than just upgrading the Bower's Hill Interchange of 1980 and 1992.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 15, 2018, 07:50:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 03:48:02 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2018, 02:54:57 PM
Wasn't Celebrate Virginia Parkway built on some of the Outer Connector's proposed routing/ROW?

The Outer Connector was proposed several miles north of there.

Line 4 was approved by VDOT, then Line 1 was approved by CTB, in 2002
-- https://tinyurl.com/ybnowfom

This has been resurrected by the Fredericksburg MPO ten days ago - http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/getting-there-western-bypass-option-appears-again/article_c0d395b4-49a1-5d26-8c2e-9e62964f943b.html

The map (scroll to a pdf version) shows an Eastern Outer Connector as well.  The original Outer Connector is now being pitched by one Spotsylvania guy to run out to the VA 3-20 area and then maybe southeast back to I-95.

Evidently his proposal didn't garner much more support than previous tries...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 15, 2018, 09:33:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 15, 2018, 07:50:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 25, 2018, 03:48:02 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2018, 02:54:57 PM
Wasn't Celebrate Virginia Parkway built on some of the Outer Connector's proposed routing/ROW?
The Outer Connector was proposed several miles north of there.
Line 4 was approved by VDOT, then Line 1 was approved by CTB, in 2002
-- https://tinyurl.com/ybnowfom
This has been resurrected by the Fredericksburg MPO ten days ago - http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/getting-there-western-bypass-option-appears-again/article_c0d395b4-49a1-5d26-8c2e-9e62964f943b.html
The map (scroll to a pdf version) shows an Eastern Outer Connector as well.  The original Outer Connector is now being pitched by one Spotsylvania guy to run out to the VA 3-20 area and then maybe southeast back to I-95.
Evidently his proposal didn't garner much more support than previous tries...

The OC NWQ to VA-3/VA-20 in Orange County was one of the alternates that was studied in the Draft EIS, and was rejected as it connected to VA-3 too far west to provide significant traffic relief to the congested area of VA-3 for several miles west of I-95, and not being able to be connected into an OC southwest quadrant.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 22, 2018, 10:25:32 PM
The Danville City Council is considering applying to VDOT to designate a stretch of US-29 between the NC state line and US-58/360 as the Wendell O. Scott Memorial Highway.

http://www.godanriver.com/news/danville/highway-stretch-may-bear-name-of-danville-racing-legend-wendell/article_4d6718b2-2e22-11e8-b409-3fea602f2adc.html (http://www.godanriver.com/news/danville/highway-stretch-may-bear-name-of-danville-racing-legend-wendell/article_4d6718b2-2e22-11e8-b409-3fea602f2adc.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 04, 2018, 04:42:21 PM
From VDOT's Website: VDOT TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON ROUTE 288/BROAD STREET ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN GOOCHLAND COUNTY (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2018/vdot_to_hold_public127190.asp)

This project mainly seems to add left-turn lanes and traffic signals at the intersections of the ramps at US 250.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 04, 2018, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 04, 2018, 04:42:21 PM
From VDOT's Website: VDOT TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON ROUTE 288/BROAD STREET ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN GOOCHLAND COUNTY (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2018/vdot_to_hold_public127190.asp)
This project mainly seems to add left-turn lanes and traffic signals at the intersections of the ramps at US 250.

I think traffic has reached the point to where it needs signals.  It opened in 2005 and I appreciate the fact that it has been kept signal-free for as long as it has.  There has been a lot of development in that area since then.

The interchange between VA-288 and VA-711 Huguenot Springs Road in Powhatan County  is a diamond interchange and it opened with signals on the ramp intersections from the very first day, and I don't really think that signals are needed there.  Probably the county pressured VDOT into doing it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 05, 2018, 01:54:34 PM
Those signals were needed a couple of years ago when the developments close to the Henrico-Goochland line started opening. They're badly needed now, especially now that Short Pump development is beginning to spill across the county line (office park/large upscale apartments in a disconnected chunk of the West Creek Business Park, plus additional development between the county line and North Gayton Road), with some proposed plans involving properties west of VA 288.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 06, 2018, 06:05:09 PM
I think VA 288 itself will need to be widened to 6 lanes sometime soon between US 250 and US 360. I know it will be costly but traffic is already thick now during rush hour and I can see it getting worse with all the new development coming along that stretch
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on April 06, 2018, 08:51:51 PM
Quote from: plain on April 06, 2018, 06:05:09 PM
I think VA 288 itself will need to be widened to 6 lanes sometime soon between US 250 and US 360. I know it will be costly but traffic is already thick now during rush hour and I can see it getting worse with all the new development coming along that stretch

Honestly all of VA-288 needs to be widened to at least 6 lanes in the near future. The question is whether or not it can be done without HOT Lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 07, 2018, 02:43:12 PM
I can't even fathom the idea of HOT lanes in the Richmond metro, though for widening projects of that magnitude... you're right. It might not be possible without them, as far as widening the entire VA 288 goes. But for now traffic between US 360 and VA 10 still seems pretty light, even during rush hour.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 07, 2018, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: plain on April 07, 2018, 02:43:12 PM
I can't even fathom the idea of HOT lanes in the Richmond metro, though for widening projects of that magnitude... you're right. It might not be possible without them, as far as widening the entire VA 288 goes. But for now traffic between US 360 and VA 10 still seems pretty light, even during rush hour.

The section between US-360 and VA-76 certainly needs to be 6-laned.  Not so sure north of there where the AADTs are in the low-to-mid 40,000s range.

Between I-95 and US-360 seems light enough to work at 4 lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 07, 2018, 04:59:54 PM
Quote from: plain on April 07, 2018, 02:43:12 PM
I can't even fathom the idea of HOT lanes in the Richmond metro, though for widening projects of that magnitude... you're right. It might not be possible without them, as far as widening the entire VA 288 goes. But for now traffic between US 360 and VA 10 still seems pretty light, even during rush hour.

I agree.  There are not that many places on the Richmond system of freeways where HOV/Toll lanes could possibly work because I do not think there are enough concentrated employment centers like Tysons, the Dulles Toll Road corridor, Ballston, Pentagon City and of course the Pentagon itself. 

The alternative in and near Richmond would be to just impose variable or time-of-day tolling and leave it at that, though adding an HOV component (with mandated use of E-ZPass Flex transponders as in Northern Virginia would be relatively cheap and easy). 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 08, 2018, 05:04:19 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 07, 2018, 04:59:54 PM
Quote from: plain on April 07, 2018, 02:43:12 PM
I can't even fathom the idea of HOT lanes in the Richmond metro, though for widening projects of that magnitude... you're right. It might not be possible without them, as far as widening the entire VA 288 goes. But for now traffic between US 360 and VA 10 still seems pretty light, even during rush hour.

I agree.  There are not that many places on the Richmond system of freeways where HOV/Toll lanes could possibly work because I do not think there are enough concentrated employment centers like Tysons, the Dulles Toll Road corridor, Ballston, Pentagon City and of course the Pentagon itself. 

The alternative in and near Richmond would be to just impose variable or time-of-day tolling and leave it at that, though adding an HOV component (with mandated use of E-ZPass Flex transponders as in Northern Virginia would be relatively cheap and easy).

Yeah there isn't many "business districts" in the metro outside of downtown Richmond itself, though there is Innsbrook and Westcreek, which are just large office parks. The I-95/I-64 overlap, I-64 west of I-95, and I-195 are really the only expressways in the area that gets congested in both directions during both rush hours, and just a general lane added on these in each direction can help with this (though impossible in I-195's case)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 09, 2018, 10:16:55 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 07, 2018, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: plain on April 07, 2018, 02:43:12 PM
I can't even fathom the idea of HOT lanes in the Richmond metro, though for widening projects of that magnitude... you're right. It might not be possible without them, as far as widening the entire VA 288 goes. But for now traffic between US 360 and VA 10 still seems pretty light, even during rush hour.

The section between US-360 and VA-76 certainly needs to be 6-laned.  Not so sure north of there where the AADTs are in the low-to-mid 40,000s range.

Between I-95 and US-360 seems light enough to work at 4 lanes.

At the very least the segment between I-64 US 250 and VA 6 (or maybe SR 711?) could stand to be widened to 6 lanes. The area around Capital One Drive/Tuckahoe Creek Parkway is a major chokepoint for traffic (in both directions) during rush hour, and seems to have higher AADT than the Powhatan and Chesterfield County segments (around 50,000 according to the 2016 traffic data).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 09, 2018, 10:22:57 AM
50K is still within the capacity realm of an urbanized 4-lane freeway.  Unless you're seeing more than a couple hours a day of stop-and-go, it's unlikely to see widening.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 09, 2018, 11:18:22 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 09, 2018, 10:16:55 AM
At the very least the segment between I-64 US 250 and VA 6 (or maybe SR 711?) could stand to be widened to 6 lanes. The area around Capital One Drive/Tuckahoe Creek Parkway is a major chokepoint for traffic (in both directions) during rush hour, and seems to have higher AADT than the Powhatan and Chesterfield County segments (around 50,000 according to the 2016 traffic data).

VA-288 already has 3 lanes northbound between Capital One Drive/Tuckahoe Creek Parkway and US-250.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 10, 2018, 06:12:28 AM
Here's the intentionally deceiving headline I saw this morning from MSN/USA Today regarding Left Lane Hogging: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/driving-too-slow-on-virginia-highways-can-cost-you-dollar100/ar-AAvGCFC?ocid=spartandhp

Obviously...it's driving too slow IN THE LEFT LANE.  But simply saying "Driving too slow on Virginia Highways" is bound to pull in people that think driving slow is safer, and that speed kills.  Once they start reading the article, they're too angry to realize what it's really about.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 19, 2018, 01:01:38 PM
RICHMOND, Va. — At its monthly meeting this week, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved $20.2 million in contracts for projects by both the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT)
.....
[light awarding month]

Funding for $6 million was approved for VDOT to conduct an environmental study of a plan to extend the I-495 Express Lanes by approximately three miles from the I-495 and Dulles Toll Road interchange to the vicinity of the American Legion Bridge and Maryland line.  This northern extension to the 495 Express Lanes would help relieve a traffic-choked section of I-495 by providing more capacity, new travel choices and benefits for carpoolers.
.....

SMS:  It is important to start the location/EIS process for this project, it will take at least several years to complete.  Obviously MDOT SHA needs to conduct theirs as well between the state line and I-270, but VDOT can't control that, but they can conduct theirs.

It is apparent that the I-495/VA-267 interchange was only partly upgraded in the I-495 HOT Lanes project, likely because it was unknown at that point what scale of expansion would take place north of there on I-495.

I suppose that VDOT will develop both 5-5 and 4-2-2-4 lane configuration alternatives for this current project, so that it could match whichever scheme that is chosen by MDOT SHA.  Plus complete the expansion and modernization of the I-495/VA-267 interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 19, 2018, 02:39:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2018, 01:01:38 PM
It is apparent that the I-495/VA-267 interchange was only partly upgraded in the I-495 HOT Lanes project, likely because it was unknown at that point what scale of expansion would take place north of there on I-495.

I suppose that VDOT will develop both 5-5 and 4-2-2-4 lane configuration alternatives for this current project, so that it could match whichever scheme that is chosen by MDOT SHA.  Plus complete the expansion and modernization of the I-495/VA-267 interchange.

Predictably, there are Montgomery County activists that are demanding that any  new managed lanes be limited to one new lane in each direction, which defeats the who purpose of adding them. 

The state of Maryland has no obligations to take orders from those activists (or county elected officials either), so I suppose we will see what happens.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 20, 2018, 04:10:11 PM
This is the first reference I have seen regarding the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel project to parallel the Chesapeake Channel Tunnel, the northern tunnel.

The Thimble Shoal Channel Parallel Tunnel is now under construction.

http://www.cbbt.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2013GovRpt.pdf

"The Thimble Shoal Channel depth of 67 feet, with 3 feet of safety factor rating or "over dredge"  to allow for a net 70 feet of clearance with 10 feet of tunnel cover.  Correspondingly, Chesapeake Channel Tunnel will be scoped at a depth of 55 feet with 3 feet of over dredge, even though the existing channel is only maintained at 45 feet."

The Thimble Shoal Channel is deeper as it serves the Hampton Roads area commercial shipping and the largest warships in the world.

This is the first time I have seen an official statement that a parallel tunnel is planned at Chesapeake Channel.  Not a bridge.

"Thimble Tunnel would be completed first by 2025, and thereafter there will be an approximate 30-year period before Chesapeake Channel Tunnel is completed."

Hopefully funding will be found to build the Parallel Chesapeake Channel Tunnel by the end of the 2020s.

Another quote --
'Following its opening on April 15, 1964, the Bridge-Tunnel was selected "One of the Seven Engineering Wonders of the Modern World"  in a worldwide competition that included more than one hundred major projects.  In addition, in 1965, it was distinguished as "The Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement"  by the American Society of Civil Engineers.  In 2000, the Bridge-Tunnel was recognized by Structural Engineer magazine as one of the "Seven Structural Engineering Wonders of America for the 20th Century." '

All this is well-known.  The OCEA was awarded by the ASCE.  But I have two questions --
Who conducted the worldwide competition for the first award?
What were the other 6 projects?

I have searched all over the internet and have not found the answers to those questions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 20, 2018, 06:51:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2018, 04:10:11 PM

Another quote --
'Following its opening on April 15, 1964, the Bridge-Tunnel was selected "One of the Seven Engineering Wonders of the Modern World"  in a worldwide competition that included more than one hundred major projects.  In addition, in 1965, it was distinguished as "The Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement"  by the American Society of Civil Engineers.  In 2000, the Bridge-Tunnel was recognized by Structural Engineer magazine as one of the "Seven Structural Engineering Wonders of America for the 20th Century." '

All this is well-known.  The OCEA was awarded by the ASCE.  But I have two questions --
Who conducted the worldwide competition for the first award?
What were the other 6 projects?

I have searched all over the internet and have not found the answers to those questions.

The 1964 designation appears to also be from ASCE - cited this way here - http://www.geoengineer.org/news-center/news/item/1767-chesapeake-bay-bridge-tunnel-an-engineering-wonder-of-the-modern-world and here - https://books.google.com/books?id=MmcqAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=%22one+of+the+seven+engineering+wonders+of+the+modern+world.%22+1964&source=bl&ots=cyeCJWHV6Y&sig=ShlbcyvNnLiDAV-4_3vxxCfchLQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibko3q9cnaAhUs1oMKHTZZBVU4ChDoAQhAMAc#v=onepage&q=%22one%20of%20the%20seven%20engineering%20wonders%20of%20the%20modern%20world.%22%201964&f=false

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 23, 2018, 04:03:54 PM
VDOT has added traffic data from 2017 to its website for anyone interested.

http://www.virginiadot.org/info/2017_traffic_data.asp

Oddly, traffic data for the Town of Columbia are included even though it officially dissolved in 2016 and is now an unincorporated part of Fluvanna County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on April 23, 2018, 04:32:36 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 23, 2018, 04:03:54 PM
VDOT has added traffic data from 2017 to its website for anyone interested.

http://www.virginiadot.org/info/2017_traffic_data.asp

Oddly, traffic data for the Town of Columbia are included even though it officially dissolved in 2016 and is now an unincorporated part of Fluvanna County.

I see the traffic counts for the Central Blvd/Piney Forest Road corridor in Danville appear to be the highest overall in the city. No surprise there. Piney Forest Rd between Central Blvd and VA-41 is a nightmare. I dread every time I have to drive that stretch. It's usually a parking lot except for real early mornings and during the night. The suicide lane from hell is the worst part.

For a city no bigger than it is, Danville has terrible traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on April 23, 2018, 05:22:29 PM
Would you advocate for a center barrier which requires U turns instead of left turns? 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on April 23, 2018, 08:27:43 PM
Quote from: BrianP on April 23, 2018, 05:22:29 PM
Would you advocate for a center barrier which requires U turns instead of left turns?

I normally would, but in this case it might do even more harm than good. That whole corridor is cluttered with businesses practically butted up against each other. I'm not familiar with Danville's zoning, but it seems like the city allowed businesses to just pop up any ol' place with little thought given to what improvements US-29 Business might need in the future...which is now. It's a mess.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 08:54:04 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 23, 2018, 04:32:36 PM
I see the traffic counts for the Central Blvd/Piney Forest Road corridor in Danville appear to be the highest overall in the city. No surprise there. Piney Forest Rd between Central Blvd and VA-41 is a nightmare. I dread every time I have to drive that stretch. It's usually a parking lot except for real early mornings and during the night. The suicide lane from hell is the worst part.
For a city no bigger than it is, Danville has terrible traffic.

Do you think that completing the outer loop (building the northwest quadrant) would help those conditions?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on April 24, 2018, 07:04:41 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 08:54:04 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 23, 2018, 04:32:36 PM
I see the traffic counts for the Central Blvd/Piney Forest Road corridor in Danville appear to be the highest overall in the city. No surprise there. Piney Forest Rd between Central Blvd and VA-41 is a nightmare. I dread every time I have to drive that stretch. It's usually a parking lot except for real early mornings and during the night. The suicide lane from hell is the worst part.
For a city no bigger than it is, Danville has terrible traffic.

Do you think that completing the outer loop (building the northwest quadrant) would help those conditions?

It might. It would help divert thru traffic headed to US-58 West from points north of Danville and vice-versa by keeping US-29 Business/US-58 Business from being used as a shortcut.

But even at that, I'd wager that finishing the loop would have minimal impact on US-29 Business. Much of the issue there is local traffic, not thru traffic. Piney Forest Road is just too built up and I really don't see how any improvements could be made on that road without having a big impact on businesses.

All that said, I would certainly support finishing the last leg of the bypass, yes. Even if the benefit is minimal, any relief would be a great welcome at this point.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 24, 2018, 07:16:30 AM
Quote from: LM117 on April 24, 2018, 07:04:41 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 23, 2018, 08:54:04 PM
Do you think that completing the outer loop (building the northwest quadrant) would help those conditions?
It might. It would help divert thru traffic headed to US-58 West from points north of Danville and vice-versa by keeping US-29 Business/US-58 Business from being used as a shortcut.
But even at that, I'd wager that finishing the loop would have minimal impact on US-29 Business. Much of the issue there is local traffic, not thru traffic. Piney Forest Road is just too built up and I really don't see how any improvements could be made on that road without having a big impact on businesses.
All that said, I would certainly support finishing the last leg of the bypass, yes. Even if the benefit is minimal, any relief would be a great welcome at this point.

Business US-29 and Business US-58 were the main routes and were 4-lane arterials before the bypass was built.  Do you think they need 6 lanes?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 24, 2018, 11:02:24 AM
^ 2017 traffic volume data plus my own experiences would say no.  The busiest part of BUS-29 is borderline but is already limited-access...across the river and up past Piedmont Dr.  Maybe at the top of the hill but that would also be very expensive due to the adjacent businesses.

It should also be noted that BUS-29 already has auxiliary lanes across the river (between VA 86 and BUS-58).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on April 24, 2018, 12:21:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 24, 2018, 11:02:24 AM
^ 2017 traffic volume data plus my own experiences would say no.  The busiest part of BUS-29 is borderline but is already limited-access...across the river and up past Piedmont Dr.  Maybe at the top of the hill but that would also be very expensive due to the adjacent businesses.

It should also be noted that BUS-29 already has auxiliary lanes across the river (between VA 86 and BUS-58).

The parking lot problem area is the stretch between the Central Blvd/Piney Forest Rd split and VA-41. If the development along the road had been more controlled, the current setup might be more adequate, and if not, a barrier that would require U-turns might have been more feasible. However, as you mentioned, the clutter of businesses prevents any improvements from happening, so that ship has sailed.

As for US-58 Business, I agree that it doesn't need widening. It can get congested in the downtown area, but much of it is divided by a median, so it's nowhere near as dangerous as the aforementioned stretch of US-29 Business.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 09:43:46 PM
http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/vdot-holds-public-meeting-on-u-s-plans/article_06c2eb33-f009-549d-a7a9-9cf51a293ba8.html
VDOT holds public meeting on U.S. 301 plans
April 25, 2018
The Free Lance—Star

Quote from: The Free Lance—Star
There are 37 intersections and 81 crossovers along State Route 207 and U.S. 301 in King George and Caroline counties.   VDOT has studied all of them and made recommendations to remove or reconfigure most of them. 

The recommendations come as the result of a study of the corridor by VDOT, the George Washington Regional Commission, the Department of Defense and affected localities which began in February of 2017.

The recommendations are meant to preserve and enhance the capacity and safety of the 42-mile stretch that runs from U.S. 1 in Caroline to the Harry W. Nice Bridge in King George, which is known as an arterial road.

"Virginia's arterials have become 'main streets' for local growth," said Paul Prideaux, a senior manager at Michael Baker, the engineering consulting firm that assisted VDOT in the study.  "But with lots of driveways, signals, crosswalks and turns, if they're not well-managed, they become nightmares.  Future planning will reduce the need to retrofit."

The U.S. 301 corridor was selected for the study because it is a key link between Interstate 95 and major urban areas such as Washington, Baltimore and points north.

Traffic volume on the corridor ranges from 8,000 average daily vehicles in the Carmel Church area in Caroline to 26,000 around Dahlgren in King George.

With the widening of the Harry Nice Bridge over the Potomac from two to four lanes–which is being handled by Maryland and will see "shovels in the ground" in 2020–those volumes are expected to double by 2040, Prideaux said.

See the URL for the rest of the article.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: RoadPelican on April 27, 2018, 12:05:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 09:43:46 PM
http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/vdot-holds-public-meeting-on-u-s-plans/article_06c2eb33-f009-549d-a7a9-9cf51a293ba8.html
VDOT holds public meeting on U.S. 301 plans
April 25, 2018
The Free Lance—Star

Quote from: The Free Lance—Star
There are 37 intersections and 81 crossovers along State Route 207 and U.S. 301 in King George and Caroline counties.   VDOT has studied all of them and made recommendations to remove or reconfigure most of them. 

The recommendations come as the result of a study of the corridor by VDOT, the George Washington Regional Commission, the Department of Defense and affected localities which began in February of 2017.

The recommendations are meant to preserve and enhance the capacity and safety of the 42-mile stretch that runs from U.S. 1 in Caroline to the Harry W. Nice Bridge in King George, which is known as an arterial road.

"Virginia's arterials have become 'main streets' for local growth," said Paul Prideaux, a senior manager at Michael Baker, the engineering consulting firm that assisted VDOT in the study.  "But with lots of driveways, signals, crosswalks and turns, if they're not well-managed, they become nightmares.  Future planning will reduce the need to retrofit."

The U.S. 301 corridor was selected for the study because it is a key link between Interstate 95 and major urban areas such as Washington, Baltimore and points north.

Traffic volume on the corridor ranges from 8,000 average daily vehicles in the Carmel Church area in Caroline to 26,000 around Dahlgren in King George.

With the widening of the Harry Nice Bridge over the Potomac from two to four lanes–which is being handled by Maryland and will see "shovels in the ground" in 2020–those volumes are expected to double by 2040, Prideaux said.

See the URL for the rest of the article.

I have traveled US 301 many times and the stretch from the Potomac River to I-95 has always been pretty rural and mostly 55-60 MPH Speed Limit.  It's great to read that Virginia wants to keep it that way.  Maryland has poorly managed access control on their portion of US 301, when/If the Waldorf Bypass gets built that will help, but drivers would still have to go thru many traffic lights in LaPlata and Bowie until they can get on the US 50 freeway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on April 27, 2018, 01:14:31 PM
301's a cluster in southern Maryland, but I'd still rather drive it than I-95 between Fredericksburg and DC or Baltimore.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 27, 2018, 01:54:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 27, 2018, 01:14:31 PM
301's a cluster in southern Maryland, but I'd still rather drive it than I-95 between Fredericksburg and DC or Baltimore.

I agree.  Only exception is if there is a serious crash on the Gov. Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge over the lower Potomac River, which can bring traffic to a stop for an hour or hours. 

Unfortunately, those seem to happen all too often, due the narrow two lane undivided 1930's design of that crossing.

In the coming decade, MDTA will be constructing a new four-lane divided crossing, which will match up with U.S. 301 on both sides.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 27, 2018, 03:38:52 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 27, 2018, 01:54:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 27, 2018, 01:14:31 PM
301's a cluster in southern Maryland, but I'd still rather drive it than I-95 between Fredericksburg and DC or Baltimore.
I agree.  Only exception is if there is a serious crash on the Gov. Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge over the lower Potomac River, which can bring traffic to a stop for an hour or hours. 
Unfortunately, those seem to happen all too often, due the narrow two lane undivided 1930's design of that crossing.

Not me.  US-301 in southern Maryland has over 50 signals, and unless I-95 has a serious traffic incident, I-95 will beat US-301 hands down, like 30-40% less travel time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 27, 2018, 03:46:24 PM
Our neighborhood just got new bike lanes courtesy of VDOT. Looks like residents are respecting it about as well as I thought they would (as in, not very well). It'd make more sense to put the parking between the thru lane and the bike lane, but that's not how they do it here in residential areas. There's not really much reason for this particular set of bike lanes anyway other than the psychological effect of making the road feel narrower to slow traffic (which is fine with me, people go 45+ on this street despite the 25-mph speed limit). Another nearby street was given "sharrows"  instead.

I'm sure someone in our neighborhood would say there's no sign prohibiting parking, but it doesn't need one because the bike lane symbol itself prohibits parking, as far as I know.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180427/0a07d0a8039777c94d5241323bd32e41.jpg)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180427/c1401b7f1f75042c7a056c8f37a18f70.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: abefroman329 on April 27, 2018, 04:01:05 PM
To me the solid white line indicates it's a shoulder and not a parking lane.
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 27, 2018, 04:41:06 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on April 27, 2018, 04:01:05 PM
To me the solid white line indicates it's a shoulder and not a parking lane.
Except there's a bike lane symbol. It's a little small in the pictures I posted before (it's next to the taper), but there are several of them and it's very clear what it is. This picture is of the area just behind the SUV. Note the symbols on both sides of the road (the SUV was on the far side relative to where I was standing).

The reason it shifts like that is that nobody parks on the far side of the street beyond this point. So in this picture, you can park on the side where I was standing but not on the other side.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180427/12e6baa16c63a3d8e7af1e7ffcc02190.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 27, 2018, 09:13:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2018, 04:10:11 PM
This is the first reference I have seen regarding the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel project to parallel the Chesapeake Channel Tunnel, the northern tunnel.

The Thimble Shoal Channel Parallel Tunnel is now under construction.

http://www.cbbt.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2013GovRpt.pdf

"The Thimble Shoal Channel depth of 67 feet, with 3 feet of safety factor rating or "over dredge"  to allow for a net 70 feet of clearance with 10 feet of tunnel cover.  Correspondingly, Chesapeake Channel Tunnel will be scoped at a depth of 55 feet with 3 feet of over dredge, even though the existing channel is only maintained at 45 feet."

The Thimble Shoal Channel is deeper as it serves the Hampton Roads area commercial shipping and the largest warships in the world.

This is the first time I have seen an official statement that a parallel tunnel is planned at Chesapeake Channel.  Not a bridge.

"Thimble Tunnel would be completed first by 2025, and thereafter there will be an approximate 30-year period before Chesapeake Channel Tunnel is completed."

Hopefully funding will be found to build the Parallel Chesapeake Channel Tunnel by the end of the 2020s.
I'm still sad the gift shop and restaurant won't be replaced.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 28, 2018, 09:56:39 AM
^ Wasn't worth the $200M extra cost, despite the novelty of the location.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on April 28, 2018, 12:19:59 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 28, 2018, 09:56:39 AM
^ Wasn't worth the $200M extra cost, despite the novelty of the location.
Was there a study done of the economics? That seems like such a high cost to rebuild a building with parking lot - they must have had to extend the entire island to do it?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 02:47:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 28, 2018, 12:19:59 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 28, 2018, 09:56:39 AM
^ Wasn't worth the $200M extra cost, despite the novelty of the location.
Was there a study done of the economics? That seems like such a high cost to rebuild a building with parking lot - they must have had to extend the entire island to do it?

They could build it on a platform built on pilings, but I suspect that such a structure would not survive a major storm.  As it is the islands have massive armor stone to protect from erosion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 28, 2018, 02:55:47 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 28, 2018, 12:19:59 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 28, 2018, 09:56:39 AM
^ Wasn't worth the $200M extra cost, despite the novelty of the location.
Was there a study done of the economics? That seems like such a high cost to rebuild a building with parking lot - they must have had to extend the entire island to do it?

Yes, the extra cost was due to having to expand the island.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 30, 2018, 05:34:13 AM
Washington Post op-ed: Robbing highways for Metro funding is a bad idea (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robbing-highways-for-metro-funding-is-a-bad-idea/2018/04/20/38d4fde0-3914-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html)

QuoteVirginia recently approved a bill to provide new permanent funding of $154 million per year for Metro. This will be combined with comparable increases in funding from the District and Maryland. This strikes some as a good thing, but it isn't, because this increased spending on mass transit takes money away from highways.

QuoteAbout two-thirds of Virginia's new funding commitment – more than $100 million – comes at the expense of improvements to roads and highways in Northern Virginia, which are chronically gridlocked. One hundred million dollars is more than one quarter of all fiscal 2019 revenue of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, the primary agency responsible for improving roads in the region.

QuoteThere are good reasons most people rely on their automobiles rather than transit for the majority of their trips, including commuting. The D.C. area, as with most modern urban areas, is becoming more and more decentralized, with most jobs located outside the urban center. Public transit works well for transporting people from city neighborhoods and inner-ring suburbs to jobs in the District, but it's not a cost-effective way to transport people to many jobs located in the suburbs, especially when they commute from one suburb to another.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 03, 2018, 11:19:49 AM
Nice photo comparison.

http://twitter.com/vadot/status/992056250715328513?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 03, 2018, 01:04:34 PM
Why is VA-2 overlapped on US-301 all the way between Bowling Green and Richmond?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 03, 2018, 08:05:18 PM
That is a lovely picture.

Here is a pic approaching the intersection from the same direction in Feb 1956
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2FThen%2520and%2520Now%2F2-207-301-feb56.jpg&hash=cd3c6a72579ee666362f1d5adcce9ff3dcad6d8b)

And an April 1957 pic of the same intersection from US 301 SB.  This pic shows that signage was already replaced 5 years in (though US 301 and VA 2 did split here prior to this)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2FThen%2520and%2520Now%2F207-301-apr57.jpg&hash=8175acf74ece5651c7ab7ee4bd0f788da4e8e131)

Both of these photos are from the Virginia Highways Bulletin.

The lame answer to why there is the 301-2 overlap is that VA 2 was there first.  I assume it was to give Richmond to Fredericksburg a single route number (as an alternate to US 1), though with I-95 that reason went away in the 1960s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 03, 2018, 08:24:22 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 03, 2018, 08:05:18 PM
The lame answer to why there is the 301-2 overlap is that VA 2 was there first.  I assume it was to give Richmond to Fredericksburg a single route number (as an alternate to US 1), though with I-95 that reason went away in the 1960s.

IOW, a logical decision that was made maybe as far back as the 1930s and nobody has yet made a decision to change/modify it.  Such as the decision to truncate/eliminate the US-211 overlap of US-29 between Gainesville and D.C.

I guess someone could say, "Who cares?"  It's not really harming anything.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 04, 2018, 02:36:17 PM
On I-395 this morning, one of the electronic signs said "May the 4th Be With You–Drive Safely." I was rather surprised to see anything remotely humorous on a VDOT sign (and I was pleased they used the correct "safely" rather than the incorrect "safe" that's popular these days).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on May 04, 2018, 10:10:03 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 04, 2018, 02:36:17 PM
I was rather surprised to see anything remotely humorous on a VDOT sign

I remember the Burma Shave signs on I-66 promoting carpooling -- something like:

Form a carpool
One car takes many
Carry them back
To old Virginny

This was before "Carry Me Back to Old Virginny" was demoted to "state song emeritus".

The Dulles Airport Access Road has more recently had (and may still have) Burma Shave-style warnings, for non-airport traffic illegally using the free access road to beat the tolls on parallel VA 267. But they're not VDOT's doing, and also rather humorless.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 08, 2018, 10:39:05 AM
Bowing to overwhelming community opposition, the Chesterfield County Economic Development Authority withdrew (http://www.richmond.com/news/local/chesterfield/embattled-economic-development-authority-withdraws-chesterfield-megasite-plans/article_1bd09cdb-b06f-50de-8255-d5e4ab958be5.html) its controversial "Mega Site (http://www.chesterfield.gov/MegaSite/)" plan, which would have involved rezoning a large tract of land off Branders Bridge Road (south of VA 10) in the southern portion of the county for commercial and industrial use.

This also kills (for now) the equally controversial East-West Freeway, which has that name even though the most recent version of that plan isn't a freeway but a 2-lane connector road between US 1 and Branders Bridge Road near where the Mega Site was planned. There was a meeting for public comment scheduled for yesterday, but it was canceled when the Mega Site proposal was withdrawn.

The county's comprehensive thoroughfare plan includes the East-West Freeway as part of an outer connector road linking to an extended Powhite Parkway at US 360 near Skinquarter, which is something that would actually be useful but is just as unlikely to happen due to community opposition. There are plans to revise the thoroughfare plan and I wouldn't be shocked if both were eliminated when the plan is redone.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on May 08, 2018, 11:13:43 AM
Not a bit surprising. I can't see the Powhite extension ever happening either, just due to the development where it and Old Hundred Road would split. Driving the recently opened Woolridge Road extension, however, there seems to be a break in the trees about where it's proposed to go.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 08, 2018, 12:59:51 PM
Quote from: Takumi on May 08, 2018, 11:13:43 AM
Not a bit surprising. I can't see the Powhite extension ever happening either, just due to the development where it and Old Hundred Road would split. Driving the recently opened Woolridge Road extension, however, there seems to be a break in the trees about where it's proposed to go.

Wouldn't surprise me if the plan for the Woolridge Road extension project called for that break since, at least as of right now, the Powhite extension is still part of the thoroughfare plan. Based on how development looks in the county right now, extending Powhite would likely run into problems past Genito Road since Woodlake is built out so much. It could probably get around Brandermill, but Brandermill-related development's starting to sneak to the north of Old Hundred Road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 08, 2018, 04:16:58 PM
What exactly would the East-West Freeway accomplish other than open up a corridor of land for large-scale development?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on May 08, 2018, 04:26:31 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 08, 2018, 12:59:51 PM
Quote from: Takumi on May 08, 2018, 11:13:43 AM
Not a bit surprising. I can't see the Powhite extension ever happening either, just due to the development where it and Old Hundred Road would split. Driving the recently opened Woolridge Road extension, however, there seems to be a break in the trees about where it's proposed to go.

Wouldn't surprise me if the plan for the Woolridge Road extension project called for that break since, at least as of right now, the Powhite extension is still part of the thoroughfare plan. Based on how development looks in the county right now, extending Powhite would likely run into problems past Genito Road since Woodlake is built out so much. It could probably get around Brandermill, but Brandermill-related development's starting to sneak to the north of Old Hundred Road.
Indeed, and the Watermill development of recent years is right around where the split would be.

Quote from: Beltway on May 08, 2018, 04:16:58 PM
What exactly would the East-West Freeway accomplish other than open up a corridor of land for large-scale development?
Not much, as it would be pretty redundant. And that's assuming the county even found a business interested in developing there. There's still plenty of development going on in the Walthall and Enon/Bermuda Hundred areas anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on May 10, 2018, 08:20:54 PM
Would anybody mind providing me some Streetview links of the signs VDOT uses to convey that turning  (typically) from a center lane has a NTOR prohibition but the contiguous lane for the same turn does not?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on May 10, 2018, 08:23:27 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 10, 2018, 08:20:54 PM
Would anybody mind providing me some Streetview links of the signs VDOT uses to convey that turning  (typically) from a center lane has a NTOR prohibition but the contiguous lane for the same turn does not?

Like this?

https://goo.gl/maps/irz2xMastCy
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on May 10, 2018, 08:30:26 PM
Exactly.  Thank you.

From what I remember I think VDOT signs it a couple of different ways.  Are there others or feel free to tell me I generally have that wrong.
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 10, 2018, 08:47:44 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 10, 2018, 08:30:26 PM
Exactly.  Thank you.

From what I remember I think VDOT signs it a couple of different ways.  Are there others or feel free to tell me I generally have that wrong.

Yes, the wording varies quite frequently. Sometimes a sign will say turns on red are allowed from the curb lane only. I'll edit this to include some examples.

Edited to add: These first two are at the same intersection, the off-ramp from the Beltway to Van Dorn Street.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180511/ed902fc607680eb05d55a29e2b4b76fa.jpg)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180511/6994056fb3758992c63c4fecfdcb4c59.jpg)

The next one is four lights south of there at Van Dorn and Franconia Road.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180511/e591e5980e4b5f899bf27a6502b437ea.jpg)

This last one is west of Fairfax at West Ox Road and US-29.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180511/1fa4beb517f4dc7b3bbf457a5efa87a9.jpg)

VDOT is basically obsessed with this, BUT at the few intersections I know of where left on red is permitted and there are dual left-turn lanes, I have never seen a similar sign restricting lefts on red to the curb lane.

It's kind of stupid how VDOT loves to put these dinky little signs for this restriction on the far side of sometimes large intersections (Van Dorn and Franconia is a good example of that). If you live in Virginia, you know these are ubiquitous here. If you're not from here, there's a reasonable chance you may have trouble spotting these, especially at night.


Edited again: One more. This is in the City of Alexandria just north of the first two signs seen above (westbound Eisenhower Avenue to northbound Van Dorn). It being an independent city might explain the different wording.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180511/3ff25723b0c0a87791031a92433bc81a.jpg)
Title: MOVED: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on May 15, 2018, 05:04:30 PM
Discussion of radar detectors has been moved to Off-Topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=9.0).

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22865.0
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 15, 2018, 08:05:33 PM
VDOT has issued a new highway map dated 2016-18 with the new governor's picture (elected Nov 2017).  However, the copyright date remains 2016 and as best I could tell there were no map changes from the previously released 2016-18 issue.

In the past they have released new maps with the same 2-year cover date but changed the copyright to the second year and made changes to the map itself...

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/maps-state.asp

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 15, 2018, 08:48:02 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 15, 2018, 05:04:30 PM
Discussion of radar detectors has been moved to Off-Topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=9.0).
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22865.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22865.0)

Speed limits needs to go there as well, IMHO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on May 15, 2018, 09:00:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 15, 2018, 08:48:02 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 15, 2018, 05:04:30 PM
Discussion of radar detectors has been moved to Off-Topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=9.0).
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22865.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22865.0)

Speed limits needs to go there as well, IMHO.

The discussion of speed enforcement that was closely related to the radar detector discussion was also moved there. That keeps the moved new thread intact.

I don't think there's any need to move other speed limit/enforcement discussion to Off-Topic. Those can stay in General Highway Talk or regional boards as appropriate.
Title: Re: MOVED: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 16, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 15, 2018, 05:04:30 PM
Discussion of radar detectors has been moved to Off-Topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=9.0).

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22865.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22865.0)

Would respectfully request that it be moved from Off-Topic to Travel, because the use of radar detectors is certainly a pertinent topic for travel and is not off-topic on a highway board.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on May 16, 2018, 03:40:52 PM
 The terms of the deal will not be altered further.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 16, 2018, 03:49:37 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 15, 2018, 08:05:33 PM
VDOT has issued a new highway map dated 2016-18 with the new governor's picture (elected Nov 2017).  However, the copyright date remains 2016 and as best I could tell there were no map changes from the previously released 2016-18 issue.

In the past they have released new maps with the same 2-year cover date but changed the copyright to the second year and made changes to the map itself...

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/maps-state.asp

Looking at it, the map seems to be getting more accurate as new versions come out (still plenty of errors though). Come to think of it, I noticed for years Rand McNally had the same errors the State Map had. Not sure if that's still the case, I haven't bought a Rand in a few years
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on May 16, 2018, 04:03:50 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 15, 2018, 08:05:33 PM
VDOT has issued a new highway map dated 2016-18 with the new governor's picture (elected Nov 2017).  However, the copyright date remains 2016 and as best I could tell there were no map changes from the previously released 2016-18 issue.

In the past they have released new maps with the same 2-year cover date but changed the copyright to the second year and made changes to the map itself...

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/maps-state.asp
VA 167 in Hampton is on the map for another year, drink!
In addition, the map is still missing the VA-172 extension (open since at least 2014), however all of VA-280 is shown as complete (finished in 2015 I think).
I suppose these state maps are not known for their accuracy.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: abefroman329 on May 16, 2018, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 16, 2018, 03:40:52 PM
The terms of the deal will not be altered further.

Pray you don't alter it again.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 16, 2018, 04:14:35 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 15, 2018, 08:05:33 PM
VDOT has issued a new highway map dated 2016-18 with the new governor's picture (elected Nov 2017).  However, the copyright date remains 2016 and as best I could tell there were no map changes from the previously released 2016-18 issue.

In the past they have released new maps with the same 2-year cover date but changed the copyright to the second year and made changes to the map itself...

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/maps-state.asp



21th Street in Richmond lives to see another day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 16, 2018, 04:46:15 PM
Just noticed VA 164's extension to I-264 is still missing on the Norfolk insert
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 16, 2018, 04:53:15 PM
VDOT is not specifically looking at tolls yet, but they are now studying I-81 separately and as a whole to determine improvements and potential revenue sources for this route.

"During the meeting, the launch of the Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Plan was presented to the board.  As directed in Senate Bill 971, the CTB, supported by OIPI, VDOT and DRPT, will study I-81 to identify priorities along the 325 miles and potential revenue sources that could be dedicated to improvements."

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2018/new_director_of_transportation128701.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 17, 2018, 11:13:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 16, 2018, 04:53:15 PM
VDOT is not specifically looking at tolls yet, but they are now studying I-81 separately and as a whole to determine improvements and potential revenue sources for this route.

"During the meeting, the launch of the Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Plan was presented to the board.  As directed in Senate Bill 971, the CTB, supported by OIPI, VDOT and DRPT, will study I-81 to identify priorities along the 325 miles and potential revenue sources that could be dedicated to improvements."

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2018/new_director_of_transportation128701.asp

I really hope that they examine tolling all traffic on all lanes of I-81 across Virginia, and in particular not just trucks (I remember when the Star Solutions proposal for I-81 ran off the road and was declared dead).

They should also look at how much Virginia (statewide) motor fuel taxes would have to go up (without tolls) to fund widening all of it to at least six (and some parts probably eight) lanes wide.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on May 17, 2018, 11:39:16 AM
Long-distance trucks cause congestion on I-81, so let's make everyone pay for the required upgrades. Brilliant.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 17, 2018, 12:08:36 PM
I could go along with tolling I-81 if they'd increase the speed limit to 85 mph.  :bigass:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 17, 2018, 01:13:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2018, 12:08:36 PM
I could go along with tolling I-81 if they'd increase the speed limit to 85 mph.  :bigass:

But then we'd have to renumber it to I-366 and no one would go for that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 17, 2018, 01:53:26 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 17, 2018, 01:13:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2018, 12:08:36 PM
I could go along with tolling I-81 if they'd increase the speed limit to 85 mph.  :bigass:

But then we'd have to renumber it to I-366 and no one would go for that.

I actually meant to type 80. I guess I saw "Virginia" and my mind automatically went all Ethanman on me.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 17, 2018, 02:49:27 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 17, 2018, 11:13:45 AM
I really hope that they examine tolling all traffic on all lanes of I-81 across Virginia, and in particular not just trucks (I remember when the Star Solutions proposal for I-81 ran off the road and was declared dead).
They should also look at how much Virginia (statewide) motor fuel taxes would have to go up (without tolls) to fund widening all of it to at least six (and some parts probably eight) lanes wide.

Separating the I-81 corridor from the rest of the highway program may have some benefits, but won't that contradict the concept of the new SmartScale funding program?

The EIS/location Tier I study back in the early 2000s had alternatives not just for the separate truck roadways, but also for conventional widening of the current roadways to 3 or 4 lanes.  The TEA-21 pilot program would have allowed tolling the highway, and they had alternatives for tolling either concept and for either trucks only or for all vehicles.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on May 17, 2018, 11:39:16 AM
Long-distance trucks cause congestion on I-81, so let's make everyone pay for the required upgrades. Brilliant.

Car AADTs are high enough on weekends Fri-Sun from Memorial Day thru Labor Day, and on other holiday weekends, that 6 lanes are needed thruout the whole route from Knoxville to Harrisburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on May 17, 2018, 06:14:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 17, 2018, 11:13:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 16, 2018, 04:53:15 PM
VDOT is not specifically looking at tolls yet, but they are now studying I-81 separately and as a whole to determine improvements and potential revenue sources for this route.

"During the meeting, the launch of the Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Plan was presented to the board.  As directed in Senate Bill 971, the CTB, supported by OIPI, VDOT and DRPT, will study I-81 to identify priorities along the 325 miles and potential revenue sources that could be dedicated to improvements."

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2018/new_director_of_transportation128701.asp

I really hope that they examine tolling all traffic on all lanes of I-81 across Virginia, and in particular not just trucks (I remember when the Star Solutions proposal for I-81 ran off the road and was declared dead).

They should also look at how much Virginia (statewide) motor fuel taxes would have to go up (without tolls) to fund widening all of it to at least six (and some parts probably eight) lanes wide.
Am somewhat ambivalent about this idea (I just want the bloody thing widened, no matter the cost), but good luck getting any part of SWVA, who already feel like they get the short end of the stick, to accept any part of this proposal. Perhaps a few strategically-placed tollbooths (one at each border, and one near each of the I-66, 64, and 77 junctions) would lessen the impact somewhat, however this feels like a complete non-starter.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on May 17, 2018, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2018, 01:53:26 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 17, 2018, 01:13:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2018, 12:08:36 PM
I could go along with tolling I-81 if they'd increase the speed limit to 85 mph.  :bigass:

But then we'd have to renumber it to I-366 and no one would go for that.

I actually meant to type 80. I guess I saw "Virginia" and my mind automatically went all Ethanman on me.
With a speed limit of 85, 1 mph over would get you a reckless driving ticket.


Nexus 5X

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on May 17, 2018, 08:13:13 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 17, 2018, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2018, 01:53:26 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 17, 2018, 01:13:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2018, 12:08:36 PM
I could go along with tolling I-81 if they'd increase the speed limit to 85 mph.  :bigass:

But then we'd have to renumber it to I-366 and no one would go for that.

I actually meant to type 80. I guess I saw "Virginia" and my mind automatically went all Ethanman on me.
With a speed limit of 85, 1 mph over would get you a reckless driving ticket.

Unless the 80mph=reckless law were changed, even 5 under could draw a reckless driving charge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 17, 2018, 09:12:42 PM
There was a bill last year to allow 80-mph speed limits on toll roads in Virginia. Not surprisingly, it failed to make it out of the subcommittee.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 18, 2018, 09:37:57 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on May 17, 2018, 11:39:16 AM
Long-distance trucks cause congestion on I-81, so let's make everyone pay for the required upgrades. Brilliant.

Stupid four-wheelers, pickups pulling campers, and short-distance trucks contribute quite a bit to congestion, too. Flatlanders who don't understand hills are a problem, as are people who can't maintain a steady speed even with cruise control. There are those who don't believe you can occasionally exceed the speed limit by a few miles an hour for a short stretch and take forever to pass a car with a 1 MPH speed differential (blocking a whole line of traffic in the left lane behind them). I-81 is the most schizophrenic highway around. At one point you can be in the middle of a large slug of traffic and a few miles down the road (with only maybe a local exit in the stretch) you can be almost alone. You can have someone blow past you at 80 and a few miles down the road pass them doing 60.

If the Star Solutions plans had been a bit more reasonable in execution, we might have six lanes at least in several places where they are desperately needed, like from exit 118 to exit 150 (Christiansburg to Troutville) and around Harrisonburg and Winchester.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 18, 2018, 10:25:33 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 18, 2018, 09:37:57 AM
Stupid four-wheelers, pickups pulling campers, and short-distance trucks contribute quite a bit to congestion, too. Flatlanders who don't understand hills are a problem, as are people who can't maintain a steady speed even with cruise control. There are those who don't believe you can occasionally exceed the speed limit by a few miles an hour for a short stretch and take forever to pass a car with a 1 MPH speed differential (blocking a whole line of traffic in the left lane behind them). I-81 is the most schizophrenic highway around. At one point you can be in the middle of a large slug of traffic and a few miles down the road (with only maybe a local exit in the stretch) you can be almost alone. You can have someone blow past you at 80 and a few miles down the road pass them doing 60.

And huge differences by day.   Many weekdays Mon-Thurs the 4 lanes work well enough if not fine.  At least 20 weekends Fri-Sun per year, 6 lanes the whole length and 8 lanes in a few places would be required for free flowing traffic conditions.  (considering all day Friday part of the weekend for this analysis).

Christiansburg to Troutville and around Harrisonburg and Winchester, plus the I-81/I-77 overlap, are places that should have 8 lanes.

Quote from: VTGoose on May 18, 2018, 09:37:57 AM
If the Star Solutions plans had been a bit more reasonable in execution, we might have six lanes at least in several places where they are desperately needed, like from exit 118 to exit 150 (Christiansburg to Troutville) and around Harrisonburg and Winchester.

The Star Solutions proposal for dual-divided roadways was in 2002.   Fluor Virginia Inc. in 2003 submitted a proposal to add two car-only lanes in the median of I-81 by 2011 and to pay for it entirely with tolls on cars and trucks on all lanes.

VDOT and FHWA conducted the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement from 2003 to 2007, and it evaluated a range of alternatives besides those two.

VDOT's application to toll Interstate 81 under section 1216(b) of TEA-21 was approved by FHWA in 2003.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 18, 2018, 01:20:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2018, 10:25:33 AM

And huge differences by day.   Many weekdays Mon-Thurs the 4 lanes work well enough if not fine.  At least 20 weekends Fri-Sun per year, 6 lanes the whole length and 8 lanes in a few places would be required for free flowing traffic conditions.  (considering all day Friday part of the weekend for this analysis).

Christiansburg to Troutville and around Harrisonburg and Winchester, plus the I-81/I-77 overlap, are places that should have 8 lanes.

There are several known days when I-81 should be avoided if at all possible -- start and end of Thanksgiving break for Virginia Tech and Radford, Commencement weekend for those schools, and close to move-in weekend for Virginia Tech. JMU probably adds to traffic at that end of the valley, but I've not experienced that.

The I-81/-77 overlap is already 6 lanes -- other than during some heavy traffic periods this seems to be adequate (at least in the times I've passed through there, at various dates and times).

Although it may seem counter-intuitive, adding a third lane northbound down Christiansburg Mountain could alleviate some of the problems that arise when someone wrecks in that stretch. Depending on how bad the wreck, traffic can be tied up for some time, resulting in a long back-up and even more time before that clear out. A third lane could provide enough room to at least open one lane or the shoulder to allow traffic to pass.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 18, 2018, 02:45:05 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 18, 2018, 01:20:04 PM
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, adding a third lane northbound down Christiansburg Mountain could alleviate some of the problems that arise when someone wrecks in that stretch. Depending on how bad the wreck, traffic can be tied up for some time, resulting in a long back-up and even more time before that clear out. A third lane could provide enough room to at least open one lane or the shoulder to allow traffic to pass.
Bruce in Blacksburg

The recent widening projects have provided 3 lanes southbound from VA-603 Ironto Exit 128 to a mile south of US-460 Christiansburg Exit 118.

That has been a considerable help but as you say it is needed northbound as well.  Christiansburg to Troutville probably needs 6 lanes today and on weekdays and not just weekends.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 18, 2018, 06:06:25 PM
Here is something else that will impact a section of I-81 (and I-77 for those who miss the memo) this summer, thanks to West Virginia DOT:

Quote
VDOT offers technology tools and suggested detours ahead of West Virginia Interstate 77 paving

BRISTOL– Using technology provided by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and following a suggested detour instead of your GPS may save you time this summer on Interstate 77 northbound in Virginia.

An extensive paving project begins Thursday, May 17 in West Virginia on I-77 north and southbound near the Virginia border. A northbound lane closure will be in place during the project, as well as the rerouting of trucks off I-77 at exit 1, through the Town of Bluefield, and back on I-77 at exit 9 in Princeton.

Paving in West Virginia may cause traffic backups into East River Mountain Tunnel.

"Safety concerns prohibit VDOT from letting stopped traffic build up inside the tunnel,"  said VDOT Bristol Traffic Engineer Brian Holt, P.E. "When traffic builds up, our tunnel staff will stop traffic outside of the tunnel entrance until the back-ups clear."

With the anticipation of frequent traffic stops comes the inevitable possibility of major traffic delays northbound. Weekend traffic, especially during the summer months, has the potential to back up significantly.

"If motorists can alter their trips so that you are traveling Monday through Thursday mornings or early afternoons, delays could be lessened,"  Holt said.

Motorists can also download VDOT's 511 app (iPhone or Android) to monitor road conditions. The system uses traffic speeds (green — moving without issues, yellow — slowed, red — moving very slow, and black — stopped) to give motorists information about potential delays. Additionally, there are multiple cameras along the I-77 corridor to allow motorists to view traffic in real time.

There is also an opportunity to detour to avoid potential delays, especially for truck traffic.

VDOT suggests trucks avoid I-77 and access Route 460 directly:

From North Carolina on I-77 north and from points north of Roanoke on I-81: travel I-81 to Exit 118 at Christiansburg to access Route 460 north to West Virginia Exit 9 in Princeton.

From Tennessee on I-81: take I-81 north to Exit 13 in Abingdon to access Route 11 north, to Route 19 north at Claypool Hill, following Route 19/460 to Bluefield/Princeton.   
"A route we ask trucks to absolutely avoid is Route 52, this route is extremely curvy and cannot accommodate tractor-trailers,"  Holt said. "Cars can detour using this route, but the route cannot accommodate trucks."

Beginning the weekend of May 18 and every weekend for the life of the project (Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays from 10 a.m. until 8 p.m.), VDOT will have Safety Service Patrol assisting motorists from mile marker 50 near Big Walker Mountain Tunnel to mile marker 66 at East River Mountain Tunnel. (Additional information regarding VDOT's Safety Service Patrol and the services they provide: http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/safetypatrol.asp)

VDOT's 24-hour Customer Service Center is available at 1-800-FOR-ROAD (1-800-367-7623) to address motorists' questions. Follow @VaDOTBristol for traffic updates.

For information regarding WVDOT's paving project, visit www.wv511.org or download the WV511 Drive Safe app.

See http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/newsroom/bristol/2018/vdot_offers_technology_tools128700.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 18, 2018, 06:51:52 PM
Ugh. I'll have to remember to stay away from the Bluefield/Princeton area this summer.

I wouldn't go all the way to Christiansburg to double back on 460, however. I'd take VA 100 to Pearisburg to access 460. Most of it is four lanes and I don't remember seeing any truck prohibitions on that route.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 19, 2018, 07:44:51 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 18, 2018, 06:51:52 PM
Ugh. I'll have to remember to stay away from the Bluefield/Princeton area this summer.

I wouldn't go all the way to Christiansburg to double back on 460, however. I'd take VA 100 to Pearisburg to access 460. Most of it is four lanes and I don't remember seeing any truck prohibitions on that route.

There is even a runaway truck ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.190176,-80.7238577,3a,75y,359.24h,86.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skqEVG7Uib5ueghF6NfIFbg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664) on VA 100 NB as it descends towards the two-lane narrow portion.


VA 100 was one of the first roads I clinched when I finally got a car I could take to Virginia Tech.  I was always intrigued by this route for some reason.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 19, 2018, 09:42:07 AM
I will have to go NB 77 through there Saturday of July 4 weekend for a family medical situation in Pittsburgh.  Hopefully, since it will be around 9 PM, I may be lucky.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 21, 2018, 10:35:05 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on May 19, 2018, 09:42:07 AM
I will have to go NB 77 through there Saturday of July 4 weekend for a family medical situation in Pittsburgh.  Hopefully, since it will be around 9 PM, I may be lucky.

Where at in the 'Burgh?

Unless they suspend work for the holiday (but if the lane is closed that may not make a difference) there could still be a back-up just about clearing up -- or it could be smooth sailing because many got the word and used the long I-81/US 460 detour (looks like that could be fun times for us here in the New River Valley). If 511 (app, twitter, web site) shows congestion, then VA 100 is a good and shorter alternative. Get off I-77 at I-81 and head north to Dublin and exit 98. VA 100 north is a mostly four-lane road that takes you to Pearisburg and a connection with U.S. 460 to get you on over to Princeton and back on the Turnpike. There is a two-lane section in the middle and you go right through downtown Pearisburg (which are possibly reasons why VDOT didn't recommend that route over 460) but it isn't a bad road in a car.

Bruce in Blacksburg (but a native of the 'Burgh)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 21, 2018, 06:48:26 PM
The HRBT expansion conversation has been moved to the thread that had been previously used for Hampton Roads Toll Crossings and Toll Roads.  -Mark

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11915.msg2328933#msg2328933
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 21, 2018, 09:05:37 PM
I wonder how crowded US 52/VA 598/WV 598 will be. That mountain crossing isn't especially treacherous for a passenger vehicle, especially ascending the Virginia side. There are several options available where a northbound motorist on I-77 could bail onto US 52, depending on traffic. I'm not sure how cell service would be, but if it's decent, Waze would be your friend in telling you whether you should exit at Bland or beyond.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 21, 2018, 09:19:44 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 21, 2018, 09:05:37 PM
I wonder how crowded US 52/VA 598/WV 598 will be. That mountain crossing isn't especially treacherous for a passenger vehicle, especially ascending the Virginia side. There are several options available where a northbound motorist on I-77 could bail onto US 52, depending on traffic. I'm not sure how cell service would be, but if it's decent, Waze would be your friend in telling you whether you should exit at Bland or beyond.

No news release on the VDOT website yet.  The article isn't all that clear about what is planned.  I-77 there has an asphalt pavement, and it shouldn't take very many days to mill the pavement and then place two courses of asphalt pavement.

If they were going to repave the roadway in the tunnel, that would be a different matter that could take considerable time; but it doesn't look that is the plan.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on May 21, 2018, 11:51:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 21, 2018, 09:05:37 PM
I wonder how crowded US 52/VA 598/WV 598 will be. That mountain crossing isn't especially treacherous for a passenger vehicle, especially ascending the Virginia side. There are several options available where a northbound motorist on I-77 could bail onto US 52, depending on traffic. I'm not sure how cell service would be, but if it's decent, Waze would be your friend in telling you whether you should exit at Bland or beyond.
Now I know 598 exists as a primary route in both states. Where did that number come from?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 22, 2018, 06:12:26 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 21, 2018, 11:51:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 21, 2018, 09:05:37 PM
I wonder how crowded US 52/VA 598/WV 598 will be. That mountain crossing isn't especially treacherous for a passenger vehicle, especially ascending the Virginia side. There are several options available where a northbound motorist on I-77 could bail onto US 52, depending on traffic. I'm not sure how cell service would be, but if it's decent, Waze would be your friend in telling you whether you should exit at Bland or beyond.
Now I know 598 exists as a primary route in both states. Where did that number come from?

I have never found anything speaking to why 598 was chosen.  IMO US 52 should have been put on I-77 at Bland CH and the old route including 598 could've been part of VA 98.

599 was used at least 10 different times (1960-67) to describe primary route projects that had not been assigned their ultimate designations.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 22, 2018, 06:22:37 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 22, 2018, 06:12:26 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 21, 2018, 11:51:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 21, 2018, 09:05:37 PM
I wonder how crowded US 52/VA 598/WV 598 will be. That mountain crossing isn't especially treacherous for a passenger vehicle, especially ascending the Virginia side. There are several options available where a northbound motorist on I-77 could bail onto US 52, depending on traffic. I'm not sure how cell service would be, but if it's decent, Waze would be your friend in telling you whether you should exit at Bland or beyond.
Now I know 598 exists as a primary route in both states. Where did that number come from?
I have never found anything speaking to why 598 was chosen.  IMO US 52 should have been put on I-77 at Bland CH and the old route including 598 could've been part of VA 98.
599 was used at least 10 different times (1960-67) to describe primary route projects that had not been assigned their ultimate designations.

I wonder if 595 will be used again.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 22, 2018, 08:52:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 21, 2018, 09:19:44 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 21, 2018, 09:05:37 PM
I wonder how crowded US 52/VA 598/WV 598 will be. That mountain crossing isn't especially treacherous for a passenger vehicle, especially ascending the Virginia side. There are several options available where a northbound motorist on I-77 could bail onto US 52, depending on traffic. I'm not sure how cell service would be, but if it's decent, Waze would be your friend in telling you whether you should exit at Bland or beyond.

No news release on the VDOT website yet.  The article isn't all that clear about what is planned.  I-77 there has an asphalt pavement, and it shouldn't take very many days to mill the pavement and then place two courses of asphalt pavement.

If they were going to repave the roadway in the tunnel, that would be a different matter that could take considerable time; but it doesn't look that is the plan.

:confused:  The press release I posted was from the Bristol district of VDOT, talking about upcoming problems that a West Virginia project will cause. WVDOT is doing major paving work on I-77 just north of the state line with one northbound lane closed. VDOT is being proactive and warning people that this will cause backups and their folks on the scene will not allow the backups to go through the tunnel. WVDOT doesn't have anything on its website about the project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 22, 2018, 10:45:07 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 22, 2018, 08:52:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 21, 2018, 09:19:44 PM
No news release on the VDOT website yet.  The article isn't all that clear about what is planned.  I-77 there has an asphalt pavement, and it shouldn't take very many days to mill the pavement and then place two courses of asphalt pavement.
If they were going to repave the roadway in the tunnel, that would be a different matter that could take considerable time; but it doesn't look that is the plan.
:confused:  The press release I posted was from the Bristol district of VDOT, talking about upcoming problems that a West Virginia project will cause. WVDOT is doing major paving work on I-77 just north of the state line with one northbound lane closed. VDOT is being proactive and warning people that this will cause backups and their folks on the scene will not allow the backups to go through the tunnel. WVDOT doesn't have anything on its website about the project.

OK, I looked there before but must have missed it.

"Beginning the weekend of May 18 and every weekend for the life of the project (Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays from 10 a.m. until 8 p.m.),"

No estimate on how many weekends, but that implies many.  I am trying to recall the pavement type north of the tunnel, sattelite views show asphalt; was it originally concrete that was later overlaid with asphalt?  If so the rehab and repave would be a lot more complex and time consuming than if it is full depth asphalt.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 22, 2018, 12:07:44 PM
The project is in West Virginia and the pavement there is currently asphalt.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4334/36900075512_36bdac2930_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YdJwSu)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 4 - 266 (https://flic.kr/p/YdJwSu) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4390/36900076242_3f3f1fe02a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YdJx65)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 4 - 263 (https://flic.kr/p/YdJx65) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4415/36673911690_1b20438fdf_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XSKoff)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 4 - 264 (https://flic.kr/p/XSKoff) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4339/36900075042_dc8446f0d3_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YdJwJo)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 4 - 270 (https://flic.kr/p/YdJwJo) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

Photos taken last summer.

Presumably, the truck ban is due to the steep nature of the grade.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 22, 2018, 03:51:26 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2018, 12:07:44 PM
The project is in West Virginia and the pavement there is currently asphalt.

But if was originally concrete and was overlaid with asphalt, that most likely means that concrete pavement repairs need to be done as well before the new asphalt overlay.  IOW many weekends of work instead of just one or two.

The last two photos appear to show concrete pavement joints shadowing thru the asphalt surface.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 25, 2018, 09:04:20 PM
https://www.insidenova.com/news/transportation/prince_william/i--bottleneck-anderson-pushes-plan-to-add-shoulder-lane/article_9be6140e-6025-11e8-8e99-7393d3c8d09c.html
QuoteTraffic backs up virtually every day on Interstate 95 southbound where it crosses the Occoquan River entering Prince William County because five lanes are decreased to three.

Prince William Supervisor Ruth Anderson, R-Occoquan, has proposed a solution: Build a reinforced shoulder lane along I-95 south from the Route 123 interchange at Occoquan to the Prince William Parkway. This will keep four lanes available
QuoteAnderson compares the proposed shoulder lane to those on Interstate 66 that open at certain times, although she plans for this lane to be open all the time. She hopes this will alleviate what the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments considers one of the worst bottlenecks in the region
QuoteThe project intends to address lingering issues from construction in 2011, which widened I-95 from three to four lanes in both directions between Springfield and the Occoquan River. Drivers were left with a poorly integrated merge lane when traveling south at the interchange with state Route 123. Anderson called the worsening bottleneck an "embarrassment"  and said it negatively affects economic opportunity.
Quoten 2016, Anderson proposed expanding I-95 in both directions between the Occoquan River and the Prince William Parkway to relieve the bottleneck. That proposal was rejected on the grounds that it lacked vision and had an unclear cost, and that the added lanes would deter drivers from using the express lanes. The state Commonwealth Transportation Board feared that the added lane would create a compensation event, which could be a breach of contract with Transurban. The contract that was signed for the express lanes said we couldn't add capacity to I-95, because they wanted people to use the express lanes,"  Anderson said, adding that the shoulder lane is a way to get around that concern.

Overall an interesting idea that I support if indeed no compensation event is required. However, I'm not sure how a "shoulder lane" can still be a shoulder if it's used as a travel lane 24/7. Eliminating the northbound VA-123 to Southbound I-95 loop ramp would help as well IMO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 25, 2018, 11:10:20 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 25, 2018, 09:04:20 PM
QuoteTraffic backs up virtually every day on Interstate 95 southbound where it crosses the Occoquan River entering Prince William County because five lanes are decreased to three.

Four lanes decreased to three.  The other lane is an auxiliary lane, not a mainline lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 27, 2018, 02:50:08 PM
s
Quote from: Beltway on May 25, 2018, 11:10:20 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 25, 2018, 09:04:20 PM
QuoteTraffic backs up virtually every day on Interstate 95 southbound where it crosses the Occoquan River entering Prince William County because five lanes are decreased to three.

Four lanes decreased to three.  The other lane is an auxiliary lane, not a mainline lane.

True, but that auxiliary lane is still very much a part of the problem as the thousands of cars merging from US-1 have to in less than half a mile, merge left over two lanes in already heavy traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 27, 2018, 02:55:46 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 27, 2018, 02:50:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 25, 2018, 11:10:20 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 25, 2018, 09:04:20 PM
QuoteTraffic backs up virtually every day on Interstate 95 southbound where it crosses the Occoquan River entering Prince William County because five lanes are decreased to three.
Four lanes decreased to three.  The other lane is an auxiliary lane, not a mainline lane.
True, but that auxiliary lane is still very much a part of the problem as the thousands of cars merging from US-1 have to in less than half a mile, merge left over two lanes in already heavy traffic.

That auxiliary lane also handles the heavy movement of traffic exiting onto VA-123, some of it from US-1, so it probably balances out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 28, 2018, 10:53:04 AM
VDOT has scheduled four public meetings "to gather public input on safety and congestion concerns on I-81 in Virginia." The first meeting will be in the Bristol District on June 6, followed by two in the Staunton District (north and south) and wrap up with a meeting in the Salem District. Each session will start at 4 p.m. with a presentation and then be a open house format until 7 p.m.

The VDOT press release (in part):

QuoteThe Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation are developing a plan to study the entire length of the Interstate 81 corridor in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

As directed in Senate Bill 971 (now 2018 Acts of Assembly Chapter 743), the study team will identify targeted improvements along I-81 and potential revenue sources that could be dedicated to improvements. SB 971 was introduced by Senators Mark Obenshain and Bill Carrico, and supported by Delegate Steve Landes with budget language in the House of Delegates budget bill.

Feedback provided by members of communities, industries and other stakeholders will be considered as team members study the corridor throughout the summer and prepare a draft plan report in the fall. The team and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) plan to report findings to the General Assembly in December, prior to the opening of Session in January 2019.
See http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/newsroom/statewide/2018/public_feedback_invited_on129087.asp

There is the beginning of a website for the project at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/projects/major_projects/i-81_study.asp that has the displays that will be available at the meetings. The schedule is also posted there.

It is good to see the Department of Rail and Public Transportation included in the study group, since rail could play a role in solving some of the problems of the highway. The recent extension of passenger service to Roanoke with service to Washington, D.C. is proving to be popular and extension of the service into the New River Valley (location of Virginia Tech and Radford University) is coming in several years. Given the volume of traffic generated by students, parents, and sports fans traveling to and from these schools, more alternatives to driving are good. There is also a Norfolk Southern line that parallels I-81 from Knoxville (and beyond) to Harrisburg (and beyond). There is already an intermodal terminal in Harrisburg; adding one in the idled rail yard in Knoxville could provide an alternative to covering that route with trucks.

Even at that there is a need for additional lanes in multiple sections of the highway with an ultimate goal of having a six-lane highway from one end to the other. This isn't just a Southwest Virginia or Valley issue, this impacts the entire state.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 28, 2018, 12:16:47 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 28, 2018, 10:53:04 AM
Even at that there is a need for additional lanes in multiple sections of the highway with an ultimate goal of having a six-lane highway from one end to the other. This isn't just a Southwest Virginia or Valley issue, this impacts the entire state.
Bruce in Blacksburg

As I mentioned upthread at least 20 weekends per year, using Fri-Sun definition, no section is adequate at only 4 lanes, so that meets standards (far beyond the 30th highest hourly volume) for widening the entire route.  Tennessee I-81 has exactly the same traffic issues as VA I-81, ditto for WV and MD, and PA to Harrisburg.

I still don't understand this latest study when all this was studied 2000-2007 with nothing done except a few climbing lane projects, granted they are very helpful.

VDOT's application to toll Interstate 81 under section 1216(b) of TEA-21 was approved by FHWA in 2003, and that wasn't all-or-nothing, they could have tolled one or a few short sections if they wanted.

VDOT and FHWA conducted the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement from 2003 to 2007, and it evaluated a range of alternatives besides the dual-divided roadways, and the widening of only the existing roadway.  There was a comprehensive study of freight rail alternatives as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 28, 2018, 12:30:05 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 28, 2018, 10:53:04 AM
It is good to see the Department of Rail and Public Transportation included in the study group, since rail could play a role in solving some of the problems of the highway. The recent extension of passenger service to Roanoke with service to Washington, D.C. is proving to be popular and extension of the service into the New River Valley (location of Virginia Tech and Radford University) is coming in several years. Given the volume of traffic generated by students, parents, and sports fans traveling to and from these schools, more alternatives to driving are good. There is also a Norfolk Southern line that parallels I-81 from Knoxville (and beyond) to Harrisburg (and beyond). There is already an intermodal terminal in Harrisburg; adding one in the idled rail yard in Knoxville could provide an alternative to covering that route with trucks.

I must respectfully disagree regarding the effectiveness of I-81 congestion relief from train service (and note that  I am not inherently opposed to such service being provided, even though the taxpayer capital and operating subsidies are potentially very high).

The scale of traffic in the I-81 corridor, even taking into account the Hokie fans that come for football, is not going to be materially impacted by transit - and that includes passenger railroad service (a former colleague lived in Alexandria and attended four years of classes at Tech in Blacksburg, and did take the train, which I think got him as far as Christiansburg - there was some sort of bus service to get students the rest of the way to Blacksburg).

Regarding freight moves along the NS line that runs parallel to I-81 at least as far north  as Hagerstown, Maryland, is there capacity on this line for significantly increased freight traffic? Most of it (at least the northern parts in counties like Warren, Shenandoah, Frederick, Berkeley (W.Va.) and Washington (Md.) is single-track.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 29, 2018, 09:37:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2018, 12:16:47 PM
I still don't understand this latest study when all this was studied 2000-2007 with nothing done except a few climbing lane projects, granted they are very helpful.

Wasn't that when all the states that I-81 runs through got together to talk about comprehensive solutions to capacity and traffic problems? It seems that West Virginia (with the least mileage) is the only state that did something about adding lanes. Virginia got ambitious with adding lanes through Bristol but stopped there, with only two climbing lane projects completed since then.

Perhaps this legislation was meant to be a kick in the ass to get VDOT back to thinking about the highway instead of just concentrating on Northern Virginia and Tidewater.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 29, 2018, 10:03:54 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 29, 2018, 09:37:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2018, 12:16:47 PM
I still don't understand this latest study when all this was studied 2000-2007 with nothing done except a few climbing lane projects, granted they are very helpful.
Wasn't that when all the states that I-81 runs through got together to talk about comprehensive solutions to capacity and traffic problems? It seems that West Virginia (with the least mileage) is the only state that did something about adding lanes. Virginia got ambitious with adding lanes through Bristol but stopped there, with only two climbing lane projects completed since then.
Perhaps this legislation was meant to be a kick in the ass to get VDOT back to thinking about the highway instead of just concentrating on Northern Virginia and Tidewater.

Like I said, they did a very comprehensive study then for both highway and rail improvements, and got one of the three TEA-21 toll pilot projects, and there is not that much to show for it. 

I-81 is certainly important to the northern and eastern parts of the state, as it is a key route segment for passenger and truck traffic heading west and southwest. 

Regarding three TEA-21 toll pilot projects for tolling long-distance Interstate routes to fund major widening, none of them has yet gone forward to construction, and it has been 20 years since that program was enacted.  MO I-70 was one of them.  Nobody has yet been able to convince the public to support that, apparently.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 29, 2018, 10:21:04 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 28, 2018, 12:30:05 PM
I must respectfully disagree regarding the effectiveness of I-81 congestion relief from train service (and note that  I am not inherently opposed to such service being provided, even though the taxpayer capital and operating subsidies are potentially very high).

The scale of traffic in the I-81 corridor, even taking into account the Hokie fans that come for football, is not going to be materially impacted by transit - and that includes passenger railroad service (a former colleague lived in Alexandria and attended four years of classes at Tech in Blacksburg, and did take the train, which I think got him as far as Christiansburg - there was some sort of bus service to get students the rest of the way to Blacksburg).

Every little bit helps, though. While there has been initial expense to upgrade some Norfolk Southern tracks and to build the new platform in Roanoke, the service to Lynchburg has come close to paying its own way.

QuotePassenger train service to Lynchburg, about 56 miles northeast of Roanoke, has been so successful since it launched in 2009, that revenue come close to surpassing operating costs, Smith said (Chris Smith, spokesman at the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation). Trains in the route are running near capacity, he said, with people traveling from that part of Virginia to Northern Virginia and up to New York on a one-seat ride. (from a Washington Post article).

QuoteVirginia Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne predicted a reduction in highway traffic equivalent to 240 fewer passenger vehicles on roads for every eight train cars on the rails. (from a Roanoke Times article about the start of Roanoke service)

Granted, that is a drop in the bucket but any reduction in vehicles on the highway has to be a good thing. The Smart Way bus between Blacksburg and Roanoke offers an alternative to driving on I-81 and many students and commuters take advantage of the service. Virginia Tech has also instituted a daily bus running between Blacksburg and Northern Virginia to reduce the need for people to get in a car and drive.

As to your friend taking the train to Christiansburg from Alexandria, I'm not sure how he did it unless it was during the brief run of the Hilltopper. Amtrak service through Christiansburg started with The Mountaineer, which ran from Norfolk to Cincinnati, and was replaced by the Hilltopper in 1977, which was cut back to terminate in scenic Catlettesburg, Kentucky, in the middle of the night. Its origin was shifted from Norfolk to Washington, D.C. but it was short-lived -- it was terminated on October 1, 1979, due to poor ridership (no kidding, it went nowhere).

QuoteRegarding freight moves along the NS line that runs parallel to I-81 at least as far north  as Hagerstown, Maryland, is there capacity on this line for significantly increased freight traffic? Most of it (at least the northern parts in counties like Warren, Shenandoah, Frederick, Berkeley (W.Va.) and Washington (Md.) is single-track.

It depends on Norfolk Southern -- it currently runs four or five trains up and down the valley and about the same on the Bristol-Radford section. If the railroad were to run short but frequent intermodal trains instead of mile-long doublestack trains, there is probably enough siding capacity to handle additional traffic (the Norfolk & Western did it with freight and passenger trains in the past).

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 29, 2018, 02:25:44 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 29, 2018, 10:21:04 AM
Virginia Tech has also instituted a daily bus running between Blacksburg and Northern Virginia to reduce the need for people to get in a car and drive.

Hopefully it's not too expensive.  They didn't have that in the 1970s, and I made at least 2 trips at the end of the school year from Alexandria to pick up my sister up and then drive back home.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 29, 2018, 03:55:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 29, 2018, 02:25:44 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 29, 2018, 10:21:04 AM
Virginia Tech has also instituted a daily bus running between Blacksburg and Northern Virginia to reduce the need for people to get in a car and drive.

Hopefully it's not too expensive.  They didn't have that in the 1970s, and I made at least 2 trips at the end of the school year from Alexandria to pick up my sister up and then drive back home.

"Virginia Tech's Campus Connect Bus provides employees, students, and their guests with safe and convenient transportation between the university's campuses in the Blacksburg/Roanoke and Ballston/Arlington areas.

The bus departs from/arrives in Blacksburg and the National Capital Region twice each weekday and once each weekend day and operates year-round, except on university holidays."

Departure from Blacksburg on weekdays is at 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., with arrival in Arlington at 10:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. respectively. Departure from Arlington on weekdays is at 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. with arrival in Blacksburg at 11:30 a.m. and 11:30 p.m. (there is some padding in the schedules, since I see the bus arriving on most days at 11 a.m.). Cost to ride the bus is $95 one way. For comparison, the Amtrak train leaves Roanoke at 6:19 a.m. (requires leaving Blacksburg at 5 a.m.) and arrives in Alexandria at 11:05 a.m. Flexible fare is $78 and business class is $102.

There is another bus service that runs up the valley from Blacksburg, then on to Union Station in Washington, D.C. The "Virginia Breeze" (http://catchthevabreeze.com) charges $50 for the full trip, departs Blacksburg at 8 a.m. and arrives in Arlington at 2:05 p.m. It also stops in Christiansburg, Lexington, Staunton, Harrisonburg, Front Royal, and Dulles before stopping in Arlington, then terminating at the station. From the website, "The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation is proud to partner on the Virginia Breeze service with the U.S. Department of Transportation and Dillon's, a Coach USA company."

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2018, 10:06:22 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 29, 2018, 03:55:28 PM
There is another bus service that runs up the valley from Blacksburg, then on to Union Station in Washington, D.C. The "Virginia Breeze" (http://catchthevabreeze.com) charges $50 for the full trip, departs Blacksburg at 8 a.m. and arrives in Arlington at 2:05 p.m. It also stops in Christiansburg, Lexington, Staunton, Harrisonburg, Front Royal, and Dulles before stopping in Arlington, then terminating at the station. From the website, "The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation is proud to partner on the Virginia Breeze service with the U.S. Department of Transportation and Dillon's, a Coach USA company."

I have seen those buses on the streets of Washington, D.C. (my office is a short walk from Union Station).

Above and beyond the runs you mention, Megabus also has service to Knoxville, Tennessee from Washington Union Station.  On that run, Megabus makes a station stop in Christiansburg (at a commuter lot on U.S. 460 off of I-81).  I suppose anyone headed to Blacksburg would need a taxicab or transportation network company (TNC) or a friend to give them a ride to campus (looks a little bit far to walk).

Wonder why Megabus does not just take its patrons to Blacksburg?  It's not that much of an added detour. 

In another college town near the Interstate - Newark, Delaware - Megabus does go to a parking lot on the University of Delaware campus (maybe they do this in part to shunpike the Delaware Turnpike tolls)?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 30, 2018, 11:02:01 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2018, 10:06:22 AM
Above and beyond the runs you mention, Megabus also has service to Knoxville, Tennessee from Washington Union Station.  On that run, Megabus makes a station stop in Christiansburg (at a commuter lot on U.S. 460 off of I-81).  I suppose anyone headed to Blacksburg would need a taxicab or transportation network company (TNC) or a friend to give them a ride to campus (looks a little bit far to walk).

Wonder why Megabus does not just take its patrons to Blacksburg?  It's not that much of an added detour. 

There is also Home Ride of Virginia, which "Provides weekend and holiday bus service from Radford University, Virginia Tech, James Madison University, and the University of Virginia to Northern Virginia, Richmond, Hampton, Harrisonburg, and Charlottesville."

There is a Multi-Modal Transit Facility planned for the north side of the Virginia Tech campus (https://www.facilities.vt.edu/planning-construction/campus-construction-projects/active-projects/multi-modal-transit-facility.html). It is planned to move Blacksburg Transit buses off the Drill Field time checks and congregate them in one location (a campus shuttle bus will move people from there to locations around campus). The location would also be a stop for the SmartWay Bus, and potentially the Home Ride bus.

At one time there was mention that the Megabus would be routed there from its inconvenient stop 8 miles from campus. That may be moot since the Virginia Breeze service is connected to Megabus.

As to the Megabus, the stop was in the old park-and-ride lot on the south side of I-81 at exit 118, adjacent to an elementary school. The lot was inadequate and due to be replaced, but Megabus patrons somewhat forced the issue. They were coming over to the elementary school to use the restrooms and to look for a place to plug in phones to charge. Some were a bit too aggressive and parents were concerned (even after doors were locked and access controlled). VDOT moved the lot to a temporary location adjacent to the U.S. 460 bypass junction with Roanoke Street while the new, bigger lot on the same site was constructed. The new lot is open and at  least now has a small shelter for those waiting for the bus. It still takes an Uber or a friend to get to or from the stop if the time doesn't fall during the times Blacksburg Transit serves the lot.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2018, 09:37:16 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 30, 2018, 11:02:01 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2018, 10:06:22 AM
Above and beyond the runs you mention, Megabus also has service to Knoxville, Tennessee from Washington Union Station.  On that run, Megabus makes a station stop in Christiansburg (at a commuter lot on U.S. 460 off of I-81).  I suppose anyone headed to Blacksburg would need a taxicab or transportation network company (TNC) or a friend to give them a ride to campus (looks a little bit far to walk).

Wonder why Megabus does not just take its patrons to Blacksburg?  It's not that much of an added detour. 

There is also Home Ride of Virginia, which "Provides weekend and holiday bus service from Radford University, Virginia Tech, James Madison University, and the University of Virginia to Northern Virginia, Richmond, Hampton, Harrisonburg, and Charlottesville."

I  think I saw a mention someplace about that service. 

The son of a friend who has lived in Loudoun County for quite a few years recently graduated from Virginia Tech. He told me it was about 4 to 4½ hours from his home to Blacksburg - since there are presumably a fair number of students from Northern Virginia at every one of those colleges and universities, so it follows that there would be some demand for such a service.

Quote from: VTGoose on May 30, 2018, 11:02:01 AM
There is a Multi-Modal Transit Facility planned for the north side of the Virginia Tech campus (https://www.facilities.vt.edu/planning-construction/campus-construction-projects/active-projects/multi-modal-transit-facility.html). It is planned to move Blacksburg Transit buses off the Drill Field time checks and congregate them in one location (a campus shuttle bus will move people from there to locations around campus). The location would also be a stop for the SmartWay Bus, and potentially the Home Ride bus.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Quote from: VTGoose on May 30, 2018, 11:02:01 AM
At one time there was mention that the Megabus would be routed there from its inconvenient stop 8 miles from campus. That may be moot since the Virginia Breeze service is connected to Megabus.

Megabus and Dillon's are both subsidiaries of Coach USA, in turn a subsidiary of Britain's Stagecoach.  Apparently Coach USA does not own the Megabus trademark and color scheme, but uses it under license. Dillon's has long had a robust charter service, and also runs many routes under contract with MDOT/MTA that serve the Maryland exurbs of Washington, most running to downtown D.C. (they are based in Hanover, Anne Arundel County, Maryland not far from MDOT's headquarters office complex).

I was told by a manager with Megabus that they do not have much interaction with the other Stagecoach subsidiaries like Dillon's, in part because the Megabus vehicles have a significantly higher capacity (over 80 persons per bus, where the regular intercity coaches have a capacity between 50 and 60 persons), though the Megabus operation will sometimes "borrow" a bus or two from one of those subsidiaries.

Quote from: VTGoose on May 30, 2018, 11:02:01 AM
As to the Megabus, the stop was in the old park-and-ride lot on the south side of I-81 at exit 118, adjacent to an elementary school. The lot was inadequate and due to be replaced, but Megabus patrons somewhat forced the issue. They were coming over to the elementary school to use the restrooms and to look for a place to plug in phones to charge. Some were a bit too aggressive and parents were concerned (even after doors were locked and access controlled). VDOT moved the lot to a temporary location adjacent to the U.S. 460 bypass junction with Roanoke Street while the new, bigger lot on the same site was constructed. The new lot is open and at  least now has a small shelter for those waiting for the bus. It still takes an Uber or a friend to get to or from the stop if the time doesn't fall during the times Blacksburg Transit serves the lot.

If I had children in that school, I would not be happy with strangers walking over there from a bus station - any bus station.  And while there are people that do need to use the facilities, I do not think an elementary school should be open to the public for such needs. 

This points up an issue with these curbside bus providers like Megabus and Bolt, that they do not provide shelter and toilet facilities.  Even the dominant Chinatown bus carrier in Washington, D.C. (Eastern Shuttle) provides a small terminal facility (with waiting room and toilets) for patrons in the small Chinatown area of D.C.. Eastern's runs north to Baltimore and New York City from D.C., as well as south to Richmond (I think the southbound buses from Washington to Richmond have originated in New York City, and simply continue south after a stop in D.C. - and incoming buses from Richmond stop in D.C. and continue to New York).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: abefroman329 on May 30, 2018, 09:51:23 PM
Megabus and Bolt both operate out of the parking garage at Washington Union Station - in fact, Greyhound closed their station at First and M(ish) and moved their operations to the parking garage.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2018, 09:56:18 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 30, 2018, 09:51:23 PM
Megabus and Bolt both operate out of the parking garage at Washington Union Station - in fact, Greyhound closed their station at First and M(ish) and moved their operations to the parking garage.

Correct.  I am personally and professionally familiar with the Union Station bus deck, as I managed an analysis of person travel in and out of there a few years ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: abefroman329 on May 31, 2018, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2018, 09:56:18 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 30, 2018, 09:51:23 PM
Megabus and Bolt both operate out of the parking garage at Washington Union Station - in fact, Greyhound closed their station at First and M(ish) and moved their operations to the parking garage.

Correct.  I am personally and professionally familiar with the Union Station bus deck, as I managed an analysis of person travel in and out of there a few years ago.

Oh, I see.  I was responding to your statement about Bolt and Megabus not providing shelter or toilet facilities, both are available at Union Station.  But it's certainly true that they're not provided at the various stops that are in a parking lot or on a city street.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 31, 2018, 10:18:00 AM
Tangentially related to the discussion of alternatives to driving on I-81 (and beyond) -- fuel in Southwest Virginia is about to get more expensive.

QuoteA corporate decision to stop fuel deliveries to the Montvale tank farm Sept. 30 is expected to result in higher retail gasoline prices for the region .

That's the last day of operation for the underground pipe that supplies gasoline and diesel fuel to the Bedford County fuel storage complex, according to spokesman Steve Baker for Colonial Pipeline Co., the pipe owner.

Baker made public the pipe's decommissioning date Wednesday. Colonial said last year it planned to close the pipe in September without giving the exact date. The pipe has supplied fuel to the tank farm for more than 50 years and needs extensive repairs to operate beyond its planned closure date, Colonial said.
(http://www.roanoke.com/business/news/bedford_county/fuel-pipeline-closure-set-for-sept-colonial-says/article_9ccb5bb2-dd06-59c2-baeb-f84d10f805fc.html)

There are actually multiple tank farms in Montvale, on both sides of U.S. 460. The terminals serve a number of fuel companies, mostly wholesalers who provide fuel to convenience stores in the region. The prediction from the Virginia Petroleum Convenience and Grocery Association is that the "closure would add between 4 cents and 6 cents to the pump price of a gallon of gas soon after the shutdown." Tankers will deliver the fuel from Richmond and Greensboro, increasing delivery cost.

Info on Line 25: http://www.virginiaplaces.org/transportation/line25.html

Info from Colonial Pipeline: http://line25.colonialpipeline.com

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 31, 2018, 12:23:11 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 31, 2018, 10:18:00 AM
Tangentially related to the discussion of alternatives to driving on I-81 (and beyond) -- fuel in Southwest Virginia is about to get more expensive.

It's getting more expensive everywhere.  In 4 months it has gone from about $2.15 to $2.80 for Regular in Richmond.  They always have excuses for raising prices.

There is an interesting Colonial Pipeline tank farm here, in a deep rural area in Buckingham County VA --
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6619608,-78.238673,1781m/data=!3m1!1e3

Colonial Pipeline -- "Every day, Colonial Pipeline safely and efficiently delivers more than 100 million gallons of gasoline, home heating oil, aviation fuel and other refined petroleum products.   Starting in Houston and terminating at the New York harbor, Colonial consists of more than 5,500 miles of pipeline, most of which is underground, and aboveground storage tanks which support safe operations of the overall system."

I think this is on the main line between Houston and NYC.  It was interesting to come upon it while driving out there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 31, 2018, 01:20:58 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 31, 2018, 10:18:00 AM
There are actually multiple tank farms in Montvale, on both sides of U.S. 460. The terminals serve a number of fuel companies, mostly wholesalers who provide fuel to convenience stores in the region. The prediction from the Virginia Petroleum Convenience and Grocery Association is that the "closure would add between 4 cents and 6 cents to the pump price of a gallon of gas soon after the shutdown." Tankers will deliver the fuel from Richmond and Greensboro, increasing delivery cost.

When I saw Montvale, I first thought of the Montvale in North Jersey (the service plaza near the north end of the Garden State Parkway is named Montvale).

Regarding the pipeline, I find it curious that Colonial is shutting this down.   While pipelines must be inspected and sometimes repaired, the cost of operating them would seem to be pretty low as compared to highways and railroads.  They are also a reasonably safe way to move a hazardous product.

Maybe the pipeline needs an expensive rebuild?

As for distance from the terminal to the gas stations, a few tank truck drivers I have spoken with told me that Colonial's terminal in the City of Fairfax sends out tank truck loads of product well into the mountains of northern West Virginia, and it takes a driver effectively an entire working day to transport a load of fuel out there, drop it, and come back.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 31, 2018, 02:16:33 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 31, 2018, 01:20:58 PM
Regarding the pipeline, I find it curious that Colonial is shutting this down.   While pipelines must be inspected and sometimes repaired, the cost of operating them would seem to be pretty low as compared to highways and railroads.  They are also a reasonably safe way to move a hazardous product.

Maybe the pipeline needs an expensive rebuild?

From the Roanoke Times article: "The company has told retailers it isn't willing to complete those repairs, according to O'Connor (Michael O'Connor, the Virginia Petroleum Convenience and Grocery Association president and CEO), who said he was given a repair estimate of $200 million to $300 million."

My late father-in-law retired from Laurel Pipeline after working as a pipeline mechanic for many years. He was transferred to Pittsburgh when the line was being constructed between Philadelphia and Cleveland. That pipeline carried and delivered gasoline, aviation gas, kerosene, etc. across two states. The whole line was operated from a dispatch center in Camp Hill, Pa. with the various valves controlled by banks and banks of mechanical relays to send appropriate signals. One project my FIL worked on was switching controllers in the field from mechanical to digital control.

I see trucks from a fuel company in Grundy passing through as it travels between far Southwest Virginia and Montvale. That in itself is a full-day round trip.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on June 01, 2018, 03:35:38 AM
Going back two pages, I have found two intersections in Virginia where double right turns are permitted on red:

Westbound US-250 in Charlottesville, towards northbound Emmet Street: https://goo.gl/dpEi4b

Southbound US-220 in Roanoke, towards westbound Electric Road: https://goo.gl/PonSie (this one explicitly states the maneuver to be OK)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 01, 2018, 11:20:34 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 29, 2018, 10:21:04 AM
As to your friend taking the train to Christiansburg from Alexandria, I'm not sure how he did it unless it was during the brief run of the Hilltopper. Amtrak service through Christiansburg started with The Mountaineer, which ran from Norfolk to Cincinnati, and was replaced by the Hilltopper in 1977, which was cut back to terminate in scenic Catlettesburg, Kentucky, in the middle of the night. Its origin was shifted from Norfolk to Washington, D.C. but it was short-lived -- it was terminated on October 1, 1979, due to poor ridership (no kidding, it went nowhere).

[Should have answered this before]

He was a student at Virginia Tech in  the 1960's, in other words before Amtrak was created, and probably rode trains like the Pelican, Birmingham Special and Tennessean (I will ask him sometime).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 01, 2018, 12:49:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 01, 2018, 03:35:38 AM
Going back two pages, I have found two intersections in Virginia where double right turns are permitted on red:

Westbound US-250 in Charlottesville, towards northbound Emmet Street: https://goo.gl/dpEi4b

Southbound US-220 in Roanoke, towards westbound Electric Road: https://goo.gl/PonSie (this one explicitly states the maneuver to be OK)

Aside from the Hampton intersection on VA 415 where it leaves Queen St to follow Power Plant Pkwy I cited a while back (I forgot what thread it was on), I recently came across two more. Actually both of these are also in Hampton:

VA 134 at Convention Center Blvd. This one actually has dual doghouses, like the example I cited before used to have
https://goo.gl/maps/otES4PoVeUw

Pine Chapel Rd ending at VA 415
https://goo.gl/maps/JNiyQ4Y4o4x

Again, no restrictions for either right turn, which is still uncommon in Virginia (including neighboring Newport News, which has the restrictions)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 11, 2018, 02:00:30 PM
I need to go there soon and check this out.
....

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2018/major_milestone_met_months129525.asp

MAJOR MILESTONE MET MONTHS EARLY ON COURTLAND INTERCHANGE PROJECT

Contract crews for the Virginia Department of Transportation opened two roundabouts and a flyover at Route 58 and Jerusalem Road, in Courtland eliminating the need for the traffic signal.

This major milestone is reached months early in the Courtland Interchange Project that began in March 2016.  The completion date for the project is December 2018, but crews are expected to complete the project months early.

The traffic patterns include two roundabouts on each side of Route 58 directing traffic through the intersections in a one-way pattern, and the removal of a traffic signal on Route 58.  A flyover was built over Route 58 as part of the relocated Route 742.  A second Route 742 bridge was built to minimize environmental impacts.  The construction of the Route 58 westbound on-ramp is expected to be completed within a week, allowing traffic to flow in the permanent pattern.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 12, 2018, 02:01:17 PM
VDOT tweeted this today. The western end of DoG Street in Williamsburg in 1932–shortly before CW was established–versus now.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180712/f4d4d4461207973e2685219c93b9cee1.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 17, 2018, 09:34:16 AM
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/07/mclean-residents-push-for-va-beltway-on-ramp-closure/slide/1/
QuoteWASHINGTON — The Virginia Department of Transportation plans to close an on ramp from Georgetown Pike to the Capital Beltway after complaints about rush-hour traffic in McLean.

The ramp from Virginia Route 193/Georgetown Pike to the Inner Loop, just before the American Legion Bridge into Maryland, would be closed from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays. The ramp would remain open at other times.

Under a second less-favored alternative, VDOT could instead ban left turns onto the ramp during the afternoon rush. That would require more police enforcement and would largely continue current Beltway slowdowns, a VDOT presentation said, but could be implemented by the state without federal approval.

Closing the ramp is projected to slow traffic on the Beltway between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. as drivers approach Virginia Route 123 and the Dulles Toll Road, but traffic models predict speeds would slightly increase between the Toll Road ramp and Clara Barton Parkway. Combined, the changes are projected to get more drivers through the area in the same amount of time, even if each driver may sometimes be moving more slowly than before.
QuoteThe proposal to close or limit access to the ramp comes after complaints from McLean residents about people using the roads in the area to avoid rush-hour traffic jams. This particular suggestion was initially marked as potentially too significant a disruption to implement, but the review has found it could be reasonable.

Wouldn't be surprised if any of these "complaints" involved large sums of cash. Regardless, has a solution such as this one been implemented anywhere else in the state or country? Seems like a relatively new idea, at least around here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 17, 2018, 12:28:05 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 17, 2018, 09:34:16 AM
Wouldn't be surprised if any of these "complaints" involved large sums of cash. Regardless, has a solution such as this one been implemented anywhere else in the state or country? Seems like a relatively new idea, at least around here.

My guess is that this will be vetoed by FHWA, and if it were to be approved, would be the subject of federal litigation.  I do not think that persons living near an interchange should normally be allowed to have any say-so in what ramps are open and when.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 17, 2018, 02:16:56 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacusRegardless, has a solution such as this one been implemented anywhere else in the state or country? Seems like a relatively new idea, at least around here.

Yes.  I-64 in Norfolk...the on-ramp from 15th View at the end of Willoughby Spit (towards the HRBT) is often closed when traffic in the HRBT is backed up.  Routinely ignored by drivers, though, who have been known to detour up the OFF-ramp at 15th View instead in a very illegal fashion.


So, yes...there's precedent for this within VDOT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 17, 2018, 02:38:38 PM
This will simply distribute vehicles down other streets, but so long as residents of Langely and McLean don't have drivers passing through *their* neigborhoods it's no big deal.

Ironically, this problem is exacerbated by the lack of a proper street grid that way, so everyone is forced to used Georgetown Pike. If this passes through, expect further petitions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 17, 2018, 04:16:37 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 17, 2018, 02:16:56 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacusRegardless, has a solution such as this one been implemented anywhere else in the state or country? Seems like a relatively new idea, at least around here.

Yes.  I-64 in Norfolk...the on-ramp from 15th View at the end of Willoughby Spit (towards the HRBT) is often closed when traffic in the HRBT is backed up.  Routinely ignored by drivers, though, who have been known to detour up the OFF-ramp at 15th View instead in a very illegal fashion.

So, yes...there's precedent for this within VDOT.

That's to make I-64 (and especially the HRBT) run better, and could be construed as a form of ramp metering.  Not the case with the approaches to the American Legion Bridge, which is (by comparison) short and has none of the operational challenges of a bridge tunnel crossing. 

Barring traffic from this ramp will probably not make any difference to the way that I-495 operates (though VDOT can test that with a microsimulation model if they choose), since it routinely fails from the area between VA-123 and VA-267 headed in  the direction of the bridge.

The unfortunate  part of this is that the people on the Virginia side of the crossing are effectively victimized by the anti-car and anti-highway ideology of more than a few members of the Montgomery County Council (going back as far as 1970).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2018, 04:49:41 PM
VDOT press release:   Major Lane Closures on I-395 Over Weekends Starting July 20 - Multiple lanes to close during six weekends for bridge improvement work (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/northern_virginia/2018/major_lane_closures_on131052.asp)

QuoteTravelers should expect major lane closures on the I-395 general purpose lanes beginning the weekend of July 20-22, and continuing for at least six consecutive weekends, depending on weather. The weekend closures, which will occur from Friday nights until Monday mornings, are needed for crews to safely rehabilitate multiple bridges along I-395 between the Springfield Interchange and the Washington, D.C. line. Motorists are encouraged to use alternate routes. If travel in this area is unavoidable, drivers should use caution and plan extra travel time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 23, 2018, 08:51:55 PM
This past weekend I drove to Newport News to meet up with my mother, brother and sister-in-law, then we all rode to Charlotte to attend a family reunion.

While on US 58 I had a chance to snap photos of the new Courtland interchange (the eastern junction) while my brother drove. Note that construction is still ongoing. Sorry about the quality of the pics as I didn't realize there was a smudge on the lens until later. The first 6 pics are WB, while the last one is EB (return trip).

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180724/fff75092c1ef334f90b79ea3716fcd66.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180724/44f50aeb1f21940542935272e01f1b49.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180724/b84d1d4e987da7e9dccb869535ca2f25.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180724/e155b3401c46d7932391580453f2b550.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180724/0b12b18d49b197e0aa006ccd08f31054.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180724/6e567196525c43bfa3fb4b9e6096df4e.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180724/9612bc01fdef165e18b914c3cc0565f3.jpg)

SM-S820L

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 23, 2018, 09:04:08 PM
Quote from: plain on July 23, 2018, 08:51:55 PM
While on US 58 I had a chance to snap photos of the new Courtland interchange (the eastern junction) while my brother drove. Note that construction is still ongoing. Sorry about the quality of the pics as I didn't realize there was a smudge on the lens until later. The first 6 pics are WB, while the last one is EB (return trip).

I drove thru there a couple weeks ago.  Nice improvement.  The ramp terminals on each side have a roundabout, and there is a bridge about 600 feet long over wetlands on the relocated secondary road.  There is a lengthened accell lane eastbound that provides a much better access to the 7-11.

http://www.virginiadot.org/Projects/Hampton_Roads/asset_upload_file808_88394.jpg

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/courtland_interchange.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 23, 2018, 09:18:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 23, 2018, 09:04:08 PM
Quote from: plain on July 23, 2018, 08:51:55 PM
While on US 58 I had a chance to snap photos of the new Courtland interchange (the eastern junction) while my brother drove. Note that construction is still ongoing. Sorry about the quality of the pics as I didn't realize there was a smudge on the lens until later. The first 6 pics are WB, while the last one is EB (return trip).

I drove thru there a couple weeks ago.  Nice improvement.  The ramp terminals on each side have a roundabout, and there is a bridge about 600 feet long over wetlands on the relocated secondary road.  There is a lengthened accell lane eastbound that provides a much better access to the 7-11.

http://www.virginiadot.org/Projects/Hampton_Roads/asset_upload_file808_88394.jpg

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/courtland_interchange.asp

Yeah I'm going to drive there myself next month to get a look at the entire thing. While I'm not much of a fan of roundabouts at interchanges, this looks to be done right. Huge improvement for this area. Now if we can just get the ball rolling for an interchange at the Franklin Bypass' western juction then that will be great too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 23, 2018, 09:48:45 PM
Quote from: plain on July 23, 2018, 09:18:54 PM
Yeah I'm going to drive there myself next month to get a look at the entire thing. While I'm not much of a fan of roundabouts at interchanges, this looks to be done right. Huge improvement for this area. Now if we can just get the ball rolling for an interchange at the Franklin Bypass' western juction then that will be great too.

Sufficient right-of-way was acquired in the 1980s when the bypass was built.  Still no signals there yet.  Do you think the demand exists for an interchange?

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6824904,-77.0105465,749a,35y,87.89h,44.75t/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 23, 2018, 10:13:13 PM
Maybe. I did notice a line of cars waiting to make the left from US 58 EB to the business route. Not sure how many accidents (if any) occur at this location though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 24, 2018, 09:54:40 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 23, 2018, 09:48:45 PM
Quote from: plain on July 23, 2018, 09:18:54 PM
Yeah I'm going to drive there myself next month to get a look at the entire thing. While I'm not much of a fan of roundabouts at interchanges, this looks to be done right. Huge improvement for this area. Now if we can just get the ball rolling for an interchange at the Franklin Bypass' western juction then that will be great too.

Sufficient right-of-way was acquired in the 1980s when the bypass was built.  Still no signals there yet.  Do you think the demand exists for an interchange?

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6824904,-77.0105465,749a,35y,87.89h,44.75t/data=!3m1!1e3

Unless any such interchange is dirt cheap, it likely won't be funded by Smart Scale regardless.

https://fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/study-rates-benefits-of-three-options-for-new-or-improved/article_0f208bdc-72fe-5f5b-89f9-3b75c190c0cb.html
Speaking of new interchanges, Fredricksburg area officials are currently spit on whether they should pursue a new(and desperately needed) interchange at either Celebrate Virginia(Exit 131) or Harrison Road(Exit 128). Both the FAMPO study and I believe that a Harrison Road Interchange/Widening would be far more beneficial. However, due to the Celebrate Virginia interchange being predicted to cost way less($53.7 million to $160.9 million) it appears likely that this will be the project that next year gets submitted to Smart Scale. My overall point is that unless either Smart Scale receives more state funding or local governments drastically increase their own share of funding, expensive yet beneficial potential transportation projects across the state won't have a chance.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 24, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 24, 2018, 09:54:40 AM
Unless any such interchange is dirt cheap, it likely won't be funded by Smart Scale regardless.

No such thing anymore ... the US-58 Courtland East interchange cost $15 million for construction and $6 million for R/W and PE.  Pretty typical cost nowadays in rural VA.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 25, 2018, 01:49:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 24, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 24, 2018, 09:54:40 AM
Unless any such interchange is dirt cheap, it likely won't be funded by Smart Scale regardless.

No such thing anymore ... the US-58 Courtland East interchange cost $15 million for construction and $6 million for R/W and PE.  Pretty typical cost nowadays in rural VA.

Smart Scale?  It was featured very prominently in a briefing I attended that was presented by a VDOT staff person from Central Office - and the presenter made no mention of it not being current VDOT policy.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 25, 2018, 01:54:56 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 25, 2018, 01:49:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 24, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 24, 2018, 09:54:40 AM
Unless any such interchange is dirt cheap, it likely won't be funded by Smart Scale regardless.

No such thing anymore ... the US-58 Courtland East interchange cost $15 million for construction and $6 million for R/W and PE.  Pretty typical cost nowadays in rural VA.

Smart Scale?  It was featured very prominently in a briefing I attended that was presented by a VDOT staff person from Central Office - and the presenter made no mention of it not being current VDOT policy.

In fact, a project was just rescored (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2018/july/reso/resolution_1_route_7.pdf) under Smart Scale guidelines at the CTB meeting last week.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 25, 2018, 05:05:40 PM
^ I don't think Scott was referring to Smart Scale.  The way I read his post, he's saying that there's no such thing as "cheap interchanges" anymore...even in rural areas, citing the $21M cost for the Courtland East interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 25, 2018, 08:11:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 25, 2018, 05:05:40 PM
^ I don't think Scott was referring to Smart Scale.  The way I read his post, he's saying that there's no such thing as "cheap interchanges" anymore...even in rural areas, citing the $21M cost for the Courtland East interchange.

Exactly!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 25, 2018, 10:48:02 PM
https://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/ct-vdot-receiving-bids-for-projects-at-busy-albemarle-intersections/article_bfc7268a-8fad-11e8-a4a2-ab7a3f0f2deb.html

CT: VDOT receiving bids for projects at busy Albemarle intersections 
By Josh Mandell | Charlottesville Tomorrow
Jul 24, 2018

The Virginia Department of Transportation currently is receiving bids to design and build a bundle of projects at highway intersections throughout Albemarle County. The estimated cost for all six projects is $37.5 million.

On Monday, the Pantops Community Advisory Committee was briefed on the largest of these projects: a diverging diamond interchange on U.S. 250 at Exit 124.

See URL for rest, and plan view of I-64/US-250 interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2018, 12:28:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 25, 2018, 05:05:40 PM
^ I don't think Scott was referring to Smart Scale.  The way I read his post, he's saying that there's no such thing as "cheap interchanges" anymore...even in rural areas, citing the $21M cost for the Courtland East interchange.

Okay.  Agree with that.  Even in places where land is supposed to be cheap, interchanges still get expensive. 

The relatively simple ramp that carries U.S. 17 South (only) traffic where it diverges from U.S. 15/U.S. 29 in Opal, Fauquier County, still managed to cost about $45 million.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Joke Insurance on July 26, 2018, 05:11:15 AM
Quote from: dfnvaRidgefield Road (posted as SR 3300) was built in Prince William County (Dale City) between Dale Blvd. and Prince William Pkwy sometime around 2003 or 2004. It's, for the most part, posted at 50 mph. Is this part of what would've been included in the Ridgefield Road you're referring to?

Quote from: froggieYes, but extending in both directions from what PWC actually built, based on the 1969 plan.  To the south, it would have tied into Cardinal Dr at Minnieville Rd.  To the north, I would not characterize it as "parallel to Yates Ford Rd" as CP suggested because the planned river crossing was closer to Occoquan than it wa to Yates Ford (at the bend in the river closest to Springwoods Dr). The Monticello Freeway proposal I mentioned above was far closer to Yates Ford than Ridgefield Rd would have been.

On the Fairfax County side, Ridgefield Rd would have tied into Lee Chapel Rd (SR 643) at 123. The main things it would have done were provide another local river crossing and enable denser development between Prince William Pkwy and 123 than currently exists (especially on the Fairfax County side). As CP noted, it would have not really helped I-95.

About a month ago, I was at the City of Fairfax Regional Library and glanced through the 1969 Northern Virginia Major Thoroughfare Plan book. It was fascinating to see all the diagrams of what could have been for Northern Virginia. I've only seen space images online but never the whole thing until that point.

I am surprised that nobody local has written an article about it, be it WTOP or GGWash. Since the latter wrote about the proposed Burke International Airport, writing one about the 1969 Northern Virginia Major Thoroughfare Plan should not be that far off.

Fixed quote (I think).  -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 26, 2018, 09:59:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 25, 2018, 08:11:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 25, 2018, 05:05:40 PM
^ I don't think Scott was referring to Smart Scale.  The way I read his post, he's saying that there's no such thing as "cheap interchanges" anymore...even in rural areas, citing the $21M cost for the Courtland East interchange.

Exactly!

Ah, gotcha. Well, you're certainly right about that!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 28, 2018, 09:48:40 AM
Seems a tractor-trailer went off the Chesapeake Bay Bridge—Tunnel last night. (https://wtop.com/virginia/2018/07/tractor-trailer-goes-off-chesapeake-bay-bridge-tunnel-in-va/) I'm always mildly surprised this doesn't happen more often. The story isn't kidding about severe weather, either. We are in Irvington for the weekend and the rain was so intense last night we had trouble hearing the TV.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 29, 2018, 06:36:37 PM
Any thoughts on which way north from Irvington is better–Route 3 up the Northern Neck or Route 17 up the Middle Peninsula? Clinches aren't in the cards. Came down via Route 3 on Friday and have not been on that part of Route 17 since the early 1980s (going the other way). Trying to decide how to head home tomorrow. I know there is work on the Norris Bridge over the Rappahannock on Route 3 near White Stone. The lady at the Golden Eagle recommended Route 3 but didn't really have a particular reason.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 30, 2018, 02:02:41 PM
^^^^

Took 17 because of the rain. Easier drive. Good route and the delay at the Norris Bridge wasn't too bad. They're using an automated traffic control system instead of flagmen. Route 17 from Saluda up to Route 301 was about as empty a road as I've been on in Virginia in recent years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2018, 03:29:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 30, 2018, 02:02:41 PM
^^^^

Took 17 because of the rain. Easier drive. Good route and the delay at the Norris Bridge wasn't too bad. They're using an automated traffic control system instead of flagmen. Route 17 from Saluda up to Route 301 was about as empty a road as I've been on in Virginia in recent years.

U.S. 17 from VA-105 in Yorktown to the U.S. 301 intersection in Port Royal is a personal favorite drive of mine.  It is about 90 miles of reasonably fast driving (but watch your speed in the corporate limits of Tappahannock, Virginia) usually with little traffic and little congestion. Even with a lot of Hampton Roads-related sprawl north of the York River in Gloucester County, it is still a pleasant trip.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 30, 2018, 03:32:03 PM
I wasn't going very fast, mainly due to the rain. Speed limit is 60 mph for most of that stretch and I rarely exceeded 65, though in good weather it would be very easy to do so.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 30, 2018, 05:08:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 30, 2018, 02:02:41 PM
^^^^

Took 17 because of the rain. Easier drive. Good route and the delay at the Norris Bridge wasn't too bad. They're using an automated traffic control system instead of flagmen. Route 17 from Saluda up to Route 301 was about as empty a road as I've been on in Virginia in recent years.

Interesting that the only non 4-lane part of US-17 in the Tidewater region is the section from US-1 to US-301 near Fredricksburg, an area with a way larger population than anything US-17 passes before Gloucester. I'm assuming this is in part due to the presence of 4-lane VA-3 just across the river, but with all the growth that has occurred in Spotsylvania over the past few decades, I would have thought by now there would be some sort of serious plan for widening US-17, not just over I-95, but at least as far as the Caroline County border. Are the traffic counts in even that area still relatively low?
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/fredericksburg/route_17_overpass_replacement_and_widening.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2018, 05:22:30 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 30, 2018, 05:08:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 30, 2018, 02:02:41 PM
^^^^

Took 17 because of the rain. Easier drive. Good route and the delay at the Norris Bridge wasn't too bad. They're using an automated traffic control system instead of flagmen. Route 17 from Saluda up to Route 301 was about as empty a road as I've been on in Virginia in recent years.

Interesting that the only non 4-lane part of US-17 in the Tidewater region is the section from US-1 to US-301 near Fredricksburg, an area with a way larger population than anything US-17 passes before Gloucester. I'm assuming this is in part due to the presence of 4-lane VA-3 just across the river, but with all the growth that has occurred in Spotsylvania over the past few decades, I would have thought by now there would be some sort of serious plan for widening US-17, not just over I-95, but at least as far as the Caroline County border. Are the traffic counts in even that area still relatively low?
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/fredericksburg/route_17_overpass_replacement_and_widening.asp

I have driven that part of U.S. 17 too.  But  it's always been empty when I have come by there.  Not sure why.  Maybe because a lot of U.S. 17 traffic northbound turns right at Port Royal onto U.S. 301 toward King George County and across the HWN Bridge into Charles County, Maryland? 

And vice versa, southbound 301 traffic turns right left onto U.S. 17 (southbound) there?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 30, 2018, 08:32:04 PM
Traffic count is 700 lower on US 17 north of US 301 than south of it, though it gets back to that level at the Spotsylvania line.  All less than 6000 AADT though.

US 17 north of US 301 has some sections that would not be cheap to widen because of terrain.  Over the long term, US 17 was generally widened from south to north.

Note that the AADT of VA 3 from King George west is 16k-24k, roughly 3-4 times the volume of US 17 north of US 301.  Also note that VA 2 north of Bowling Green has similar traffic as US 17 north of US 301.  In short, widening is not urgent on this stretch compared to other places in the Fredericksburg District.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 30, 2018, 11:53:07 PM
If the Norris Bridge is looking good then I would definitely use US 17 instead of VA 3 up to US 301, if you ever make this trip again. At that point it may be a bit of a head scratcher.

I would check traffic conditions on both I-95 around Fredericksburg (before continuing on 17) and VA 3 (and SR 607 & VA 218 near the 'Burg if you really want to stay north of the river should you choose 3) to see which route is the best at that point. If 95 is not congested, then I would just continue on 17 (2 laned past this point as you know) to get to the interstate as there is less traffic (and signals) along this route.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 11:58:04 PM
My mother has been telling me about the weather in Arlington. Apparently pretty stormy this summer? It's her first summer over there, and she's used to Washington summers, which are almost exclusively dry, so she could be being a bit unfair.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 31, 2018, 12:11:08 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 11:58:04 PM
My mother has been telling me about the weather in Arlington. Apparently pretty stormy this summer? It's her first summer over there, and she's used to Washington summers, which are almost exclusively dry, so she could be being a bit unfair.

Pretty much everything from the fall line eastward has been getting drenched lately throughout much of the Mid-Atlantic. I'm about sick of it myself.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 31, 2018, 11:20:26 AM
^ As long as getting through/around Waldorf and La Plata (as the case may be) isn't an issue, I've found 301 to 17 to be a functional and quieter alternative to 95/64 between the DC area and Newport News.  It's not a timesaver by any means, but outside of peak hours (where the signals on 301 and in Gloucester can be a pain) it's less stressful.  The 60 MPH speed limit on most of 17 between Port Royal and Saluda also helps.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on July 31, 2018, 02:07:38 PM
Quote from: plain on July 31, 2018, 12:11:08 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 11:58:04 PM
My mother has been telling me about the weather in Arlington. Apparently pretty stormy this summer? It's her first summer over there, and she's used to Washington summers, which are almost exclusively dry, so she could be being a bit unfair.

Pretty much everything from the fall line eastward has been getting drenched lately throughout much of the Mid-Atlantic. I'm about sick of it myself.

IIRC, summers on the east coast are normally a bit rainy, right? Is winter the sunny season?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 31, 2018, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 31, 2018, 11:20:26 AM
^ As long as getting through/around Waldorf and La Plata (as the case may be) isn't an issue, I've found 301 to 17 to be a functional and quieter alternative to 95/64 between the DC area and Newport News.  It's not a timesaver by any means, but outside of peak hours (where the signals on 301 and in Gloucester can be a pain) it's less stressful.  The 60 MPH speed limit on most of 17 between Port Royal and Saluda also helps.

US-301 in southern Maryland has something like 60 traffic signals south of U-50,  and Waldorf and La Plata tend to be routinely bad.  Unless there is a reported catastrophe on I-95, I will always use that in lieu of US-301.

Google Maps reported times in free flowing traffic between D.C. and Newport News

I-395, I-95, I-295, I-64
171 mi
3h 8m

DC I-295, MD-210, MD-225, US-301, US-17
165 mi
3h 49m
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on July 31, 2018, 02:17:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 11:58:04 PM
My mother has been telling me about the weather in Arlington. Apparently pretty stormy this summer? It's her first summer over there, and she's used to Washington summers, which are almost exclusively dry, so she could be being a bit unfair.
I wouldn't say it's been stormier than usual-traditionally the Washington DC area gets rush-hour extending summer thunderstorms many evenings (including high winds and of course lightning) which we seem to have avoided. But it sure has rained a lot.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 31, 2018, 02:22:49 PM
Yesterday's route: VA-200 to White Stone, VA-3 to VA-33 to Saluda, US-17 to Port Royal, US-301 to near La Plata, MD-225 to near Indian Head, MD-210 to the Beltway, and then the short hop to home. I doubt MD-225 saved us any time, but it was a new route we hadn't used and a reasonably nice change of pace with no traffic and few lights. Usually I use MD-228 to connect either way between Waldorf and Accokeek.

I believe we got in the car around 10:10 and were home at 1:05. Only stop was a toilet stop at the Maryland Welcome Center on Route 301.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 31, 2018, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2018, 02:07:38 PM
Quote from: plain on July 31, 2018, 12:11:08 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 11:58:04 PM
My mother has been telling me about the weather in Arlington. Apparently pretty stormy this summer? It's her first summer over there, and she's used to Washington summers, which are almost exclusively dry, so she could be being a bit unfair.

Pretty much everything from the fall line eastward has been getting drenched lately throughout much of the Mid-Atlantic. I'm about sick of it myself.

IIRC, summers on the east coast are normally a bit rainy, right? Is winter the sunny season?

Sometimes. I'd say south of Philly it's normally just humid as hell. Storms usually pop up when a cold front approaches. But this summer it's been unusually rainy. Many areas are dealing with flooding.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 31, 2018, 04:51:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2018, 02:07:38 PM
IIRC, summers on the east coast are normally a bit rainy, right? Is winter the sunny season?

There is no predominately wet/dry season in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Precipitation tends to be evenly distributed throughout the year and the amount varies depending on the weather pattern. NJ has been abnormally wet this past month, but has been spared most of the rain that MD/DC/VA/central PA has been getting.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2018, 11:05:22 AM
We've had a lot more flooding than usual this year. It was a very wet July.

http://twitter.com/capitalweather/status/1024671010262605825?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2018, 11:29:04 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2018, 11:05:22 AM
We've had a lot more flooding than usual this year. It was a very wet July.

It was an all-time July record in terms of rainfall in Baltimore.  Details in the Baltimore Sun here (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/weather/weather-blog/bs-md-rain-statistics-20180726-story.html).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2018, 11:38:15 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 31, 2018, 11:20:26 AM
^ As long as getting through/around Waldorf and La Plata (as the case may be) isn't an issue, I've found 301 to 17 to be a functional and quieter alternative to 95/64 between the DC area and Newport News.  It's not a timesaver by any means, but outside of peak hours (where the signals on 301 and in Gloucester can be a pain) it's less stressful.  The 60 MPH speed limit on most of 17 between Port Royal and Saluda also helps.

Even with the signals in Gloucester, Essex [Town of Tappahannock] and King George Counties in Virginia, and Charles and Prince George's Counties in Maryland (which can be extremely annoying), the stress level on the U.S. 17/U.S. 301/MD-5 trip is indeed less than I-64 and especially I-95 from I-295 sometimes all the way to Springfield.  The I-95 part of the trip is potentially about 90 miles of misery.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 01, 2018, 04:23:11 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2018, 11:38:15 AM
The I-95 part of the trip is potentially about 90 miles of misery.

I have never in 50 years of driving that section of I-95 experienced anything remotely like that.

VMS and AM/FM radio are normally sufficient to avoid horrible traffic conditions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2018, 04:48:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 01, 2018, 04:23:11 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2018, 11:38:15 AM
The I-95 part of the trip is potentially about 90 miles of misery.

I have never in 50 years of driving that section of I-95 experienced anything remotely like that.

Maybe your timing was good?

Quote from: Beltway on August 01, 2018, 04:23:11 PM
VMS and AM/FM radio are normally sufficient to avoid horrible traffic conditions.

A tablet or cell phone navigation program that shows traffic congestion in near-real time is the best way to avoid same, and these days, it will generally suggest the routes discussed above to get to Hampton Roads as a primary  or alternate route. 

Going south from the Maryland suburbs of D.C. to (or beyond) Richmond is generally MD-5 to U.S. 301 all the way to I-295 on the southern edge of Hanover County.  Unless there is a crash, U.S. 301 is a remarkably empty and fast-moving road south of Port Royal, even though it is two undivided lanes south of Bowling Green. Just watch speed limit compliance in Caroline County across Fort A. P. Hill and in Hanover County  generally, and  at Hanover Courthouse in particular.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 01, 2018, 05:03:53 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2018, 04:48:09 PM
Going south from the Maryland suburbs of D.C. to (or beyond) Richmond is generally MD-5 to U.S. 301 all the way to I-295 on the southern edge of Hanover County.  Unless there is a crash, U.S. 301 is a remarkably empty and fast-moving road south of Port Royal, even though it is two undivided lanes south of Bowling Green. Just watch speed limit compliance in Caroline County across Fort A. P. Hill and in Hanover County  generally, and  at Hanover Courthouse in particular.

US-301 is a forest of traffic signals in southern Maryland, at least 60 between US-50 and the Potomac River.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on August 01, 2018, 06:38:58 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 31, 2018, 04:51:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2018, 02:07:38 PM
IIRC, summers on the east coast are normally a bit rainy, right? Is winter the sunny season?

There is no predominately wet/dry season in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Precipitation tends to be evenly distributed throughout the year and the amount varies depending on the weather pattern. NJ has been abnormally wet this past month, but has been spared most of the rain that MD/DC/VA/central PA has been getting.

Oh, no kidding? Still more sun than rain or snow though, right? I thought it was just the PNW that was known for constant clouds and drizzle.

Quote from: plain on July 31, 2018, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2018, 02:07:38 PM
Quote from: plain on July 31, 2018, 12:11:08 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 30, 2018, 11:58:04 PM
My mother has been telling me about the weather in Arlington. Apparently pretty stormy this summer? It's her first summer over there, and she's used to Washington summers, which are almost exclusively dry, so she could be being a bit unfair.

Pretty much everything from the fall line eastward has been getting drenched lately throughout much of the Mid-Atlantic. I'm about sick of it myself.

IIRC, summers on the east coast are normally a bit rainy, right? Is winter the sunny season?

Sometimes. I'd say south of Philly it's normally just humid as hell. Storms usually pop up when a cold front approaches. But this summer it's been unusually rainy. Many areas are dealing with flooding.

Unusually rainy in that there's just lots of rain, or rain and thunderstorms? Here in the PNW, we would always specify if it was "storming" or not. Rain and thunderstorms are not the same. On the other hand, my grand-dad, who grew up Colorado Springs, would not specify if it was storming or not. Rain usually brought lighting, so he never bothers to be specific. Not sure if people out east are specific in terms of describing the difference between a thunderstorm and rain storm.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 01, 2018, 09:35:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 01, 2018, 05:03:53 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2018, 04:48:09 PM
Going south from the Maryland suburbs of D.C. to (or beyond) Richmond is generally MD-5 to U.S. 301 all the way to I-295 on the southern edge of Hanover County.  Unless there is a crash, U.S. 301 is a remarkably empty and fast-moving road south of Port Royal, even though it is two undivided lanes south of Bowling Green. Just watch speed limit compliance in Caroline County across Fort A. P. Hill and in Hanover County  generally, and  at Hanover Courthouse in particular.

US-301 is a forest of traffic signals in southern Maryland, at least 60 between US-50 and the Potomac River.

I counted.  There are 47 northbound and 44 southbound signals between 50 and the river.  The disparity is because several signals in Waldorf and south of La Plata are configured to stop only one direction on 301.

Predictably, the biggest concentration is in the Waldorf area, which results in there being more signals south of Branch Ave than north.  Since 1995hoo mentioned using MD 225 between 301 and 210, I should point out that there are only 4 northbound and 2 southbound signals between 225 and the river.  There are 18 northbound and 15 southbound between 228 and the river.

On the Virginia side, add 7 between the river and Port Royal (including the signal at US 17).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 01, 2018, 10:05:00 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 01, 2018, 09:35:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 01, 2018, 05:03:53 PM
US-301 is a forest of traffic signals in southern Maryland, at least 60 between US-50 and the Potomac River.
I counted.  There are 47 northbound and 44 southbound signals between 50 and the river.  The disparity is because several signals in Waldorf and south of La Plata are configured to stop only one direction on 301.
Predictably, the biggest concentration is in the Waldorf area, which results in there being more signals south of Branch Ave than north.  Since 1995hoo mentioned using MD 225 between 301 and 210, I should point out that there are only 4 northbound and 2 southbound signals between 225 and the river.  There are 18 northbound and 15 southbound between 228 and the river.
On the Virginia side, add 7 between the river and Port Royal (including the signal at US 17).

I stand corrected, then.  Still that rounds to one signal per mile on average (I just did count 50 miles between the river and US-50, from a Rand McNally map).   Traffic signals in general are annoying and obnoxious, but are especially egregious on a high-speed four-lane or six-lane highway.

As you point out, Virginia has many fewer signals on US-301 than Maryland, but by no means a small number.

The new four-lane Potomac River bridge will be a major blessing, but within 5 to 10 years of opening will undoubtably lead to increased traffic volumes on the corridor that will lead to even more congestion and even more signals needed, unless the need is obviated by major improvements such as access controls, bypasses, and selected intersections being replaced by interchanges.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 02, 2018, 07:12:29 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2018, 11:29:04 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2018, 11:05:22 AM
We've had a lot more flooding than usual this year. It was a very wet July.

It was an all-time July record in terms of rainfall in Baltimore.  Details in the Baltimore Sun here (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/weather/weather-blog/bs-md-rain-statistics-20180726-story.html).

On the news last night, they pointed out that the rain seems even worse because in the DC area, we got no rain for the first 16 days of July–all that rain came between July 17 and 31. Supposed to be more this afternoon.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 02, 2018, 10:03:32 AM
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/08/widening-work-complete-on-busy-loudoun-co-commuter-route/
QuoteWASHINGTON – A long-running project to widen a busy commuter route has been completed in Loudoun County, with Virginia Route 606 now widened to four lanes all the way from Evergreen Mills Road to the Dulles Greenway west of Dulles International Airport.

A formal ribbon-cutting on the final piece of the 5-mile Old Ox Road widening, from two lanes to four lanes with a median, is planned for next week.

The Virginia Department of Transportation hopes the wider road will help commuters to and from Ashburn, Sterling, Herndon and the airport. Up to 26,000 vehicles a day use the road, which can serve as an alternative to Route 28.

The three-year, $119 million project included new traffic lights, a new intersection at and extension of Loudoun County Parkway to provide a complete connection between U.S. Route 50 and Virginia Route 7, two new bridges and a shared use path.

QuoteLoudoun County is separately working with developers on a schedule for a related project to build Arcola Boulevard, which will run southwest from near where Loudoun County Parkway and Old Ox Road meet to Route 50 to provide another option in the area. Supervisor Matt Letourneau told constituents he hoped to have an update on that project soon.

It is one of many missing links Loudoun County plans to get built in coming years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 03, 2018, 04:49:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 03, 2018, 11:19:49 AM
Nice photo comparison.

http://twitter.com/vadot/status/992056250715328513?s=21

Quote"Today the intersection looks much the same as it did 66 years ago."
--Sorry, VDOT. But since you removed the divider on one of the roads, there's no way I can believe that. Still a nice picture, though.


Quote from: froggie on August 01, 2018, 09:35:25 PM
I counted.  There are 47 northbound and 44 southbound signals between 50 and the river.  The disparity is because several signals in Waldorf and south of La Plata are configured to stop only one direction on 301.

Predictably, the biggest concentration is in the Waldorf area, which results in there being more signals south of Branch Ave than north.  Since 1995hoo mentioned using MD 225 between 301 and 210, I should point out that there are only 4 northbound and 2 southbound signals between 225 and the river.  There are 18 northbound and 15 southbound between 228 and the river.

On the Virginia side, add 7 between the river and Port Royal (including the signal at US 17).
Aw, damn. And I'm still thinking of taking US 301 on my trip up to NYC, just so I can stop at Horne's.


How's the Harry Nice bridge doing right now as far as maintenance and closures? I haven't found anything about it on MdMTA's website, and I want to be sure I won't be in a situation where the bridge is closed down to one lane.




Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 03, 2018, 08:56:07 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 03, 2018, 04:49:32 PM
How's the Harry Nice bridge doing right now as far as maintenance and closures? I haven't found anything about it on MdMTA's website, and I want to be sure I won't be in a situation where the bridge is closed down to one lane.

Apparently all clear for now.  Click here (http://mdta.maryland.gov/news/MDTA_Traffic_Advisories) then click  "(us 301) nice bridge" under keywords to check for upcoming work.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 03, 2018, 08:59:32 PM
WTOP Radio: You shall not pass: McLean residents, VDOT debate plans to block cut-through traffic (https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2018/08/you-shall-not-pass-mclean-residents-vdot-debate-plans-to-block-cut-through-traffic/)

QuoteMcLEAN, Va. – For residents who live in the area of Georgetown Pike and the Capital Beltway, congestion from cars using their neighborhoods as a cut-through can leave them trapped in their driveways.

QuoteWhile all agree a solution needs to be found to alleviate the issue, a plan on the table is receiving mixed reviews.

QuoteThe plan involves closing the Georgetown Pike on-ramp to the Inner Loop of the Beltway for six hours every weekday afternoon. It would begin as a 4-month pilot program, and if successful, could become a permanent change.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on August 07, 2018, 11:59:04 PM
What was the purpose of US 60Z in Williamsburg, VA?  Why was it numbered that unique number, and being it served residential areas (and not a business area) it could have not been a business route.

If I recall it used present day Francis Street and Richmond Road and looped from its parent at the York/Paige/Lafayette intersection and to the Richmond Road/Bypass Road intersection. It mainly went through the restored area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 08, 2018, 06:38:40 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2018, 11:59:04 PM
What was the purpose of US 60Z in Williamsburg, VA?  Why was it numbered that unique number, and being it served residential areas (and not a business area) it could have not been a business route.

If I recall it used present day Francis Street and Richmond Road and looped from its parent at the York/Paige/Lafayette intersection and to the Richmond Road/Bypass Road intersection. It mainly went through the restored area.

US 60Z existed 1934-74 before being renumbered as VA 132 (later 162 then dropped from the primary system in 1993) west of central Williamsburg and VA 5 on the rest as it is today.  Until 1940 it used Duke of Gloucester St right through the historical area.

I have never found any document explaining the peculiar designation although there are 2 possibilities I can think of:  one is that there was a US 60Y not that far away (Newport News) and they wanted to differentiate between the two.  The other is that in the original numbering system 1918-23, spurs off the main numbered routes were given letter designations starting with Z and working backwards down the alphabet.  This was replaced with the first 3-digit numbers in 1923.  Perhaps it was envisioned to do this with US routes initially before deciding not to do this statewide (I believe Williamsburg was the first place in Virginia to get a formal bypass).  It is also possible this was a Suffolk District decision.

Despite it being around for 40 years, I have never seen a picture of a US 60Z sign.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 11, 2018, 06:58:23 PM
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/08/construction-on-i-95-widening-over-the-rappahannock-gets-underway/
QuoteWASHINGTON – Major construction began this week to widen a frequently congested stretch of Interstate 95 near Fredericksburg, Virginia.

The four-year $132 million project will build three new southbound lanes over the Rappahannock River by the summer of 2022. A similar northbound span that had been canceled will now be built later as part of a deal tied to the extension of the 95 Express Lanes 10 miles south to just north of U.S. Route 17, but that project remains in development.

The new span will provide separated through lanes for I-95 drivers going beyond Virginia Route 3 and U.S. 17, with existing lanes serving local traffic getting on or off at the two exits. The changes are meant to reduce weaving and congestion-related delays, said Kelly Hannon of VDOT's Fredericksburg district.

For now, construction work on the southbound span will close the left shoulders on both the northbound and southbound lanes of the highway. Crews are also expected to begin clearing trees in the median near the river later this month.

No lane closures are planned during rush hours, but lanes are expected to be closed in the area overnight and possibly other times through 2022.

The work zone is more than 4 miles in length, from just north of Exit 133 in Stafford County after Centreport Parkway to just south of Exit 130 in Fredericksburg.

As part of the project, entrance and exit ramps between I-95 and Route 17 will be changed, and the I-95 overpasses above Route 17 will also be replaced.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 11, 2018, 07:14:08 PM
http://www.dailypress.com/news/york-county/dp-nws-phase-i-64-widening-york-20180810-story.html
Quote
Construction on the third and final segment of a six-year project to widen Interstate 64 on the Peninsula will start Sunday, weather-permitting, according to the Virginia Department of Transportation.

The agency said the $178.3-million project in York County will add a travel lane and shoulder in both directions along an 8.25-mile stretch of interstate. The segment starts about 1.15 miles west of exit 234, the Route 199 interchange, and ends about 1.05 miles west of exit 242, the Humelsine Parkway and Marquis Center Parkway interchange.

Construction on the first segment of the widening project, from near exit 247 to near exit 255 in Newport News, started in September 2015 and ended in December 2017. The second segment, between near exit 242 and exit 247, is under construction and is scheduled to be finished in spring 2019, according to the I-64 widening project website.

VDOT says it anticipates the third phase to finish in fall 2021.

In addition to adding the travel lane, bridges at the Colonial Parkway and Lakeshead Drive will be widened and repaired. The bridges over Queens Creek, near mile marker 239, will be completely replaced, and several culverts along the interstate will be repaired and lengthened.

VDOT also says acceleration and deceleration lanes will be extended, and the I-64 off-ramp to Route 143 at exit 238 will be reconfigured

Surprised/disappointed that no potential Segment 4(north of Williamsburg) was submitted to Smart Scale this time around. While former VA Security of Transportation Aubrey Layne believed that any such project would not score well(due to all the other work being done to I-64 in the Hampton Roads area), I would still have liked to of seen whether or not this prediction proved accurate. I-64 between I-295 and Williamsburg should definitely be 6 lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 11, 2018, 07:40:59 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 11, 2018, 07:14:08 PM
http://www.dailypress.com/news/york-county/dp-nws-phase-i-64-widening-york-20180810-story.html
Quote
Construction on the third and final segment of a six-year project to widen Interstate 64 on the Peninsula will start Sunday, weather-permitting, according to the Virginia Department of Transportation.

The agency said the $178.3-million project in York County will add a travel lane and shoulder in both directions along an 8.25-mile stretch of interstate. The segment starts about 1.15 miles west of exit 234, the Route 199 interchange, and ends about 1.05 miles west of exit 242, the Humelsine Parkway and Marquis Center Parkway interchange.

Construction on the first segment of the widening project, from near exit 247 to near exit 255 in Newport News, started in September 2015 and ended in December 2017. The second segment, between near exit 242 and exit 247, is under construction and is scheduled to be finished in spring 2019, according to the I-64 widening project website.

VDOT says it anticipates the third phase to finish in fall 2021.

In addition to adding the travel lane, bridges at the Colonial Parkway and Lakeshead Drive will be widened and repaired. The bridges over Queens Creek, near mile marker 239, will be completely replaced, and several culverts along the interstate will be repaired and lengthened.

VDOT also says acceleration and deceleration lanes will be extended, and the I-64 off-ramp to Route 143 at exit 238 will be reconfigured

Surprised/disappointed that no potential Segment 4(north of Williamsburg) was submitted to Smart Scale this time around. While former VA Security of Transportation Aubrey Layne believed that any such project would not score well(due to all the other work being done to I-64 in the Hampton Roads area), I would still have liked to of seen whether or not this prediction proved accurate. I-64 between I-295 and Williamsburg should definitely be 6 lanes.

Agreed, though I think any future widening may occur from the Richmond area eastward. Already happening between I-295 and Exit 205 (VA 249). What I would like to see next is from that segment to Exit 211 (VA 106) and ultimately to Exit 220 (VA 33).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 12, 2018, 07:52:37 PM
Quote from: plain on August 11, 2018, 07:40:59 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 11, 2018, 07:14:08 PM
http://www.dailypress.com/news/york-county/dp-nws-phase-i-64-widening-york-20180810-story.html
Quote
Construction on the third and final segment of a six-year project to widen Interstate 64 on the Peninsula will start Sunday, weather-permitting, according to the Virginia Department of Transportation.

The agency said the $178.3-million project in York County will add a travel lane and shoulder in both directions along an 8.25-mile stretch of interstate. The segment starts about 1.15 miles west of exit 234, the Route 199 interchange, and ends about 1.05 miles west of exit 242, the Humelsine Parkway and Marquis Center Parkway interchange.

Construction on the first segment of the widening project, from near exit 247 to near exit 255 in Newport News, started in September 2015 and ended in December 2017. The second segment, between near exit 242 and exit 247, is under construction and is scheduled to be finished in spring 2019, according to the I-64 widening project website.

VDOT says it anticipates the third phase to finish in fall 2021.

In addition to adding the travel lane, bridges at the Colonial Parkway and Lakeshead Drive will be widened and repaired. The bridges over Queens Creek, near mile marker 239, will be completely replaced, and several culverts along the interstate will be repaired and lengthened.

VDOT also says acceleration and deceleration lanes will be extended, and the I-64 off-ramp to Route 143 at exit 238 will be reconfigured

Surprised/disappointed that no potential Segment 4(north of Williamsburg) was submitted to Smart Scale this time around. While former VA Security of Transportation Aubrey Layne believed that any such project would not score well(due to all the other work being done to I-64 in the Hampton Roads area), I would still have liked to of seen whether or not this prediction proved accurate. I-64 between I-295 and Williamsburg should definitely be 6 lanes.

Agreed, though I think any future widening may occur from the Richmond area eastward. Already happening between I-295 and Exit 205 (VA 249). What I would like to see next is from that segment to Exit 211 (VA 106) and ultimately to Exit 220 (VA 33).

Believe it or not, a project that would have widened I-64 to six lanes between Exit 205(VA-249) and Exit 211(VA-106) was in fact submitted to Smart Scale recently. Surprisingly however, it did not score well. Cost may have been a big factor as it was projected to cost $107 million and was ranked 55th out of 72 Richmond Districtwide projects. IMHO if Richmond had its own Transportation Authority such as Hampton Roads and NOVA, this project probably would have scored much better.
https://paptprd.blob.core.windows.net/scorecards/F2-0000001513-R02.PDF
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 12, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 12, 2018, 07:52:37 PM
Believe it or not, a project that would have widened I-64 to six lanes between Exit 205(VA-249) and Exit 211(VA-106) was in fact submitted to Smart Scale recently. Surprisingly however, it did not score well. Cost may have been a big factor as it was projected to cost $107 million and was ranked 55th out of 72 Richmond Districtwide projects. IMHO if Richmond had its own Transportation Authority such as Hampton Roads and NOVA, this project probably would have scored much better.
https://paptprd.blob.core.windows.net/scorecards/F2-0000001513-R02.PDF

Technically New Kent County is part of the Richmond MSA, but in practice that project is far enough from the city that it probably would not be in an RTA.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 12, 2018, 09:04:28 PM
6 lanes would be a "nice to have", but the key priority has always been from Williamsburg down.  It may be super-thick, but west of Williamsburg rarely slows to a crawl unless there's a crash.  The same could not be said for the Williamsburg-Newport News segment.

There's also US 60 as a functional, if slower (but much less stressful) alternative between Bottoms Bridge and Croaker.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 12, 2018, 09:16:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 12, 2018, 09:04:28 PM
6 lanes would be a "nice to have", but the key priority has always been from Williamsburg down.  It may be super-thick, but west of Williamsburg rarely slows to a crawl unless there's a crash.  The same could not be said for the Williamsburg-Newport News segment.

Plus I-295 to Bottoms Bridge, also now under construction.  Traffic volumes are considerably lower between Bottoms Bridge and Williamsburg.

Quote from: froggie on August 12, 2018, 09:04:28 PM
There's also US 60 as a functional, if slower (but much less stressful) alternative between Bottoms Bridge and Croaker.

A good way to use for a trip between Richmond and Williamsburg.  All 4 lanes on US-60.  Usually not very many minutes longer per the VMS sign on I-64 showing estimated times on the two routes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 12, 2018, 09:22:12 PM
I saw Bottoms Bridge as an annoyance, but nothing nearly as bad as Williamsburg south.  That said, I'm not going to say no to the Bottoms Bridge-295 improvement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on August 13, 2018, 09:20:57 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 12, 2018, 09:04:28 PM
6 lanes would be a "nice to have", but the key priority has always been from Williamsburg down.  It may be super-thick, but west of Williamsburg rarely slows to a crawl unless there's a crash.  The same could not be said for the Williamsburg-Newport News segment.

There's also US 60 as a functional, if slower (but much less stressful) alternative between Bottoms Bridge and Croaker.

That section of I-64 is probably much like I-81 where averaging traffic numbers doesn't paint a true picture. There are days and times where even 6 lanes wouldn't be adequate for the traffic. I remember from a number of years ago several white-knuckle drives between Richmond and Newport News when driving on a Friday evening to a weekend soccer tournament in Virginia Beach. Bumper-to-bumper traffic in both lanes, with people traveling at a variety of speeds in the right lane and many in the left lane trying to go hammer-down. If you moved to the right lane to let them off your bumper your chances of getting back in the left lane when you got behind one of those slow drivers were pretty slim.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 13, 2018, 09:37:40 AM
Wasn't even considering "averaging traffic volumes"...was going off my extensive experience (having been stationed in Norfolk twice, including within the past 5 years).  I don't disagree that it's often bumper-to-bumper with a disparity in travel speeds between the two lanes, but it's still consistently moving between Richmond and Williamsburg.  Past Williamsburg is where you typically start getting the consistent sub-30-in-both-lanes...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 13, 2018, 10:27:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 13, 2018, 09:37:40 AM
Wasn't even considering "averaging traffic volumes"...was going off my extensive experience (having been stationed in Norfolk twice, including within the past 5 years).  I don't disagree that it's often bumper-to-bumper with a disparity in travel speeds between the two lanes, but it's still consistently moving between Richmond and Williamsburg.  Past Williamsburg is where you typically start getting the consistent sub-30-in-both-lanes...

I've lived in the city of Richmond over 30 years, and based on my own experience as well as hearing what other people say and hearing traffic reports, there are plenty of times on weekends when there is major congestion between on I-64 between I-295 and Williamsburg (inside of I-295 most already has 6 lanes).

Based on my "20 weekends Fri-Sun per year" test it would need 6 lanes, and there has been lots of sentiment in the Richmond area for at least 20 years that is needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: J N Winkler on August 13, 2018, 11:18:55 AM
20 years ago, I had a year membership at Colonial Williamsburg and would often travel between DC and Williamsburg to milk it.  I preferred to leave very early in the morning, at 6 or 7 AM, so I would hit I-64 around 8 or 9 AM, before the traffic became really bad.  I never felt any of the four-lane arterials in the area (US 60 and US 17) were suitable alternatives because they were so stoplight-infested.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2018, 11:27:46 AM
For those that geek out on traffic counts, the VDOT 2017 traffic count book is available on their Web site here (http://www.virginiadot.org/info/2017_traffic_data.asp).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 13, 2018, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 12, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 12, 2018, 07:52:37 PM
Believe it or not, a project that would have widened I-64 to six lanes between Exit 205(VA-249) and Exit 211(VA-106) was in fact submitted to Smart Scale recently. Surprisingly however, it did not score well. Cost may have been a big factor as it was projected to cost $107 million and was ranked 55th out of 72 Richmond Districtwide projects. IMHO if Richmond had its own Transportation Authority such as Hampton Roads and NOVA, this project probably would have scored much better.
https://paptprd.blob.core.windows.net/scorecards/F2-0000001513-R02.PDF

Technically New Kent County is part of the Richmond MSA, but in practice that project is far enough from the city that it probably would not be in an RTA.

Possibly, but New Kent County is also one of the fastest growing localities in the state(even if the population at the moment may be small). Regardless, I think that if New Kent County and the Richmond metro wanted I-64 widened badly enough, an RTA could definitely help contribute.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 13, 2018, 12:59:14 PM
We all know how bad I-64 can get, even west of Williamsburg, which is why US 60 is a great alternative to begin with. With all the widening projects happening (both on the Peninsula and just east of I-295), I now have faith that at least there will be more to come, maybe in our lifetimes. Maybe.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 13, 2018, 01:43:34 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 12, 2018, 09:04:28 PM...Croaker.

Forgive me for chuckling when I saw someone with the user name "froggie" posting something with the word "Croaker" in it.  :-D :-D :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 13, 2018, 02:12:56 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 13, 2018, 01:43:34 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 12, 2018, 09:04:28 PM...Croaker.

Forgive me for chuckling when I saw someone with the user name "froggie" posting something with the word "Croaker" in it.  :-D :-D :-D

What's even more ironic is Croaker is a great place to catch croakers (the fish, that is) on the York River lmao
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 13, 2018, 02:20:41 PM
Quote from: plain on August 13, 2018, 02:12:56 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 13, 2018, 01:43:34 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 12, 2018, 09:04:28 PM...Croaker.
Forgive me for chuckling when I saw someone with the user name "froggie" posting something with the word "Croaker" in it.  :-D :-D :-D
What's even more ironic is Croaker is a great place to catch croakers (the fish, that is) on the York River lmao

Toano is nearby, and for some reason when I see that name I think of "toad".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2018, 03:46:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 13, 2018, 01:43:34 PM
Forgive me for chuckling when I saw someone with the user name "froggie" posting something with the word "Croaker" in it.  :-D :-D :-D

Next to Croaker is Norge, Virginia.  "Norge" is Norwegian for Norway, and was originally settled by  people of Norwegian  heritage. However, I do not think there are any fjords in Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 13, 2018, 10:56:20 PM
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-64_bridge_replacements_over_airport_dr..asp

VDOT wants to rebuild the I-64 bridges over VA 156 (Exit 197 Airport Drive). But more importantly they will also convert the existing cloverleaf interchange there into a Parclo interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 14, 2018, 12:38:12 AM
Quote from: plain on August 13, 2018, 10:56:20 PM
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-64_bridge_replacements_over_airport_dr..asp
VDOT wants to rebuild the I-64 bridges over VA 156 (Exit 197 Airport Drive). But more importantly they will also convert the existing cloverleaf interchange there into a Parclo interchange.

I went to the design public hearing and filled out a comment form and said that I oppose removing those two loops.  The weaving lanes IMO are long enough a cloverleaf is still adequate.  The ultimate plan is to widen I-64 to 6 lanes between Airport Drive and I-295 and to provide a continuous 6 lanes on I-64 thru the area, and if they don't like the Airport Drive cloverleaf then there should be room for C-D lanes on I-64 thru that interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on August 14, 2018, 09:02:53 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2018, 03:46:30 PM

However, I do not think there are any fjords in Virginia.

Only because they didn't hire Slartibartfast to design the state...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 14, 2018, 10:36:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 14, 2018, 12:38:12 AM
Quote from: plain on August 13, 2018, 10:56:20 PM
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-64_bridge_replacements_over_airport_dr..asp
VDOT wants to rebuild the I-64 bridges over VA 156 (Exit 197 Airport Drive). But more importantly they will also convert the existing cloverleaf interchange there into a Parclo interchange.

I went to the design public hearing and filled out a comment form and said that I oppose removing those two loops.  The weaving lanes IMO are long enough a cloverleaf is still adequate.  The ultimate plan is to widen I-64 to 6 lanes between Airport Drive and I-295 and to provide a continuous 6 lanes on I-64 thru the area, and if they don't like the Airport Drive cloverleaf then there should be room for C-D lanes on I-64 thru that interchange.

I have mixed feelings about this project. Usually I feel like a parclo is an improvement over a cloverleaf in most cases but in this particular situation I'm not so sure because of the railroad crossing here. A signal between the interchange and that crossing might complicate things a bit. (Also, it screws my own personal dream of Airport Drive south of here becoming a freeway in the future  :bigass:)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2018, 11:04:57 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on August 14, 2018, 09:02:53 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2018, 03:46:30 PM

However, I do not think there are any fjords in Virginia.

Only because they didn't hire Slartibartfast to design the state...

:-)

Though famed road tunnel designer, engineer and Norwegian Ole Singstad did work on the designs of the Commonwealth's Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel and late in his life, the Big Walker Mountain Tunnel (he died before Big Walker Mountain opened to traffic).  He may also have worked on the design of the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, but I am not certain about that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 14, 2018, 11:34:30 AM
Quote from: plain on August 14, 2018, 10:36:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 14, 2018, 12:38:12 AM
I went to the design public hearing and filled out a comment form and said that I oppose removing those two loops.  The weaving lanes IMO are long enough a cloverleaf is still adequate.  The ultimate plan is to widen I-64 to 6 lanes between Airport Drive and I-295 and to provide a continuous 6 lanes on I-64 thru the area, and if they don't like the Airport Drive cloverleaf then there should be room for C-D lanes on I-64 thru that interchange.
I have mixed feelings about this project. Usually I feel like a parclo is an improvement over a cloverleaf in most cases but in this particular situation I'm not so sure because of the railroad crossing here. A signal between the interchange and that crossing might complicate things a bit.

A cloverleaf with adequate merge lanes is well superior to a design that requires signals, two in this case.  I have serious issues with the "get rid of cloverleafs" movement.  Even short merge lanes can work adequately if they connect to C-D lanes and not the mainline.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 14, 2018, 02:22:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 14, 2018, 11:34:30 AM
Quote from: plain on August 14, 2018, 10:36:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 14, 2018, 12:38:12 AM
I went to the design public hearing and filled out a comment form and said that I oppose removing those two loops.  The weaving lanes IMO are long enough a cloverleaf is still adequate.  The ultimate plan is to widen I-64 to 6 lanes between Airport Drive and I-295 and to provide a continuous 6 lanes on I-64 thru the area, and if they don't like the Airport Drive cloverleaf then there should be room for C-D lanes on I-64 thru that interchange.
I have mixed feelings about this project. Usually I feel like a parclo is an improvement over a cloverleaf in most cases but in this particular situation I'm not so sure because of the railroad crossing here. A signal between the interchange and that crossing might complicate things a bit.

A cloverleaf with adequate merge lanes is well superior to a design that requires signals, two in this case.  I have serious issues with the "get rid of cloverleafs" movement.  Even short merge lanes can work adequately if they connect to C-D lanes and not the mainline.

Well, that's the thing...

Many cloverleafs, especially close-in urban, does indeed lack extended merge areas (most of the ones along VA 150 for example) which in those cases a parclo would be better. For large cloverleafs (like along I-295), the full clover is better, most of the time.

With this particular interchange on I-64, I could see the reasoning for a parclo given the fact that the added permanent lane on 64 WB originates from the loop ramp from the airport (instead of the ramp from Highland Springs).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 16, 2018, 04:40:29 PM
https://wtvr.com/2018/08/16/abnormal-sound-prompts-weight-restriction-inspection-at-norris-bridge/

I would say a 3-ton weight limit is pretty substantial, especially on a crossing as important as the Norris Bridge!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 16, 2018, 04:58:25 PM
Quote from: plain on August 16, 2018, 04:40:29 PM
https://wtvr.com/2018/08/16/abnormal-sound-prompts-weight-restriction-inspection-at-norris-bridge/

I would say a 3-ton weight limit is pretty substantial, especially on a crossing as important as the Norris Bridge!

I think it is time for the Commonwealth to figure out a way to fund the replacement of this crossing, given the (long) distance of detour required if it is not available to counties on the eastern end of the Northern Neck (Lancaster and Northumberland).  I was not aware that it is classified as a "fracture critical" structure until reading the linked report above.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 16, 2018, 05:22:54 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 16, 2018, 04:58:25 PM
Quote from: plain on August 16, 2018, 04:40:29 PM
https://wtvr.com/2018/08/16/abnormal-sound-prompts-weight-restriction-inspection-at-norris-bridge/
I would say a 3-ton weight limit is pretty substantial, especially on a crossing as important as the Norris Bridge!
I think it is time for the Commonwealth to figure out a way to fund the replacement of this crossing, given the (long) distance of detour required if it is not available to counties on the eastern end of the Northern Neck (Lancaster and Northumberland).  I was not aware that it is classified as a "fracture critical" structure until reading the linked report above.

That may be incorrect.  In any event, there was a lot of construction equipment on the bridge for a repaving operation.  The weight limits should be restored back to normal in a few days.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 16, 2018, 06:59:14 PM
There was a lot of construction equipment on the I-35W bridge too when it went down...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 16, 2018, 08:01:14 PM
When we went over the Norris Bridge on July 30, they were repaving and doing something with the barriers on the sides–there were what I'd describe as temporary wooden fences on each side of the roadway, at least on the northern half. Very odd-looking.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 16, 2018, 09:28:58 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 16, 2018, 06:59:14 PM
There was a lot of construction equipment on the I-35W bridge too when it went down...

That was a major part of what caused the collapse --

Collapse of I-35W Highway Bridge
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HAR0803.aspx

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was the inadequate load capacity, due to a design error by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., of the gusset plates at the U10 nodes, which failed under a combination of (1) substantial increases in the weight of the bridge, which resulted from previous bridge modifications, and (2) the traffic and concentrated construction loads on the bridge on the day of the collapse.  Contributing to the design error was the failure of Sverdrup & Parcel's quality control procedures to ensure that the appropriate main truss gusset plate calculations were performed for the I-35W bridge and the inadequate design review by Federal and State transportation officials.  Contributing to the accident was the generally accepted practice among Federal and State transportation officials of giving inadequate attention to gusset plates during inspections for conditions of distortion, such as bowing, and of excluding gusset plates in load rating analyses.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2018, 10:29:40 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 16, 2018, 05:22:54 PM
That may be incorrect.  In any event, there was a lot of construction equipment on the bridge for a repaving operation.  The weight limits should be restored back to normal in a few days.

Even if tolls have to be charged, I think the time may have come to replace this structure. It seems to have had some sort of construction or repair work going on every time I drive that way (which is not very often). 

I remember crossing it as a child when there was a toll to cross (might have been 50¢ or maybe $1 back then).  The very modest toll barrier was at the north end of the structure.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 17, 2018, 11:54:12 AM
The bridge will have to be replaced sometime in the next 15-20 years given the issues it has, but finding the money to do so will be challenging (VDOT is already set to spend $3 billion+ on the HRBT expansion). And yes, tolls will almost certainly be a must.

This is what states with very expensive infrastructure like Maryland and Virginia has to deal with constantly (Maryland didn't remove much of its tolls like Virginia did, though).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on August 17, 2018, 01:37:52 PM
Quote from: plain on August 17, 2018, 11:54:12 AM
The bridge will have to be replaced sometime in the next 15-20 years given the issues it has, but finding the money to do so will be challenging (VDOT is already set to spend $3 billion+ on the HRBT expansion). And yes, tolls will almost certainly be a must.

This is what states with very expensive infrastructure like Maryland and Virginia has to deal with constantly (Maryland didn't remove much of its tolls like Virginia did, though).
One analogous toll free situation in Maryland would be replacing the MD 4 bridge over the Patuxent River.  This bridge is not as old.  The upgrade is needed for lack of capacity.  But it does have an alternative that is an extra 50 miles long. 
http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=SM3511118

Of course the analogous tolled situation would be the US 301 Potomac River bridge. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 17, 2018, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2018, 10:29:40 AM
[VA-3 Robert O. Norris Bridge]

Even if tolls have to be charged, I think the time may have come to replace this structure. It seems to have had some sort of construction or repair work going on every time I drive that way (which is not very often). 

Just the two recent rehab projects, repainting and servicing the truss structure, and repaving the roadway.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2018, 10:29:40 AM
I remember crossing it as a child when there was a toll to cross (might have been 50¢ or maybe $1 back then).  The very modest toll barrier was at the north end of the structure.

The bridge cost something like $15 million to build in 1957.  We're looking at something like $200 million today to build a 2.2 mile 2-lane high level bridge.  I would opt for system preseravtion on this bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2018, 03:16:45 PM
Quote from: BrianP on August 17, 2018, 01:37:52 PM
Quote from: plain on August 17, 2018, 11:54:12 AM
The bridge will have to be replaced sometime in the next 15-20 years given the issues it has, but finding the money to do so will be challenging (VDOT is already set to spend $3 billion+ on the HRBT expansion). And yes, tolls will almost certainly be a must.

This is what states with very expensive infrastructure like Maryland and Virginia has to deal with constantly (Maryland didn't remove much of its tolls like Virginia did, though).
One analogous toll free situation in Maryland would be replacing the MD 4 bridge over the Patuxent River.  This bridge is not as old.  The upgrade is needed for lack of capacity.  But it does have an alternative that is an extra 50 miles long. 
http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=SM3511118

Of course the analogous tolled situation would be the US 301 Potomac River bridge.

The Thomas Johnson Bridge should be twinned or replaced for the operational reasons you mention.  I have never been  stuck there, though I have gotten  stuck in massive backups at the the U.S. 301 Harry W. Nice Bridge more than once - for construction as well as for crashes or a disabled vehicle. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 22, 2018, 09:53:19 PM
I see this project is now under construction.  It is in the VDOT Six-Year Program but is locally adminstered so the contract was awarded by the City of Richmond.  The segment is 0.7 miles of 4-lane undivided arterial and will be widened in part to 5 lanes and in part to 4 lanes divided.  The segment is accident prone mainly due to not having a left turn lane.  There was some controversy as about 20 homeowners will lose part of their front yards.  I live 1/2 mile from here on another local street.

Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project
http://www.richmondgov.com/PublicWorks/ForestHillImprovementProject.aspx

Quotes:

The city is currently developing construction plans for the Forest Hill Avenue Improvements project from the Powhite Parkway to Hathaway Road.  The goal for the project is to provide multimodal improvements through the corridor to improve safety and enhance livability along Forest Hill Avenue.

Federal funds will pay for the total project estimated to cost $12 million.
The current design phase is estimated to cost about $2 million.
Utility relocation and right of way is estimated at $1.5 million.
Construction will cost approximately $8.5 million.

Forest Hill Avenue is an urban minor arterial road serving regional traffic and the surrounding neighborhoods and the surrounding businesses.  It connects two major limited access highways, the Powhite Parkway and Chippenham Parkway and includes a significant business corridor.  The busy roadway carries and average daily traffic volume in excess of 33,000 vehicles (2009) and design year traffic of 44,400 vpd (2030).  Traffic projections severely impact safety and accessibility if no improvements are made.  With the recommended enhancements, the new roadway will provide a safe, multi-modal corridor for all users and improve livability.

Satellite-View Map
http://www.richmondgov.com/PublicWorks/images/mapForestHillProject.jpg
....

FOREST HILL AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=244&line_item_id=37328
....

Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project Lane Closures Start August 20th
https://rvahub.com/2018/08/17/forest-hill-avenue-improvement-project-lane-closures-start-august-20th/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 23, 2018, 11:20:17 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 22, 2018, 09:53:19 PM
I see this project is now under construction.  It is in the VDOT Six-Year Program but is locally adminstered so the contract was awarded by the City of Richmond.  The segment is 0.7 miles of 4-lane undivided arterial and will be widened in part to 5 lanes and in part to 4 lanes divided.  The segment is accident prone mainly due to not having a left turn lane.  There was some controversy as about 20 homeowners will lose part of their front yards.  I live 1/2 mile from here on another local street.

Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project
http://www.richmondgov.com/PublicWorks/ForestHillImprovementProject.aspx

Quotes:

The city is currently developing construction plans for the Forest Hill Avenue Improvements project from the Powhite Parkway to Hathaway Road.  The goal for the project is to provide multimodal improvements through the corridor to improve safety and enhance livability along Forest Hill Avenue.

Federal funds will pay for the total project estimated to cost $12 million.
The current design phase is estimated to cost about $2 million.
Utility relocation and right of way is estimated at $1.5 million.
Construction will cost approximately $8.5 million.

Forest Hill Avenue is an urban minor arterial road serving regional traffic and the surrounding neighborhoods and the surrounding businesses.  It connects two major limited access highways, the Powhite Parkway and Chippenham Parkway and includes a significant business corridor.  The busy roadway carries and average daily traffic volume in excess of 33,000 vehicles (2009) and design year traffic of 44,400 vpd (2030).  Traffic projections severely impact safety and accessibility if no improvements are made.  With the recommended enhancements, the new roadway will provide a safe, multi-modal corridor for all users and improve livability.

Satellite-View Map
http://www.richmondgov.com/PublicWorks/images/mapForestHillProject.jpg
....

FOREST HILL AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=244&line_item_id=37328
....

Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project Lane Closures Start August 20th
https://rvahub.com/2018/08/17/forest-hill-avenue-improvement-project-lane-closures-start-august-20th/


I remember the many, many "S.O.S. - Save Our Street!" signs in front yards along this stretch. Unfortunately for them, these improvements are sorely needed and have been for a while now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 23, 2018, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 23, 2018, 11:20:17 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 22, 2018, 09:53:19 PM
Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project Lane Closures Start August 20th
I remember the many, many "S.O.S. - Save Our Street!" signs in front yards along this stretch. Unfortunately for them, these improvements are sorely needed and have been for a while now.

The utility relocations look almost complete.  Poles and overhead lines moved back.  Long and very tedious construction of a new natural gas line under Forest Hill Avenue with the trenching and placement and backfilling and repaving.  The new natural gas line work has proceeded westward and now has passed beyond where WalMart is, and the contractor has been very slow and the work has taken a year and a half and the lane closures have really caused ongoing traffic congestion although normally not closed in peak hours.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 23, 2018, 01:50:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 23, 2018, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 23, 2018, 11:20:17 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 22, 2018, 09:53:19 PM
Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project Lane Closures Start August 20th
I remember the many, many "S.O.S. - Save Our Street!" signs in front yards along this stretch. Unfortunately for them, these improvements are sorely needed and have been for a while now.

The utility relocations look almost complete.  Poles and overhead lines moved back.  Long and very tedious construction of a new natural gas line under Forest Hill Avenue with the trenching and placement and backfilling and repaving.  The new natural gas line work has proceeded westward and now has passed beyond where WalMart is, and the contractor has been very slow and the work has taken a year and a half and the lane closures have really caused ongoing traffic congestion although normally not closed in peak hours.

I was just about to say I thought they started this last year. They really seem to be dragging their heels with this project (though the rain didn't help things at all either).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 23, 2018, 02:38:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 23, 2018, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 23, 2018, 11:20:17 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 22, 2018, 09:53:19 PM
Forest Hill Avenue Improvement Project Lane Closures Start August 20th
I remember the many, many "S.O.S. - Save Our Street!" signs in front yards along this stretch. Unfortunately for them, these improvements are sorely needed and have been for a while now.

The utility relocations look almost complete.  Poles and overhead lines moved back.  Long and very tedious construction of a new natural gas line under Forest Hill Avenue with the trenching and placement and backfilling and repaving.  The new natural gas line work has proceeded westward and now has passed beyond where WalMart is, and the contractor has been very slow and the work has taken a year and a half and the lane closures have really caused ongoing traffic congestion although normally not closed in peak hours.

The segment of Forest Hill Avenue by the Walmart has been pretty hairy during rush hour as of late, mainly due to people changing lanes at the last minute to avoid driving over steel plates. I go this way during my commute home, and it's definitely proven really annoying how slowly the contractor has been working on this project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mtantillo on August 24, 2018, 11:39:22 PM
Quote from: plain on August 14, 2018, 10:36:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 14, 2018, 12:38:12 AM
Quote from: plain on August 13, 2018, 10:56:20 PM
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-64_bridge_replacements_over_airport_dr..asp
VDOT wants to rebuild the I-64 bridges over VA 156 (Exit 197 Airport Drive). But more importantly they will also convert the existing cloverleaf interchange there into a Parclo interchange.

I went to the design public hearing and filled out a comment form and said that I oppose removing those two loops.  The weaving lanes IMO are long enough a cloverleaf is still adequate.  The ultimate plan is to widen I-64 to 6 lanes between Airport Drive and I-295 and to provide a continuous 6 lanes on I-64 thru the area, and if they don't like the Airport Drive cloverleaf then there should be room for C-D lanes on I-64 thru that interchange.

I have mixed feelings about this project. Usually I feel like a parclo is an improvement over a cloverleaf in most cases but in this particular situation I'm not so sure because of the railroad crossing here. A signal between the interchange and that crossing might complicate things a bit. (Also, it screws my own personal dream of Airport Drive south of here becoming a freeway in the future  :bigass:)

I attended a session at the VASITE conference in Virginia Beach back in June that discussed cloverleaf removals. Believe it or not, sometime removing a cloverleaf and pushing traffic through a signal can actually increase the capacity of the roadway network by allowing the ramp movements to be multi-lane. Also, it is far, far, far safer for two groups of users: 1) non-motorized users....peds, bikes. They have a hard time crossing cloverleaf ramps as people drive pretty fast on those ramps. The days of designing solely for cars are over. 2) Those who need to immediately cross all the lanes...those people who enter the cross road on the right at speed and need to make a left soon thereafter will be forced to cut across lots of lanes. If they have the signal or even if they make a right on red, they're doing so at very low speed which gives more time to make lane changes to the left.

The one performance measure that suffers with signalized ramps is travel time for those entering or exiting. But VDOT seemed okay with the idea of increasing travel time if it would increase system capacity and improve safety. Most drivers only encounter one or two places on a trip where they exit or enter a highway, while they encounter many signals on arterials that they travel straight through. Thus it is better to prioritize the through movements at the expense of the ramp or side streets, as overall it will lead to more efficient traffic flow.

I was skeptical when i went into this presentation, but was sold after it was over. The authors made a convincing argument and had numbers to back it up.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on August 24, 2018, 11:47:42 PM
*skeptical*
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 24, 2018, 11:49:28 PM
<<< sometimes removing a cloverleaf and pushing traffic through a signal can actually increase the capacity of the roadway network >>>

Sure, check out the I-95 interchanges near Melbourne, Florida, they were built in the 1960s as diamond design, later, development was allowed that prevented their expansion to cloverleaf.

Later improved to having massive long finger ramps 3 to 4 lanes wide especially at the signal.  Plenty of throughput but the signals incur a lot of delay.  These are not optimum designs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 25, 2018, 09:41:42 AM
Something not mentioned is that converting from a full cloverleaf to a partial also eliminates the weaving sections between the loop ramps.  That can be a big safety improvement, especially on the freeway mainline.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 25, 2018, 11:22:10 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 25, 2018, 09:41:42 AM
Something not mentioned is that converting from a full cloverleaf to a partial also eliminates the weaving sections between the loop ramps.  That can be a big safety improvement, especially on the freeway mainline.

That has been mentioned numerous times in the past.  The problem is that it creates new at-grade intersections which have their own safety problems.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on August 25, 2018, 05:47:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 25, 2018, 11:22:10 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 25, 2018, 09:41:42 AM
Something not mentioned is that converting from a full cloverleaf to a partial also eliminates the weaving sections between the loop ramps.  That can be a big safety improvement, especially on the freeway mainline.

That has been mentioned numerous times in the past.  The problem is that it creates new at-grade intersections which have their own safety problems.
Depends on the design. If you can do it with left turns from the cross street into the ramps that is, IMO, much safer than left turns coming off the ramps. You only have to look one direction, and even if channelized entries are provided you have left merges.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 25, 2018, 09:18:19 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 25, 2018, 05:47:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 25, 2018, 11:22:10 AM
The problem is that it creates new at-grade intersections which have their own safety problems.
Depends on the design. If you can do it with left turns from the cross street into the ramps that is, IMO, much safer than left turns coming off the ramps. You only have to look one direction, and even if channelized entries are provided you have left merges.

Not sure what 'left turns coming off the ramps' means.  A properly designed cloverleaf would not have that.  If a local road intersection with the arterial was too close to the interchange then I could see where someone entering the arterial from a loop ramp might have to weave quickly to the left lane so that he can turn left onto the local road.  Is that what was meant?  If so that is a design problem on the arterial.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on August 26, 2018, 02:26:48 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 25, 2018, 09:18:19 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 25, 2018, 05:47:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 25, 2018, 11:22:10 AM
The problem is that it creates new at-grade intersections which have their own safety problems.
Depends on the design. If you can do it with left turns from the cross street into the ramps that is, IMO, much safer than left turns coming off the ramps. You only have to look one direction, and even if channelized entries are provided you have left merges.

Not sure what 'left turns coming off the ramps' means.  A properly designed cloverleaf would not have that.  If a local road intersection with the arterial was too close to the interchange then I could see where someone entering the arterial from a loop ramp might have to weave quickly to the left lane so that he can turn left onto the local road.  Is that what was meant?  If so that is a design problem on the arterial.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8127.0

My opinion is that a B-4 is safer than an A-4, because you only cross one stream of traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: J N Winkler on August 26, 2018, 10:31:11 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 26, 2018, 02:26:48 AMMy opinion is that a B-4 is safer than an A-4, because you only cross one stream of traffic.

The tradeoff is that B4 creates a situation on the freeway mainline where a link exit ramp is followed in rapid succession by a loop exit ramp.  This can cause operational difficulties when lane drops are involved or inadequate facilities for speed change are provided.  IIRC, one of the early AASHO design references (Blue Book?) said it was preferable that the design speed of an exit ramp be at least 75% of the design speed of the mainline.  While the safety drawbacks of loop ramps can be mitigated by signing, I am not aware systematic investigations have determined the largest achievable extent of mitigation through this means or the optimum signing strategy for it.  This is an area in which large variations in practice are seen among the states.  The B4 design has the added disadvantage in that advance signing for the easy link ramp can obscure signing for the difficult loop ramp immediately following.

Depending on how traffic is distributed among ramps, it is possible to end up in a situation where A4 offers better safety performance than B4 despite its disadvantages in ramp terminal design.

I am not aware of any freeways with chains of parclo B4 interchanges.  However, there are multiple examples of freeways with chains of parclo A4 interchanges, including SR 99 through Bakersfield, California and the 401 through Greater Toronto.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 26, 2018, 08:45:07 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 26, 2018, 10:31:11 AM
Depending on how traffic is distributed among ramps, it is possible to end up in a situation where A4 offers better safety performance than B4 despite its disadvantages in ramp terminal design.

Surely there are a few cases where deconstructing a cloverleaf would be an improvement.  Just that it would be rare and I don't know of any such personally.

The I-64/VA-156 project that started this discussion would be the latter.  I attended the Design Public Hearing a couple years ago and made my opinions known to the project engineers and by a written public comment.  There is ample room within the finger ramps to build larger loops with longer weaving lanes, and there is ample room to install C-D roadways to intercept the mainline ramp terminal movements.  The design would also need to accommodate the planned future 6-lane widening of I-64 between VA-156 and I-295, and given the large size of that project maybe that would be the best time to perform the upgrade to the interchange. 

The I-64 bridges over VA-156 do need to be replaced soon, but they could be built to whatever future width is needed just like the nearby recently replaced Nine Mile Road bridges over I-64 (3 lanes and two 12-foot shoulders each way).

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 26, 2018, 10:05:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 26, 2018, 08:45:07 PM
Surely there are a few cases where deconstructing a cloverleaf would be an improvement.  Just that it would be rare and I don't know of any such personally.

One particular Richmond area cloverleaf that comes to my mind as being hazardous is the I-95@VA-73(Parham Road) interchange. The loops from Westbound VA-73 to Southbound I-95 and from I-95 Southbound to Eastbound VA-73 are way too tight(15 and 20mph) with minimal weave space in between. IMO a DDI would work better here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6363456,-77.4517262,471m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 26, 2018, 11:20:50 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 26, 2018, 10:05:08 PM
One particular Richmond area cloverleaf that comes to my mind as being hazardous is the I-95@VA-73(Parham Road) interchange. The loops from Westbound VA-73 to Southbound I-95 and from I-95 Southbound to Eastbound VA-73 are way too tight(15 and 20mph) with minimal weave space in between. IMO a DDI would work better here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6363456,-77.4517262,471m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0

Agreed.  There is plenty of open land that could be acquired to expand those two loops to near what is on the northbound side, without a DDI.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
I've been visiting my mother in DC for the last week. She lives in Arlington, and I've spent a fair bit of time driving around Arlington and Alexandria (as well as inside the district). A few observations:

- Bizarre gap in driver speeds on non-Interstates. Some are very quick, yet some are very slow, and don't keep up with traffic. In Seattle, it's very unusual to see cars go below the limit; not here
- Interstate limits don't seem to match driver speeds (55 on I-66, but most cars were going 70+)
- Road quality is pretty good, though some of the roads around Arlington Cemetery aren't that great
- Lots of Clearview, many in negative contrast situations. Some of the brown NPS signage has a lot of Clearview, too (including shields)
- Remarkable amount of "YIELD - NO MERGE AREA" situations (old roads being chief contributor to that, I suppose). Very few of these in Seattle
- Taxi's are the slowest drivers by a mile
- Court House and Rosslyn are extremely walkable (probably like other areas around DC)
- Drivers seem to dive into the non-merge lane pretty quick (though not always). In Seattle, you use the merge lane until it ends

On my drive down to Charlottesville...

- Really awesome speed limits on secondary (two lane) routes. Most felt sufficient. Delaware and Maryland also seem to have good two-lane limits.
- Rural freeway limits felt low, but weren't unreasonable. No one going 80, for reasons I've been previously made aware...
- Awesome farm scenery
- Freeway signage: love the round corners (I hope these aren't being discontinued)
- Related to a note above, drivers seem to merge way before the lane ends. In one situation, drivers merged left about two miles before a crash on I-64, despite no signs indicating any closed lanes. I stayed in the "closed" lane, but when I arrived at the crash area, the lane was open. Bit of a lemming situation that would be rectified by drivers using all available lanes until merging becomes physically necessary
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 27, 2018, 12:38:11 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Court House and Rosslyn are extremely walkable (probably like other areas around DC)

Metrorail Vienna Route passes under that area, completed out to Vienna since 1986.  Lots of high density development enabled in that whole corridor from Rosslyn to Ballston.  Court House and Rosslyn are now part of the urban core of the D.C. area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 27, 2018, 08:21:01 AM
Many people in Virginia are determined to get over early. During heavy traffic periods it's common to see people stopping at the beginning of the merge lane trying to shove over–but on the other hand, in some locations it's then common to see people in the thru lanes moving right to use the merge lane to pass stopped traffic (very common on I-395, especially near the Pentagon).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 27, 2018, 09:25:41 AM
Yeah traffic in this state has been bad for so long that most Virginians know when and where the backups begin so we maneuver accordingly. This is why it's common to see traffic stacked into particular lane(s) well before the desired exit or split.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2018, 01:57:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
I've been visiting my mother in DC for the last week. She lives in Arlington, and I've spent a fair bit of time driving around Arlington and Alexandria (as well as inside the district). A few observations:

- Bizarre gap in driver speeds on non-Interstates. Some are very quick, yet some are very slow, and don't keep up with traffic. In Seattle, it's very unusual to see cars go below the limit; not here

I think it  depends on where you are.  Municipalities with  notoriously strict speed limit enforcement, especially in Virginia (City of Falls Church and Towns of Leesburg, Vienna and Haymarket) experience that.  There are plenty of speed cameras in D.C. too.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Interstate limits don't seem to match driver speeds (55 on I-66, but most cars were going 70+)

A bigger problem on the Capital Beltway, especially Prince George's County, Maryland where the design speed was 70 MPH (and most of it posted 70 prior to 1973), yet the 55 remains from the days of NMSL.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Road quality is pretty good, though some of the roads around Arlington Cemetery aren't that great

In the cemetery, the maintenance is by the federal government, as are some roads leading up to it.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Lots of Clearview, many in negative contrast situations. Some of the brown NPS signage has a lot of Clearview, too (including shields)

I am not aware of any of the NPS parkways having brown signs with Clearview or FHWA, except for a few panels approaching MD-32 in Anne Arundel County.

There are green signs with FHWA at places where there are interchanges between the parkways and Interstate highways. 

What you  might have seen on the parkways that looks a little like Clearview is the NPS standard sign font, NPS Rawlinson - or its predecessor Clarendon.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Remarkable amount of "YIELD - NO MERGE AREA" situations (old roads being chief contributor to that, I suppose). Very few of these in Seattle

Less than there used to be, fortunately.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Taxi's are the slowest drivers by a mile

Not always. Some cab drivers have lead feet.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Court House and Rosslyn are extremely walkable (probably like other areas around DC)

Arlington is arguably the most walkable place in metropolitan Washington.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Drivers seem to dive into the non-merge lane pretty quick (though not always). In Seattle, you use the merge lane until it ends

Many D.C. drivers speed-up to prevent merging drivers from getting in front of them.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
On my drive down to Charlottesville...

South of Culpeper, the Greene County, Virginia Sheriff's Office used to run a fair amount of predatory speed limit  enforcement on U.S. 29.  Maybe less these days.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Really awesome speed limits on secondary (two lane) routes. Most felt sufficient. Delaware and Maryland also seem to have good two-lane limits.

Often 50 MPH or 55 MPH.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Rural freeway limits felt low, but weren't unreasonable. No one going 80, for reasons I've been previously made aware...

80 MPH or higher is a very bad idea in Virginia.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Awesome farm scenery

Close to D.C., those are probably mostly hobby farms owned by  wealthy lobbyists, lawyers and physicians.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Freeway signage: love the round corners (I hope these aren't being discontinued)

In Virginia, but  installs in past 10 years not so much.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Related to a note above, drivers seem to merge way before the lane ends. In one situation, drivers merged left about two miles before a crash on I-64, despite no signs indicating any closed lanes. I stayed in the "closed" lane, but when I arrived at the crash area, the lane was open. Bit of a lemming situation that would be rectified by drivers using all available lanes until merging becomes physically necessary

See above - some drivers speed-up to deter a lane change in front of them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 27, 2018, 02:34:00 PM
Some of the all-caps text on the bottom lines of the brown signs in the GW Parkway certainly looks like Clearview.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 02:41:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2018, 12:38:11 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
- Court House and Rosslyn are extremely walkable (probably like other areas around DC)

Metrorail Vienna Route passes under that area, completed out to Vienna since 1986.  Lots of high density development enabled in that whole corridor from Rosslyn to Ballston.  Court House and Rosslyn are now part of the urban core of the D.C. area.

They've done a very good job with that metro, minus construction and maintenance delays. The past week, I've been kept waiting quite a bit due to 20 minute trains. Faster to walk from Court House to Rosslyn (until today).

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 27, 2018, 08:21:01 AM
Many people in Virginia are determined to get over early. During heavy traffic periods it's common to see people stopping at the beginning of the merge lane trying to shove over–but on the other hand, in some locations it's then common to see people in the thru lanes moving right to use the merge lane to pass stopped traffic (very common on I-395, especially near the Pentagon).

In my I-64 situation, that's what I started seeing once I went past in the "merge lane". I think people we're so focused on merging, they didn't bother to notice the total lack of signage indicating any lane closures.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 27, 2018, 02:34:00 PM
Some of the all-caps text on the bottom lines of the brown signs in the GW Parkway certainly looks like Clearview.

That's where I've been seeing it, as that's where I've been doing 90% of my driving. I'll try to find a a way over there on foot, as I think the blue metro line train is out.

cpzilliacus, if I could more easily quote your post on mobile, I would address you directly. Please see my above response to 1995hoo.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 27, 2018, 02:45:05 PM
The Blue Line is back in service along its full route as of today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 03:57:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 27, 2018, 02:45:05 PM
The Blue Line is back in service along its full route as of today.

Just managed to catch one.

Here's some of the signage I was talking about. Only what I could reach on foot:

(https://i.imgur.com/DzlKa30.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/5LCpZ76.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 27, 2018, 04:08:28 PM
Petersburg has replaced most of its VA 36 shields with US shields in recent months. Some are two-digit shields and some are three-digit shields, so I have to imagine there's some sort of cost-cutting factor going into this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 27, 2018, 04:37:56 PM
Quote from: Takumi on August 27, 2018, 04:08:28 PM
Petersburg has replaced most of its VA 36 shields with US shields in recent months. Some are two-digit shields and some are three-digit shields, so I have to imagine there's some sort of cost-cutting factor going into this.

It's Petersburg, so that's hardly a surprise. I might have to go get some pictures.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 27, 2018, 05:55:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 26, 2018, 08:45:07 PM
Surely there are a few cases where deconstructing a cloverleaf would be an improvement.  Just that it would be rare and I don't know of any such personally.

The world's first cloverleaf at US-1&9/NJ-35 was deconstructed due to tight ramps. Other examples tended to be between high speed roadways where loop ramps were replaced with flyovers to fix weaving problems.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 27, 2018, 06:29:02 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 27, 2018, 05:55:02 PM
The world's first cloverleaf at US-1&9/NJ-35 was deconstructed due to tight ramps. Other examples tended to be between high speed roadways where loop ramps were replaced with flyovers to fix weaving problems.

Replacing a loop ramp with a semi-directional ramp is an upgrade, no deconstruction there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 27, 2018, 07:48:45 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2018, 01:57:21 PM
....

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 12:18:39 AM
On my drive down to Charlottesville...

South of Culpeper, the Greene County, Virginia Sheriff's Office used to run a fair amount of predatory speed limit  enforcement on U.S. 29.  Maybe less these days.

....

The worst place used to be Madison County on the southbound straightaway just north of the Bavarian Chef: https://goo.gl/maps/dwNu9sTADsH2  I don't know whether it's better now because I don't usually take Route 29 to Charlottesville (it's out of the way), but when I was in school there, everybody knew about the speedtrap there, yet everyone (myself not included) kept getting pulled over anyway, which never made any sense to me. I know that flat straightaway makes it easy to want to go 70+ mph, but when you know the area is a speedtrap, why would you do that?!!! Good spot to set the cruise control a tick above the speed limit, which I believe is now 60 mph (it was 55 during my college days), and let someone else show off how fast he thinks his car is.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2018, 10:15:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 03:57:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 27, 2018, 02:45:05 PM
The Blue Line is back in service along its full route as of today.

Just managed to catch one.

Here's some of the signage I was talking about. Only what I could reach on foot:

(https://i.imgur.com/DzlKa30.jpg)

The top line (including the numerics) look like Frutiger, which resembles in some ways Clearview.

The middle and bottom lines appear to be NPS Rawlinson.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on August 27, 2018, 11:36:10 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2018, 10:15:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2018, 03:57:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 27, 2018, 02:45:05 PM
The Blue Line is back in service along its full route as of today.

Just managed to catch one.

Here's some of the signage I was talking about. Only what I could reach on foot:

(https://i.imgur.com/DzlKa30.jpg)

The top line (including the numerics) look like Frutiger, which resembles in some ways Clearview.

The middle and bottom lines appear to be NPS Rawlinson.


That's not Frutiger. I work with Frutiger.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2018, 11:44:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 27, 2018, 11:36:10 PM
That's not Frutiger. I work with Frutiger.

Clearview?  NPS Rawlinson is the "main" font for NPS application, but Frutiger is also approved for NPS sign application.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on August 28, 2018, 12:31:18 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2018, 11:44:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 27, 2018, 11:36:10 PM
That's not Frutiger. I work with Frutiger.

Clearview?  NPS Rawlinson is the "main" font for NPS application, but Frutiger is also approved for NPS sign application.
I guess I should clarify that it's not in the Frutiger family I'm familiar with. It's such a large family I can't say for certain. On Frutiger 1s, the numeral terminates vertically, not perpendicular to the top stroke. This could be a cheaper knockoff. Clearview is a distinct possibility though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on August 28, 2018, 09:44:25 AM
For me, the difference between Clearview and Frutiger 1's is the length of the top stroke. Frutiger's seem shorter. The photo I posted above (and the one on the last page) seems to have a longer top stroke, equal to that of Clearview.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 28, 2018, 12:13:53 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2018, 12:31:18 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2018, 11:44:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 27, 2018, 11:36:10 PM
That's not Frutiger. I work with Frutiger.

Clearview?  NPS Rawlinson is the "main" font for NPS application, but Frutiger is also approved for NPS sign application.
I guess I should clarify that it's not in the Frutiger family I'm familiar with. It's such a large family I can't say for certain. On Frutiger 1s, the numeral terminates vertically, not perpendicular to the top stroke. This could be a cheaper knockoff. Clearview is a distinct possibility though.

According to the NPS Web site (here (https://hfc.nps.gov/services/identity/typefaces.cfm)), they use Adobe Frutiger Std (maybe not the same Frutiger version that you have worked with?) in addition to NPS Rawlinson. 

And NPS still uses FHWA at places where there are direct interchanges between parkways and Interstates - and regulatory  signs (such as speed limits and most others defined by the MUTCD) also use FHWA.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on August 28, 2018, 07:21:20 PM
The Salem District has a new representative on the Commonwealth Transportation Board (may he be more responsive that Rosen, whom he replaced). Ray Smoot was appointed to the seat vacated by Court Rosen of Roanoke, who resigned from the board after an Aug. 5 drunken-driving arrest. Blacksburg and Montgomery County residents were quite unhappy with Rosen (who was an at-large member of the CTB at the time) and William Fralin (Salem District rep at the time) for pretty much ignoring them and their concerns over the controversial R-cut project at N. Main St. and U.S. 460. Smoot (who is an acquaintance) is retired from Virginia Tech and is an advocate for extending Amtrak service to Christiansburg from its current terminus in Roanoke. He is also aware of the transportation needs of Southwest Virginia, especially I-81, and for the rest of the state.

See https://www.roanoke.com/business/news/smoot-picked-for-former-rosen-slot-on-state-transportation-board/article_d574c4ab-f43f-5823-ba16-34da5c776dca.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 28, 2018, 09:49:57 PM
In my travels through Virginia last week, I noticed more and more extruded-panel guide signs have been installed. Is VDOT giving contractors the option of installing extruded-panel or the piece-together type of signs?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2018, 10:59:51 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 28, 2018, 09:49:57 PM
In my travels through Virginia last week, I noticed more and more extruded-panel guide signs have been installed. Is VDOT giving contractors the option of installing extruded-panel or the piece-together type of signs?

Northern Virginia District (where I log most of my miles on the Commonwealth's highways) has installed a lot of Maryland-style extruded over the past 5 to 10 years.  It was a shock to see that style of panel in Virginia the first time (on northbound I-395 (Shirley Highway) near the Pentagon in Arlington County).

I do not know if the contract documents called for that style or if the contractor was able to make the choice.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Old Dominionite on August 29, 2018, 07:55:49 PM
Most of the extruded signs I see in Virginia are related to the HOT lanes, although - like you - I've seen more of them appear on other state roads.

The use of extruded signs in Virginia doesn't bother me.  I grew up in Connecticut where they were (and remain) ubiquitous.  What does bother me in Virginia is the Clearview vomit across the Commonwealth, and how it will take many years to "clean up."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 29, 2018, 08:26:02 PM
I see more and more extruded sign panels in the Richmond area.  My weekly walk across the Potterfield Bridge takes me across the Downtown Expressway and a few feet from one as I walk across an overpass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 29, 2018, 08:55:32 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on August 29, 2018, 07:55:49 PM
Most of the extruded signs I see in Virginia are related to the HOT lanes, although - like you - I've seen more of them appear on other state roads.

The use of extruded signs in Virginia doesn't bother me.  I grew up in Connecticut where they were (and remain) ubiquitous.  What does bother me in Virginia is the Clearview vomit across the Commonwealth, and how it will take many years to "clean up."

Now that Clearview is approved again, it may start reappearing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on August 29, 2018, 11:33:49 PM
In driving around the last week, my opinion so far is that Clearview is pretty well used in VA. Very few signs where the typeface was poorly sized, etc.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 30, 2018, 10:46:42 AM
Virginia generally does a pretty good job with Clearview signage nowadays - or at least, in the most recent signage they've posted since the approval was initially rescinded and they reverted to FHWA. It really doesn't look bad at all.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 30, 2018, 11:28:51 AM
I just thought of something this morning. Was there ever a proposal to add some extra ramps at Exit 41 on I-95?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/37°04'54.0%22N+77°21'17.0%22W/@37.0829007,-77.3602565,2987m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d37.081667!4d-77.354722?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/place/37%C3%82%C2%B004'54.0%22N+77%C3%82%C2%B021'17.0%22W/@37.0829007,-77.3602565,2987m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d37.081667!4d-77.354722?hl=en)

I'm looking above at the interchange, and it seems like the could've added some extra south to north off and on-ramps but strictly for the northbound lanes. There seems to be some extra room for a loop ramp from southbound VA 35 to northbound I-95, but considering the angle of the US 301/VA 35 overlap there, the loop ramp would still probably require too sharp of a turn.

An on-ramp from US 301/VA 156 to the existing northbound on-ramp looks like it could've been possible though.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 30, 2018, 11:44:31 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 30, 2018, 11:28:51 AM
I just thought of something this morning. Was there ever a proposal to add some extra ramps at Exit 41 on I-95?

Not that I ever heard.  Presumably the reason for building the loop ramp was because the original US-301 passed in front of the motels and an I-95 finger ramp would have gone right thru the motels.  Traffic volumes are low on those ramps.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 30, 2018, 01:28:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 30, 2018, 11:44:31 AM
Traffic volumes are low on those ramps.
Yes, I see that.


In the meantime, one exit north, I see that VDOT is building a traffic circle at the southbound off-ramp and US 301.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1436655,-77.3578945,741m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 30, 2018, 03:25:56 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 30, 2018, 01:28:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 30, 2018, 11:44:31 AM
Traffic volumes are low on those ramps.
Yes, I see that.
In the meantime, one exit north, I see that VDOT is building a traffic circle at the southbound off-ramp and US 301.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1436655,-77.3578945,741m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Good place.  I don't know the traffic volumes, but that seems to be approaching traffic signal warrants.  There are 13 businesses including 7 motels right near the interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 30, 2018, 03:35:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 30, 2018, 11:44:31 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 30, 2018, 11:28:51 AM
I just thought of something this morning. Was there ever a proposal to add some extra ramps at Exit 41 on I-95?

Not that I ever heard.  Presumably the reason for building the loop ramp was because the original US-301 passed in front of the motels and an I-95 finger ramp would have gone right thru the motels.  Traffic volumes are low on those ramps.

By the time I-95 came along, 301 was using what is now the I-95 carriageway through the interchange, while the original 301 became VA 35Y, which is mostly to the left of the I-95 NB off-ramp (easily seen in 1968 aerials).  The constructed loop ramp was probably to avoid having to tear down the motel in the NW quadrant of that interchange whereas a loop on either quadrant across the interstate would've required tearing down homes/row of hotels.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2F35y_1963.jpg&hash=c1e6e0a672c8a0ab47e22020a17d7bfe4a341e8a)
1963 Prince George County map
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 30, 2018, 03:44:21 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 30, 2018, 03:35:12 PM
By the time I-95 came along, 301 was using what is now the I-95 carriageway through the interchange, while the original 301 became VA 35Y, which is mostly to the left of the I-95 NB off-ramp (easily seen in 1968 aerials).  The constructed loop ramp was probably to avoid having to tear down the motel in the NW quadrant of that interchange whereas a loop on either quadrant across the interstate would've required tearing down homes/row of hotels.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that map before, but from looking at how I-95 and the interchange is designed, that former segment of US-301 is exactly what I had surmised.  I also had no direct knowledge that the motels were there when I-95 was built 1959-1962.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on August 30, 2018, 04:37:56 PM
Did we come to a conclusion whether or not the signs above were Clearview or Frutiger? Too many weights of Frutiger to be 100% certain it isn't it, however, it seems to bear more resemblance to Clearview.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 30, 2018, 07:59:30 PM
 
Quote from: Beltway on August 30, 2018, 03:44:21 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 30, 2018, 03:35:12 PM
By the time I-95 came along, 301 was using what is now the I-95 carriageway through the interchange, while the original 301 became VA 35Y, which is mostly to the left of the I-95 NB off-ramp (easily seen in 1968 aerials).  The constructed loop ramp was probably to avoid having to tear down the motel in the NW quadrant of that interchange whereas a loop on either quadrant across the interstate would've required tearing down homes/row of hotels.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that map before, but from looking at how I-95 and the interchange is designed, that former segment of US-301 is exactly what I had surmised.  I also had no direct knowledge that the motels were there when I-95 was built 1959-1962.

I forgot I had this picture below which is from the Virginia Highway Bulletin in the mid-late 1950s.  The advert sign on the far left I believe says RESTAURANT within a left arrow which could mean the NW quadrant facility which would be just around the bend.  On the right hand side it is vague whether there are properties already present.  It appears in the distance up VA 35Y there is some stuff built already...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fold%2Fold35y_st.jpg&hash=51b96c2b716079ee519ab4bf027acac258c72b89)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 31, 2018, 07:07:57 PM
For what it's worth, one of the hotels (the one closer to the intersection) was demolished earlier this year.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 02, 2018, 12:48:37 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 31, 2018, 07:07:57 PM
For what it's worth, one of the hotels (the one closer to the intersection) was demolished earlier this year.
Really? Because Google Maps still has links letting you book rooms in them.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 03, 2018, 09:11:28 PM
The one next to the southbound lanes (the old Knights Inn) was demolished. The one next to the northbound lanes is still there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on September 03, 2018, 10:08:03 PM
Sorry to jump backwards a bit.

Here's a highway sign in WA which is in Frutiger. No idea why they used the typeface (not an NPS sign), but it's definitely not the same as Clearview.

(https://i.imgur.com/bZgbkdC.png)

There's also this sign for VA-123, from eastbound GW Memorial Pkwy in Arlington, where the highway shield uses a non-standard typeface that might be Helvetica. Further proof that the NPS signs around Arlington could all very well be in Clearview (and many almost certainly are...the resemblance to Clearview is uncanny); the NPS clearly has no issue using fonts other than Frutiger and NPS Rawlinson.

(https://i.imgur.com/LlXnkVE.png)

Also, there's several exit signs which use FHWA: https://goo.gl/ux1b3K
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 03, 2018, 10:58:33 PM
Then there are these green signs on the outbound GW Parkway approaching the Beltway. They're ugly, but I guess at least they were consistent.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9642265,-77.1650245,3a,75y,267.95h,93.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqLKNh_UqYhwlESPM2j7EQQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9637602,-77.1681394,3a,75y,328.19h,88.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sswNaNbmLS3EJ0mRrlfzfYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9639582,-77.1709724,3a,75y,328.19h,88.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZwdu2n8pj-Wry2Wx7vW8rA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 04, 2018, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 03, 2018, 10:58:33 PM
Then there are these green signs on the outbound GW Parkway approaching the Beltway. They're ugly, but I guess at least they were consistent.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9642265,-77.1650245,3a,75y,267.95h,93.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqLKNh_UqYhwlESPM2j7EQQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9637602,-77.1681394,3a,75y,328.19h,88.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sswNaNbmLS3EJ0mRrlfzfYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9639582,-77.1709724,3a,75y,328.19h,88.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZwdu2n8pj-Wry2Wx7vW8rA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

NPS trying to comply with the requirement to do BGS while still keeping the signs small and modest. 

The BGS panels on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway approaching the Beltway in Prince George's County are much larger, at least in part because they were designed by consultants and contractor-installed when that parkway got  a major facelift in the 1990's.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 05, 2018, 09:57:13 AM
Quote from: Takumi on September 03, 2018, 09:11:28 PM
The one next to the southbound lanes (the old Knights Inn) was demolished. The one next to the northbound lanes is still there.
Well, that makes sense, since there's a huge clearing next to the Gateway Inn.

In the meantime when I go up (which is now starting to look like it might be closer to October), maybe I'll check out the traffic circle at Exit 45.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 12, 2018, 10:13:16 PM
I had wondered in the past what was the reason for this highway.
Per this article "to create a 30-mile corridor for new commercial development."
Given the rural character of much of southern Chesterfield County I can imagine that a lot of people would be opposed.
....

https://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/articles/county-reassessing-freeway-project/
County reassessing East-West Freeway project
September 12, 2018
BY JIM McCONNELL SENIOR WRITER

Excerpts:

After more than a year of occasionally contentious discussions about a proposed road project some citizens say will destroy the rural character of southern Chesterfield, the county government is headed back to the drawing board.

Jesse Smith, director of the county's Transportation Department, confirmed last week that his staff is in the early stages of a new federal environmental assessment for the initial 2 ½-mile segment of the East-West Freeway that would link Interstate 95 with a 1,675-acre south Chester property the county may acquire for future use.

County Transportation staff began working early last year on an environmental assessment for the new road in conjunction with the Chesterfield Economic Development Authority's plan to acquire the sprawling residential parcel south of State Route 10, rezone it and develop it as an industrial megasite.

County leaders said they needed the first two-lane stretch of the East-West Freeway to market the megasite and meet industrial manufacturers' demands for easy access to the regional transportation network.

The Transportation Department was waiting for the federal government to issue a "finding of no significant impact"  on its initial environmental assessment when community opposition prompted the EDA to withdraw its zoning application in May. Because the traffic assumptions included in that environmental assessment were tied to the development of the property for a single, large industrial end-user, Transportation staff now have to return to square one and demonstrate to the Federal Highway Administration that the county still needs the road to manage future traffic in that area.

The East-West Freeway has been included in the county's Thoroughfare Plan, which guides future roadway construction, since the late 1980s. The plan envisions the freeway ultimately extending from Interstate 95 in Walthall to U.S. Route 360 west of Grange Hall Elementary, where it would connect with the proposed Powhite Parkway extension to create a 30-mile corridor for new commercial development.

Chesterfield leaders see that corridor as a way to bring balance to the county's tax base, which historically has been too reliant on residential property taxes to fund local government services.

Critics of the project say it will cut a swath through southern Chesterfield and eventually lead to destruction of thousands of pristine, forested acres.

According to Smith, the preferred alignment for the road isn't likely to change as a result of the new environmental assessment, which is expected to take about a year.

If the county gets approval from the federal government, Smith expects to hold a public hearing, then ask the Board of Supervisors for permission to begin negotiating right-of-way acquisitions with property owners who live in the path of the new road and are willing to sell.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 13, 2018, 12:48:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2018, 10:13:16 PM
I had wondered in the past what was the reason for this highway.
Per this article "to create a 30-mile corridor for new commercial development."
Given the rural character of much of southern Chesterfield County I can imagine that a lot of people would be opposed.
....

https://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/articles/county-reassessing-freeway-project/
County reassessing East-West Freeway project
September 12, 2018
BY JIM McCONNELL SENIOR WRITER

Excerpts:

After more than a year of occasionally contentious discussions about a proposed road project some citizens say will destroy the rural character of southern Chesterfield, the county government is headed back to the drawing board.

Jesse Smith, director of the county's Transportation Department, confirmed last week that his staff is in the early stages of a new federal environmental assessment for the initial 2 ½-mile segment of the East-West Freeway that would link Interstate 95 with a 1,675-acre south Chester property the county may acquire for future use.

County Transportation staff began working early last year on an environmental assessment for the new road in conjunction with the Chesterfield Economic Development Authority's plan to acquire the sprawling residential parcel south of State Route 10, rezone it and develop it as an industrial megasite.

County leaders said they needed the first two-lane stretch of the East-West Freeway to market the megasite and meet industrial manufacturers' demands for easy access to the regional transportation network.

The Transportation Department was waiting for the federal government to issue a "finding of no significant impact"  on its initial environmental assessment when community opposition prompted the EDA to withdraw its zoning application in May. Because the traffic assumptions included in that environmental assessment were tied to the development of the property for a single, large industrial end-user, Transportation staff now have to return to square one and demonstrate to the Federal Highway Administration that the county still needs the road to manage future traffic in that area.

The East-West Freeway has been included in the county's Thoroughfare Plan, which guides future roadway construction, since the late 1980s. The plan envisions the freeway ultimately extending from Interstate 95 in Walthall to U.S. Route 360 west of Grange Hall Elementary, where it would connect with the proposed Powhite Parkway extension to create a 30-mile corridor for new commercial development.

Chesterfield leaders see that corridor as a way to bring balance to the county's tax base, which historically has been too reliant on residential property taxes to fund local government services.

Critics of the project say it will cut a swath through southern Chesterfield and eventually lead to destruction of thousands of pristine, forested acres.

According to Smith, the preferred alignment for the road isn't likely to change as a result of the new environmental assessment, which is expected to take about a year.

If the county gets approval from the federal government, Smith expects to hold a public hearing, then ask the Board of Supervisors for permission to begin negotiating right-of-way acquisitions with property owners who live in the path of the new road and are willing to sell.



I mean, hey, I like transportation and transit development as much as anybody, but they really ought to take the hint that this really isn't needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 13, 2018, 01:29:14 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 13, 2018, 12:48:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2018, 10:13:16 PM
https://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/articles/county-reassessing-freeway-project/
I mean, hey, I like transportation and transit development as much as anybody, but they really ought to take the hint that this really isn't needed.

I can see building the 2 1/2 mile segment in the Walthall area, as a lot of that area has been zoned and developed with industrial development.  But the rest goes thru residential and semi-rural areas, and I don't see the need, especially if the only real "need" is economic development.

Planned with 6 lanes!

See pages 139 and 142 --
https://www.chesterfield.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2092/Chapter-13-Transportation-PDF
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 14, 2018, 01:21:03 AM
As I've said before an E-W freeway in that area is completely unnecessary (and SIX lanes???) given the fact that VA 288 is already near the proposed routing and already has plenty of ROW for widening. The most I could see for southern Chesterfield, as far as an E-W corridor goes, is maybe a standard 4-lane boulevard.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 14, 2018, 03:35:22 AM
Quote from: plain on September 14, 2018, 01:21:03 AM
As I've said before an E-W freeway in that area is completely unnecessary (and SIX lanes???) given the fact that VA 288 is already near the proposed routing and already has plenty of ROW for widening. The most I could see for southern Chesterfield, as far as an E-W corridor goes, is maybe a standard 4-lane boulevard.

VA-288 ranges 8 to 10 miles north of the East-West Freeway alignment, so wouldn't call that close.   But I am getting from the article that this is not for a transportation or traffic need, but to stimulate economic development.  I have already described why I don't think that is appropriate or needed.  I don't see the need or justification for it as a 4-lane arterial either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 16, 2018, 11:52:43 PM
There is a project that was just advertised on Jahnke Road in south Richmond.  I live only a few miles from here and I for some reason didn't know about this project, until I noticed last week that there is utility pole relocations underway parallel to the road, which is a good sign that a widening project will start soon.  It is a VDOT Six-Year Program project and has a federal project number, although the contract is city administered.

Jahnke Road is mostly 4 lanes between Powhite Parkway and Forest Hill Avenue, except for this segment which has 2 lanes.  I don't know if I like the widening scheme which is still 2 lanes but with a 16-foot median, and streetscape improvements including curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm sewer drainage, and landscaping.  It carries about 12,000 AADT now and projected about 17,000 AADT in 2030, so I would think that 4 lanes would be better.

http://www.richmondgov.com/PublicWorks/JahnkeRoadImprovementProject.aspx

The Jahnke Road Improvement Project is designed to improve traffic safety, improve traffic flow and enhance overall livability for the residents and users of the Jahnke Road Corridor. Jahnke Road not only carries automobile traffic, but also pedestrians, cyclists, GRTC bus riders and children who attend the three public schools located along the project corridor.

Important project elements within the design will include a shared use path, sidewalks, and landscaping. The existing roadway drainage will be upgraded from an open system with roadside ditches to a closed system with storm sewer pipe and curb and gutter which will eliminate areas slow to drain during prolonged periods of heavy rainfall.

Construction plans are complete and the project was advertised for construction on June 29, 2018. The acquisition of right-of-way and easements for roadway construction, drainage improvements and utility relocations has concluded by the City Consultant, Stantec, for a total of 84 parcels.

Jahnke Road Design Elements
o Raised 16-ft landscaped median separating two travel lanes (one lane in each direction)
o New curb and gutter
o New storm sewer system
o Left turn lanes are provided at Newell Road, Spruance Road, Forestview School Drive (entrance to Elizabeth Redd Elementary School), Irby Drive and Leicester Road
o 5-ft sidewalk with a 6-ft green space for landscaping on the south side of Jahnke Road
o 8-ft shared use path with a 8-ft green space for landscaping on the north side of Jahnke Road
o ADA (American with Disabilities Act) compliant for pedestrian traffic and bus commuters
o New Signal at Forestview School Drive (entrance to Elizabeth Redd Elementary School)
o Safety improvements at CSX rail crossing

Estimated Costs
o Preliminary Engineering Costs: $2,000,000
o Utility and Right of Way Costs: $1,500,000
o Roadway Construction Costs: $10,500,000
o Total Estimated Costs: $14,000,000
o The project is funded with Federal, State, and City funds.

[hyperlinks to these on the project webpage]
Jahnke Road Plans - April 2016
Improvement Plan Exhibit 1 - June 2012
Improvement Plan Exhibit 2 - June 2012
Landscape - Divided Raised Median Typical Section
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 17, 2018, 12:23:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 16, 2018, 11:52:43 PM
There is a project that was just advertised on Jahnke Road in south Richmond.  I live only a few miles from here and I for some reason didn't know about this project, until I noticed last week that there is utility pole relocations underway parallel to the road, which is a good sign that a widening project will start soon.  It is a VDOT Six-Year Program project and has a federal project number, although the contract is city administered.

Jahnke Road is mostly 4 lanes between Powhite Parkway and Forest Hill Avenue, except for this segment which has 2 lanes.  I don't know if I like the widening scheme which is still 2 lanes but with a 16-foot median, and streetscape improvements including curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm sewer drainage, and landscaping.  It carries about 12,000 AADT now and projected about 17,000 AADT in 2030, so I would think that 4 lanes would be better.

http://www.richmondgov.com/PublicWorks/JahnkeRoadImprovementProject.aspx

The Jahnke Road Improvement Project is designed to improve traffic safety, improve traffic flow and enhance overall livability for the residents and users of the Jahnke Road Corridor. Jahnke Road not only carries automobile traffic, but also pedestrians, cyclists, GRTC bus riders and children who attend the three public schools located along the project corridor.

Important project elements within the design will include a shared use path, sidewalks, and landscaping. The existing roadway drainage will be upgraded from an open system with roadside ditches to a closed system with storm sewer pipe and curb and gutter which will eliminate areas slow to drain during prolonged periods of heavy rainfall.

Construction plans are complete and the project was advertised for construction on June 29, 2018. The acquisition of right-of-way and easements for roadway construction, drainage improvements and utility relocations has concluded by the City Consultant, Stantec, for a total of 84 parcels.

Jahnke Road Design Elements
o Raised 16-ft landscaped median separating two travel lanes (one lane in each direction)
o New curb and gutter
o New storm sewer system
o Left turn lanes are provided at Newell Road, Spruance Road, Forestview School Drive (entrance to Elizabeth Redd Elementary School), Irby Drive and Leicester Road
o 5-ft sidewalk with a 6-ft green space for landscaping on the south side of Jahnke Road
o 8-ft shared use path with a 8-ft green space for landscaping on the north side of Jahnke Road
o ADA (American with Disabilities Act) compliant for pedestrian traffic and bus commuters
o New Signal at Forestview School Drive (entrance to Elizabeth Redd Elementary School)
o Safety improvements at CSX rail crossing

Estimated Costs
o Preliminary Engineering Costs: $2,000,000
o Utility and Right of Way Costs: $1,500,000
o Roadway Construction Costs: $10,500,000
o Total Estimated Costs: $14,000,000
o The project is funded with Federal, State, and City funds.

[hyperlinks to these on the project webpage]
Jahnke Road Plans - April 2016
Improvement Plan Exhibit 1 - June 2012
Improvement Plan Exhibit 2 - June 2012
Landscape - Divided Raised Median Typical Section

Some local news (not broadcast) sites mentioned this project a little while ago. It's been hung up for quite a while but some sort of improvement on Jahnke Road between Blakemore Road and Forest Hill Avenue is definitely needed. It definitely isn't pedestrian friendly, which is a problem with three schools along that stretch...and honestly, given that alone it probably should be 4 lanes. Drainage has been a problem for a long time too, but the City of Richmond honestly has an epidemic of poor drainage along various city streets.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 17, 2018, 12:55:50 PM
^ If there's that many schools, that would actually be a good reason to keep it at 2 lanes.  Makes the school crossings much safer for children.  Also shortens the distance they have to cross which means they'll get across faster.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: SSOWorld on September 17, 2018, 10:07:13 PM
The 3 post above were moved to the Tropical Cyclone tracking thread

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15473.msg2357318#msg2357318
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 18, 2018, 07:24:04 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 17, 2018, 12:23:54 PM
Some local news (not broadcast) sites mentioned this project a little while ago. It's been hung up for quite a while but some sort of improvement on Jahnke Road between Blakemore Road and Forest Hill Avenue is definitely needed. It definitely isn't pedestrian friendly, which is a problem with three schools along that stretch...and honestly, given that alone it probably should be 4 lanes. Drainage has been a problem for a long time too, but the City of Richmond honestly has an epidemic of poor drainage along various city streets.

Based on seeing the utility pole relocations, many homeowners along the road are losing 20 to 25 feet strip of land.  By eyeball it looked like there will be room for 4 lanes undivided.  Adding a 16 foot median to that would bring the road very close maybe within 10 to 15 feet to those houses.  Probably the reason for not making it 4 lanes is because of the problems of a 4 lanes undivided road with respect to pedestrians.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tckma on September 25, 2018, 09:03:10 AM
GW Parkway Rebuild Project:

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/09/a-rebuild-of-the-gw-parkway-is-in-the-works-but-could-bring-years-of-delays/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on September 26, 2018, 11:20:29 PM
https://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/politics_and_government/transportation/widening-project-on-u-s-in-virginia-expected-to-have/article_552b23a9-a5aa-5173-b529-c9d7f7900deb.html

QuoteA decision by Loudoun County officials to widen a section of U.S. 15 north of Leesburg, Virginia, is not expected to have much impact on traffic into Frederick County, although Loudoun continues to look at the possibility of widening the road up to the Potomac River.

Loudoun's Board of Supervisors voted 9-0 on Sept. 20 to widen U.S. 15 from two lanes to four, with a median, between Battlefield Parkway in Leesburg to Montresor Road, south of the village of Lucketts.

The $78.9 million project includes improvements and changes at several intersections, including a two-lane roundabout at U.S. 15 and Montresor Road.

Next, the county staff will develop a request for proposals, solicit design proposals, and begin the design process, Joe Kroboth, director of transportation and capital infrastructure, told the supervisors.

While that project moves along, county staff is also looking at a companion study for possible widening north of Montresor Road to the Potomac River, which will likely come to the supervisors in the late winter or early spring, Kroboth said.

The county has been studying the U.S. 15 corridor for many years, said Glen Barbour, a spokesman for the Loudoun County government.

"It's not like construction is going to start tomorrow,"  he said.

Loudoun County and Virginia have approached Frederick County and the Maryland Department of Transportation to participate in planning for the U.S. 15 corridor, said Ron Burns, transportation engineer manager in Frederick County's Department of Development Review.

"They want to make sure what they do is consistent with what's going on over here,"  he said.

Maryland has always thought of U.S. 15 as a four-lane divided highway, Burns said.


The area around Leesburg has always been a constraint in the U.S. 15 corridor, he said. But if the road is widened further, the constraint could be the bridge on the Potomac River, which has one lane in each direction.

There are no plans to widen the bridge on U.S. 15 on the Potomac in Maryland at this time, State Highway Administration spokeswoman Shantee Felix said in an email Wednesday.

The bridge is used by about 21,000 vehicles a day.

Glad to see this desperately needed project finally moving forward. I only hope that the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors don't stick their heads in the sand and refuse to eventually widen the segment north of Montresor Road. As its been stated numerous times in other threads, US-15 from at least Leesburg needs to be four lanes all the way up to US-340. The only reason why Maryland hasn't widened their portion of US-15 south of US-340 is due to I suspect an unwillingness to construct(and pay for) a new Potomac River Bridge at or near Point of Rocks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 27, 2018, 04:51:01 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on September 26, 2018, 11:20:29 PM
The only reason why Maryland hasn't widened their portion of US-15 south of US-340 is due to I suspect an unwillingness to construct(and pay for) a new Potomac River Bridge at or near Point of Rocks.

The Maryland Highway Location Reference says the bridge is 0.32 miles long, of which 0.06 of the structure is in Virginia.   

That's a pretty long bridge. 

There is also the matter of the height of the bridge deck over the river. The current bridge was nearly swept-away in the significant flooding event of January 1996, when a sudden warm-up caused snow and ice upstream of the bridge to melt all at once, bringing raging floodwaters to within a foot or two of the bottom of the structure. Should  a new bridge be built higher over the river?                                             
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on September 27, 2018, 05:33:00 PM
I think Maryland would widen their section of US 15.  The holdup I think is more Virginia since Maryland seemed to anticipate widening the highway since they have a four lane divided highway ROW.  Although the 15-340 interchange would need some work.  I'm surprised this widening is happening.  But not as surprised as I would be if they widened the road north of Lucketts.

As for the bridge, it would have to be new four lane bridge.  The curve on the Virginia side of the current bridge is too tight to keep.  And that next ~1/2 mile just south of that is not conducive to widening since it's on the side of a hill.  I think a new bridge would be built by Maryland with a more north-south orientation which avoids these problems.  I just wouldn't anticipate that happening in the next several years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 27, 2018, 05:42:47 PM
At this point I would favor building US-15 on new location between the Leesburg Bypass and Maryland, and four lanes divided.  Relegate the existing highway to secondary status.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on September 27, 2018, 06:01:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 27, 2018, 05:42:47 PM
At this point I would favor building US-15 on new location between the Leesburg Bypass and Maryland, and four lanes divided.  Relegate the existing highway to secondary status.

While I don't think that all of US-15 from Leesburg to Maryland needs to be on a new location(nor would Loudoun ever probably allow it), I do agree that there would probably need to be a new bypass of Lucketts(Likely on the western side).

Regarding the Point of Rocks Bridge, a new higher four lane bridge should be built where there is more room further east, bypassing Point of rocks, and connecting back to the current US-15 just south of the Doubs Substation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 27, 2018, 07:46:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 27, 2018, 04:51:01 PM
The Maryland Highway Location Reference says the bridge is 0.32 miles long, of which 0.06 of the structure is in Virginia.   
That's a pretty long bridge. 

Not really ... 1,690 feet is not long by river standards.  The various James River bridges in the Richmond area are in the 4,000+ foot range, and some of them are 90+ feet high.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 27, 2018, 10:51:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 27, 2018, 07:46:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 27, 2018, 04:51:01 PM
The Maryland Highway Location Reference says the bridge is 0.32 miles long, of which 0.06 of the structure is in Virginia.   
That's a pretty long bridge. 

Not really ... 1,690 feet is not long by river standards.  The various James River bridges in the Richmond area are in the 4,000+ foot range, and some of them are 90+ feet high.

I am not going to argue with you about the relative length of the bridge. 

But a new four lane span with accommodation for non-motorized traffic with the bridge deck higher above the riverbed than the current structure will cost tens of millions of dollars (hopefully it does not get into the hundreds of millions of dollars).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 27, 2018, 11:10:29 PM
Today's VDOT throwback twitter picture reveals a couple things...

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1045327347661123588

1.  The route marker used prior to the spade shape's introduction in 1925 was introduced early enough for the original set of route numbers in place 1918-23.  In the photo it is showing original VA 3 (the character at the bottom of the V is an 'A' with a 3 above it.
2.  Route markers included milepost location and it appears this one (63) is being measured from the West Virginia state line.
3.  I have seen exceedingly few photos of this style of route marker but this is I believe the only one I've seen as a free-standing marker as opposed to being painted on a telephone pole or other object.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 28, 2018, 12:23:00 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 27, 2018, 10:51:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 27, 2018, 07:46:23 PM
1,690 feet is not long by river standards.  The various James River bridges in the Richmond area are in the 4,000+ foot range, and some of them are 90+ feet high.
I am not going to argue with you about the relative length of the bridge. 
But a new four lane span with accommodation for non-motorized traffic with the bridge deck higher above the riverbed than the current structure will cost tens of millions of dollars (hopefully it does not get into the hundreds of millions of dollars).

OK, but it is still not a very long bridge in the overall scheme of things.  I am not convinced that it will need to be built at a higher elevation, and it looks like a high-speed new alignment would 'cut the bend' and probably result in an alignment that crossed the river at close to a right angle and with less distance to span.
https://tinyurl.com/yacwmwal

The bridge's deck was replaced about 1980, but the original bridge's trusses are still in use and they look like about 1935 vintage.  So the bridge's alignment was based on the needs of a road network of a very early automotive era, obsolete by today's needs and standards.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 28, 2018, 10:10:01 AM
So interestingly, I've noticed that VDOT has mounted "End State Maintenance" signs on northbound VA 150 entering the City of Richmond, and all the northbound VA 150 reassurance markers have been removed along the stretch with at-grade intersections (although VA 150 signage on Forest Hill Ave and VA 147 is still up). This means there are now no northbound VA 150 reassurance markers past VA 76. I haven't checked the southbound lanes, and I know the City of Richmond maintains the portion of VA 150 within the city limits anyway, but I just found that a little weird.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 28, 2018, 10:25:22 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 28, 2018, 10:10:01 AM
So interestingly, I've noticed that VDOT has mounted "End State Maintenance" signs on northbound VA 150 entering the City of Richmond, and all the northbound VA 150 reassurance markers have been removed along the stretch with at-grade intersections (although VA 150 signage on Forest Hill Ave and VA 147 is still up). This means there are now no northbound VA 150 reassurance markers past VA 76. I haven't checked the southbound lanes, and I know the City of Richmond maintains the portion of VA 150 within the city limits anyway, but I just found that a little weird.

Since when did they do that?  The Chippenham extension to Parham Road was built as a VDOT project, and it is a 4-lane limited access highway, and I don't understand why VDOT would not maintain it.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on September 28, 2018, 10:28:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2018, 12:23:00 AM
I am not convinced that it will need to be built at a higher elevation, and it looks like a high-speed new alignment would 'cut the bend' and probably result in an alignment that crossed the river at close to a right angle and with less distance to span.
https://tinyurl.com/yacwmwal

The bridge's deck was replaced about 1980, but the original bridge's trusses are still in use and they look like about 1935 vintage.  So the bridge's alignment was based on the needs of a road network of a very early automotive era, obsolete by today's needs and standards.
I agree about the elevation.  But having the bridge being a little bit higher 0-10 ft I think could be in the cards. 

Good eye on the bridge's age.  Bridge hunter has 1939. 

The obsolete alignment is evident by the curve on the VA side. 

But I think the replacement bridge would likely be longer than the current bridge.  There looks to be max ~2500 ft of valley to span.  I'm not sure how much of that would be bridge and how much would be raised land.  Due to the tracks on MD side the landing of the bridge on that side would be similar to the current bridge.  The question is where would the bridge land on the other end? 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 28, 2018, 10:31:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2018, 10:25:22 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 28, 2018, 10:10:01 AM
So interestingly, I've noticed that VDOT has mounted "End State Maintenance" signs on northbound VA 150 entering the City of Richmond, and all the northbound VA 150 reassurance markers have been removed along the stretch with at-grade intersections (although VA 150 signage on Forest Hill Ave and VA 147 is still up). This means there are now no northbound VA 150 reassurance markers past VA 76. I haven't checked the southbound lanes, and I know the City of Richmond maintains the portion of VA 150 within the city limits anyway, but I just found that a little weird.

Since when did they do that?  The Chippenhan extension to Parham Road was built as a VDOT project, and it is a 4-lane limited access highway, and I don't understand why VDOT would not maintain it.

I'm not sure. It must have been fairly recently. I'm probably going to go up and down that stretch tonight to double check and make sure I'm not losing my mind, but the "End State Maintenance" signage was definitely there, bolted onto the city limits sign.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 28, 2018, 10:35:06 AM
Quote from: BrianP on September 28, 2018, 10:28:08 AM
I agree about the elevation.  But having the bridge being a little bit higher 0-10 ft I think could be in the cards. 
Good eye on the bridge's age.  Bridge hunter has 1939. 
The obsolete alignment is evident by the curve on the VA side. 
But I think the replacement bridge would likely be longer than the current bridge.  There looks to be max ~2500 ft of valley to span.  I'm not sure how much of that would be bridge and how much would be raised land.  Due to the tracks on MD side the landing of the bridge on that side would be similar to the current bridge.  The question is where would the bridge land on the other end? 

1,500 to 2,000 feet southeast of the current abutment.  I now notice that the state boundary weaves well inland for about a mile, I suppose due to that being the shoreline 200+ years ago, and that would mean that the new bridge would be entirely within Maryland.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 28, 2018, 10:38:08 AM
I live a few miles from the Chippenham extension to Parham Road, so I can check that out this afternoon, as I am curious.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 28, 2018, 10:40:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2018, 12:23:00 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 27, 2018, 10:51:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 27, 2018, 07:46:23 PM
1,690 feet is not long by river standards.  The various James River bridges in the Richmond area are in the 4,000+ foot range, and some of them are 90+ feet high.
I am not going to argue with you about the relative length of the bridge. 
But a new four lane span with accommodation for non-motorized traffic with the bridge deck higher above the riverbed than the current structure will cost tens of millions of dollars (hopefully it does not get into the hundreds of millions of dollars).

OK, but it is still not a very long bridge in the overall scheme of things.  I am not convinced that it will need to be built at a higher elevation, and it looks like a high-speed new alignment would 'cut the bend' and probably result in an alignment that crossed the river at close to a right angle and with less distance to span.
https://tinyurl.com/yacwmwal

The bridge's deck was replaced about 1980, but the original bridge's trusses are still in use and they look like about 1935 vintage.  So the bridge's alignment was based on the needs of a road network of a very early automotive era, obsolete by today's needs and standards.

Current Point of Rocks bridge was built in 1939 following the highest recorded flood there in 1936 (41 ft per https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=01638500) washed away the previous one.  It is 22 ft above the river per uglybridges.com. 

Per https://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?gage=porm2&wfo=lwx, the 1996 flood was 5 ft lower than the 1936 flood and Agnes flooding in 1972 was 4 feet lower than the 1936 flood.  The NWS says at 22 ft water covers the towpath and at 35 ft MD 28 is covered in 2 feet of water.  Can't find anything that says at what flooding level gets the bridge.  Rough estimate is that they built the 1939 bridge just high enough to be over the 1936 flood level.

It looks like if you build a new bridge much higher it will be harder to connect to MD 28 though an interchange with US 15 as the overpass could be a natural way to get the bridge 16+ higher than now.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 28, 2018, 02:20:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2018, 10:38:08 AM
I live a few miles from the Chippenham extension to Parham Road, so I can check that out this afternoon, as I am curious.

Here is what I found --

"End State Maintenance" sign on northbound VA-150 at south end of bridge over the railroad just south of Forest Hill Avenue.
"Begin State Maintenance" sign on northbound VA-150 at south end of Willey Bridge.
"End State Maintenance" sign on northbound VA-150 at River Road Connector intersection in Henrico County (where VA-150 has always ended and where Parham Road begins).

"Begin State Maintenance" sign on southbound VA-150 at River Road Connector intersection in Henrico County (where VA-150 has always begun and where Parham Road ends).
"End State Maintenance" sign on southbound VA-150 at south end of Willey Bridge.
"Begin State Maintenance" sign on southbound VA-150 at south end of bridge over the railroad just south of Forest Hill Avenue.

Trailblazer roadside sign for VA-150 on northbound VA-150 between Huguenot Road and Stony Point Parkway.
Trailblazer roadside sign "Begin 150" for southbound VA-150 at River Road Connector intersection in Henrico County (I know this has been there for many years).
Trailblazer roadside sign for southbound VA-150 between Stony Point Parkway and Huguenot Road.

I don't know when those "End/Begin State Maintenance" signs were posted, as I often don't notice minor signing.  But according the signing the segment between the railroad bridges and the Willey Bridge is not state maintained.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 28, 2018, 03:27:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2018, 02:20:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2018, 10:38:08 AM
I live a few miles from the Chippenham extension to Parham Road, so I can check that out this afternoon, as I am curious.

Here is what I found --

"End State Maintenance" sign on northbound VA-150 at south end of bridge over the railroad just south of Forest Hill Avenue.
"Begin State Maintenance" sign on northbound VA-150 at south end of Willey Bridge.
"End State Maintenance" sign on northbound VA-150 at River Road Connector intersection in Henrico County (where VA-150 has always ended and where Parham Road begins).

"Begin State Maintenance" sign on southbound VA-150 at River Road Connector intersection in Henrico County (where VA-150 has always begun and where Parham Road ends).
"End State Maintenance" sign on southbound VA-150 at south end of Willey Bridge.
"Begin State Maintenance" sign on southbound VA-150 at south end of bridge over the railroad just south of Forest Hill Avenue.

Trailblazer roadside sign for VA-150 on northbound VA-150 between Huguenot Road and Stony Point Parkway.
Trailblazer roadside sign "Begin 150" for southbound VA-150 at River Road Connector intersection in Henrico County (I know this has been there for many years).
Trailblazer roadside sign for southbound VA-150 between Stony Point Parkway and Huguenot Road.

I don't know when those "End/Begin State Maintenance" signs were posted, as I often don't notice minor signing.  But according the signing the segment between the railroad bridges and the Willey Bridge is not state maintained.

Interesting. The "end/begin state maintenance" signs at the railroad bridge and the Willey Bridge are definitely new, and it's interesting to see that the VA 150 trailblazers on the VA 150 freeway segment between Huguenot Rd and Stony Point Pkwy are still there. I guess either VDOT or the city must have removed signage on the non-freeway segment and had the "end/begin state maintenance" signage posted.

The city usually signs state routes within the city limits (well, sort of), so it's weird they haven't replaced any signage on the non-freeway segment of VA 150, and that segment is still signed as being part of VA 150 from Forest Hill Ave and Huguenot Rd.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 28, 2018, 07:08:36 PM
The portion of VA 150 inside Richmond is definitely maintained by the city, but indeed the entire extension may have been built by VDOT, not sure. Even in that case VDOT could've gave maintenance duties to the city afterwards, sort of like when Midlothian Tpk in the city was reconstructed several years back by VDOT but maintenance duties remained with the city.

The BEGIN/END STATE MAINTENANCE signs has been there since at least 1997 (when I first spotted them). I haven't drove this stretch over the last year or so but If they're new then they're replacements.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2018, 10:22:53 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 28, 2018, 10:40:52 AM
Per https://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?gage=porm2&wfo=lwx, the 1996 flood was 5 ft lower than the 1936 flood and Agnes flooding in 1972 was 4 feet lower than the 1936 flood.  The NWS says at 22 ft water covers the towpath and at 35 ft MD 28 is covered in 2 feet of water.  Can't find anything that says at what flooding level gets the bridge.  Rough estimate is that they built the 1939 bridge just high enough to be over the 1936 flood level.

It looks like if you build a new bridge much higher it will be harder to connect to MD 28 though an interchange with US 15 as the overpass could be a natural way to get the bridge 16+ higher than now.

I did not see personally the 1936 flood because I was not around then. 

I do remember the floodwaters of Agnes in 1972, but not at Point-of-Rocks (the waters of the Potomac River were so high at Great Falls Park on the Montgomery County side that there was no obvious sign of the falls under all of that water).

But I did see what happened at Point-of-Rocks in January 1996.  While I did not get out and measure it, my memory says the waters of the Potomac were more like 2 or 3 feet below the bottom of the bridge deck then.  Maryland DOT/SHA senior management was sufficiently concerned that they had their response people at both ends of the bridge, ready to close it to all traffic if that became necessary.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 02, 2018, 07:58:28 PM
Checked around the internet to see if the I-564 Intermodal Connector has a number of any kind.  I found a facebook video of someone driving it EB from the terminal and it was signed at that end as TO I-564 EAST.

https://www.facebook.com/I564IC/videos/557277574618894/

There is a BGS on I-564 WB that says NIT Gate 1 with something covered underneath. 

But the more important discovery is that I-564 now has exit numbers:
1 - Intermodal Connector
2 - Terminal Blvd
3 - I64
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 02, 2018, 09:27:56 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 02, 2018, 07:58:28 PM
Checked around the internet to see if the I-564 Intermodal Connector has a number of any kind.  I found a facebook video of someone driving it EB from the terminal and it was signed at that end as TO I-564 EAST.

The project site and published literature calls it the I-564 Intermodal Connector.

They don't say exactly but they make it sound like I-564 will be rerouted onto the new Intermodal Connector.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 03, 2018, 06:18:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 02, 2018, 09:27:56 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 02, 2018, 07:58:28 PM
Checked around the internet to see if the I-564 Intermodal Connector has a number of any kind.  I found a facebook video of someone driving it EB from the terminal and it was signed at that end as TO I-564 EAST.

The project site and published literature calls it the I-564 Intermodal Connector.

They don't say exactly but they make it sound like I-564 will be rerouted onto the new Intermodal Connector.

I agree that current materials suggest I-564 is supposed to end up on the Connector, especially with the idea of extending it west to I-664 at some point.  Although if that is the near term intention, seems like Hampton Blvd would've been Exit 1 and I-64 would've become Exit 4.

Originally VA 510 had been assigned to the Intermodal Connector from at least 2001-03.  See pdf pg. 45 at http://vahighways.com/route-log/VDOT%20logs/route-index-07012003.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 03, 2018, 07:30:45 AM
QuoteThere is a BGS on I-564 WB that says NIT Gate 1 with something covered underneath.

Most likely, what's covered underneath is something related to "Gate 6" at NOB.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 03, 2018, 09:23:53 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 03, 2018, 06:18:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 02, 2018, 09:27:56 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 02, 2018, 07:58:28 PM
Checked around the internet to see if the I-564 Intermodal Connector has a number of any kind.  I found a facebook video of someone driving it EB from the terminal and it was signed at that end as TO I-564 EAST.

The project site and published literature calls it the I-564 Intermodal Connector.

They don't say exactly but they make it sound like I-564 will be rerouted onto the new Intermodal Connector.

I agree that current materials suggest I-564 is supposed to end up on the Connector, especially with the idea of extending it west to I-664 at some point.  Although if that is the near term intention, seems like Hampton Blvd would've been Exit 1 and I-64 would've become Exit 4.

Originally VA 510 had been assigned to the Intermodal Connector from at least 2001-03.  See pdf pg. 45 at http://vahighways.com/route-log/VDOT%20logs/route-index-07012003.pdf

So if I-564 ends up on the Connector, what happens with existing I-564? Would it become an extended VA 337?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 03, 2018, 09:45:59 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 03, 2018, 06:18:53 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 02, 2018, 09:27:56 PM
The project site and published literature calls it the I-564 Intermodal Connector.
They don't say exactly but they make it sound like I-564 will be rerouted onto the new Intermodal Connector.
I agree that current materials suggest I-564 is supposed to end up on the Connector, especially with the idea of extending it west to I-664 at some point.  Although if that is the near term intention, seems like Hampton Blvd would've been Exit 1 and I-64 would've become Exit 4.
Originally VA 510 had been assigned to the Intermodal Connector from at least 2001-03.  See pdf pg. 45 at http://vahighways.com/route-log/VDOT%20logs/route-index-07012003.pdf

This will be the first project built in the Third Hampton Roads Crossing, that is the original design.

The statewide long range needs plan around 2005 (I can't find it now) listed the crossing in a table with the route number 564 (that is why I tend to call it the I-564 Extension).  The crossing still is in the long range plans, albeit unfunded at this point.

Not sure if they will make the route number switch upon completion of this project, or not until the whole crossing is complete.  Exit numbering would probably change to fit the whole thing as well.

Also what happens to rest of I-564, does it become I-364?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 03, 2018, 11:11:45 PM
Quote from: plain on September 28, 2018, 07:08:36 PM
The portion of VA 150 inside Richmond is definitely maintained by the city, but indeed the entire extension may have been built by VDOT, not sure. Even in that case VDOT could've gave maintenance duties to the city afterwards, sort of like when Midlothian Tpk in the city was reconstructed several years back by VDOT but maintenance duties remained with the city.

This quote is from my website concerning the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike and a group of local projects funded from a toll extension --

The $103 million of 1973-issued toll revenue bonds used to pay for the 6-lane widening projects were paid off and retired in 1985.  The last 7 years (1985-1992) of toll revenue (mostly Northerner and Floridian toll revenue since the locals could buy heavily discounted commuter tickets) was used to build 5 local road projects.  These projects were 6.5 miles of the VA-288 beltway between VA-10 and US-1/US-301 in Chesterfield County, 3.5 miles of 2-lane parallel roadway (dualization) for the VA-144 Temple Avenue Extension from Conduit Road in the City of Colonial Heights to VA-36 near the City of Hopewell, 0.6-mile of the mostly 4-lane Leigh Street Extension from near the Department of Motor Vehicles central office to VA-161 Boulevard in the City of Richmond, 0.7-mile of 4-lane widening and reconstruction of Belt Boulevard in the City of Richmond between VA-10 and Terminal Avenue, and the 4.4-mile-long 4-lane limited access VA-150 Parham-Chippenham Connector between 1/2 mile south of Forest Hill Avenue in the City of Richmond and 1/2 mile north of River Road in Henrico County.  Legislation of the General Assembly in 1983 (Senate Bill 304) provided for this toll extension and usage of the toll revenues for these local road projects.  These five local road projects were all completed by 1991.  Due to a later shortfall of funding to complete the projects, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) authorized the March 1989 toll increase to cover the shortfall.

So the VA-150 Parham-Chippenham Connector was built as a VDOT administered project.

Chippenham Parkway was widened to 6 lanes (3 each way) about 1997-2000 between Powhite Parkway and US-1, and this included full paved shoulders and with 8 lanes (4 each way) on 4 segments between closely spaced interchanges where the right auxiliary lane was made continuous between the pair of interchanges.

There actually still is 1/3 mile of Chippenham Parkway that is in its original design with 4 lanes and gravel shoulders, that segment between the extension project and the widening project described above.  Basically between the Forest Hill Avenue ramps and the Powhite Parkway ramps, including the bridge over the CSXT Railroad, you can see that the bridges are of the late 1960s vintage.  I suppose this will eventually be upgraded like the widening projects south of there, with the bridges widened and redecked and the auxiliary right lanes being made continuous between the two interchanges, and full paved shoulders installed on the right.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 04, 2018, 04:55:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 03, 2018, 11:11:45 PM
Quote from: plain on September 28, 2018, 07:08:36 PM
The portion of VA 150 inside Richmond is definitely maintained by the city, but indeed the entire extension may have been built by VDOT, not sure. Even in that case VDOT could've gave maintenance duties to the city afterwards, sort of like when Midlothian Tpk in the city was reconstructed several years back by VDOT but maintenance duties remained with the city.

This quote is from my website concerning the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike and a group of local projects funded from a toll extension --

The $103 million of 1973-issued toll revenue bonds used to pay for the 6-lane widening projects were paid off and retired in 1985.  The last 7 years (1985-1992) of toll revenue (mostly Northerner and Floridian toll revenue since the locals could buy heavily discounted commuter tickets) was used to build 5 local road projects.  These projects were 6.5 miles of the VA-288 beltway between VA-10 and US-1/US-301 in Chesterfield County, 3.5 miles of 2-lane parallel roadway (dualization) for the VA-144 Temple Avenue Extension from Conduit Road in the City of Colonial Heights to VA-36 near the City of Hopewell, 0.6-mile of the mostly 4-lane Leigh Street Extension from near the Department of Motor Vehicles central office to VA-161 Boulevard in the City of Richmond, 0.7-mile of 4-lane widening and reconstruction of Belt Boulevard in the City of Richmond between VA-10 and Terminal Avenue, and the 4.4-mile-long 4-lane limited access VA-150 Parham-Chippenham Connector between 1/2 mile south of Forest Hill Avenue in the City of Richmond and 1/2 mile north of River Road in Henrico County.  Legislation of the General Assembly in 1983 (Senate Bill 304) provided for this toll extension and usage of the toll revenues for these local road projects.  These five local road projects were all completed by 1991.  Due to a later shortfall of funding to complete the projects, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) authorized the March 1989 toll increase to cover the shortfall.

So the VA-150 Parham-Chippenham Connector was built as a VDOT administered project.

Chippenham Parkway was widened to 6 lanes (3 each way) about 1997-2000 between Powhite Parkway and US-1, and this included full paved shoulders and with 8 lanes (4 each way) on 4 segments between closely spaced interchanges where the right auxiliary lane was made continuous between the pair of interchanges.

There actually still is 1/3 mile of Chippenham Parkway that is in its original design with 4 lanes and gravel shoulders, that segment between the extension project and the widening project described above.  Basically between the Forest Hill Avenue ramps and the Powhite Parkway ramps, including the bridge over the CSXT Railroad, you can see that the bridges are of the late 1960s vintage.  I suppose this will eventually be upgraded like the widening projects south of there, with the bridges widened and redecked and the auxiliary right lanes being made continuous between the two interchanges, and full paved shoulders installed on the right.

Yeah that's right, I did read that on your site some years back, not sure how I forgot about that. Definitely VDOT built.

The city is definitely maintaining their portion though. One way to tell is the pedestrian signals at Weyburn Rd: they're black instead of yellow. Also there's the street blades on the mast arms there that has the street names and 2 block numbers, a style that Richmond, ummmm..... "borrowed" from Henrico County. 

I was working for the crew (Mega Contractors) that did the widening on VA 150 between just south of US 360 and US 1/301 (north of there was completed just before I started working there). This occurred at the same time VA 895 was being built.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dvferyance on October 08, 2018, 06:16:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2018, 10:25:22 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 28, 2018, 10:10:01 AM
So interestingly, I've noticed that VDOT has mounted "End State Maintenance" signs on northbound VA 150 entering the City of Richmond, and all the northbound VA 150 reassurance markers have been removed along the stretch with at-grade intersections (although VA 150 signage on Forest Hill Ave and VA 147 is still up). This means there are now no northbound VA 150 reassurance markers past VA 76. I haven't checked the southbound lanes, and I know the City of Richmond maintains the portion of VA 150 within the city limits anyway, but I just found that a little weird.

Since when did they do that?  The Chippenham extension to Parham Road was built as a VDOT project, and it is a 4-lane limited access highway, and I don't understand why VDOT would not maintain it.
I thought Parham Rd was VA-73 so state maintenance ends signs make no sense.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 08, 2018, 06:22:40 PM
Only Parham road between US 1 and I95 is VA 73.

There are also begin/end maintenance signs on parham rd at the I64 overpass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on October 12, 2018, 09:52:38 AM
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors sent a resolution to the General Assembly. Among the items listed is improvements to I-81 while opposing a pilot program that would allow trucks heavier than 90,000 lbs due to concerns of additional truck traffic, funding for I-73, and keeping an eye on SmartScale to make sure local needs are met.

https://media.wsls.com/document_dev/2018/10/10/10-09-2018%20Agenda_1539207581380_12791139_ver1.0.pdf (https://media.wsls.com/document_dev/2018/10/10/10-09-2018%20Agenda_1539207581380_12791139_ver1.0.pdf)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dvferyance on October 12, 2018, 09:22:12 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 08, 2018, 06:22:40 PM
Only Parham road between US 1 and I95 is VA 73.

There are also begin/end maintenance signs on parham rd at the I64 overpass.
Then who in the world maintains the rest of it then? I thought VDOT did every road outside the cities.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 12, 2018, 09:46:13 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 12, 2018, 09:22:12 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 08, 2018, 06:22:40 PM
Only Parham road between US 1 and I95 is VA 73.

There are also begin/end maintenance signs on parham rd at the I64 overpass.
Then who in the world maintains the rest of it then? I thought VDOT did every road outside the cities.

Henrico County does.  Henrico and Arlington Counties maintain all roads that are not primary routes or interstates.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 03:42:43 PM
I got an e-mail with the VDOT news release about the publication of the 2018-19 state highway map.  I was downtown for awhile today so I went and got a copy.

I will review in more depth but the two major changes I saw were the results of the completion of the ERT Tunnels Project and the Dominion Boulevard Project.  The HR insert got it right.

-- VA-164 seamlessly connecting to the Midtown tunnel, the MLK Freeway extending to I-264, these being shown as limited access (blue) with 4 or more lanes, and that tunnel and the Downtown Tunnel is green meaning tolled in addition to being limited access with 4 or more lanes.

-- US-17 Dominion Boulevard all with 4 or more lanes, with it being limited access (blue) from south of Cedar Road to the northern end at VA-168, with the interchanges shown, and the bridge over the canal is green.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 17, 2018, 04:01:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 03:42:43 PM
I got an e-mail with the VDOT news release about the publication of the 2018-19 state highway map.  I was downtown for awhile today so I went and got a copy.

I will review in more depth but the two major changes I saw were the results of the completion of the ERT Tunnels Project and the Dominion Boulevard Project.  The HR insert got it right.

-- VA-164 seamlessly connecting to the Midtown tunnel, the MLK Freeway extending to I-264, these being shown as limited access (blue) with 4 or more lanes, and that tunnel and the Downtown Tunnel is green meaning tolled in addition to being limited access with 4 or more lanes.

-- US-17 Dominion Boulevard all with 4 or more lanes, with it being limited access (blue) from south of Cedar Road to the northern end at VA-168, with the interchanges shown, and the bridge over the canal is green.

The new VA 167 is shown in the Roanoke inset...(but so is the long-decommissioned one in Hampton)

New Stadium Dr interchange in Blacksburg is shown...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 04:29:24 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 17, 2018, 04:01:32 PM
The new VA 167 is shown in the Roanoke inset...(but so is the long-decommissioned one in Hampton)
New Stadium Dr interchange in Blacksburg is shown...

I wonder why they show the Coalfields Expressway as proposed, but not I-73?  (Not changed from previous map, BTW).

Both have approved routes but I don't think that the Coalfields Expressway is any more likely to get built than I-73, other than the segment that will carry US-460.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 17, 2018, 05:39:54 PM
The Boulevard Bridge (VA 161) is still not shown as being tolled.

Also, VA 76 is still shown as having a mainline toll just north of US 60 where it's just ramp tolls, that toll plaza shouldn't be shown at all.

There's no online insert for Chesapeake. Does the Jordan Bridge show up as tolled in the HR insert on the fold-out?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 17, 2018, 07:54:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 04:29:24 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 17, 2018, 04:01:32 PM
The new VA 167 is shown in the Roanoke inset...(but so is the long-decommissioned one in Hampton)
New Stadium Dr interchange in Blacksburg is shown...

I wonder why they show the Coalfields Expressway as proposed, but not I-73?  (Not changed from previous map, BTW).

Both have approved routes but I don't think that the Coalfields Expressway is any more likely to get built than I-73, other than the segment that will carry US-460.

at least 1 segment of US 121 that would not be a part of US 460 is in the current SYIP, albeit only a PE allocation in 2025 (http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=244&line_item_id=1262177).

As best I can tell nothing for I-73 is in the current SYIP...



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 17, 2018, 09:13:44 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 17, 2018, 07:54:00 PM
at least 1 segment of US 121 that would not be a part of US 460 is in the current SYIP, albeit only a PE allocation in 2025 (http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=244&line_item_id=1262177).
As best I can tell nothing for I-73 is in the current SYIP...

True but the rest of CFX is no less far into the future.  Major difference being that the I-73 corridor already has a pre-existing 4-lane corridor while the CFX corridor only has old-style 2-lane highways, so maybe there was more of a desire to show the route of the CFX.

I did find out from the guy in Central Office who manages the state map, that the updates are heavily driven by the district and residency office engineers.  I don't think there is central control over the map, at least not over the update/correction process, and that is why some limited access highways are brown and some are blue, depending on the region.  I found this out when I tried to point out some errors on the map about 10 years ago... and of course I disagree, and believe that someone in central office needs to enforce uniformity.  They did eventually correct about half of the errors that I pointed out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 30, 2018, 02:26:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 30, 2018, 03:25:56 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 30, 2018, 01:28:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 30, 2018, 11:44:31 AM
Traffic volumes are low on those ramps.
Yes, I see that.
In the meantime, one exit north, I see that VDOT is building a traffic circle at the southbound off-ramp and US 301.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.1436655,-77.3578945,741m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Good place.  I don't know the traffic volumes, but that seems to be approaching traffic signal warrants.  There are 13 businesses including 7 motels right near the interchange.
Well, if you've seen my activity on Wikipedia, you know I'm back from my road trip. And I found out the alleged traffic circle is just a decorative garden on all four corners. I should be working on pictures I took of that within the coming month.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 01, 2018, 11:10:45 AM
http://twitter.com/vadot/status/1058010998207143938?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 01, 2018, 09:29:36 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 01, 2018, 11:10:45 AM
http://twitter.com/vadot/status/1058010998207143938?s=21

These "Park Service" styled bridges were once common up and down what is now I-395.  I think there are one or two buried in the depths of the Mixing Bowl (which is not Springfield but is in Arlington County from VA-27 north to the Virginia end of the 14th Street Bridge complex (your mileage may vary)).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 01, 2018, 10:24:31 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 01, 2018, 09:29:36 PM
These "Park Service" styled bridges were once common up and down what is now I-395.  I think there are one or two buried in the depths of the Mixing Bowl (which is not Springfield but is in Arlington County from VA-27 north to the Virginia end of the 14th Street Bridge complex (your mileage may vary)).

The one on VA-27 over Columbia Pike was replaced a couple years ago.  VA-27 over VA-110 is being replaced now.  I don't know of any others of that old vintage.  The I-395 bridges over the GW Parkway are arch-style but all of modern vintage, like mid-1970s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 02, 2018, 09:07:07 AM
^ According to VDOT and NBI (National Bridge Inventory), northbound 395 at GW Pkwy is still the original 1950 bridge (last rehabbed in 2008).

Southbound is convoluted.  For inventory purposes, both VDOT and NBI consider the southbound and express lanes over GW Pkwy to be a single bridge dating to 1950.  Going through imagery and shapefile data, the express lanes bridge dates to the original 1950 bridge and was rebuilt (and presumably widened for the express lanes) in the 1970s (the express lanes opened in 1972 but VDOT's inventory shows 1976 for the bridge reconstruction).  The southbound mainline lanes bridge dates to 1962, coinciding with the southbound span on the 14th Street Bridge.  At some point (perhaps the 1976 entry?), the gap was filled and the southbound mainline and express lane bridges were combined into a single span.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 10, 2018, 10:39:06 AM
I see that the Richmond Metropolitan Authority (RMA) has a project to refinish the surface of the retaining walls, bridge parapets, bridge abutments and median barriers on the Downtown Expressway and Powhite Parkway.  This is very good, because they are 40+ years old and concrete deteriorates and they had darkened with a streaked effect from the weather and rain over the years, and were looking unsightly, and deeper deterioration was beginning to occur.

I looked at one of the parapets from where I could touch it, and it looks like a whitish material that combines paint with some kind of acrylic material, rolled on with a brush as a liquid, and then hardened.  Looks very durable and very nice!

Actually the name is now Richmond Metropolitan Transportation Authority (RMTA), and this is a recent change, and it makes sense as even back in the 1970s I thought that the original name was too general as it didn't have any reference to highways or transportation.  The authority was created in the late 1960s for the specific purpose of building the tolled expressway system.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on November 10, 2018, 04:08:41 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 02, 2018, 09:07:07 AM
^ According to VDOT and NBI (National Bridge Inventory), northbound 395 at GW Pkwy is still the original 1950 bridge (last rehabbed in 2008).

Southbound is convoluted.  For inventory purposes, both VDOT and NBI consider the southbound and express lanes over GW Pkwy to be a single bridge dating to 1950.  Going through imagery and shapefile data, the express lanes bridge dates to the original 1950 bridge and was rebuilt (and presumably widened for the express lanes) in the 1970s (the express lanes opened in 1972 but VDOT's inventory shows 1976 for the bridge reconstruction).  The southbound mainline lanes bridge dates to 1962, coinciding with the southbound span on the 14th Street Bridge.  At some point (perhaps the 1976 entry?), the gap was filled and the southbound mainline and express lane bridges were combined into a single span.
There was a time when the SB I-395 (George Mason) Bridge was being rehabbed, and SB traffic was crammed onto the middle (express lanes, now Rochambeau) Bridge. Perhaps the 2 bridges over the GWMP were combined at that time to facilitate the temporary traffic setup? I have a feeling that was later than 1976, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 10, 2018, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on November 10, 2018, 04:08:41 PM
There was a time when the SB I-395 (George Mason) Bridge was being rehabbed, and SB traffic was crammed onto the middle (express lanes, now Rochambeau) Bridge. Perhaps the 2 bridges over the GWMP were combined at that time to facilitate the temporary traffic setup? I have a feeling that was later than 1976, but I could be wrong.

The express bridge was opened in 1972 and the last and northernmost Shirley Highway reconstruction project was completed in 1975.   I believe that those I-395 GWMP bridges (SBR and EXR) were built and/or widened to today's configuration in the latter project, and my recollection is that they were fully open when the latter project was completed in 1975.  This bridge is in Virginia as is all of I-395 south of the river.

My analysis of the current aerial view is that it is the same configuration as was built in 1975 --
https://tinyurl.com/y8hqy223

Prior to the completion of the Shirley Highway reconstruction in 1975, the express bridge had only a temporary one-lane reversible busway to connect to between there and the busway in the last completed Shirley Highway reconstruction project in 1972 (Mixing Bowl Project).

This photo was taken in 1983 and the SB bridge appears to be prior to the redecking project.  The deck looks old and deteriorated even from a distance.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/14th_Street_Bridge_XL.jpg

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on November 10, 2018, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 10, 2018, 06:18:04 PM

The express bridge was opened in 1972 and the last and northernmost Shirley Highway reconstruction project was completed in 1975.   I believe that those I-395 GWMP bridges (SBR and EXR) were built and/or widened to today's configuration in the latter project, and my recollection is that they were fully open when the latter project was completed in 1975.  This bridge is in Virginia as is all of I-395 south of the river.

Prior to the completion of the Shirley Highway reconstruction in 1975, the express bridge had only a temporary one-lane reversible busway to connect to between there and the busway in the last completed Shirley Highway reconstruction project in 1972 (Mixing Bowl Project).
historicaerials.com seems to show the GWMP bridge already widened in the 62 and 63 photos, but the 66 topo has them separate (probably because the draftsman was really confused about how to depict it-there being no connecting lanes). The overheads of the now-Rochambeau don't really scream "under construction".

Speaking of the original bus lanes and construction, this seems like an opportune time to post my favorite bus lane construction photo. Long since forgotten where I got it; can't find the version on any PC so had to download this version that I posted on FB in 2014. This is a few miles south of the bridges under discussion; I'll let others while away their Saturday evening trying to figure out exactly where it was taken...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dawnet.com%2FAAroads%2F6XXXXX-BusLane.jpg&hash=8c36ceb2863c76340ca3c7c65d67a28b276ea6a5)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 10, 2018, 09:05:44 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on November 10, 2018, 08:35:42 PM
Speaking of the original bus lanes and construction, this seems like an opportune time to post my favorite bus lane construction photo. Long since forgotten where I got it; can't find the version on any PC so had to download this version that I posted on FB in 2014. This is a few miles south of the bridges under discussion; I'll let others while away their Saturday evening trying to figure out exactly where it was taken...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dawnet.com%2FAAroads%2F6XXXXX-BusLane.jpg&hash=8c36ceb2863c76340ca3c7c65d67a28b276ea6a5)

Probably above the Shirlington Circle bridge and reversible ramp junction, looking north (up) in this Google Maps image.  https://tinyurl.com/y7epr594 

Two of the bridges over Four Mile Run under construction in middle part of the construction photo.  Strong telephoto compression.  I don't think anywhere else would fit.  The temporary one-lane busway ran from just north of King Street to the express bridge over the river. 

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on November 10, 2018, 11:11:34 PM
Definitely the Shirlington rotary, looking northbound. Note the sign on the right for Glebe Rd.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 10, 2018, 11:42:49 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on November 10, 2018, 11:11:34 PM
Definitely the Shirlington rotary, looking northbound. Note the sign on the right for Glebe Rd.

I noticed that, the image is not really clear, but it probably says Glebe.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on November 11, 2018, 03:01:19 AM
That all lines up. Photographer likely standing on the original Shirlington Rotary. Left side of picture is a bent for the new rotary; cranes on the peak of the hill are working on the Glebe Rd interchange-the exit is visible after the Speed Limit sign. Apartment buildings on the hill overlooking Pentagon City.

Sort of this view nowadays: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8411808,-77.0838567,3a,75y,21.63h,79.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD-XbptBF10f2Cq2c0Zpfvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(this is weird: on my iPad, Beltway's above tinyurl puts me above Washington Blvd; on a PC, it resolves properly to the rotary overhead)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 11, 2018, 08:30:40 AM
Estimate the year to be 1970 when that photo was taken.  Pentagon City didn't yet exist on the ground.  The Metro station there opened in 1977 in the middle of an empty field, it was strange seeing a subway station entrance there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on November 11, 2018, 01:50:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 11, 2018, 08:30:40 AM
Estimate the year to be 1970 when that photo was taken.  Pentagon City didn't yet exist on the ground.  The Metro station there opened in 1977 in the middle of an empty field, it was strange seeing a subway station entrance there.

Neighborhood continues to grow - I was literally there earlier today. More high-rise buildings continue to get built (largely warehouses and single-story retail being converted to high-rise housing with ground-floor retail.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 12, 2018, 09:24:00 PM
Something I found myself wondering while driving home tonight in the rain: Why does it seem that VDOT and its contractors always disable the overhead lights in many work zones? Tonight, with HOV not in effect on the federal holiday, I used the I-395 reversible lanes. There are some lane shifts just south of where the reversible lanes begin near the Pentagon, coupled with the "cattle chute"  design with jersey walls on both sides, and none of the overhead lights were on. You can guess how all that, combined with the rain, basically means you can't see anything in terms of pavement markings (I even turned on my fog lights to try to help).

It's not the first time I've noticed all the overhead lighting being off in a work zone. Is this a safety issue for the workmen in terms of cutting power in case they have to work too close to the electric lines?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 12, 2018, 09:39:43 PM
Aren't they rebuilding the median barriers between the general purpose roadways and the reversible roadway?  That would mean that they are relocating the lighting standards as well, and since the power supply comes from a cable below the median barrier, that means that the cables have been disabled while they are being relocated.  Widening to three lanes means that the median barriers need to be relocated at least a few feet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 12, 2018, 10:22:24 PM
The lights on the outside of the general-purpose lanes seemed to be out as well, though–no overhead lights at all in that area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 12, 2018, 10:47:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 12, 2018, 10:22:24 PM
The lights on the outside of the general-purpose lanes seemed to be out as well, though—no overhead lights at all in that area.

How long have they been out?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on November 13, 2018, 12:41:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 12, 2018, 10:22:24 PM
The lights on the outside of the general-purpose lanes seemed to be out as well, though–no overhead lights at all in that area.
Probably related - they may have depowered the entire segment. That said, would have been nice to require temporary lighting in that circumstance.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 13, 2018, 06:41:40 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 13, 2018, 12:41:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 12, 2018, 10:22:24 PM
The lights on the outside of the general-purpose lanes seemed to be out as well, though—no overhead lights at all in that area.
Probably related - they may have depowered the entire segment. That said, would have been nice to require temporary lighting in that circumstance.

That was one of my thoughts on the matter.  I would be interested in knowing exactly which roadways are out and for how long.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on November 13, 2018, 07:29:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 10, 2018, 10:39:06 AM
I see that the Richmond Metropolitan Authority (RMA) has a project to refinish the surface of the retaining walls, bridge parapets, bridge abutments and median barriers on the Downtown Expressway and Powhite Parkway.  This is very good, because they are 40+ years old and concrete deteriorates and they had darkened with a streaked effect from the weather and rain over the years, and were looking unsightly, and deeper deterioration was beginning to occur.

I looked at one of the parapets from where I could touch it, and it looks like a whitish material that combines paint with some kind of acrylic material, rolled on with a brush as a liquid, and then hardened.  Looks very durable and very nice!

Actually the name is now Richmond Metropolitan Transportation Authority (RMTA), and this is a recent change, and it makes sense as even back in the 1970s I thought that the original name was too general as it didn't have any reference to highways or transportation.  The authority was created in the late 1960s for the specific purpose of building the tolled expressway system.

I like this project as well, both of these expressways need sprucing up. I think it also shows how well RMTA is doing as a toll agency (the last toll hike was around 2004ish, maybe?), even with none of the tolls being over 70 cents.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 13, 2018, 08:07:05 AM
Quote from: plain on November 13, 2018, 07:29:36 AM
I like this project as well, both of these expressways need sprucing up. I think it also shows how well RMTA is doing as a toll agency (the last toll hike was around 2004ish, maybe?), even with none of the tolls being over 70 cents.

Well that does work out to 20 cents per mile to use each expressway, 70 cents each, and no commuter discounts.

I would like to see VDOT rehab the Acca Yards viaduct on I-195.  The roadway decks need spot repairs although they might want to go ahead perform a full milling and latex concrete overlay project.  If you have been underneath the bridge you can see lots of serious rust at the end of girders and on the bearing seats.  They really need to fully strip and repaint all the steel structure, and do it soon before the rust advances to the point of more serious problems.   This bridge opened in 1975 so it is aging.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 13, 2018, 08:21:41 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 12, 2018, 10:47:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 12, 2018, 10:22:24 PM
The lights on the outside of the general-purpose lanes seemed to be out as well, though—no overhead lights at all in that area.

How long have they been out?

I don't know. I usually take the Metro to work unless we have a Caps game. Yesterday was an exception due to the Metro closure coupled with the federal holiday. I know they were out last Wednesday when we were coming home from a game, though it didn't strike me as much at the time because it wasn't raining.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 13, 2018, 11:49:55 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 10, 2018, 10:39:06 AM
I see that the Richmond Metropolitan Authority (RMA) has a project to refinish the surface of the retaining walls, bridge parapets, bridge abutments and median barriers on the Downtown Expressway and Powhite Parkway.  This is very good, because they are 40+ years old and concrete deteriorates and they had darkened with a streaked effect from the weather and rain over the years, and were looking unsightly, and deeper deterioration was beginning to occur.

I looked at one of the parapets from where I could touch it, and it looks like a whitish material that combines paint with some kind of acrylic material, rolled on with a brush as a liquid, and then hardened.  Looks very durable and very nice!

Actually the name is now Richmond Metropolitan Transportation Authority (RMTA), and this is a recent change, and it makes sense as even back in the 1970s I thought that the original name was too general as it didn't have any reference to highways or transportation.  The authority was created in the late 1960s for the specific purpose of building the tolled expressway system.



The RMTA has really stepped up their game when it comes to maintenance of their highways and bridges. The relatively recent resurfacing of VA 195 and VA 76 has made those roads very smooth rides. Hopefully they're able to continue making such high quality improvements.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 13, 2018, 11:57:17 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 13, 2018, 08:21:41 AM
I don't know. I usually take the Metro to work unless we have a Caps game. Yesterday was an exception due to the Metro closure coupled with the federal holiday. I know they were out last Wednesday when we were coming home from a game, though it didn't strike me as much at the time because it wasn't raining.

If short-term it is possible it wasn't construction related.  I've seen segments of lights go out for days at a time on Richmond freeways, and while I didn't ask to find out why, there may have been damage due to accident or flooding, they are vulnerable to that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: webny99 on November 25, 2018, 01:14:11 PM
Maybe someone here can enlighten me as to what is going on with I-95 between DC and Richmond.

I have been browsing Google Maps a lot this weekend, spotting trends in live traffic around the country and so on. Among my outstanding observations: This stretch of I-95 seems to be among the most persistently congested interstates (outside of major metropolitan areas) in the entire US. It has basically been orange/red during every daylight hour since Wednesday, despite at least six lanes throughout and no apparent construction. There were even times (such as midday Friday) when the entirety of both Baltimore and DC were largely traffic-free, with no significant delays, yet I-95 between DC and Richmond was showing congested.

Is there a lot of Thanksgiving travel on this corridor specifically, compared to the rest of the US, or is something else going on?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 25, 2018, 02:02:35 PM
Just a lot of holiday weekend travel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on November 25, 2018, 03:17:21 PM
I-95 south of DC is always miserable.  Always.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 25, 2018, 03:17:21 PM
I-95 south of DC is always miserable.  Always.

No it is not.  9 times out of 10 when I use it the traffic conditions are acceptable or better.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 25, 2018, 04:09:40 PM
Traffic on I-95 in this part of Virginia picks up between Thanksgiving and New Years with a lot of pass-through holiday traffic, snowbirds, Bowl Game travelers, etc.

When it is not holidays or summer weekends, the traffic on 95 is very busy and absent of a problem moves freely between Richmond and Fredericksburg.  North of Fredericksburg has issues without problems more often.  Even during freely moving periods it is pretty crowded (enough that my wife almost always asks me to bail).

AADT from I-295 Richmond to VA 3 Fredericksburg ranges from 102k-135k (2017, both directions combined) and from VA 3 to the Capital Beltway ranges from 134k-262k.
If you look at AADT for 6-lane segment (I-295 to VA 123) vs. 8 lane then it is 102k-206k (6 lane) and 211k-262k (8 lanes)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2018, 07:38:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 25, 2018, 03:17:21 PM
I-95 south of DC is always miserable.  Always.

No it is not.  9 times out of 10 when I use it the traffic conditions are acceptable or better.

Haven't you advocated in other threads that I-95 be at least 8 lanes from I-295 to VA-123? Guarantee that the average I-95 commuter would say that 9 times out of 10 there is always traffic somewhere on I-95 north Fredericksburg. South of Fredericksburg, I agree that the traffic conditions on I-95 are acceptable with the lone exception being the I-95/I-295 merge north of Richmond. There needs to be a 4th northbound lane from there all the way to at least VA-54.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2018, 07:38:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 03:43:47 PM
9 times out of 10 when I use it the traffic conditions are acceptable or better.
Haven't you advocated in other threads that I-95 be at least 8 lanes from I-295 to VA-123? Guarantee that the average I-95 commuter would say that 9 times out of 10 there is always traffic somewhere on I-95 north Fredericksburg. South of Fredericksburg, I agree that the traffic conditions on I-95 are acceptable with the lone exception being the I-95/I-295 merge north of Richmond. There needs to be a 4th northbound lane from there all the way to at least VA-54.

Yes, I said that it needs 4 general purpose lanes between I-295 and I-495.  That is needed for peak period travel.  There are many daily hours that are off peak where 3 lanes can handle the traffic, but that doesn't help the peak traffic.

Commuter traffic north of Fredericksburg indeed has congestion spots that can vary in location.  North of Garrisonville there is additional capacity in the reversible roadway.

Lowest I-95 AADT between I-295 and I-495 is now 102,000 ... in a very rural area ... amazing ...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2018, 08:34:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 08:06:45 PM
Lowest I-95 AADT between I-295 and I-495 is now 102,000 ... in a very rural area ... amazing ...

That very rural area likely won't stay that way for much longer. In fact, there is a decent argument to be made that at this point the larger so-called BosWash megalopolis already extends down south to Richmond. Regarding I-95, I wouldn't be surprised if due to the increasingly high traffic counts on both I-95 and US-301, that the Ruther Glen interchange(Exit 104), one day becomes just another southbound chokepoint. A potential solution would be to either perhaps improve the interchange or widen I-95 south of there to 8 lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 09:55:23 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2018, 08:34:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 08:06:45 PM
Lowest I-95 AADT between I-295 and I-495 is now 102,000 ... in a very rural area ... amazing ...

That very rural area likely won't stay that way for much longer. In fact, there is a decent argument to be made that at this point the larger so-called BosWash megalopolis already extends down south to Richmond. Regarding I-95, I wouldn't be surprised if due to the increasingly high traffic counts on both I-95 and US-301, that the Ruther Glen interchange(Exit 104), one day becomes just another southbound chokepoint. A potential solution would be to either perhaps improve the interchange or widen I-95 south of there to 8 lanes.

The area between Doswell and Thornburg should remain rural for the foreseeable future.  Other than selected exurban developments there won't be much.

Interstate and interregional traffic what drives the volumes on that segment of I-95.  Huge volumes of long-distance traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2018, 10:20:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 09:55:23 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2018, 08:34:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 08:06:45 PM
Lowest I-95 AADT between I-295 and I-495 is now 102,000 ... in a very rural area ... amazing ...

That very rural area likely won't stay that way for much longer. In fact, there is a decent argument to be made that at this point the larger so-called BosWash megalopolis already extends down south to Richmond. Regarding I-95, I wouldn't be surprised if due to the increasingly high traffic counts on both I-95 and US-301, that the Ruther Glen interchange(Exit 104), one day becomes just another southbound chokepoint. A potential solution would be to either perhaps improve the interchange or widen I-95 south of there to 8 lanes.

The area between Doswell and Thornburg should remain rural for the foreseeable future.  Other than selected exurban developments there won't be much.

Interstate and interregional traffic what drives the volumes on that segment of I-95.  Huge volumes of long-distance traffic.

Which is exactly why I could see that area becoming extremely attractive for 100+ job distribution centers. IMO that section of I-95 is very similar to the stretch from Aberdeen, MD to the Delaware State line(rural with many growing small towns nearby) and has just as much economic potential. Not saying it will happen, just that it appears to be trending that way and I would hope VA is prepared in case it does.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 11:37:30 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2018, 10:20:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 09:55:23 PM
The area between Doswell and Thornburg should remain rural for the foreseeable future.  Other than selected exurban developments there won't be much.
Interstate and interregional traffic what drives the volumes on that segment of I-95.  Huge volumes of long-distance traffic.
Which is exactly why I could see that area becoming extremely attractive for 100+ job distribution centers. IMO that section of I-95 is very similar to the stretch from Aberdeen, MD to the Delaware State line(rural with many growing small towns nearby) and has just as much economic potential. Not saying it will happen, just that it appears to be trending that way and I would hope VA is prepared in case it does.

The ones in Maryland area larger, in the realm of small cities -- Abingdon, Aberdeen, Havre DeGrace, Perryville, and Elkton.  In addition to a number of small towns.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: webny99 on November 26, 2018, 01:22:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 25, 2018, 02:02:35 PM
Just a lot of holiday weekend travel.
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 08:06:45 PM
Lowest I-95 AADT between I-295 and I-495 is now 102,000 ... in a very rural area ... amazing ...

Amazing, indeed, and I think that answers my question.

It was mentioned upthread that the Bos-Wash corridor really should include DC to Richmond. I think I agree. Volumes over 100K are basically unheard of in rural areas, leading me to conclude that this corridor is basically an extension of the East Coast megalopolis.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 26, 2018, 02:55:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on November 26, 2018, 01:22:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 25, 2018, 02:02:35 PM
Just a lot of holiday weekend travel.
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 08:06:45 PM
Lowest I-95 AADT between I-295 and I-495 is now 102,000 ... in a very rural area ... amazing ...
Amazing, indeed, and I think that answers my question.
It was mentioned upthread that the Bos-Wash corridor really should include DC to Richmond. I think I agree. Volumes over 100K are basically unheard of in rural areas, leading me to conclude that this corridor is basically an extension of the East Coast megalopolis.

The Northeast megalopolis extends to Maine in the north and to Norfolk in the south.  This has been the case at least since the 1970s when I first read about it.

"It includes the major cities of Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., along with their metropolitan areas and suburbs, as well as many smaller urban centers such as Richmond and Norfolk, Virginia to the South and Portland, Maine to the North."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_megalopolis


This section was widened to 6 lanes (3 each way) back in the 1980s, Ashland to Triangle, 58 miles, from 1980-1987.  It was surprising to see the need for 6 lanes over 30 years ago.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on November 27, 2018, 09:24:02 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2018, 07:38:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 25, 2018, 03:17:21 PM
I-95 south of DC is always miserable.  Always.

No it is not.  9 times out of 10 when I use it the traffic conditions are acceptable or better.

Haven't you advocated in other threads that I-95 be at least 8 lanes from I-295 to VA-123? Guarantee that the average I-95 commuter would say that 9 times out of 10 there is always traffic somewhere on I-95 north Fredericksburg. South of Fredericksburg, I agree that the traffic conditions on I-95 are acceptable with the lone exception being the I-95/I-295 merge north of Richmond. There needs to be a 4th northbound lane from there all the way to at least VA-54.
I agree with this.  North of Fredericksburg is the stretch of Interstate I most dread driving in the entire country.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 27, 2018, 09:43:03 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 27, 2018, 09:24:02 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2018, 07:38:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 25, 2018, 03:17:21 PM
I-95 south of DC is always miserable.  Always.
No it is not.  9 times out of 10 when I use it the traffic conditions are acceptable or better.
Haven't you advocated in other threads that I-95 be at least 8 lanes from I-295 to VA-123? Guarantee that the average I-95 commuter would say that 9 times out of 10 there is always traffic somewhere on I-95 north Fredericksburg. South of Fredericksburg, I agree that the traffic conditions on I-95 are acceptable with the lone exception being the I-95/I-295 merge north of Richmond. There needs to be a 4th northbound lane from there all the way to at least VA-54.
I agree with this.  North of Fredericksburg is the stretch of Interstate I most dread driving in the entire country.

Are you trolling, neurotic or what?   This is one of the most advanced highway designs in the world, speaking particularly of north of Garrisonville, although expansion is underway now down to Fredericksburg.  Do you ever drive in New York City, with some of its "Interstates" being some of the most substandard and frightening highways anywhere?  Work on fixing your own state before you comment on others.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on November 27, 2018, 10:12:48 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 27, 2018, 09:24:02 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2018, 07:38:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 25, 2018, 03:17:21 PM
I-95 south of DC is always miserable.  Always.

No it is not.  9 times out of 10 when I use it the traffic conditions are acceptable or better.

Haven't you advocated in other threads that I-95 be at least 8 lanes from I-295 to VA-123? Guarantee that the average I-95 commuter would say that 9 times out of 10 there is always traffic somewhere on I-95 north Fredericksburg. South of Fredericksburg, I agree that the traffic conditions on I-95 are acceptable with the lone exception being the I-95/I-295 merge north of Richmond. There needs to be a 4th northbound lane from there all the way to at least VA-54.
I agree with this.  North of Fredericksburg is the stretch of Interstate I most dread driving in the entire country.
I agree.  Coming through there on summer weekends is endless crawling traffic. It gets bad enough that sometimes I go out to Warrenton to go around it. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on November 27, 2018, 10:20:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2018, 09:43:03 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 27, 2018, 09:24:02 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2018, 07:38:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 25, 2018, 03:17:21 PM
I-95 south of DC is always miserable.  Always.
No it is not.  9 times out of 10 when I use it the traffic conditions are acceptable or better.
Haven't you advocated in other threads that I-95 be at least 8 lanes from I-295 to VA-123? Guarantee that the average I-95 commuter would say that 9 times out of 10 there is always traffic somewhere on I-95 north Fredericksburg. South of Fredericksburg, I agree that the traffic conditions on I-95 are acceptable with the lone exception being the I-95/I-295 merge north of Richmond. There needs to be a 4th northbound lane from there all the way to at least VA-54.
I agree with this.  North of Fredericksburg is the stretch of Interstate I most dread driving in the entire country.

Are you trolling, neurotic or what?   This is one of the most advanced highway designs in the world, speaking particularly of north of Garrisonville, although expansion is underway now down to Fredericksburg.  Do you ever drive in New York City, with some of its "Interstates" being some of the most substandard and frightening highways anywhere?  Work on fixing your own state before you comment on others.
To answer your question and unwarranted personal attack:  No.

The last few times I have driven down that stretch, the reversible lanes were mismanaged and unable to respond to obvious unidirectional congestion.  You could count the cars going the other way with your fingers, so it wasn't some perception issue where "the lanes were working properly because it was free flow in their direction."  No, they were open in the wrong direction, so all the fancy design in the world still fails the travelling public on that stretch of I-95 between DC and Fredericksburg.  It would have been better just to have added regular capacity than just fill the pockets of an operator.

At least there are legitimate reasons for NYC's lingering congestion, which has actually lessened over the years.  Lane mismanagement and lack of ability to address the congestion on I-95, partially due to noncompetition clauses with the operator, are just ridiculous and has resulted in a congested mess along the entire corridor.  The only corridor I can think of in NYC that would come close would be the LIE and even then, I bet the length of I-95 affected by congestion in VA  is longer than where the severe congestion is on the LIE.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on November 27, 2018, 06:20:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2018, 09:43:03 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 27, 2018, 09:24:02 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2018, 07:38:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 25, 2018, 03:17:21 PM
I-95 south of DC is always miserable.  Always.
No it is not.  9 times out of 10 when I use it the traffic conditions are acceptable or better.
Haven't you advocated in other threads that I-95 be at least 8 lanes from I-295 to VA-123? Guarantee that the average I-95 commuter would say that 9 times out of 10 there is always traffic somewhere on I-95 north Fredericksburg. South of Fredericksburg, I agree that the traffic conditions on I-95 are acceptable with the lone exception being the I-95/I-295 merge north of Richmond. There needs to be a 4th northbound lane from there all the way to at least VA-54.
I agree with this.  North of Fredericksburg is the stretch of Interstate I most dread driving in the entire country.

Are you trolling, neurotic or what?   This is one of the most advanced highway designs in the world, speaking particularly of north of Garrisonville, although expansion is underway now down to Fredericksburg.  Do you ever drive in New York City, with some of its "Interstates" being some of the most substandard and frightening highways anywhere?  Work on fixing your own state before you comment on others.


Cool it with the personal attacks, Kozel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 27, 2018, 08:52:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2018, 09:43:03 AM
This is one of the most advanced highway designs in the world, speaking particularly of north of Garrisonville

Though my time driving that stretch has been limited to exactly one trip northbound (heading back to Arlington from Charlottesville), I did not see any infrastructure that would have led me to believe 95 north of Fredericksburg was, in any sense of the word, "advanced".

Compared to the 405 back in Seattle, which I drive quite frequently, I-95 north of Fredericksburg has...

* no shoulder driving
* no variable speed signs to slow traffic in advance of crashes, or to close lanes
* no accommodation for transit or carpool
* a "safety zone" ... what the hell is that shit!?

It does have a peak-direction carriageway, which is nice, but if it fails (as mentioned above), it's worthless. Never mind it's inability to cope with unexpected non-peak direction traffic.

IMO, the 395 north of the beltway is of better design, as is the beltway itself (though only between Springfield and VA-267). Still, the lack of variable limits along any of these freeways is annoying.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 27, 2018, 09:59:09 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 27, 2018, 08:52:37 PM
Compared to the 405 back in Seattle, which I drive quite frequently, I-95 north of Fredericksburg has...
* no shoulder driving
* no variable speed signs to slow traffic in advance of crashes, or to close lanes
* no accommodation for transit or carpool
* a "safety zone" ... what the hell is that shit!?

Shoulder driving is a questionable benefit at best.  There are plenty of VMS signs on the corridor to advise of incidents and lane closures, and I am not sure if variable speed limits are a major benefit (and they don't close lanes).

The reversible roadway is HOT-3 which means that car pools with at least 3 occupants ride toll-free.  Major express bus service uses the roadway during morning and afternoon weekday peaks.  The variable tolls are designed to keep traffic moving at high speed.  This has been a very successful HOV/busway mass transit facility since its inception in 1975 (HOT since 2014), including casual car pooling also known as "slugging".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 27, 2018, 10:31:15 PM
I-95 in Fairfax County had a part-time shoulder lane for a time in either the late 1980s or early 1990s (I forget which and am not motivated to look it up). The idea was to allow shoulder use during peak rush hour, but the experiment failed. People didn't obey the rules about what times the shoulder was not to be used as a lane and the result was all to easy to foresee–the most memorable incident was when a tractor-trailer was being driven illegally on the shoulder and slammed into a disabled Mustang that was legally stopped on the shoulder. The Mustang's driver was killed. The experiment was ended sometime after that. I seem to recall a widening project was going on at the same time, probably the southern extension of the HOV lanes from Springfield to Dumfries.

(The later design for the I-66 shoulder lanes, with the different-colored surface and the lane control lights, both of which were done away with earlier this year, was in part a reaction to the problems they had on I-95. The idea was to make it clearer that it was not an ordinary lane.)

The three-lane portion of the I-95 HO/T lanes has a variable speed limit, although I've never seen it posted at anything other than 65 mph (recognizing I normally use only a small segment of the I-95 lanes). The only other place in Northern Virginia where there was a variable speed limit in use for any length of time was on the Beltway from Springfield to the Wilson Bridge during the construction about ten years ago. Problem was, everyone ignored it when they lowered the speed limits, which should have been no surprise to anyone because everyone also ignores the 55-mph speed limit that's normally in effect through there!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 27, 2018, 10:40:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2018, 09:59:09 PM
Shoulder driving is a questionable benefit at best.  There are plenty of VMS signs on the corridor to advise of incidents and lane closures, and I am not sure if variable speed limits are a major benefit (and they don't close lanes).

Variable speed limits can reduce speeds prior to an accident, to keep traffic from piling into one another. If traffic is really slow or stopped ahead, the speed limit can drop from 65 to 45 or 35 (or less) to slow traffic in advance of the backup. This can prevent high-speed "didn't see it coming" rear-end collisions.

Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2018, 10:31:15 PM
The three-lane portion of the I-95 HO/T lanes has a variable speed limit, although I've never seen it posted at anything other than 65 mph

I am referring to the overhead per-lane variable speed signs like those utilized by WSDOT. These can close lanes and alert drivers of other lane-specific conditions, such as heavy merging traffic. I think they are far more effective at slowing traffic than side-only variable limits, as those aren't screaming at drivers like those overhead can.

(https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/9CA0E75A-FA1E-4D65-8CC8-679291872E1D/0/I5ATMsignInAction350.jpg) (https://i0.wp.com/jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/compliant-var-speed-signs-png.png?ssl=1)

Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2018, 10:31:15 PM
(The later design for the I-66 shoulder lanes, with the different-colored surface and the lane control lights, both of which were done away with earlier this year, was in part a reaction to the problems they had on I-95. The idea was to make it clearer that it was not an ordinary lane.)

Thanks for bringing this up. I was about finished writing about it in my post, but you took care of that for me. The digital signs are still up, right? Weren't they just installed?

The peak-time shoulder lane is utilized on Seattle's 405 to extend an exit only about two miles south from where it starts during most hours of the day. It is also used on I-5 as a bus-only lane, on the inside shoulder to the left of the heavily-used HOV lane.

Here's it in operation. Note that it's a fully digital setup, not one of those dinky "shoulder use permitted 4-6pm M-F" signs that have no ability to change on the fly to adjust to crashes or stopped vehicles, etc. This one can be closed immediately if someone is stopped, unlike the former I-66 and I-95 setups.

(https://i.imgur.com/MpFJTmG.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 27, 2018, 10:52:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 27, 2018, 10:40:34 PM
Variable speed limits can reduce speeds prior to an accident, to keep traffic from piling into one another. If traffic is really slow or stopped ahead, the speed limit can drop from 65 to 45 or 35 (or less) to slow traffic in advance of the backup. This can prevent high-speed "didn't see it coming" rear-end collisions.

That assumes 1) that most motorists pay much attention to speed limits, and 2) that the smart traffic center has fine enough data to post the reduced speed limit at the right place and not so far in advance that they appear to "cry wolf" to someone who doesn't see the reason for the slowdown, and 3) that the reduced speed limit is applied in a timely manner and then restored in a timely manner, and that also depends on whether the smart traffic center has fine enough data.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 27, 2018, 11:24:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2018, 10:52:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 27, 2018, 10:40:34 PM
Variable speed limits can reduce speeds prior to an accident, to keep traffic from piling into one another. If traffic is really slow or stopped ahead, the speed limit can drop from 65 to 45 or 35 (or less) to slow traffic in advance of the backup. This can prevent high-speed "didn't see it coming" rear-end collisions.

That assumes 1) that most motorists pay much attention to speed limits, and 2) that the smart traffic center has fine enough data to post the reduced speed limit at the right place and not so far in advance that they appear to "cry wolf" to someone who doesn't see the reason for the slowdown, and 3) that the reduced speed limit is applied in a timely manner and then restored in a timely manner, and that also depends on whether the smart traffic center has fine enough data.

I can say from personal experience that motorists do not obey the overhead limits to a tee, but drivers definitely slow down a bit (maybe from 70 to 55 or less, even if the ATM dropped the limit from 60 to 45), if only because they know the decreased limit is advanced warning of heavy traffic or a collision. The ATM system operates based on induction loops (https://goo.gl/kxHjqr) placed in the freeway every so many thousand feet. The computers adjust the limit based on real-time traffic data, so it's rather punctual in adjusting the limits.

From WSDOT's Gray Notebook (http://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/graynotebook/CCR14.pdf)...

Quote from: WSDOT Gray Notebook
The [northbound I-5 ATM-enabled carriageway between Tukwila and Seattle] was compared to three [non-ATM] freeway groupings: southbound I-5 from Shoreline to downtown Seattle; I-5 comparison segments (noted in the graph below); and all King County freeways collectively. These sections saw collision rates increase between 2.4% and 4.4% using the six-year comparison. Conversely, during the same period, the ATM section saw collisions drop 4.1%. These trends are illustrated in the graph below.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 27, 2018, 11:44:20 PM
As mentioned the express lanes on I-95 have a variable speed limit.  The corridor in general does not, but the freeways in Northern Virginia are heavily implemented with ITS.

http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/smart-traffic-center-nova.asp
Excerpt:

The Northern Virginia Traffic Operations Center Operators have more than 5,000 pieces of equipment in the field to help them do their job including:
109 cameras
222 variable message signs
24 gates on I-66 HOV lanes for use during peak travel hours
21 gate groups on I-95/I-395 for reversible HOV lanes
25 ramp meters for inside the beltway on I-66 and I-395
30 lane control signals
23 vehicle classification stations
177 controllers with sensors and loop detectors

Loop detectors and pavement sensors that are embedded in the roadways prompt an automatic incident detection system that alert Operations Center controllers when and where there is likely to be an accident.  This equipment also gathers speed volume and occupancy data.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 28, 2018, 12:30:02 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2018, 11:44:20 PM
As mentioned the express lanes on I-95 have a variable speed limit.  The corridor in general does not, but the freeways in Northern Virginia are heavily implemented with ITS.

Right, I got that. I very rarely drive outside Arlington and the district, so my experience with NoVA freeways is limited. Would still like to press the difference between WSDOT-style variable limits, and side-only limits. None of the side-only variable limits seem to be effective. Only the overhead ones seem to have any serious effect.

I am surprised that you seem uncertain about the benefits of traffic/demand management systems. Has VDOT not published any data about how positively or negatively their systems have affected roadways? Most countries in Europe practice some form of ATDM with apparent success.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 12:37:28 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2018, 12:30:02 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 27, 2018, 11:44:20 PM
As mentioned the express lanes on I-95 have a variable speed limit.  The corridor in general does not, but the freeways in Northern Virginia are heavily implemented with ITS.
Right, I got that. I very rarely drive outside Arlington and the district, so my experience with NoVA freeways is limited.
I am surprised that you seem uncertain about the benefits of traffic/demand management systems. Has VDOT not published any data about how positively or negatively their systems have affected roadways?

I am not uncertain about the benefits, it is just not an area I have studied in depth, so that limits my ability to discuss it in depth.  As you know there are many sub topics of interest in roads and highways.

I-66 does have an Active Traffic Management system that was implemented in 2015, and the Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC) has a very long and detailed report about that system that you can read at your leisure--

Evaluation of the Impact of the I-66 Active Traffic Management System 
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/17-r5.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 12:54:54 AM
Quote from: BrianP on November 27, 2018, 10:12:48 AM
Coming through there on summer weekends is endless crawling traffic. It gets bad enough that sometimes I go out to Warrenton to go around it. 

Presumably to bypass D.C.?  I used to do that sometimes, but when the Wilson Bridge Project was completed (2013) and the I-495 HOT Lanes project was completed (2012), my preferred route has been to stay on I-95 whether bypassing east or west of D.C., given the time and reliability improvements of those two projects alone.  The only reason I would detour off of I-95 was if there was radio reports of a traffic catastrophe, which has not happened to me yet.

The I-95 HOT Lanes project completion (2014) has increased my preference for staying on I-95, although before that there were still many times when I was able to take advantage of the I-95 reversibles when HOV was not in effect at that timespan.


Quote from: Rothman on November 27, 2018, 10:20:51 AM
The last few times I have driven down that stretch, the reversible lanes were mismanaged and unable to respond to obvious unidirectional congestion.  You could count the cars going the other way with your fingers, so it wasn't some perception issue where "the lanes were working properly because it was free flow in their direction."  No, they were open in the wrong direction, so all the fancy design in the world still fails the travelling public on that stretch of I-95 between DC and Fredericksburg.  It would have been better just to have added regular capacity than just fill the pockets of an operator.
At least there are legitimate reasons for NYC's lingering congestion, which has actually lessened over the years.  Lane mismanagement and lack of ability to address the congestion on I-95, partially due to noncompetition clauses with the operator, are just ridiculous and has resulted in a congested mess along the entire corridor.  The only corridor I can think of in NYC that would come close would be the LIE and even then, I bet the length of I-95 affected by congestion in VA  is longer than where the severe congestion is on the LIE.

Oh please.  I can't think of a more painful place to drive than NYC and its NY suburbs, and it is not just because of the large population, roads like the LIE, BQE, CBX, VWX and Belt Parkway are antiquated and poorly maintained in many places (atrocious bridges and horrendous pavements) and undersized, and there are astronomical tolls on some of the crossings.  The lack of an LI Sound crossing and the recent "study" that dismissed it by claiming that it would cost $55 billon to build a bridge!  Let's not talk about the LIE without mentioning the rest of unbuilt I-495 between the NJTP and the LIE including the undersized Midtown Tunnel; and if you want to leave New Jersey out of it, then consider between Midtown Manhattan and mid-LI - pain.


On the I-95/I-395 reversible roadways.  Firstly, given the high peak directional split it matches the -normal- traffic patterns.  Secondly, you can't instantly change the direction of the roadway, it is 38 miles long and 2 hours are scheduled for the operation, to let it empty of all moving vehicles and verify the same, verify that all entry gates are closed, verify that there are no disabled vehicles on the facility, and then to tow any such vehicles.  Sometimes it can be done and reopened in an hour and a half or less, but 2 hours is scheduled.

Thirdly, the traffic directions need to follow a normal schedule so that drivers can plan in advance.  Inbound (NB) in the morning on weekdays, outbound (SB) in the evening.  Outbound Saturday morning, inbound in the evening.  Sunday mornings have low traffic, inbound peaks in the evening.  These follow normal directional flows.  Holidays analyzed individually.

Given the above parameters and the time to reverse, normally a directional operation block is not less than 12 hours and like I said it needs to follow a schedule that is published.  I have never seen it "open in the wrong direction", and this is going back to the 1970s, and keep in mind that having 5 to 7 lanes in one direction does a pretty nice job of spreading out the traffic as compared to 3 or 4 lanes in the other direction.

Fourthly, FHWA refused to fund general purpose lane widening or dual-dual widening in the 1990s project to extend the reversibles from Springfield to Dumfries, they funded it as a managed lanes project.  Fifthly, the project still matched the -normal- high directional peaks on the highway.  As does the extension to Garrisonville and to Stafford.  Just because a short term peak may occur in the opposite direction doesn't override the 12-hour operation, and that could occur because of a major incident, and in an emergency situation the normal schedule can be and has been overridden.

Sixthly, there are several options currently for expanding the general purpose lanes to 4x4, it could be a tax-funded project that would assess and pay for a compensation event (if any); it could be a P3 project to add an express toll lane each way, and it could be the construction of 2-lane C-D roadways at local congestion spots.

Seventhly, VDOT had plans for an outer western Washington bypass but Maryland never would participate and consider building its part.  So no dice.  This would have bypassed I-95 and the whole area from Fredericksburg to Mount Airy MD, provided some relief to I-95 and provided a bypass for I-95 thru traffic.

I-95 in Fairfax County south of the Beltway has reached "full build out", IMHO, with its 4nb-3r-4sb configuration, it is a massively wide highway.  Currently in PW County and southward it goes from 4nb-3r-4sb to 3nb-3r-3sb to 3nb-2r-3sb.

I would argue that a 4nb-2r-4sb configuration from Woodbridge to Massaponax would be "full build out" for that segment.

For additional capacity build a new highway such as an eastern and/or western outer bypass of Washington.

Two- and 3-lane C-D roadways are planned and being constructed on I-95 between south of VA-3 and north of US-17, and these are Interstate-standard roadways.  These C-D roadways could be built in other areas north of there in the future.  But the reversible HOV/HOT/busway roadway is an ideal "core" for the expansion of I-95 in this area, IMHO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 28, 2018, 06:54:08 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 27, 2018, 10:31:15 PM

The three-lane portion of the I-95 HO/T lanes has a variable speed limit, although I've never seen it posted at anything other than 65 mph (recognizing I normally use only a small segment of the I-95 lanes). The only other place in Northern Virginia where there was a variable speed limit in use for any length of time was on the Beltway from Springfield to the Wilson Bridge during the construction about ten years ago. Problem was, everyone ignored it when they lowered the speed limits, which should have been no surprise to anyone because everyone also ignores the 55-mph speed limit that's normally in effect through there!

The I-95 HOT lanes variable speed limits change if there are lanes blocked as do the ones on I-66 outside the beltway.  The I-66 ones only show if the speed limit is dropped?

Oddly, they do not change when it is snowing enough that going over say 35 is out of the question...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on November 28, 2018, 07:44:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 12:54:54 AM
Quote from: BrianP on November 27, 2018, 10:12:48 AM
Coming through there on summer weekends is endless crawling traffic. It gets bad enough that sometimes I go out to Warrenton to go around it. 

Presumably to bypass D.C.?  I used to do that sometimes, but when the Wilson Bridge Project was completed (2013) and the I-495 HOT Lanes project was completed (2012), my preferred route has been to stay on I-95 whether bypassing east or west of D.C., given the time and reliability improvements of those two projects alone.  The only reason I would detour off of I-95 was if there was radio reports of a traffic catastrophe, which has not happened to me yet.

The I-95 HOT Lanes project completion (2014) has increased my preference for staying on I-95, although before that there were still many times when I was able to take advantage of the I-95 reversibles when HOV was not in effect at that timespan.


Quote from: Rothman on November 27, 2018, 10:20:51 AM
The last few times I have driven down that stretch, the reversible lanes were mismanaged and unable to respond to obvious unidirectional congestion.  You could count the cars going the other way with your fingers, so it wasn't some perception issue where "the lanes were working properly because it was free flow in their direction."  No, they were open in the wrong direction, so all the fancy design in the world still fails the travelling public on that stretch of I-95 between DC and Fredericksburg.  It would have been better just to have added regular capacity than just fill the pockets of an operator.
At least there are legitimate reasons for NYC's lingering congestion, which has actually lessened over the years.  Lane mismanagement and lack of ability to address the congestion on I-95, partially due to noncompetition clauses with the operator, are just ridiculous and has resulted in a congested mess along the entire corridor.  The only corridor I can think of in NYC that would come close would be the LIE and even then, I bet the length of I-95 affected by congestion in VA  is longer than where the severe congestion is on the LIE.

Oh please.  I can't think of a more painful place to drive than NYC and its NY suburbs, and it is not just because of the large population, roads like the LIE, BQE, CBX, VWX and Belt Parkway are antiquated and poorly maintained in many places (atrocious bridges and horrendous pavements) and undersized, and there are astronomical tolls on some of the crossings.  The lack of an LI Sound crossing and the recent "study" that dismissed it by claiming that it would cost $55 billon to build a bridge!  Let's not talk about the LIE without mentioning the rest of unbuilt I-495 between the NJTP and the LIE including the undersized Midtown Tunnel; and if you want to leave New Jersey out of it, then consider between Midtown Manhattan and mid-LI - pain.


On the I-95/I-395 reversible roadways.  Firstly, given the high peak directional split it matches the -normal- traffic patterns.  Secondly, you can't instantly change the direction of the roadway, it is 38 miles long and 2 hours are scheduled for the operation, to let it empty of all moving vehicles and verify the same, verify that all entry gates are closed, verify that there are no disabled vehicles on the facility, and then to tow any such vehicles.  Sometimes it can be done and reopened in an hour and a half or less, but 2 hours is scheduled.

Thirdly, the traffic directions need to follow a normal schedule so that drivers can plan in advance.  Inbound (NB) in the morning on weekdays, outbound (SB) in the evening.  Outbound Saturday morning, inbound in the evening.  Sunday mornings have low traffic, inbound peaks in the evening.  These follow normal directional flows.  Holidays analyzed individually.

Given the above parameters and the time to reverse, normally a directional operation block is not less than 12 hours and like I said it needs to follow a schedule that is published.  I have never seen it "open in the wrong direction", and this is going back to the 1970s, and keep in mind that having 5 to 7 lanes in one direction does a pretty nice job of spreading out the traffic as compared to 3 or 4 lanes in the other direction.

Fourthly, FHWA refused to fund general purpose lane widening or dual-dual widening in the 1990s project to extend the reversibles from Springfield to Dumfries, they funded it as a managed lanes project.  Fifthly, the project still matched the -normal- high directional peaks on the highway.  As does the extension to Garrisonville and to Stafford.  Just because a short term peak may occur in the opposite direction doesn't override the 12-hour operation, and that could occur because of a major incident, and in an emergency situation the normal schedule can be and has been overridden.

Sixthly, there are several options currently for expanding the general purpose lanes to 4x4, it could be a tax-funded project that would assess and pay for a compensation event (if any); it could be a P3 project to add an express toll lane each way, and it could be the construction of 2-lane C-D roadways at local congestion spots.

Seventhly, VDOT had plans for an outer western Washington bypass but Maryland never would participate and consider building its part.  So no dice.  This would have bypassed I-95 and the whole area from Fredericksburg to Mount Airy MD, provided some relief to I-95 and provided a bypass for I-95 thru traffic.

I-95 in Fairfax County south of the Beltway has reached "full build out", IMHO, with its 4nb-3r-4sb configuration, it is a massively wide highway.  Currently in PW County and southward it goes from 4nb-3r-4sb to 3nb-3r-3sb to 3nb-2r-3sb.

I would argue that a 4nb-2r-4sb configuration from Woodbridge to Massaponax would be "full build out" for that segment.

For additional capacity build a new highway such as an eastern and/or western outer bypass of Washington.

Two- and 3-lane C-D roadways are planned and being constructed on I-95 between south of VA-3 and north of US-17, and these are Interstate-standard roadways.  These C-D roadways could be built in other areas north of there in the future.  But the reversible HOV/HOT/busway roadway is an ideal "core" for the expansion of I-95 in this area, IMHO.
Well, it seems we agree that improvements should be made to the corridor.  In its current state, yes, I would rather drive the Cross Bronx than this portion of I-95.

Other than that, thank you for the explanations as to why it is the way it is.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: abefroman329 on November 28, 2018, 09:08:28 AM
Speaking of slugging, I saw a sign for a slug gathering point in DC at 14th and New York Ave last month, and wondered why, and then I remembered that the reversible lanes of the 14th Street Bridge are HOV now.  Did they replace the gathering points at the Pentagon, or are they still there?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 09:25:43 AM
My thought about driving the Cross Bronx is just a hair below the thought of driving my car into the East River, or approximately equal to that of living in NYC.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 28, 2018, 09:27:53 AM
The I-66 Active Traffic Management System is no longer in use, at least not the overhead lane control and variable speed limit signs. They were turned off earlier this year and are being removed as part of the HO/T lane construction project (most of them were still in place as of Nov. 10). The colored paint has been removed from the shoulder lane as well; it's now supposed to operate according to the hours on the sign because the lane control signals will have to come down as well.

Edited to add a link to the WTOP article about the system being removed: https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2018/01/exclusive-66-toll-construction-take-2-year-old-high-tech-traffic-management-system/

The I-66 signs were theoretically capable of displaying different speed limits for different lanes, but in practice I do not believe they ever did. They did show lower limits from time to time, usually because of some incident–the signs would be yellow with the text "SPEED ##" in black, ## obviously representing whatever they chose to post. "SPEED LIMIT" wouldn't fit, which probably explains the odd use of "SPEED." In my unscientific observation, people didn't really pay any more attention to those signs than they do to any other speed limits. The theory was, as jakeroot says, to give advance warning of an incident or collision that might slow traffic and to get people to slow down in advance rather than everyone slamming on the brakes at the incident, but it didn't really work. I think most people feel most of the speed limits are underposted anyway, so they don't take them seriously. I'd argue that I-66 between Fair Oaks and the Beltway was correctly posted at 55 but that west of Fair Oaks where it widened out and became a much better and more modern road it was definitely underposted at 55 and 60 mph.




Quote from: abefroman329 on November 28, 2018, 09:08:28 AM
Speaking of slugging, I saw a sign for a slug gathering point in DC at 14th and New York Ave last month, and wondered why, and then I remembered that the reversible lanes of the 14th Street Bridge are HOV now.  Did they replace the gathering points at the Pentagon, or are they still there?

The Pentagon slug lines are still there, as are a good number of others. The afternoon slug lines were never limited to the Pentagon; there have always been multiple locations throughout downtown DC, including along 18th Street, near the State Department, and in Southwest near L'Enfant Plaza. One common theme to the line locations is that there's almost always a Metro or VRE stop nearby so that people have an alternative way home if they can't get a slug ride.

The 14th Street Bridge itself is not HOV-restricted, including the "HOV bridge" (there are no reversible lanes on the bridge), and non-HOV traffic headed from DC to Route 1 through Crystal City is somewhat encouraged to use the "HOV bridge" because of the road configuration on the Virginia side–if you use the "non-HOV bridge," you wind up weaving across traffic coming out of the inner carriageway. The "HOV bridge" used to carry an HOV restriction, but that was removed in the late 1980s or early 1990s to relieve traffic in the general-purpose lanes when there was some sort of construction project going on at or near the inbound bridge. The restrictions were never re-imposed, probably because it would have caused a commuter rebellion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: abefroman329 on November 28, 2018, 10:23:20 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 28, 2018, 09:27:53 AMThe I-66 signs were theoretically capable of displaying different speed limits for different lanes, but in practice I do not believe they ever did.
I believe the "smart road" portion of I-90 in Illinois has this capability as well.  Truth be told, I've never seen different speed limits for different lanes on a limited-access highway anywhere other than England, certainly not anywhere in the US.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 28, 2018, 11:45:37 AM
I'm getting a chuckle out of the I-95 Virginia vs. NYC comments.

Both are like a bad case of gastrointestinal distress. Which is worse, vomiting (being stuck in barely moving bumper-to-bumper traffic on the Cross Bronx) or diarrhea (getting caught up in bumper-to-bumper traffic moving at 65-70 mph in all lanes with little margin for error, risky lane changes, etc.)?

It's been awhile since I drove I-95 in Virginia between the DC metro and Richmond, but when I did, I tried to camp out in the center lane and tried not to change lanes unless it was absolutely necessary. The heavy traffic and cars darting in and out of lanes made me uncomfortable.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 28, 2018, 12:20:15 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 28, 2018, 10:23:20 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 28, 2018, 09:27:53 AMThe I-66 signs were theoretically capable of displaying different speed limits for different lanes, but in practice I do not believe they ever did.
I believe the "smart road" portion of I-90 in Illinois has this capability as well.  Truth be told, I've never seen different speed limits for different lanes on a limited-access highway anywhere other than England, certainly not anywhere in the US.

WSDOT does this in the Seattle area. I believe the UK variable limits were a basis for the design here...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_SykaBz6cMDI%2FTJk1vcIOQuI%2FAAAAAAAAAPo%2FsB4XX7hm3Zo%2Fs1600%2F816-2010%252B006.JPG&hash=46b24ae6ef2c3162598a900ae424cd535c6221d7)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 28, 2018, 12:29:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 28, 2018, 11:45:37 AM
I'm getting a chuckle out of the I-95 Virginia vs. NYC comments.

Both are like a bad case of gastrointestinal distress. Which is worse, vomiting (being stuck in barely moving bumper-to-bumper traffic on the Cross Bronx) or diarrhea (getting caught up in bumper-to-bumper traffic moving at 65-70 mph in all lanes with little margin for error, risky lane changes, etc.)?

It's been awhile since I drove I-95 in Virginia between the DC metro and Richmond, but when I did, I tried to camp out in the center lane and tried not to change lanes unless it was absolutely necessary. The heavy traffic and cars darting in and out of lanes made me uncomfortable.

A lot of it comes down to what you are used to.  I drive 95 from Fredericksburg to the DC Beltway 4 days a week (20+ yrs).  I know the lane patterns, where daily slow downs are, where else it slows down if it rains, if there's a wreck in a particular location, if there's a lane with rougher pavement than the rest, and probably a dozen other parameters that I will not know if I am driving in NYC or any other large urban area.  Therefore I am way more anxious when driving in other areas.

It is a good strategy to be in the middle lane(s) if you have more than 2 lanes available to prevent you from being forced off the freeway in an exit-only situation you weren't familiar with (and may not know how to get back on the freeway in the way you were headed).  With GMSV I also preview urban freeway interchanges so that I know which side of the freeway I need to be on to make the movement I need to make.

As for the darting nature of high speed urban traffic, if you are subjected to it enough you get used to it a little bit and can often anticipate when someone is going to want in front of you which cuts down on brake slamming.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 28, 2018, 12:42:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 28, 2018, 12:20:15 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 28, 2018, 10:23:20 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 28, 2018, 09:27:53 AMThe I-66 signs were theoretically capable of displaying different speed limits for different lanes, but in practice I do not believe they ever did.
I believe the "smart road" portion of I-90 in Illinois has this capability as well.  Truth be told, I've never seen different speed limits for different lanes on a limited-access highway anywhere other than England, certainly not anywhere in the US.

WSDOT does this in the Seattle area. I believe the UK variable limits were a basis for the design here...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_SykaBz6cMDI%2FTJk1vcIOQuI%2FAAAAAAAAAPo%2FsB4XX7hm3Zo%2Fs1600%2F816-2010%252B006.JPG&hash=46b24ae6ef2c3162598a900ae424cd535c6221d7)

I found a photo of the I-66 system in operation. The signs were not limited to displaying speed limit changes. Sometimes if a lane were closed they displayed various arrows depending on what drivers in a given lane were supposed to do.

This image appears to be looking east from somewhere around the US-50 interchange at Fair Oaks.

(https://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/66_trafficmanagement_ddi-727x485.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 28, 2018, 03:37:21 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2018, 12:29:21 PM
A lot of it comes down to what you are used to.  I drive 95 from Fredericksburg to the DC Beltway 4 days a week (20+ yrs).  I know the lane patterns, where daily slow downs are, where else it slows down if it rains, if there's a wreck in a particular location, if there's a lane with rougher pavement than the rest, and probably a dozen other parameters that I will not know if I am driving in NYC or any other large urban area.  Therefore I am way more anxious when driving in other areas.

I don't drive that part of I-95 frequently enough to know those things, maybe 10 times per year.  Nevertheless it is usually a routine trip with no major delays, and if during rush hours and in that direction I take the HOT lanes which accept E-ZPass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 07, 2018, 04:52:53 PM
https://www.insidenova.com/news/transportation/prince_william/deal-possible-to-add-lanes-at-i--bottleneck-say/article_2f8e556e-f9a4-11e8-bce5-b3a81c43bbcf.html
QuoteAs legislators head to Richmond they have their eyes on transportation issues, including the notorious bottleneck on Interstate 95 crossing the Occoquan River into Prince William County.

Sen. George Barker, D-39th District, said Gov. Ralph Northam is trying to negotiate a deal to add one additional lane in both directions on I-95 near Va. 123 in Occoquan.

"We understand something needs to be done,"  Barker said.

Del. Jennifer Carroll Foy, D-2nd District, said the governor's office could make an announcement about plans to address the bottleneck in about a month.

Barker and Foy were among state leaders who spoke at the legislative breakfast hosted by the Prince William Chamber of Commerce on Dec. 5 at the Old Hickory Golf Club in Woodbridge. 

In 2012, the Virginia Department of Transportation entered into a public-private contract with TransUrban to allow the company to build about 29 miles of toll lanes on I-95.

As part of the agreement, VDOT agreed not make improvements to the main lanes of I-95 without compensating TransUrban for their possible revenue losses on the Express Lanes.

Del. Danica Roem, D-13th District, said the bottleneck needs to be addressed immediately.

"That backup is just getting more and more severe,"  Roem said. "That has an economic development impact for us, it has an impact on quality of life."

Reached after the legislative breakfast, Sen. Scott Surovell, D-36th District, said the bottleneck is the No. 1 traffic complaint he receives from constituents every year. Surovell said he and state Sen. Jeremy McPike, D-29th District, have pushed for three years for the state to renegotiate the contract with TransUrban.

As construction continues to extend the toll lanes north on Interstate 395, along with planned construction of an extension south toward Fredericksburg, Surovell said it's "the perfect opportunity for Governor Northam to renegotiate the contract, and I am very optimistic he will do that so we can start focusing on solutions to the bottleneck instead of having to worry about how many tens of millions of dollars we will have to pay Transurban before we can put a shovel in the road."

As many of us on here understand, it would be a HUGE deal if VA was to successfully make a (smart)deal with Transburban regarding the addition of new general purpose lanes south of VA-123. In doing so hopefully, it would alleviate arguably the worst bottleneck in all of Virginia. I wish Governor Northam and his team the best of luck.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 07, 2018, 05:12:38 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 28, 2018, 09:08:28 AM
Speaking of slugging, I saw a sign for a slug gathering point in DC at 14th and New York Ave last month, and wondered why, and then I remembered that the reversible lanes of the 14th Street Bridge are HOV now.  Did they replace the gathering points at the Pentagon, or are they still there?

No, there are no HOV restrictions on the 14th Street Bridge - and have not been since the 1980's. 

The "Carpool Staging Area" (as the VDOT signs call it) is still there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 07, 2018, 11:19:18 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 07, 2018, 04:52:53 PM
As many of us on here understand, it would be a HUGE deal if VA was to successfully make a (smart)deal with Transburban regarding the addition of new general purpose lanes south of VA-123.

First conduct a study to see what if any revenue loss would take place, and then go from there.  If Transurban adds the lanes perhaps they could have dyanamic tolls (not HOT but express tolls) on the inner lane each way and then they wouldn't have to be concerned about any compensation event. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 08, 2018, 06:25:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2018, 11:19:18 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 07, 2018, 04:52:53 PM
As many of us on here understand, it would be a HUGE deal if VA was to successfully make a (smart)deal with Transburban regarding the addition of new general purpose lanes south of VA-123.

First conduct a study to see what if any revenue loss would take place, and then go from there.  If Transurban adds the lanes perhaps they could have dyanamic tolls (not HOT but express tolls) on the inner lane each way and then they wouldn't have to be concerned about any compensation event.

If a deal is made or the current contract is altered, a study regarding revenue loss may not be necessary. While Transburban does hold the right to add more toll lanes to I-95, I don't think the politicians want to go that route for fear that it won't sit well with local voters.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 08, 2018, 06:34:39 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 08, 2018, 06:25:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2018, 11:19:18 PM
First conduct a study to see what if any revenue loss would take place, and then go from there.  If Transurban adds the lanes perhaps they could have dyanamic tolls (not HOT but express tolls) on the inner lane each way and then they wouldn't have to be concerned about any compensation event.
If a deal is made or the current contract is altered, a study regarding revenue loss may not be necessary. While Transburban does hold the right to add more toll lanes to I-95, I don't think the politicians want to go that route for fear that it won't sit well with local voters.

Someone (Transburban and/or VDOT) will conduct a study, or already has, to determine what happens if a 4th lane each way is added for a given distance south of there, and what effect that tolls would have if it were tolled.  It may work fine without tolls, but they will have to analyze it and see.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 08, 2018, 07:23:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 08, 2018, 06:34:39 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 08, 2018, 06:25:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2018, 11:19:18 PM
First conduct a study to see what if any revenue loss would take place, and then go from there.  If Transurban adds the lanes perhaps they could have dyanamic tolls (not HOT but express tolls) on the inner lane each way and then they wouldn't have to be concerned about any compensation event.
If a deal is made or the current contract is altered, a study regarding revenue loss may not be necessary. While Transburban does hold the right to add more toll lanes to I-95, I don't think the politicians want to go that route for fear that it won't sit well with local voters.

Someone (Transburban and/or VDOT) will conduct a study, or already has, to determine what happens if a 4th lane each way is added for a given distance south of there, and what effect that tolls would have if it were tolled.  It may work fine without tolls, but they will have to analyze it and see.

If the Governor does in fact plan to make an announcement next month regarding the Occoquan bottleneck, then yes I would agree that either an impact study has already been completed or is in the process of being completed as we speak. Definitely look forward to seeing the findings.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on December 11, 2018, 10:54:20 AM
Speed limit on I-64 to rise from 60 to 65 between exit 255 and 261 starting tomorrow: https://www.wavy.com/traffic/speed-limit-increasing-on-i-64-in-hampton-newport-news/1652624115
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 12, 2018, 08:25:34 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 11, 2018, 10:54:20 AM
Speed limit on I-64 to rise from 60 to 65 between exit 255 and 261 starting tomorrow: https://www.wavy.com/traffic/speed-limit-increasing-on-i-64-in-hampton-newport-news/1652624115

This is a great call by Virginia as I've seen only 4 accidents on this stretch since it's been 8 lanes and 3 of them was WB at Exit 258 (US 17). This should make driving this stretch a lot more comfortable.

Once all of the construction near Williamsburg and near I-295 is completed the highway will have a speed limit of 65 MPH or higher from Exit 261 all the way back to MM 194 (unless or until more widening projects happen).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 12, 2018, 12:02:47 PM
I haven't watched the video (don't want to play sound at work). New road opening in Tysons. I believe the new Wegmans will be adjacent to the new road but that Wegmans wanted the road to open before the store. (It will not be as big as their other area stores.)

https://twitter.com/adamtuss/status/1072892700976914432?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 12, 2018, 03:20:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2018, 12:02:47 PM
I haven't watched the video (don't want to play sound at work). New road opening in Tysons. I believe the new Wegmans will be adjacent to the new road but that Wegmans wanted the road to open before the store. (It will not be as big as their other area stores.)

That was quick ... construction began in Jan. 2017.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/jones_branch_connector.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 12, 2018, 03:40:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 12, 2018, 03:20:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2018, 12:02:47 PM
I haven't watched the video (don't want to play sound at work). New road opening in Tysons. I believe the new Wegmans will be adjacent to the new road but that Wegmans wanted the road to open before the store. (It will not be as big as their other area stores.)

That was quick ... construction began in Jan. 2017.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/jones_branch_connector.asp

Yeah. It's a very short segment, but it's also in a very busy area. It opens an interesting new option for getting to the two malls from McLean because it lets you bail off 123 a lot earlier.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 12, 2018, 04:44:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2018, 03:40:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 12, 2018, 03:20:31 PM
That was quick construction, began in Jan. 2017.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/jones_branch_connector.asp
Yeah. It's a very short segment, but it's also in a very busy area. It opens an interesting new option for getting to the two malls from McLean because it lets you bail off 123 a lot earlier.

Short segment but major bridge to build.  Very beneficial new connection across the whole Beltway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 12, 2018, 05:14:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 12, 2018, 04:44:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2018, 03:40:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 12, 2018, 03:20:31 PM
That was quick construction, began in Jan. 2017.
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/jones_branch_connector.asp
Yeah. It's a very short segment, but it's also in a very busy area. It opens an interesting new option for getting to the two malls from McLean because it lets you bail off 123 a lot earlier.

Short segment but major bridge to build.  Very beneficial new connection across the whole Beltway.

Agreed on both points. I'd go over there sometime soon to check it out except I really dislike going near Tysons during the two weeks before Christmas for obvious reasons!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 12, 2018, 08:32:17 PM
Quote from: plain on December 12, 2018, 08:25:34 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 11, 2018, 10:54:20 AM
Speed limit on I-64 to rise from 60 to 65 between exit 255 and 261 starting tomorrow: https://www.wavy.com/traffic/speed-limit-increasing-on-i-64-in-hampton-newport-news/1652624115

This is a great call by Virginia as I've seen only 4 accidents on this stretch since it's been 8 lanes and 3 of them was WB at Exit 258 (US 17). This should make driving this stretch a lot more comfortable.

Once all of the construction near Williamsburg and near I-295 is completed the highway will have a speed limit of 65 MPH or higher from Exit 261 all the way back to MM 194 (unless or until more widening projects happen).
It's nice they are finally increasing the speed limits. I would agree that other freeways in the area could also handle increases, such as I-664, to 65 MPH. It is mainly a rural / suburban freeway, except near Downtown Newport News, and most traffic already exceeds 60 MPH.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on December 12, 2018, 09:52:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 12, 2018, 08:32:17 PM
Quote from: plain on December 12, 2018, 08:25:34 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on December 11, 2018, 10:54:20 AM
Speed limit on I-64 to rise from 60 to 65 between exit 255 and 261 starting tomorrow: https://www.wavy.com/traffic/speed-limit-increasing-on-i-64-in-hampton-newport-news/1652624115 (https://www.wavy.com/traffic/speed-limit-increasing-on-i-64-in-hampton-newport-news/1652624115)

This is a great call by Virginia as I've seen only 4 accidents on this stretch since it's been 8 lanes and 3 of them was WB at Exit 258 (US 17). This should make driving this stretch a lot more comfortable.

Once all of the construction near Williamsburg and near I-295 is completed the highway will have a speed limit of 65 MPH or higher from Exit 261 all the way back to MM 194 (unless or until more widening projects happen).
It's nice they are finally increasing the speed limits. I would agree that other freeways in the area could also handle increases, such as I-664, to 65 MPH. It is mainly a rural / suburban freeway, except near Downtown Newport News, and most traffic already exceeds 60 MPH.



I think other freeways that should be increased include I-264 between Witchduck Road and Birdneck Road, and possibly parts of I-264 in Portsmouth (both to 60 mph).  I would also extend the 60 mph zone on I-64 from the Chesapeake/Virginia Beach line to the Virginia Beach/Norfolk line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 13, 2018, 09:49:23 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 12, 2018, 12:02:47 PM
I haven't watched the video (don't want to play sound at work). New road opening in Tysons. I believe the new Wegmans will be adjacent to the new road but that Wegmans wanted the road to open before the store. (It will not be as big as their other area stores.)

https://twitter.com/adamtuss/status/1072892700976914432?s=21

Here is the full report from last night's news:

https://twitter.com/adamtuss/status/1073223749347041280?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 15, 2018, 07:08:00 AM
Northbound US-29 traffic in Danville will be detoured through the city due to a pipe failure.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 15, 2018, 08:53:20 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 15, 2018, 07:08:00 AM
Northbound US-29 traffic in Danville will be detoured through the city due to a pipe failure.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp)
This might create some headaches next weekend
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 15, 2018, 11:17:59 AM
Quote from: plain on December 15, 2018, 08:53:20 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 15, 2018, 07:08:00 AM
Northbound US-29 traffic in Danville will be detoured through the city due to a pipe failure.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp)
This might create some headaches next weekend

Absolutely. Thanks for posting that, LM117. We're driving south on Friday and I often take Route 29 down to Greensboro just for a change from the Interstates. Won't do that this time! (Yes, it's a northbound detour, but somehow these things always seem to have bigger effects than they should.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 15, 2018, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 15, 2018, 11:17:59 AM
Quote from: plain on December 15, 2018, 08:53:20 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 15, 2018, 07:08:00 AM
Northbound US-29 traffic in Danville will be detoured through the city due to a pipe failure.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp)
This might create some headaches next weekend

Absolutely. Thanks for posting that, LM117. We're driving south on Friday and I often take Route 29 down to Greensboro just for a change from the Interstates. Won't do that this time! (Yes, it's a northbound detour, but somehow these things always seem to have bigger effects than they should.)

You're welcome. It's certainly not gonna do local traffic any favors, either. Riverside Drive is already pretty heavy with traffic, especially at rush hour. Fortunately, I usually don't have to commute on Riverside Drive except to pay the utility bill and even then I take a shortcut down Arnett Blvd from Piney Forest Rd and use the Union St bridge to cross the river. Most of my commutes are on US-29 Business (Piney Forest Rd) because I come in from VA-41.

I'm just thankful that the detour doesn't involve the parking lot Piney Forest Rd. Now THAT...would be bad.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 20, 2018, 01:44:26 PM
Here's a weird one. The Danville Area Humane Society is calling a local intersection a "hazard" because it's overrun with abandoned cats. Someone dumped 30 cats there earlier this week and it seems many more live there. Amusingly for purposes of this thread, one of the roads is Piney Forest Road, bemoaned by LM117 in the post above this one.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2018/12/virginia-intersection-overrun-with-cats-deemed-a-hazard/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 20, 2018, 02:55:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 20, 2018, 01:44:26 PM
Here's a weird one. The Danville Area Humane Society is calling a local intersection a "hazard" because it's overrun with abandoned cats. Someone dumped 30 cats there earlier this week and it seems many more live there. Amusingly for purposes of this thread, one of the roads is Piney Forest Road, bemoaned by LM117 in the post above this one.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2018/12/virginia-intersection-overrun-with-cats-deemed-a-hazard/

If this actually causes a wreck then it would indeed be catastrophic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 20, 2018, 03:42:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 20, 2018, 01:44:26 PM
Here's a weird one. The Danville Area Humane Society is calling a local intersection a "hazard" because it's overrun with abandoned cats. Someone dumped 30 cats there earlier this week and it seems many more live there. Amusingly for purposes of this thread, one of the roads is Piney Forest Road, bemoaned by LM117 in the post above this one.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2018/12/virginia-intersection-overrun-with-cats-deemed-a-hazard/

That stretch of Piney Forest Road isn't that bad. It's the stretch that's signed as US-29 Business between Central Blvd and VA-41 that's a pain in the ass, especially with the suicide lane from hell.

As for the intersection mentioned, I've heard about the cats, but surprisingly enough I've never seen any there. I guess I should count myself lucky.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: odditude on December 20, 2018, 09:01:19 PM
Quote from: plain on December 20, 2018, 02:55:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 20, 2018, 01:44:26 PM
cats cats cats

catastrophic

booo
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 20, 2018, 09:19:29 PM
Quote from: odditude on December 20, 2018, 09:01:19 PM
Quote from: plain on December 20, 2018, 02:55:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 20, 2018, 01:44:26 PM
cats cats cats

catastrophic

booo

Lmmfao I HAD to do it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 23, 2018, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: plain on December 20, 2018, 02:55:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 20, 2018, 01:44:26 PM
Here's a weird one. The Danville Area Humane Society is calling a local intersection a "hazard" because it's overrun with abandoned cats. Someone dumped 30 cats there earlier this week and it seems many more live there. Amusingly for purposes of this thread, one of the roads is Piney Forest Road, bemoaned by LM117 in the post above this one.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2018/12/virginia-intersection-overrun-with-cats-deemed-a-hazard/

If this actually causes a wreck then it would indeed be catastrophic.

Perhaps caused by a driver who was catatonic?

If this is a major road, is is a feline mainline?


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 23, 2018, 10:52:01 AM
If they do a major construction project because of it, I hope they don't hire workers who will catcall female pedestrians.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 23, 2018, 11:46:02 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 23, 2018, 10:52:01 AM
If they do a major construction project because of it, I hope they don't hire workers who will catcall female pedestrians.

Those workers sound like a bunch of pussies.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 10:03:36 PM
https://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/articles/chesterfield-abandons-east-west-freeway-for-now/
Chesterfield abandons East-West Freeway — for now
December 26, 2018
Excerpts:

A controversial south Chester road project has been shelved indefinitely following a policy change by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. According to Jesse Smith, director of the county's Transportation Department, the Army Corps now requires the county to obtain written permission from every property owner along the path of the proposed East-West Freeway before it will encroach on their land to confirm wetlands delineations.
"That is not something we would see as feasible,"  Smith told the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors earlier this month. He noted there are more than 50 property owners along the initial 2 ½-mile segment of roadway, which eventually is expected to wind through southern Chesterfield and link Interstate 95 in Walthall with U.S. Route 360 west of Grange Hall Elementary School.
Smith said his staff had completed about 50 percent of a second environmental assessment on the project, but that work has stopped until further notice.
"Unless the Corps changes its policy, we don't really see a path forward to get that one completed,"  he added. County leaders last year pitched construction of the East-West Freeway as critical to the local economic development authority's plan to acquire 1,675 acres of south Chester property and develop it for use as an industrial megasite. The new two-lane road was needed, they said, to market the megasite to large-scale industrial manufacturers and meet their demand for easy access to the regional transportation network.
....
The East-West Freeway has been included in the county's Thoroughfare Plan, which guides future roadway construction, since the late 1980s. County leaders envision it as a 30-mile corridor for new commercial and industrial development and perhaps the best opportunity to grow Chesterfield's commercial tax base to counterbalance an over-reliance on residential real estate taxes.
The project's critics say it will cut a swath through the last largely undeveloped part of the county, destroy thousands of forested acres and negatively impact the rural character of southern Chesterfield.
Barring a reversal by the Army Corps of Engineers, it's unlikely the county Transportation Department will be able to obtain the necessary permission to confirm wetlands delineations related to the proposed roadway and comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.


See the URL for the rest of the article.

I don't understand why Chesterfield County didn't have a better plan for major new commercial and industrial development than building this freeway thru the rural southern part of the county.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on December 26, 2018, 10:32:09 PM
Since when is written permission required for a highway agency to survey for wetlands? This smells like legislating from the bench, so to speak.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2018, 11:03:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 10:03:36 PM
https://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/articles/chesterfield-abandons-east-west-freeway-for-now/
Chesterfield abandons East-West Freeway — for now
December 26, 2018
Excerpts:

A controversial south Chester road project has been shelved indefinitely following a policy change by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. According to Jesse Smith, director of the county's Transportation Department, the Army Corps now requires the county to obtain written permission from every property owner along the path of the proposed East-West Freeway before it will encroach on their land to confirm wetlands delineations.
"That is not something we would see as feasible,"  Smith told the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors earlier this month. He noted there are more than 50 property owners along the initial 2 ½-mile segment of roadway, which eventually is expected to wind through southern Chesterfield and link Interstate 95 in Walthall with U.S. Route 360 west of Grange Hall Elementary School.
Smith said his staff had completed about 50 percent of a second environmental assessment on the project, but that work has stopped until further notice.
"Unless the Corps changes its policy, we don't really see a path forward to get that one completed,"  he added. County leaders last year pitched construction of the East-West Freeway as critical to the local economic development authority's plan to acquire 1,675 acres of south Chester property and develop it for use as an industrial megasite. The new two-lane road was needed, they said, to market the megasite to large-scale industrial manufacturers and meet their demand for easy access to the regional transportation network.
....
The East-West Freeway has been included in the county's Thoroughfare Plan, which guides future roadway construction, since the late 1980s. County leaders envision it as a 30-mile corridor for new commercial and industrial development and perhaps the best opportunity to grow Chesterfield's commercial tax base to counterbalance an over-reliance on residential real estate taxes.
The project's critics say it will cut a swath through the last largely undeveloped part of the county, destroy thousands of forested acres and negatively impact the rural character of southern Chesterfield.
Barring a reversal by the Army Corps of Engineers, it's unlikely the county Transportation Department will be able to obtain the necessary permission to confirm wetlands delineations related to the proposed roadway and comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.


See the URL for the rest of the article.

I don't understand why Chesterfield County didn't have a better plan for major new commercial and industrial development than building this freeway thru the rural southern part of the county.
So if I'm understanding this right, it would be new freeway, paralleling less than 5 miles away the already existing Route 288 freeway? The only part I see reasonable is extending the Powhite Parkway to connect with U.S. 360 west of the developed area, but not swinging back to parallel Route 288. Seems like the only driver for this highway is the fact it would benefit Chesterfield County. Realistically, it makes no sense. Looks like a "Phase 1" of an "Outer Richmond Beltway".

Here's a map of this "freeway" - https://www.chesterfield.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1322/Thoroughfare-Plan-PDF

Also, would it be tolled or does the county have up to $800+ million it would cost to construct the 20 miles of highway through wetlands? Again, the whole idea just seems like a waste of time and money. Reminds me how Blacksburg wants to extend the Smart Road to I-81 in western VA when they already have a perfectly fine freeway (less than 20 yrs old) less than 5 miles away that does the exact same thing.

They should focus on building freeways where paths don't currently exist (like extending Powhite to U.S. 360), not building a parallel freeway to an already existing freeway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2018, 11:04:48 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 26, 2018, 10:32:09 PM
Since when is written permission required for a highway agency to survey for wetlands? This smells like legislating from the bench, so to speak.
Just another way to push off needed highway projects even further (well, I wouldn't say this project is needed)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on December 26, 2018, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2018, 11:04:48 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 26, 2018, 10:32:09 PM
Since when is written permission required for a highway agency to survey for wetlands? This smells like legislating from the bench, so to speak.
Just another way to push off needed highway projects even further (well, I wouldn't say this project is needed)
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree on that point, but the USACOE shouldn't be using this as the excuse.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2018, 11:08:50 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 15, 2018, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 15, 2018, 11:17:59 AM
Quote from: plain on December 15, 2018, 08:53:20 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 15, 2018, 07:08:00 AM
Northbound US-29 traffic in Danville will be detoured through the city due to a pipe failure.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp)
This might create some headaches next weekend

Absolutely. Thanks for posting that, LM117. We're driving south on Friday and I often take Route 29 down to Greensboro just for a change from the Interstates. Won't do that this time! (Yes, it's a northbound detour, but somehow these things always seem to have bigger effects than they should.)

You're welcome. It's certainly not gonna do local traffic any favors, either. Riverside Drive is already pretty heavy with traffic, especially at rush hour. Fortunately, I usually don't have to commute on Riverside Drive except to pay the utility bill and even then I take a shortcut down Arnett Blvd from Piney Forest Rd and use the Union St bridge to cross the river. Most of my commutes are on US-29 Business (Piney Forest Rd) because I come in from VA-41.

I'm just thankful that the detour doesn't involve the parking lot Piney Forest Rd. Now THAT...would be bad.
Is the bypass still closed? Planning on heading out west on U.S. 58 this weekend and that involves taking U.S. 58 / 29 around Danville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2018, 11:10:12 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 26, 2018, 11:07:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2018, 11:04:48 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 26, 2018, 10:32:09 PM
Since when is written permission required for a highway agency to survey for wetlands? This smells like legislating from the bench, so to speak.
Just another way to push off needed highway projects even further (well, I wouldn't say this project is needed)
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree on that point, but the USACOE shouldn't be using this as the excuse.
I honestly don't know what the real reason is. Somebody probably complained or sued because of surveying without written permission, that would be my best guess.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 11:52:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2018, 11:03:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 10:03:36 PM
I don't understand why Chesterfield County didn't have a better plan for major new commercial and industrial development than building this freeway thru the rural southern part of the county.
So if I'm understanding this right, it would be new freeway, paralleling less than 5 miles away the already existing Route 288 freeway? The only part I see reasonable is extending the Powhite Parkway to connect with U.S. 360 west of the developed area, but not swinging back to parallel Route 288. Seems like the only driver for this highway is the fact it would benefit Chesterfield County. Realistically, it makes no sense. Looks like a "Phase 1" of an "Outer Richmond Beltway".
Here's a map of this "freeway" - https://www.chesterfield.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1322/Thoroughfare-Plan-PDF
Also, would it be tolled or does the county have up to $800+ million it would cost to construct the 20 miles of highway through wetlands? Again, the whole idea just seems like a waste of time and money.

Relatively little would go thru wetlands, but the other points remain.  This article and others make it clear that the county government saw this as a highway to promote major new commercial and industrial development.

The Powhite Parkway Western Extension would provide for a definite transportation need, but the East-West Freeway would not, IMHO.  There is no "Outer Richmond Beltway" proposal that I have ever heard of..
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 27, 2018, 01:22:02 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 11:52:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2018, 11:03:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 10:03:36 PM
I don't understand why Chesterfield County didn't have a better plan for major new commercial and industrial development than building this freeway thru the rural southern part of the county.
So if I'm understanding this right, it would be new freeway, paralleling less than 5 miles away the already existing Route 288 freeway? The only part I see reasonable is extending the Powhite Parkway to connect with U.S. 360 west of the developed area, but not swinging back to parallel Route 288. Seems like the only driver for this highway is the fact it would benefit Chesterfield County. Realistically, it makes no sense. Looks like a "Phase 1" of an "Outer Richmond Beltway".
Here's a map of this "freeway" - https://www.chesterfield.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1322/Thoroughfare-Plan-PDF
Also, would it be tolled or does the county have up to $800+ million it would cost to construct the 20 miles of highway through wetlands? Again, the whole idea just seems like a waste of time and money.

Relatively little would go thru wetlands, but the other points remain.  This article and others make it clear that the county government saw this as a highway to promote major new commercial and industrial development.

The Powhite Parkway Western Extension would provide for a definite transportation need, but the East-West Freeway would not, IMHO.  There is no "Outer Richmond Beltway" proposal that I have ever heard of..
Maybe not wetlands, but it's definitely a heavily forested area. I don't believe there's a proposed Outer Richmond Beltway, but when you look at their proposed "East-West Freeway" on a map, it takes an alignment such an outer beltway would, 5-10 miles away, parallel to to an existing "inner" freeway. Really, it's just a money freeway for the county.

But can you seriously propose a freeway like the East-West as a locality, and have no plan for funding (well I guess Chesapeake did that, and was successful, but there was no parallel highway) This would be a different story if VA 288 didn't exist and VDOT was pitching this as a new western leg (like was done with VA 288), but from everything given, it's a joke that I'm surprised has lived since the 80s. Maybe this road will be relevant 40 years from now when all of Chesterfield County is heavily developed from edge to edge, and VA 288 is grid-locked daily.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 06:18:56 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 27, 2018, 01:22:02 AM
Maybe not wetlands, but it's definitely a heavily forested area. I don't believe there's a proposed Outer Richmond Beltway, but when you look at their proposed "East-West Freeway" on a map, it takes an alignment such an outer beltway would, 5-10 miles away, parallel to to an existing "inner" freeway. Really, it's just a money freeway for the county.

Even if it was the first leg of an outer beltway, it would seem like perhaps the lowest priority quadrant to build.

I-295 and VA-288 is already an outer beltway, based on its distance from the city relative to the size of the city.  That was an objection from its opponents back in the 1970s, too far from the city; of course now I see it as genius in disguise in how it provides a true bypass of the area.  VA-150 and VA-895 and VA-76 comprise a 2/3 intermediate beltway.

I cannot imagine any need for even a future concept for an outer-outer beltway for the Richmond area.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 27, 2018, 01:22:02 AM
But can you seriously propose a freeway like the East-West as a locality, and have no plan for funding (well I guess Chesapeake did that, and was successful, but there was no parallel highway) This would be a different story if VA 288 didn't exist and VDOT was pitching this as a new western leg (like was done with VA 288), but from everything given, it's a joke that I'm surprised has lived since the 80s. Maybe this road will be relevant 40 years from now when all of Chesterfield County is heavily developed from edge to edge, and VA 288 is grid-locked daily.

They need to focus more development in the northern and eastern parts of the county.  Not in the southern part, where I can't imagine hardly anyone living there would want it.

They have done a nice job with all the major new commercial and industrial development that continues to expand in the area of the upgraded I-95/Walthall interchange and the new I-295/Meadowbridge interchange.

https://chesterfieldbusinessnews.com/1998/i-95walthall-interchange-upgrade/
I-95/Walthall Interchange Upgrade
March 12, 1998

Site work has begun on the redesigned and upgraded interchange at I-95 and Woods Edge and Ruffin Mill Roads. Buildings have been razed and land cleared for the 80 acres required to build this interchange. Completion of the first phase, with an estimated cost of $20.7 million, is scheduled for late 1999.
When completed, this interchange will provide a greatly improved and efficient road infrastructure for the many industries and their employees utilizing it. In addition, it will enhance our efforts to recruit more companies to locate in this attractive Enterprise Zone area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 27, 2018, 10:34:35 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2018, 11:08:50 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 15, 2018, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 15, 2018, 11:17:59 AM
Quote from: plain on December 15, 2018, 08:53:20 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 15, 2018, 07:08:00 AM
Northbound US-29 traffic in Danville will be detoured through the city due to a pipe failure.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp)
This might create some headaches next weekend

Absolutely. Thanks for posting that, LM117. We're driving south on Friday and I often take Route 29 down to Greensboro just for a change from the Interstates. Won't do that this time! (Yes, it's a northbound detour, but somehow these things always seem to have bigger effects than they should.)

You're welcome. It's certainly not gonna do local traffic any favors, either. Riverside Drive is already pretty heavy with traffic, especially at rush hour. Fortunately, I usually don't have to commute on Riverside Drive except to pay the utility bill and even then I take a shortcut down Arnett Blvd from Piney Forest Rd and use the Union St bridge to cross the river. Most of my commutes are on US-29 Business (Piney Forest Rd) because I come in from VA-41.

I'm just thankful that the detour doesn't involve the parking lot Piney Forest Rd. Now THAT...would be bad.
Is the bypass still closed? Planning on heading out west on U.S. 58 this weekend and that involves taking U.S. 58 / 29 around Danville.

I haven't driven the bypass since before the closure was announced. VDOT is supposed to build crossovers so that northbound/eastbound traffic will follow one southbound/westbound lane. I haven't been able to find any updated info, but the crossovers should be complete within the next few days, if they aren't already. According to Google Maps, the northbound/eastbound lanes are still closed between Goodyear Blvd and the 58/360 interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 27, 2018, 02:46:00 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 27, 2018, 10:34:35 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2018, 11:08:50 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 15, 2018, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 15, 2018, 11:17:59 AM
Quote from: plain on December 15, 2018, 08:53:20 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 15, 2018, 07:08:00 AM
Northbound US-29 traffic in Danville will be detoured through the city due to a pipe failure.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp)
This might create some headaches next weekend

Absolutely. Thanks for posting that, LM117. We're driving south on Friday and I often take Route 29 down to Greensboro just for a change from the Interstates. Won't do that this time! (Yes, it's a northbound detour, but somehow these things always seem to have bigger effects than they should.)

You're welcome. It's certainly not gonna do local traffic any favors, either. Riverside Drive is already pretty heavy with traffic, especially at rush hour. Fortunately, I usually don't have to commute on Riverside Drive except to pay the utility bill and even then I take a shortcut down Arnett Blvd from Piney Forest Rd and use the Union St bridge to cross the river. Most of my commutes are on US-29 Business (Piney Forest Rd) because I come in from VA-41.

I'm just thankful that the detour doesn't involve the parking lot Piney Forest Rd. Now THAT...would be bad.
Is the bypass still closed? Planning on heading out west on U.S. 58 this weekend and that involves taking U.S. 58 / 29 around Danville.

I haven't driven the bypass since before the closure was announced. VDOT is supposed to build crossovers so that northbound/eastbound traffic will follow one southbound/westbound lane. I haven't been able to find any updated info, but the crossovers should be complete within the next few days, if they aren't already. According to Google Maps, the northbound/eastbound lanes are still closed between Goodyear Blvd and the 58/360 interchange.
Okay, thanks for the info. Probably will just head through Danville on the eastbound trip to avoid any delays, closures. Checked on http://www.511virginia.org/, doesn't appear to give any good information either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 27, 2018, 02:56:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 06:18:56 AM
Even if it was the first leg of an outer beltway, it would seem like perhaps the lowest priority quadrant to build.

I-295 and VA-288 is already an outer beltway, based on its distance from the city relative to the size of the city.  That was an objection from its opponents back in the 1970s, too far from the city; of course now I see it as genius in disguise in how it provides a true bypass of the area.  VA-150 and VA-895 and VA-76 comprise a 2/3 intermediate beltway.

I cannot imagine any need for even a future concept for an outer-outer beltway for the Richmond area.
Oh I definitely agree with you, it's not needed. I'm just pointing out that's what is sort of looks like.

I would consider the Powhite Pkwy, Chippenham Parkway, Downtown Expressway, and I-95 the "inner beltway", and VA-288 and I-295 the "outer beltway".

Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 06:18:56 AM
They need to focus more development in the northern and eastern parts of the county.  Not in the southern part, where I can't imagine hardly anyone living there would want it.

They have done a nice job with all the major new commercial and industrial development that continues to expand in the area of the upgraded I-95/Walthall interchange and the new I-295/Meadowbridge interchange.

https://chesterfieldbusinessnews.com/1998/i-95walthall-interchange-upgrade/
I-95/Walthall Interchange Upgrade
March 12, 1998

Site work has begun on the redesigned and upgraded interchange at I-95 and Woods Edge and Ruffin Mill Roads. Buildings have been razed and land cleared for the 80 acres required to build this interchange. Completion of the first phase, with an estimated cost of $20.7 million, is scheduled for late 1999.
When completed, this interchange will provide a greatly improved and efficient road infrastructure for the many industries and their employees utilizing it. In addition, it will enhance our efforts to recruit more companies to locate in this attractive Enterprise Zone area.
Looking at a map, this county has 5 interstates / major freeways passing through it, I-95, I-295, VA-288, VA-150 (Chippenham), and VA-76 (Powhite). Like you mentioned, they have commercial/industrial development around certain interchanges, and are successful. If they really want more, there's certain parts near I-95 and I-295 they could still build, and a lot of places along VA-288, VA-150, and VA-76. They need to use what is already there instead of trying to expand more. Building a $800+ million freeway just to serve that seems like a waste.

Seems like a boondoggle to me.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 04:13:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 27, 2018, 02:46:00 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 27, 2018, 10:34:35 AM
I haven't driven the bypass since before the closure was announced. VDOT is supposed to build crossovers so that northbound/eastbound traffic will follow one southbound/westbound lane. I haven't been able to find any updated info, but the crossovers should be complete within the next few days, if they aren't already. According to Google Maps, the northbound/eastbound lanes are still closed between Goodyear Blvd and the 58/360 interchange.
Okay, thanks for the info. Probably will just head through Danville on the eastbound trip to avoid any delays, closures. Checked on http://www.511virginia.org/, doesn't appear to give any good information either.

Anyone drive the detour yet?  Maybe it is not much of a problem to utilize Bus. US-29 and Bus. US-58.  They could have immediately built the crossovers, but they probably had to award a contract and even a simple pair of freeway crossovers would cost at least $500,000 nowadays.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 04:22:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 27, 2018, 02:56:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 06:18:56 AM
I cannot imagine any need for even a future concept for an outer-outer beltway for the Richmond area.
Oh I definitely agree with you, it's not needed. I'm just pointing out that's what is sort of looks like.
I would consider the Powhite Pkwy, Chippenham Parkway, Downtown Expressway, and I-95 the "inner beltway", and VA-288 and I-295 the "outer beltway".

It could be looked at that way.  The central part of the city has an "inner loop freeway" comprised of I-195, the Downtown Expressway and a segment of I-95.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 27, 2018, 02:56:55 PM
Looking at a map, this county has 5 interstates / major freeways passing through it, I-95, I-295, VA-288, VA-150 (Chippenham), and VA-76 (Powhite). Like you mentioned, they have commercial/industrial development around certain interchanges, and are successful. If they really want more, there's certain parts near I-95 and I-295 they could still build, and a lot of places along VA-288, VA-150, and VA-76. They need to use what is already there instead of trying to expand more. Building a $800+ million freeway just to serve that seems like a waste.
Seems like a boondoggle to me.

I wouldn't call it a "boondoggle", after all it was just a line on a major thoroughfare plan.  If it advanced to the point of spending money on engineering and right-of-way, that would be when I would take a stronger position.

This proposal began at a time when the county government felt that the county was not well-served with freeways, back in the 1980s when they were trying to find a way to fund the first part of VA-288 and the Powhite Parkway Extension.  If they overdid things, that was when only I-95 and VA-150 existed, so only small parts of the county had freeways.  They felt that Henrico was far better served and with toll-free Interstate highways.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 27, 2018, 04:58:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 04:22:10 PM
I wouldn't call it a "boondoggle", after all it was just a line on a major thoroughfare plan.  If it advanced to the point of spending money on engineering and right-of-way, that would be when I would take a stronger position.

This proposal began at a time when the county government felt that the county was not well-served with freeways, back in the 1980s when they were trying to find a way to fund the first part of VA-288 and the Powhite Parkway Extension.  If they overdid things, that was when only I-95 and VA-150 existed, so only small parts of the county had freeways.  They felt that Henrico was far better served and with toll-free Interstate highways.
The problem is that they kept trying to advance on its construction after VA-288 was completed in 1989, I-95 got its tolls removed, I-295 opened in through the county in 1990, etc. It says in the article that they also were trying to get the first 2.5 mile segment constructed, and had already completed and submitted an EA. Construction would've began in the near future had it not have been halted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 08:45:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 27, 2018, 04:58:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 04:22:10 PM
This proposal began at a time when the county government felt that the county was not well-served with freeways, back in the 1980s when they were trying to find a way to fund the first part of VA-288 and the Powhite Parkway Extension.  If they overdid things, that was when only I-95 and VA-150 existed, so only small parts of the county had freeways.  They felt that Henrico was far better served and with toll-free Interstate highways.
The problem is that they kept trying to advance on its construction after VA-288 was completed in 1989, I-95 got its tolls removed, I-295 opened in through the county in 1990, etc. It says in the article that they also were trying to get the first 2.5 mile segment constructed, and had already completed and submitted an EA. Construction would've began in the near future had it not have been halted.

Western VA-288 was completed in 2005, that was a big missing link in the freeway network that the county wanted.

Actually the 2.5 mile segment connecting to I-95 in the Walthall area would have independent utility as part of the support network for the growing commercial and industrial development in that area.  It would include Phase 2 of the upgraded I-95/Walthall interchange.

Other than that I don't believe any money was spent on the rest of it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 28, 2018, 12:01:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 04:13:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 27, 2018, 02:46:00 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 27, 2018, 10:34:35 AM
I haven't driven the bypass since before the closure was announced. VDOT is supposed to build crossovers so that northbound/eastbound traffic will follow one southbound/westbound lane. I haven't been able to find any updated info, but the crossovers should be complete within the next few days, if they aren't already. According to Google Maps, the northbound/eastbound lanes are still closed between Goodyear Blvd and the 58/360 interchange.
Okay, thanks for the info. Probably will just head through Danville on the eastbound trip to avoid any delays, closures. Checked on http://www.511virginia.org/, doesn't appear to give any good information either.

Anyone drive the detour yet?  Maybe it is not much of a problem to utilize Bus. US-29 and Bus. US-58.

It's not that bad outside of the afternoon/evening rush hour and even then, the worst of it is on US-58 Business. The detour should be fine outside of rush hour.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 28, 2018, 09:38:17 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 28, 2018, 12:01:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 04:13:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 27, 2018, 02:46:00 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 27, 2018, 10:34:35 AM
I haven't driven the bypass since before the closure was announced. VDOT is supposed to build crossovers so that northbound/eastbound traffic will follow one southbound/westbound lane. I haven't been able to find any updated info, but the crossovers should be complete within the next few days, if they aren't already. According to Google Maps, the northbound/eastbound lanes are still closed between Goodyear Blvd and the 58/360 interchange.
Okay, thanks for the info. Probably will just head through Danville on the eastbound trip to avoid any delays, closures. Checked on http://www.511virginia.org/, doesn't appear to give any good information either.

Anyone drive the detour yet?  Maybe it is not much of a problem to utilize Bus. US-29 and Bus. US-58.

It's not that bad outside of the afternoon/evening rush hour and even then, the worst of it is on US-58 Business. The detour should be fine outside of rush hour.
Looks like I'll only be heading westbound through there actually on U.S. 58, I'm then turning up toward Roanoke / Blacksburg, then will hit I-81 and I-64 back to Hampton Roads.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 28, 2018, 08:06:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 04:13:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 27, 2018, 02:46:00 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 27, 2018, 10:34:35 AM
I haven't driven the bypass since before the closure was announced. VDOT is supposed to build crossovers so that northbound/eastbound traffic will follow one southbound/westbound lane. I haven't been able to find any updated info, but the crossovers should be complete within the next few days, if they aren't already. According to Google Maps, the northbound/eastbound lanes are still closed between Goodyear Blvd and the 58/360 interchange.
Okay, thanks for the info. Probably will just head through Danville on the eastbound trip to avoid any delays, closures. Checked on http://www.511virginia.org/, doesn't appear to give any good information either.

Anyone drive the detour yet?  Maybe it is not much of a problem to utilize Bus. US-29 and Bus. US-58.  They could have immediately built the crossovers, but they probably had to award a contract and even a simple pair of freeway crossovers would cost at least $500,000 nowadays.
Didn't directly drive through Danville, but US 58 between South Hill and Martinsville was very light traffic, and not much more on the US 29 southbound bypass. They had the left lane closed on southbound through the area, and it looked like they had just paved a crossover, though not currently in use.. I wouldn't expect there would be much delay on the detour either.

I must admit - VDOT did a great job on getting US 58 all four-laned. Nice 65 MPH ride the entire way, with almost no traffic on the road. I will say though some sections were very narrow, with steep grades, no shoulder, and 10 foot lanes. One section I noted was between Martinsville and Danville, a semi nearly ran off the road going around a sharp curve at 50, when the speed is still 60 MPH. They could add shoulders or widen the road to have 12 foot lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on December 30, 2018, 11:09:05 PM
At the VA-20/VA-3 junction near Locust Grove, new signals are being installed. Took this photo today on my way back to Arlington from South Boston. I did not note if road widening was occuring, but the pavement was definitely new.

Unlike many other signals in Virginia, there seems to be quite a few secondary signals. Three of the four approaches have an overhead near-side signal, and the left turns off VA-3 will have two FYA heads, one overhead and one on the left. Although I did not confirm at the time, the near-side doghouse (closest in photo) seems to have arrows that point both left and right, instead of having one set of arrows and one set of orbs.

(https://i.imgur.com/tiX46MW.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 01, 2019, 11:12:06 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 30, 2018, 11:09:05 PM
At the VA-20/VA-3 junction near Locust Grove, new signals are being installed. Took this photo today on my way back to Arlington from South Boston. I did not note if road widening was occuring, but the pavement was definitely new.

Unlike many other signals in Virginia, there seems to be quite a few secondary signals. Three of the four approaches have an overhead near-side signal, and the left turns off VA-3 will have two FYA heads, one overhead and one on the left. Although I did not confirm at the time, the near-side doghouse (closest in photo) seems to have arrows that point both left and right, instead of having one set of arrows and one set of orbs.

(https://i.imgur.com/tiX46MW.jpg)

I haven't been through this intersection in a few years but I remember a couple of close calls here, pretty sure there has been a few accidents. I can see the need for the extra signals.

I saw 2 other doghouses with all arrows before, one in Newport News (gone now) and one in Portsmouth, not sure if that one is still there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on January 01, 2019, 10:23:36 PM
Quote from: plain on January 01, 2019, 11:12:06 AM
I haven't been through this intersection in a few years but I remember a couple of close calls here, pretty sure there has been a few accidents. I can see the need for the extra signals.

I would like to see them become a standard placement. I'm used to seeing them out west (as well as in NJ and MD), and they really help with visibility, especially when you're looking down at traffic waiting for a gap.

Quote from: plain on January 01, 2019, 11:12:06 AM
I saw 2 other doghouses with all arrows before, one in Newport News (gone now) and one in Portsmouth, not sure if that one is still there.

I'll have to go back down to this intersection again some day (maybe in the summer) to see if it does in fact operate as I suspect it may.

I have only ever seen one all-arrow doghouse, which was in Puyallup, WA: http://bit.ly/2Vmtqds
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 05, 2019, 12:07:03 PM
A little PSA for those traveling on US-58 near Danville.

(behind paywall)

https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/detours-to-start-again-for-u-s-over-sandy-creek/article_65bc3248-108b-11e9-ac81-9f08dcf6f31f.html (https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/detours-to-start-again-for-u-s-over-sandy-creek/article_65bc3248-108b-11e9-ac81-9f08dcf6f31f.html)

QuoteTropical Storm Michael washed out areas along the bridges over Sandy Creek on Oct. 11. For several weeks following the deadly storm, the road was detoured while the Virginia Department of Transportation repaired one bridge.

Now, due to increased traffic and continued wet weather, an area of pavement on that road is breaking up, VDOT officials report.

Contractors will repair the surface and traffic along the stretch should reopen by Jan. 11, according to VDOT.

The temporary detour will snake through Milton, North Carolina, using Route 62 going through Milton, then Route 57 and Route 119 to return back to U.S. 58.

VDOT expects repairs currently underway to the other bridge over Sandy Creek to be complete by late February.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 12:14:44 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 05, 2019, 12:07:03 PM
A little PSA for those traveling on US-58 near Danville.

(behind paywall)

https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/detours-to-start-again-for-u-s-over-sandy-creek/article_65bc3248-108b-11e9-ac81-9f08dcf6f31f.html (https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/detours-to-start-again-for-u-s-over-sandy-creek/article_65bc3248-108b-11e9-ac81-9f08dcf6f31f.html)

QuoteTropical Storm Michael washed out areas along the bridges over Sandy Creek on Oct. 11. For several weeks following the deadly storm, the road was detoured while the Virginia Department of Transportation repaired one bridge.

Now, due to increased traffic and continued wet weather, an area of pavement on that road is breaking up, VDOT officials report.

Contractors will repair the surface and traffic along the stretch should reopen by Jan. 11, according to VDOT.

The temporary detour will snake through Milton, North Carolina, using Route 62 going through Milton, then Route 57 and Route 119 to return back to U.S. 58.

VDOT expects repairs currently underway to the other bridge over Sandy Creek to be complete by late February.
Is that the area that is down to 1 lane, and a speed limit of 35?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 05, 2019, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: plain on October 17, 2018, 05:39:54 PM
The Boulevard Bridge (VA 161) is still not shown as being tolled.
Really? Because I considered going there the last time I drove up north, and I'd still like to do it, and capture those toll booths.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 07:01:58 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 05, 2019, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: plain on October 17, 2018, 05:39:54 PM
The Boulevard Bridge (VA 161) is still not shown as being tolled.
Really? Because I considered going there the last time I drove up north, and I'd still like to do it, and capture those toll booths.

It is still tolled, part of the RMTA that has the two tolled expressways.  I drove across it a couple weeks ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 05, 2019, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 05, 2019, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: plain on October 17, 2018, 05:39:54 PM
The Boulevard Bridge (VA 161) is still not shown as being tolled.
Really? Because I considered going there the last time I drove up north, and I'd still like to do it, and capture those toll booths.

It's still tolled. When I said that I was referring to an inaccuracy in the Official State Map.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 05, 2019, 08:29:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 07:01:58 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 05, 2019, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: plain on October 17, 2018, 05:39:54 PM
The Boulevard Bridge (VA 161) is still not shown as being tolled.
Really? Because I considered going there the last time I drove up north, and I'd still like to do it, and capture those toll booths.

It is still tolled, part of the RMTA that has the two tolled expressways.  I drove across it a couple weeks ago.

This is the one many locals still call the Nickel Bridge, right?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 05, 2019, 10:41:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2019, 08:29:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 05, 2019, 07:01:58 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 05, 2019, 02:14:54 PM
Quote from: plain on October 17, 2018, 05:39:54 PM
The Boulevard Bridge (VA 161) is still not shown as being tolled.
Really? Because I considered going there the last time I drove up north, and I'd still like to do it, and capture those toll booths.

It is still tolled, part of the RMTA that has the two tolled expressways.  I drove across it a couple weeks ago.

This is the one many locals still call the Nickel Bridge, right?

Yes, my dad still refers to it as such.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 06, 2019, 11:07:11 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 12:14:44 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 05, 2019, 12:07:03 PM
A little PSA for those traveling on US-58 near Danville.

(behind paywall)

https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/detours-to-start-again-for-u-s-over-sandy-creek/article_65bc3248-108b-11e9-ac81-9f08dcf6f31f.html (https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/detours-to-start-again-for-u-s-over-sandy-creek/article_65bc3248-108b-11e9-ac81-9f08dcf6f31f.html)

QuoteTropical Storm Michael washed out areas along the bridges over Sandy Creek on Oct. 11. For several weeks following the deadly storm, the road was detoured while the Virginia Department of Transportation repaired one bridge.

Now, due to increased traffic and continued wet weather, an area of pavement on that road is breaking up, VDOT officials report.

Contractors will repair the surface and traffic along the stretch should reopen by Jan. 11, according to VDOT.

The temporary detour will snake through Milton, North Carolina, using Route 62 going through Milton, then Route 57 and Route 119 to return back to U.S. 58.

VDOT expects repairs currently underway to the other bridge over Sandy Creek to be complete by late February.
Is that the area that is down to 1 lane, and a speed limit of 35?

I'm not sure. I haven't been out that way in quite a while. Most of my commutes these days are in town or on NC-86 going to Durham.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 11:53:05 AM
Quote from: LM117 on January 06, 2019, 11:07:11 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 12:14:44 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 05, 2019, 12:07:03 PM
A little PSA for those traveling on US-58 near Danville.

(behind paywall)

https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/detours-to-start-again-for-u-s-over-sandy-creek/article_65bc3248-108b-11e9-ac81-9f08dcf6f31f.html (https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/detours-to-start-again-for-u-s-over-sandy-creek/article_65bc3248-108b-11e9-ac81-9f08dcf6f31f.html)

QuoteTropical Storm Michael washed out areas along the bridges over Sandy Creek on Oct. 11. For several weeks following the deadly storm, the road was detoured while the Virginia Department of Transportation repaired one bridge.

Now, due to increased traffic and continued wet weather, an area of pavement on that road is breaking up, VDOT officials report.

Contractors will repair the surface and traffic along the stretch should reopen by Jan. 11, according to VDOT.

The temporary detour will snake through Milton, North Carolina, using Route 62 going through Milton, then Route 57 and Route 119 to return back to U.S. 58.

VDOT expects repairs currently underway to the other bridge over Sandy Creek to be complete by late February.
Is that the area that is down to 1 lane, and a speed limit of 35?

I'm not sure. I haven't been out that way in quite a while. Most of my commutes these days are in town or on NC-86 going to Durham.
Okay, cause I just remember coming into Danville on US-58 last week, they had some massive work zone with two small bridges east of the 'developed' area near the bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 06, 2019, 11:59:28 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 06, 2019, 11:53:05 AM
Quote from: LM117 on January 06, 2019, 11:07:11 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2019, 12:14:44 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 05, 2019, 12:07:03 PM
A little PSA for those traveling on US-58 near Danville.

(behind paywall)

https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/detours-to-start-again-for-u-s-over-sandy-creek/article_65bc3248-108b-11e9-ac81-9f08dcf6f31f.html (https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/detours-to-start-again-for-u-s-over-sandy-creek/article_65bc3248-108b-11e9-ac81-9f08dcf6f31f.html)

QuoteTropical Storm Michael washed out areas along the bridges over Sandy Creek on Oct. 11. For several weeks following the deadly storm, the road was detoured while the Virginia Department of Transportation repaired one bridge.

Now, due to increased traffic and continued wet weather, an area of pavement on that road is breaking up, VDOT officials report.

Contractors will repair the surface and traffic along the stretch should reopen by Jan. 11, according to VDOT.

The temporary detour will snake through Milton, North Carolina, using Route 62 going through Milton, then Route 57 and Route 119 to return back to U.S. 58.

VDOT expects repairs currently underway to the other bridge over Sandy Creek to be complete by late February.
Is that the area that is down to 1 lane, and a speed limit of 35?

I'm not sure. I haven't been out that way in quite a while. Most of my commutes these days are in town or on NC-86 going to Durham.
Okay, cause I just remember coming into Danville on US-58 last week, they had some massive work zone with two small bridges east of the 'developed' area near the bypass.

Yes, now that you went into detail, that is the spot.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 08, 2019, 01:05:24 PM
Tolls Pushed for I-81 Improvements

Tolls are the solution to the problems on I-81 in Virginia, per a proposal from Gov. Ralph Northam. Legislation, sponsored by Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Rockingham; Sen. Bill Carrico, R-Grayson; Del. Steve Landes, R-Augusta; and Del. Terry Austin, R-Botetourt (interesting that all are Republicans), will be introduced in the upcoming General Assembly.

Per the news release,
Quote"The initial draft legislation would establish an Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Fund supported by tolls along I-81. The proposal would establish limits on toll rates and give automobiles and small trucks the ability to purchase an annual pass allowing unlimited use of I-81 for a fixed yearly fee. Revenues collected would only be used for improvements included in the Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Plan that was adopted by the [Commonwealth Transportation] Board at its December meeting."
(see https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2019/january/headline-837634-en.html).

Per the Roanoke Times,
Quote"State officials previously estimated the fee would be about $30, while tractor-trailers and other large trucks and passenger vehicles without the yearly pass would pay the toll.

"Toll rates were not specified in Northam's news release, but state highway officials have previously suggested 5 cents to 15 cents a mile depending on vehicle type and hour of day or night. Lower nighttime rates from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. were part of a proposal from the Virginia Department of Transportation. VDOT studied I-81 during much of 2018 before recommending a long list of new lanes, interchange projects and other fixes while leaving the choice of funding method – tolls or tax increases or some combination of both – to lawmakers."
(see https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general_assembly/governor-western-virginia-lawmakers-back-tolls-to-fix-i/article_d924cc82-f88a-52f8-bc40-2cd790d8e709.html)


The Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Plan can be found at www.va81corridor.org.

-----
Bruce in Blacksburg

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 01:16:19 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 08, 2019, 01:05:24 PM
Tolls Pushed for I-81 Improvements
Tolls are the solution to the problems on I-81 in Virginia, per a proposal from Gov. Ralph Northam. Legislation, sponsored by Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Rockingham; Sen. Bill Carrico, R-Grayson; Del. Steve Landes, R-Augusta; and Del. Terry Austin, R-Botetourt (interesting that all are Republicans), will be introduced in the upcoming General Assembly.

They represent those areas that I-81 serves.  I wonder if it has been determined what mechanism would be used for instituting tolls.  The TEA-21 pilot program?  That was canceled and recycled, so they would have to reapply.  I don't think there is any other tolling mechanism for tolling all vehicles on a long-distance Interstate corridor.  I would agree for having a nominal cost pass for locals (such as living in the counties that I-81 passes thru) and having point tolls for all other vehicles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 04:58:27 PM
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/01/cell-phone-ban-tolls-widening-i-95-among-2019-va-transportation-bills/

I-95 widening in the talks for study again, this time between Springfield and south of Fredericksburg (at Thornburg). They want to potentially study the possibility of adding an additional lane in each direction (6 to 8 lane widening) down to Thornburg.

IMHO, this is an extremely needed project, and I think a study should definitely happen.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 08, 2019, 05:28:34 PM
^ I don't see it being a high priority south of Dumfries given the recent investments in extending the HO/T lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 08, 2019, 06:05:01 PM
Please post all I-81 tolling replies to the following topic:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24235.0

sprjus4, your post was moved there as it is the only one that was not a duplicate.

Thanks,

Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 06:06:20 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 08, 2019, 05:28:34 PM
^ I don't see it being a high priority south of Dumfries given the recent investments in extending the HO/T lanes.
There's heavy traffic congestion (mainly local) between Fredericksburg and D.C, not just to Dumfries. Widening to south of Fredericksburg is a high priority, less so, but eventually all the way to Richmond.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 08, 2019, 07:37:58 PM
You're missing my point.  Given the recent and ongoing investments in extending the HO/T lanes to Fredericksburg, VDOT is not going to expend the time and effort to widen significant lengths of the general lanes, no matter how much you think they're needed.  For starters, VDOT doesn't have the funding for that.  Second, any expansion of the general lanes would incur cost reimbursement to Transurban.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 07:51:25 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 08, 2019, 07:37:58 PM
You're missing my point.  Given the recent and ongoing investments in extending the HO/T lanes to Fredericksburg, VDOT is not going to expend the time and effort to widen significant lengths of the general lanes, no matter how much you think they're needed.  For starters, VDOT doesn't have the funding for that.  Second, any expansion of the general lanes would incur cost reimbursement to Transurban.
Oh I understand. And the comment about they don't have funding - they're undergoing massive billion dollar expansions (I-66 outside the beltway - $2 billion, HRBT - $4 billion) and could afford it in the future. It's just not "how much I think it's needed", it's the overall fact that it is needed, it's not a personal opinion of mine, ask anybody who uses it and gets tangled in traffic every single day. I don't think you use it enough to realize the reality of it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 08, 2019, 08:33:23 PM
Keep in mind that both of those are heavily funded by tolls, nevermind that both Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads have regional taxes that contribute to major regional projects.

And I fully understand the situation...I lived in Fairfax County.  I don't think you realize the reality of politics or financing or the legalities of the public-private partnerships the state has used on I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 08, 2019, 08:45:04 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 08, 2019, 08:33:23 PM
Keep in mind that both of those are heavily funded by tolls, nevermind that both Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads have regional taxes that contribute to major regional projects.

And I fully understand the situation...I lived in Fairfax County.  I don't think you realize the reality of politics or financing or the legalities of the public-private partnerships the state has used on I-95.

If they follow through as expected to extend the express lanes down to Fredericksburg and they complete the VA 3-Rappahannock River-US 17 interchange expansion traffic will be a whole lot better through the area.  For me, anyway.  Of course that is still 4 years away from completion...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 09:18:08 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 08, 2019, 07:37:58 PM
You're missing my point.  Given the recent and ongoing investments in extending the HO/T lanes to Fredericksburg, VDOT is not going to expend the time and effort to widen significant lengths of the general lanes, no matter how much you think they're needed.  For starters, VDOT doesn't have the funding for that.  Second, any expansion of the general lanes would incur cost reimbursement to Transurban.

Not necessarily true on either point, as I have pointed out the 4th lanes could be funded as ETL (express toll but not HOV).  If they can find a feasible way to extend the 4th lanes from Woodbridge to Thornburg, I say go for it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 09:23:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 09:18:08 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 08, 2019, 07:37:58 PM
You're missing my point.  Given the recent and ongoing investments in extending the HO/T lanes to Fredericksburg, VDOT is not going to expend the time and effort to widen significant lengths of the general lanes, no matter how much you think they're needed.  For starters, VDOT doesn't have the funding for that.  Second, any expansion of the general lanes would incur cost reimbursement to Transurban.

Not necessarily true on either point, as I have pointed out the 4th lanes could be funded as ETL (express toll but not HOV).  If they can find a feasible way to extend the 4th lanes from Woodbridge to Thornburg, I say go for it.
If it's done as a toll exclusive lane with no HOV being exempt, I don't see a point for even doing it. The point is to add more general purpose capacity without more tolling. That combined with the HO/T lane extension and future interchange improvements along the corridor would help to bring traffic relief.

I can see now a huge backup at Thornburg with 4 lanes merging into 3 lanes once this (if it ever happens) project gets done though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 08, 2019, 09:25:45 PM
Regardless of what will or won't happen, it's true that there IS legislation pending in the House that would establish a joint subcommittee to "study the feasibility"  of widening I-95 from Thornburg (Exit 118) to Springfield. Here's the link to the LIS:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+sum+HJ580

I wouldn't expect anything to come of it for the reasons others have said. Note, also, the study would have an absurdly low budget.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 09:26:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 09:23:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 09:18:08 PM
Not necessarily true on either point, as I have pointed out the 4th lanes could be funded as ETL (express toll but not HOV).  If they can find a feasible way to extend the 4th lanes from Woodbridge to Thornburg, I say go for it.
If it's done as a toll exclusive lane with no HOV being exempt, I don't see a point for even doing it. The point is to add more general purpose capacity without more tolling. That combined with the HO/T lane extension and future interchange improvements along the corridor would help to bring traffic relief.
I can see now a huge backup at Thornburg with 4 lanes merging into 3 lanes once this (if it ever happens) project gets done though.

A second phase would extend the 4th lanes from Thornburg to I-295 ... but first things first.

The whole point of tolling is to get something built when the road taxes won't suffice.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 09:41:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 09:26:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 09:23:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 09:18:08 PM
Not necessarily true on either point, as I have pointed out the 4th lanes could be funded as ETL (express toll but not HOV).  If they can find a feasible way to extend the 4th lanes from Woodbridge to Thornburg, I say go for it.
If it's done as a toll exclusive lane with no HOV being exempt, I don't see a point for even doing it. The point is to add more general purpose capacity without more tolling. That combined with the HO/T lane extension and future interchange improvements along the corridor would help to bring traffic relief.
I can see now a huge backup at Thornburg with 4 lanes merging into 3 lanes once this (if it ever happens) project gets done though.

A second phase would extend the 4th lanes from Thornburg to I-295 ... but first things first.

The whole point of tolling is to get something built when the road taxes won't suffice.
I'm sure a project like this would get funding within 5 years, seeing the massive expansion happening on I-66. Again, tolling the lane wouldn't accomplish much especially when there's already existing HO/T lanes.

At the rate we're going, an extension to I-295 would be nice but probably not likely anytime soon. Though, it's needed eventually and will get funded eventually.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 08, 2019, 09:25:45 PM
Regardless of what will or won't happen, it's true that there IS legislation pending in the House that would establish a joint subcommittee to "study the feasibility"  of widening I-95 from Thornburg (Exit 118) to Springfield. Here's the link to the LIS:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+sum+HJ580

I wouldn't expect anything to come of it for the reasons others have said. Note, also, the study would have an absurdly low budget.
Having a full study done will make such a project more of an incentive to actually consider for funding. Right now, it's continuously an idea being floated and nothing to back it, therefore nothing has been considered or thought of about a widening.

I find it interesting how it mentions "by at least one additional lane of traffic in each direction" indicating there could be more than just one lane considered. Nice, but we'd be lucky just to get 1 lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 09:54:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 09:41:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 09:26:22 PM
A second phase would extend the 4th lanes from Thornburg to I-295 ... but first things first.
The whole point of tolling is to get something built when the road taxes won't suffice.
I'm sure a project like this would get funding within 5 years, seeing the massive expansion happening on I-66. Again, tolling the lane wouldn't accomplish much especially when there's already existing HO/T lanes.

Aren't you the one who keeps complaining that the HOT lanes only go in one direction at a time?  Besides they have never been proposed to Thornburg. 

My concept would accomplish plenty, granted they would need to be dynamically priced so that they would get ample usage.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 08, 2019, 09:55:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 09:23:28 PM
I can see now a huge backup at Thornburg with 4 lanes merging into 3 lanes once this (if it ever happens) project gets done though.

Traffic drops noticeably on I-95 south of Fredricksburg (at least on the epic traffic days I tend to travel on). Its usually smooth sailing to around Ashland or Doswell. Long term planning is at least being done for an eventually 4 lane widening going by the design of all the overpass reconstructions on that stretch.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 11:15:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 09:54:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 09:41:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 09:26:22 PM
A second phase would extend the 4th lanes from Thornburg to I-295 ... but first things first.
The whole point of tolling is to get something built when the road taxes won't suffice.
I'm sure a project like this would get funding within 5 years, seeing the massive expansion happening on I-66. Again, tolling the lane wouldn't accomplish much especially when there's already existing HO/T lanes.

Aren't you the one who keeps complaining that the HOT lanes only go in one direction at a time?  Besides they have never been proposed to Thornburg. 

My concept would accomplish plenty, granted they would need to be dynamically priced so that they would get ample usage.
I've not particularly complained about them only going one direction - more so the schedule of the reversal. This concept could theoretically work and allow HO/T to flow both directions all times w/ more capacity for the peak direction, though there needs to be a minimum of 4 GP lanes in each direction before any new toll lane ideas are pushed. A concept could be to build 2 lanes in each direction, with the inner one being HO/T, providing 4 GP + 1-3 HO/T lanes in each direction at all times, a total of 12 lanes. That would provide additional capacity in each direction and at the same time VDOT could manage the single HO/T lane and use revenues from that to pay back construction of both the new GP and HO/T lane.

Such a project would add new HO/T capacity, new GP capacity, and still be paid for by toll revenue like you suggested. The only problem would be that the HO/T lane wouldn't be able to extend beyond the Occoquan River, unless some major construction were to happen north of there, which would have to be all to the outside, which in many cases would involve constructing wider overpasses, reconfiguring interchanges, etc. Even just one new lane south of the Occoquan being a HO/T lane like you proposed would have to continue as a 5th lane up to I-395 / I-495 to provide a continuous system.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 11:38:58 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 08, 2019, 11:15:09 PM
I've not particularly complained about them only going one direction - more so the schedule of the reversal. This concept could theoretically work and allow HO/T to flow both directions all times w/ more capacity for the peak direction, though there needs to be a minimum of 4 GP lanes in each direction before any new toll lane ideas are pushed. A concept could be to build 2 lanes in each direction, with the inner one being HO/T, providing 4 GP + 1-3 HO/T lanes in each direction at all times, a total of 12 lanes. That would provide additional capacity in each direction and at the same time VDOT could manage the single HO/T lane and use revenues from that to pay back construction of both the new GP and HO/T lane.
Such a project would add new HO/T capacity, new GP capacity, and still be paid for by toll revenue like you suggested. The only problem would be that the HO/T lane wouldn't be able to extend beyond the Occoquan River, unless some major construction were to happen north of there, which would have to be all to the outside, which in many cases would involve constructing wider overpasses, reconfiguring interchanges, etc. Even just one new lane south of the Occoquan being a HO/T lane like you proposed would have to continue as a 5th lane up to I-395 / I-495 to provide a continuous system.

I wasn't proposing HOT, but ETL meaning dynamically tolled and with no occupancy threshold.  The 2- and 3-lane C-D roadways will extend to south of VA-3 and may obviate the need to extend the reversible roadway south of US-17.  The NB C-D project is scheduled to begin in 2020, BTW.  They might consider future extending the C-D roadways to south of US-1 Massaponax.

I haven't seen any news release from VDOT or CTB about possible Transurban compensation for 4th lane widening; just a couple newspaper articles.  IOW it is entirely possible that there won't be any needed, not surprising given the very high traffic demand on the corridor that will continue to grow.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 09, 2019, 12:22:23 PM
^ One would hope it wouldn't incur a compensation scenario...but that would have to be addressed before any such 4th lane project could be pursued.

Though if you had Transurban build the ETL and receive the tolls from it, moot point.  Is that what you had in mind?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 09, 2019, 04:32:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 09, 2019, 12:22:23 PM
^ One would hope it wouldn't incur a compensation scenario...but that would have to be addressed before any such 4th lane project could be pursued.
Though if you had Transurban build the ETL and receive the tolls from it, moot point.  Is that what you had in mind?

Yes, as one of the study alternatives.  Or VDOT could build it and then determine what portion of the tolls might be justified to compensate Transurban.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 11, 2019, 11:17:24 PM
Compensation or not I say go for the 4th lane. It's not like the HOT lanes aren't going to be used (it is seriously THAT much traffic north of Fredericksburg). If anything this would go towards the ultimate goal of having at least 8 general lanes between I-295 & I-495.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 11, 2019, 11:21:02 PM
Quote from: plain on January 11, 2019, 11:17:24 PM
Compensation or not I say go for the 4th lane. It's not like the HOT lanes aren't going to be used (it is seriously THAT much traffic north of Fredericksburg). If anything this would go towards the ultimate goal of having at least 8 general lanes between I-295 & I-495.
Agreed. This would be a significant start to that goal, and would relieve congestion along the corridor. Hell, like I proposed before, you could build 2 lanes in each direction, one general purpose, and one HO/T. That would bring the corridor up to 8 GP lanes + 2 one-way HO/T lanes + 2 reversible HO/T lanes, and that new each-direction HO/T lane could provide funding for itself and the new GP lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 12, 2019, 04:44:23 PM
There will be a public meeting next week for the proposed auxiliary lanes on I-95 between VA 10 and VA 288 (http://www.nbc12.com/2019/01/12/vdot-holding-public-hearing-proposed-i-improvements/).  (the link is from NBC 12 Richmond)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 12, 2019, 05:04:01 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 12, 2019, 04:44:23 PM
There will be a public meeting next week for the proposed auxiliary lanes on I-95 between VA 10 and VA 288 (http://www.nbc12.com/2019/01/12/vdot-holding-public-hearing-proposed-i-improvements/).  (the link is from NBC 12 Richmond)

Needed!  Nowadays even a project like that will cost $28 to $30 million.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 15, 2019, 10:05:51 AM
Quote from: LM117 on December 15, 2018, 07:08:00 AM
Northbound US-29 traffic in Danville will be detoured through the city due to a pipe failure.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2018/us-29-north-bypass-traffic-will-use-danville-detour12-14-2018.asp)

Update (paywalled):

https://www.godanriver.com/news/danville/new-flow-of-traffic-coming-soon-to-u-s-in/article_7d4506ac-1855-11e9-83b0-8fe4a4e4b3a6.html (https://www.godanriver.com/news/danville/new-flow-of-traffic-coming-soon-to-u-s-in/article_7d4506ac-1855-11e9-83b0-8fe4a4e4b3a6.html)

QuoteTraffic should flow both ways on U.S. 29 in Danville soon, Virginia Department of Transportation spokeswoman Paula Jones said Monday.

Crews have been busy working and planning for one lane of traffic to run both north and south on the highway's southbound side in approximately a week.

Full repairs to the roadway are expected to take several months, and have been somewhat slowed by weather, but cars will not be rerouted through Danville after the stopgap reconfiguration.

The massive project started after a pipe deteriorated from the weight of vehicles passing over it, Jones said.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 18, 2019, 02:51:32 PM
Another update on US-29 in Danville:

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2019/danville-expressway-detour-to-change1-17-2019.asp (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2019/danville-expressway-detour-to-change1-17-2019.asp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 19, 2019, 02:43:54 PM
The new collector-distributor flyover ramp at I-264 / I-64 opens Monday in Norfolk. There won't be any big traffic changes, as this simply moves the existing C/D traffic onto the new flyover. The direct connector from I-64 West to I-264 East remains under construction. Phase #1 of the interchange improvements is expected to completed by October 2019, and that will fully open both the direct flyover to I-264 East, and the C/D lane flyover for local traffic.

Phase #2 is currently under construction, and it will reconfigure the Newtown Rd and Witchduck Rd interchanges, and construct a new bridge over I-264 as part of a connector between Cleveland St and Greenwich Rd. That project will be done by Fall 2021.

Currently, the I-64 West to I-264 East ramp remains closed until Monday morning, when traffic will be on the new flyover.

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/THIS-WEEKEND--64W-to-264E---Newtown-Rd-Detours.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=3Y_2nqUmqms

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 19, 2019, 10:37:38 PM
Recently the CTB released the Smart Scale scores for the Fiscal Year 2020. Since there was only roughly $779 million available this time around, not surprisingly, very few widening and interchange projects were recommended for funding:
http://smartscale.org/documents/20190115/7scorebook2020p.pdf
http://vasmartscale.org/projects/default.asp

Two particular projects that I believe should've been recommended for funding but were not, both involve I-95. The first project would have built a southbound auxiliary lane from the current lane drop at VA-123(Exit 160) to VA-294(Exit 158) partially alleviating arguably the worst bottleneck in the entire state(the HRBT is up there too). I believe a compensation fee to Transburban would not have been necessary since the new lane will be an auxiliary, not a general purpose. The second project would have extended a 4th general purpose lane from the future southern end of Rappahannock river crossing project at Exit 130(where 5 lanes will narrow back down to 3) to Exit 126. While a large portion of I-95 commuter traffic does get off at Exit 130, most of us here can agree that there is enough thru traffic on I-95 to warrant 8 lanes all the way down to Richmond. Any significant lane drop on I-95( as proven by the Occoquan and Garrisonville Bottlenecks) is usually disastrous. It appears that the only way these projects and other major ones like are ever going to get funding is either via the localities or by some outside deal. Either way, Virginia desperately needs more transportation funds!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 01:45:55 PM
Traffic has shifted at I-264 / I-64, and traffic bound from I-64 West to I-264 East is now using the new C/D lane, along with local traffic from I-264 East. The old C/D lane has closed to make room for construction of the new direct flyover onto I-264 East mainline. Looks like crews have already started preparing that area for the tie-in.

(https://i.ibb.co/1nx6C0X/I264-New-Flyover-Open-pg.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 25, 2019, 09:21:02 PM
"PORTSMOUTH, Va. (WAVY) -- There is a new task force to examine ways to get rid of the Downtown and Midtown Tunnel tolls.

Last week, the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization unanimously voted to create a working group to do that. The group hasn't met yet, but they are coming together as a region to fight a common foe, and that is the tunnel tolls that will be with us for 50 years.

The eight-member group is dedicated to finding ways to have the state buy down and to eliminate these tolls because they not only hurt Portsmouth and Norfolk, they have come to learn that they hurt the region overall and impact people who don't even use them.

Long time opponent of the tolls, Terry Danaher, is the chairperson of the Community Transportation Advisory Committee and sits on the new committee. She says, "there has been a certain amount of state responsibility in the legislature questioning the state's level of responsibility. The state got us into this,  so perhaps the state needs to get us out of it."

Another member of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization toll committee is Portsmouth Mayor John Rowe, who says "it's not just an issue for Portsmouth. It is an issue for the whole region, and I think it is significant in what is taking place and the region has embraced this unanimously, that it is a crummy deal and it is a terrible deal for Portsmouth, and everyone else in Hampton Roads. It hurts everyone else in Hampton Roads."

The negative impact of tolls is nothing new.

Last June, Old Dominion University's Economics Professor Dr. James Koch made it clear in his tolls study, and how it impacts Portsmouth. He says, "The tunnels are a regional facility and they are hurting the entire region, but it's Portsmouth paying the biggest price for the tolls, easily."

Danaher said, "The operators of the tunnels are a foreign company, and they get the money, billions and billions of dollars over $22 billion dollars on much less of an investment of less than one billion dollars."

For eight years, Danaher has been upset that the private partners are reaping tens of millions of dollars  in an unfair toll deal on the backs of the people.

However, Virginia has itself to blame. The Commonwealth agreed to a deal under former Governor Bob McDonnell that leaves the possibility of skyrocketing tolls for fifty years, but that was the bad deal that was cut with the state says Rowe. He said, "I think the deal is crummy." 

Rowe made the motion to create the task force, and he's ready to fight, "I think for the first time we have the whole region saying the ERC contract with the state is bad and really bad for Portsmouth.  It's not a Portsmouth problem or a Portsmouth-Norfolk problem.  It's a regional problem."

Hampton Roads Regionalism is fighting back in an uphill battle. 10 On Your Side asked Rowe what he wants Virginia to do. He said,  "I want them to buy it out, pure and simple."

That would be a buyout of about a billion dollars, which is not knew either. Portsmouth Delegate Steve Heretick told us this last June, "We have to find financial resources necessary whether from state or HRTAC (Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission) or another mechanism to help pay this down or pay it off."

It appears the longtime fight has new energized people, new blood, new resolve, "People are new to positions. The new people are waking up and realizing we don't want this.  It is not fair to the localities here," Danaher said."


https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/portsmouth/new-task-force-forms-to-find-ways-to-rid-of-downtown-midtown-tunnel-tolls/1721025738?fbclid=IwAR3fCse0vz3GtjPcPxHlXfWFXzLALEjzqI7P5XzPRSDXGb-kWl-9dlsk718
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 25, 2019, 10:20:04 PM
I’ll be honest, I avoid the tunnels now because of the tolls. I used to take 264 all the way from Bowers Hill to points east of 64. Now, if I’m coming from the south side of the James I either take 64 or, if I’m not in a hurry, the Gilmerton Bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 26, 2019, 12:07:41 AM
Quote
"PORTSMOUTH, Va. (WAVY) -- There is a new task force to examine ways to get rid of the Downtown and Midtown Tunnel tolls.
Danaher said, "The operators of the tunnels are a foreign company, and they get the money, billions and billions of dollars over $22 billion dollars on much less of an investment of less than one billion dollars."

This guy sounds like an economics idiot.  Sounds like something that Paul Krugman would come up with.  It is not going to cost $22 billion to service $1 billion of debt.  Maybe 1/10 of that, run an amortization program and see.

The tunnels were detolled for the reason the article said, for economic benefits to the region.  Also enabled by the 90% FHWA Interstate funding for the expanded I-264 Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge.

Unfortunately that kind of FHWA Interstate funding is no longer available, at least not in significant amounts, so now we have tolls.  If HRTAC wants to try to allocate the money to buy it out, then they are welcome to come up with a plan.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 26, 2019, 03:01:07 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2019, 12:07:41 AM
This guy sounds like an economics idiot.  Sounds like something that Paul Krugman would come up with.  It is not going to cost $22 billion to service $1 billion of debt.  Maybe 1/10 of that, run an amortization program and see.

The tunnels were detolled for the reason the article said, for economic benefits to the region.  Also enabled by the 90% FHWA Interstate funding for the expanded I-264 Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge.

Unfortunately that kind of FHWA Interstate funding is no longer available, at least not in significant amounts, so now we have tolls.  If HRTAC wants to try to allocate the money to buy it out, then they are welcome to come up with a plan.
[/quote]
Considering the existing tolls rates, and the continuous rise of traffic & the rates annually, it's going to generate billions of dollars over a 50 year course. By 2064 (50 years from 2014), it would've collected at least $8 billion, maybe not $22 billion, but certainly a high number. And the private investor takes some of that in case you weren't aware, that's why P3s aren't always a good idea. Te deal signed with Elizabeth River Crossings, or whatever the actual companies were, came with much controversy and I'm glad they are now working to revert it. I wasn't expecting to hear that tolls might get removed completely, but if they can do that, that's welcome. The tunnel tolls are only going to choke the area for the next 45 years. If the rates keep rising, you could be paying $10+ just to go from Norfolk to Portsmouth. No thank you.

Quote from: Takumi on January 25, 2019, 10:20:04 PM
I'll be honest, I avoid the tunnels now because of the tolls. I used to take 264 all the way from Bowers Hill to points east of 64. Now, if I'm coming from the south side of the James I either take 64 or, if I'm not in a hurry, the Gilmerton Bridge.
Same. I only use the tunnels if necessary, per se going between Norfolk and Portsmouth. I'm not a daily commuter of them thankfully, but if I was, geesh I would hate it. So would my wallet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 26, 2019, 08:51:28 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 26, 2019, 03:01:07 AM
Considering the existing tolls rates, and the continuous rise of traffic & the rates annually, it's going to generate billions of dollars over a 50 year course.

When the bonds are paid off the tolls will either be eliminated or reduced to maintenance levels.

Quote
I only use the tunnels if necessary, per se going between Norfolk and Portsmouth. I'm not a daily commuter of them thankfully, but if I was, geesh I would hate it. So would my wallet.

Underwater major highway tunnels that are untolled, or for that matter don't have a large toll, are as rare as hen's teeth.  When are the tolls at Baltimore Harbor, Hudson River, and East River going to be removed? 

Maryland got 90% FHWA Interstate funding to build the I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel, which was by far the most expensive Interstate project in history at that time (1980s), and also got a federal waiver to collect tolls on it.  They have no plans to ever remove those tolls.  How about that for fairness...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2019, 09:20:00 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2019, 08:51:28 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 26, 2019, 03:01:07 AM
Considering the existing tolls rates, and the continuous rise of traffic & the rates annually, it's going to generate billions of dollars over a 50 year course.

When the bonds are paid off the tolls will either be eliminated or reduced to maintenance levels.

You don't think that by the time the current bonds are paid off, another widening will be needed?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 26, 2019, 02:03:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2019, 08:51:28 AM
When the bonds are paid off the tolls will either be eliminated or reduced to maintenance levels.
The tolls are fully owned by a private investor, they're not going to eliminated or reduced as long as they have control. This is the bad thing about P3's - they will toll until they have to stop, I.E. when the contract runs out. This is why I'm thankful that Chesapeake fully owns the tolls on Dominion Blvd and the Expressway and not some P3.

Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2019, 08:51:28 AM
Underwater major highway tunnels that are untolled, or for that matter don't have a large toll, are as rare as hen's teeth.  When are the tolls at Baltimore Harbor, Hudson River, and East River going to be removed? 

Maryland got 90% FHWA Interstate funding to build the I-95 Fort McHenry Tunnel, which was by far the most expensive Interstate project in history at that time (1980s), and also got a federal waiver to collect tolls on it.  They have no plans to ever remove those tolls.  How about that for fairness...
There's a few different water crossing tunnels in Florida that are not tolled, the I-10 and arterial tunnels in Mobile, AL are not tolled, there's an underwater tunnel that's not tolled in New Orleans, etc. Just because there's some tolls up north does not mean it's "rare" to see non-tolled tunnels. Go to the south, they'll show you plenty of that.

Also, it's important to mention the tunnel tolls you've mentioned have always been tolled. The Downtown Tunnel & Midtown Tunnel tolls were removed, it stayed that way for 25 years or so, then they slapped back some expensive tolls onto it. It's a burden to this area. There's no toll-free alternative to go between Norfolk / Portsmouth unless you go 30 minutes around.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 26, 2019, 02:05:35 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2019, 09:20:00 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2019, 08:51:28 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 26, 2019, 03:01:07 AM
Considering the existing tolls rates, and the continuous rise of traffic & the rates annually, it's going to generate billions of dollars over a 50 year course.

When the bonds are paid off the tolls will either be eliminated or reduced to maintenance levels.

You don't think that by the time the current bonds are paid off, another widening will be needed?
Agreed, that area is a huge bottleneck. Close to 100,000 AADT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 26, 2019, 02:44:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 26, 2019, 02:03:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2019, 08:51:28 AM
When the bonds are paid off the tolls will either be eliminated or reduced to maintenance levels.
The tolls are fully owned by a private investor, they're not going to eliminated or reduced as long as they have control.

They don't have control, the facilities are owned by VDOT, and the concession is regulated by the state SCC.

Quote
There's a few different water crossing tunnels in Florida that are not tolled, the I-10 and arterial tunnels in Mobile, AL are not tolled, there's an underwater tunnel that's not tolled in New Orleans, etc. Just because there's some tolls up north does not mean it's "rare" to see non-tolled tunnels. Go to the south, they'll show you plenty of that.

Zero untolled in Florida, I-10 in Mobile has no tolls.  That is about it for shipping channels.  Look around the world and see all the high tolled tunnels.

Quote
Also, it's important to mention the tunnel tolls you've mentioned have always been tolled.

So that makes it better?  I strongly supported removing the tolls in the 1980s, but now I am wondering if that is not a sustainable paradigm.  Major shipping channel bridges are invariably tolled as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 26, 2019, 03:20:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2019, 02:44:54 PM
Zero untolled in Florida, I-10 in Mobile has no tolls.  That is about it for shipping channels.  Look around the world and see all the high tolled tunnels.
Both the Port Miami Tunnel and New River Tunnels in the greater Miami area do not collect any tolls. They both cross shipping channels.

Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2019, 02:44:54 PM
So that makes it better?  I strongly supported removing the tolls in the 1980s, but now I am wondering if that is not a sustainable paradigm.  Major shipping channel bridges are invariably tolled as well.
I would support removing the tolls as well. I'm just making the point that at least those tolls have always been there. These haven't.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 27, 2019, 12:34:35 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 26, 2019, 03:20:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2019, 02:44:54 PM
Zero untolled in Florida, I-10 in Mobile has no tolls.  That is about it for shipping channels.  Look around the world and see all the high tolled tunnels.
Both the Port Miami Tunnel and New River Tunnels in the greater Miami area do not collect any tolls. They both cross shipping channels.

The Port Miami Tunnel is a major underwater tunnel.  The New River Tunnel is not, it 2 lanes, it is about 900 feet long and the water depth is 14 feet, which would not handle ocean going ships, at least not of the size that draws 40 feet of water which is a full size ship.  In Fort Lauderdale, BTW, Port Everglades.

So maybe 1% of the major underwater tunnels in the world are untolled.

HRBT will receive a $3.5 billion expansion to 8 lanes, the general purpose lanes will remain toll-free, the new HOT lanes will be tolled but only 5% of the project funding is toll supported.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 26, 2019, 03:20:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2019, 02:44:54 PM
So that makes it better?  I strongly supported removing the tolls in the 1980s, but now I am wondering if that is not a sustainable paradigm.  Major shipping channel bridges are invariably tolled as well.
I would support removing the tolls as well. I'm just making the point that at least those tolls have always been there. These haven't.

You make that sound like a positive; I see it as a negative.  River crossings like in Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, etc. will -never- be detolled.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2019, 09:36:00 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2019, 12:34:35 AM
So maybe 1% of the major underwater tunnels in the world are untolled.
1% is an extremely low figure. I'd say maybe 30-45%

Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2019, 12:34:35 AM
HRBT will receive a $3.5 billion expansion to 8 lanes, the general purpose lanes will remain toll-free, the new HOT lanes will be tolled but only 5% of the project funding is toll supported.
I'm aware. It's actually on 6-lanes for now above land, but underwater will hold the capacity to 8 lanes. Smart move, I was going to be a little upset had they went ahead with Plan A and only built a new 6 lane tunnel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 27, 2019, 05:09:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2019, 09:36:00 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2019, 12:34:35 AM
So maybe 1% of the major underwater tunnels in the world are untolled.
1% is an extremely low figure. I'd say maybe 30-45%

Baloney, any way you slice it.  Maybe 1% is low, but it wouldn't be more than one out of 20, or 5%.

Underwater tunnels in other countries typically have extremely high tolls.

My definition of major underwater tunnel -- at least 4,000 feet long, shipping channel of at least 35 feet depth.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 09:49:41 PM
"A bill meant to boost funding for Virginia highways could put some of $1.1 billion in planned projects in Hampton Roads at risk, says state Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach.

The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Warm Springs, aims to create a statewide highway funding program.

It would do so by raising the statewide gas tax by 3 percent. But it would also repeal the regional sales and gas taxes enacted in 2013 to fund transportation initiatives in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia.

Wagner said the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission has had to put an application for a federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan on ice because Deeds' bill calls into question the source of money – those regional taxes – that would be used to repay the loan.

HRTAC executive director Kevin Page said the agency is seeking a low-interest, $450 million TIFIA loan to help finance some $1.1 billion worth of work, including widening 21 miles of Interstate 64 on the Peninsula, as well as work on the I-64-I-264 interchange in Norfolk and on the stretch of I-64 between Bowers Hill and Battlefield Boulevard in South Hampton Roads.

Money from the regional taxes is already pledged to pay interest and principal on $500 million of bonds the agency sold last year to finance that work, as well.

Over the long run, the bill, if enacted, could hinder financing for expanding the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, Page said.

Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr., R-James City County, said the bill represents a major shift in policy away from the transportation financing reform enacted in 2013, which Deeds supported.

"To do this when we're trying to get federal funding is – I'm trying to find the right word – not acceptable,"  he said."


https://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-shad-plank-0126-story.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 28, 2019, 10:13:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 09:49:41 PM
A bill meant to boost funding for Virginia highways could put some of $1.1 billion in planned projects in Hampton Roads at risk, says state Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach.
The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Warm Springs, aims to create a statewide highway funding program.

It would help if the article would cite the bill number so that readers can read it for themselves and see what it says, on lis.virginia.gov.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 11:19:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2019, 10:13:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 09:49:41 PM
A bill meant to boost funding for Virginia highways could put some of $1.1 billion in planned projects in Hampton Roads at risk, says state Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach.
The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Warm Springs, aims to create a statewide highway funding program.

It would help if the article would cite the bill number so that readers can read it for themselves and see what it says, on lis.virginia.gov.
Relating to the funding thing, I still want to know why there's billions being poured into these projects, yet the Dominion Blvd expansion done a few years back was shoved off any of this funding and forced Chesapeake to build it w/ tolls.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 28, 2019, 11:30:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 11:19:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2019, 10:13:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 09:49:41 PM
A bill meant to boost funding for Virginia highways could put some of $1.1 billion in planned projects in Hampton Roads at risk, says state Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach.  The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Warm Springs, aims to create a statewide highway funding program.
It would help if the article would cite the bill number so that readers can read it for themselves and see what it says, on lis.virginia.gov.
Relating to the funding thing, I still want to know why there's billions being poured into these projects, yet the Dominion Blvd expansion done a few years back was shoved off any of this funding and forced Chesapeake to build it w/ tolls.

I want to know why the screed didn't cite the bill number so that I can read it for myself and see what it says, on lis.virginia.gov.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on January 29, 2019, 06:50:02 AM
SB 1770; http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?191+ful+SB1770

Clicked "contact reporter"  at top of article and asked for cite; response received within an hour. Didn't ask why he didn't include bill number in the article.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 29, 2019, 09:22:26 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2019, 10:13:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 09:49:41 PM
A bill meant to boost funding for Virginia highways could put some of $1.1 billion in planned projects in Hampton Roads at risk, says state Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach.
The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Warm Springs, aims to create a statewide highway funding program.

It would help if the article would cite the bill number so that readers can read it for themselves and see what it says, on lis.virginia.gov.

Easily found with a couple of clicks:

SB 1770 Transportation funding; creates a statewide approach to funding
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+SB1770

On 1/18 it was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 29, 2019, 10:43:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 09:49:41 PMCreigh Deeds

Why is this name so familiar to me? Why would I, a Kentucky resident, have heard the name of a state senator from a very rural and remote portion of Virginia before? Did he run for higher office and lose at one time?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 29, 2019, 11:01:16 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 29, 2019, 10:43:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 09:49:41 PMCreigh Deeds

Why is this name so familiar to me? Why would I, a Kentucky resident, have heard the name of a state senator from a very rural and remote portion of Virginia before? Did he run for higher office and lose at one time?
Yes, he ran for governor against Bob McDonnell. He’s also tried to get speed camera legislation passed before, so...yeah. Wouldn’t vote for him if I lived in his district on that notion, despite agreeing with him in some other areas.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 29, 2019, 11:30:03 AM
WTOP reports the Commonwealth and Transurban just announced an estimate $1 billion of road projects, including extending the Beltway HO/T lanes north to the Legion Bridge:

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/01/1-billion-in-northern-va-road-projects-announced/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NEW%20Breaking%20News%20-%20DO%20NOT%20USE&utm_term=2017_WTOP%20Breaking%20News
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 29, 2019, 11:30:03 AM
WTOP reports the Commonwealth and Transurban just announced an estimate $1 billion of road projects, including extending the Beltway HO/T lanes north to the Legion Bridge:

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/01/1-billion-in-northern-va-road-projects-announced/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NEW%20Breaking%20News%20-%20DO%20NOT%20USE&utm_term=2017_WTOP%20Breaking%20News
Finally, the HO/T lanes are getting extended. Hopefully Maryland commits to the same concept - 2 HO/T lanes in each direction. Next, the HO/T lanes need to be extended across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:37:53 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 29, 2019, 11:30:03 AM
WTOP reports the Commonwealth and Transurban just announced an estimate $1 billion of road projects, including extending the Beltway HO/T lanes north to the Legion Bridge:

Nothing there or on the VDOT project website about the VA-267 interchange -- that was only partially upgraded in the 2012 project due to not knowing the design of the northern extension, as to whether it would be 2 lanes or 4 lanes.  Now it is known that it will be 4 lanes (2 each way).

The VA-267 interchange has some original bridges that need to be replaced, and a few left-hand ramp terminals that need to be relocated to the right side of I-495.

Quote
Finally, the HO/T lanes are getting extended. Hopefully Maryland commits to the same concept - 2 HO/T lanes in each direction.

At least all the way to I-270.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 11:41:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:37:53 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 29, 2019, 11:30:03 AM
WTOP reports the Commonwealth and Transurban just announced an estimate $1 billion of road projects, including extending the Beltway HO/T lanes north to the Legion Bridge:

Nothing there or on the VDOT project website about the VA-267 interchange -- that was only partially upgraded in the 2012 project due to not knowing the design of the northern extension, as to whether it would be 2 lanes or 4 lanes.  Now it is known that it will be 4 lanes (2 each way).

The VA-267 interchange has some original bridges that need to be replaced, and a few left-hand ramp terminals that need to be relocated to the right side of I-495.
The 2 miles will also have to be fully reconstructed. New bridges, new interchanges, etc. The existing location of the lanes is not adequate.

Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:37:53 AM
At least all the way to I-270.
Definitely to I-270, but they've mentioned in the past studying a full beltway of HO/T lanes in combination with Virginia's. A minimum of 4 GP + 2 HO/T in each direction for 64 continuous miles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 29, 2019, 02:34:11 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 29, 2019, 11:01:16 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 29, 2019, 10:43:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 09:49:41 PMCreigh Deeds

Why is this name so familiar to me? Why would I, a Kentucky resident, have heard the name of a state senator from a very rural and remote portion of Virginia before? Did he run for higher office and lose at one time?
Yes, he ran for governor against Bob McDonnell. He's also tried to get speed camera legislation passed before, so...yeah. Wouldn't vote for him if I lived in his district on that notion, despite agreeing with him in some other areas.

Deeds was almost murdered by his son, as well. Deeds' son had been ordered by a judge to be committed, but there were no beds available, so he was released. The son promptly attempted to stab him to death before taking his own life.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 29, 2019, 02:58:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 11:37:53 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 29, 2019, 11:30:03 AM
WTOP reports the Commonwealth and Transurban just announced an estimate $1 billion of road projects, including extending the Beltway HO/T lanes north to the Legion Bridge:

Nothing there or on the VDOT project website about the VA-267 interchange -- that was only partially upgraded in the 2012 project due to not knowing the design of the northern extension, as to whether it would be 2 lanes or 4 lanes.  Now it is known that it will be 4 lanes (2 each way).

The VA-267 interchange has some original bridges that need to be replaced, and a few left-hand ramp terminals that need to be relocated to the right side of I-495.


The project supposedly will add express lane connections to both the GW Parkway and Dulles Toll Road. While I have yet to see any specific plans, I would assume that this DTR connection will lead to the completion of the interchange overhaul. Very interested to see how the GW Parkway connection and northern terminus will be designed given the small amount of space available in the area. While there isn't much in the Northeast quadrant of the I-495/GW interchange, I wouldn't be surprised if that land is parkland.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9650596,-77.1788304,1348m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 29, 2019, 03:27:19 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 29, 2019, 02:58:55 PM
The project [I-495 HOT lanes extension] supposedly will add express lane connections to both the GW Parkway and Dulles Toll Road. While I have yet to see any specific plans, I would assume that this DTR connection will lead to the completion of the interchange overhaul. Very interested to see how the GW Parkway connection and northern terminus will be designed given the small amount of space available in the area. While there isn't much in the Northeast quadrant of the I-495/GW interchange, I wouldn't be surprised if that land is parkland.

I would surmise that the 12-lane widening/reconstruction will stop at the southern edge of the GW Parkway interchange.  They will need to see exactly what Maryland will do with the Legion Bridge in their HOT lanes project, before they can design that section that ties into that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 29, 2019, 04:00:03 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 29, 2019, 02:34:11 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 29, 2019, 11:01:16 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 29, 2019, 10:43:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 09:49:41 PMCreigh Deeds

Why is this name so familiar to me? Why would I, a Kentucky resident, have heard the name of a state senator from a very rural and remote portion of Virginia before? Did he run for higher office and lose at one time?
Yes, he ran for governor against Bob McDonnell. He's also tried to get speed camera legislation passed before, so...yeah. Wouldn't vote for him if I lived in his district on that notion, despite agreeing with him in some other areas.

Deeds was almost murdered by his son, as well. Deeds' son had been ordered by a judge to be committed, but there were no beds available, so he was released. The son promptly attempted to stab him to death before taking his own life.

And the scandal was that there were beds available but the social services folks in Rockbridge County didn't put enough effort into locating one. Deeds has become a strong advocate for better mental health care as a result.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 29, 2019, 05:37:23 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 29, 2019, 04:00:03 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 29, 2019, 02:34:11 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 29, 2019, 11:01:16 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 29, 2019, 10:43:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 09:49:41 PMCreigh Deeds

Why is this name so familiar to me? Why would I, a Kentucky resident, have heard the name of a state senator from a very rural and remote portion of Virginia before? Did he run for higher office and lose at one time?
Yes, he ran for governor against Bob McDonnell. He's also tried to get speed camera legislation passed before, so...yeah. Wouldn't vote for him if I lived in his district on that notion, despite agreeing with him in some other areas.

Deeds was almost murdered by his son, as well. Deeds' son had been ordered by a judge to be committed, but there were no beds available, so he was released. The son promptly attempted to stab him to death before taking his own life.

And the scandal was that there were beds available but the social services folks in Rockbridge County didn't put enough effort into locating one. Deeds has become a strong advocate for better mental health care as a result.

Right, his mental health advocacy is something I agree with.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on January 29, 2019, 05:43:15 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 29, 2019, 11:01:16 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 29, 2019, 10:43:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 09:49:41 PMCreigh Deeds

Why is this name so familiar to me? Why would I, a Kentucky resident, have heard the name of a state senator from a very rural and remote portion of Virginia before? Did he run for higher office and lose at one time?
Yes, he ran for governor against Bob McDonnell.

Before then, he ran for attorney general against Bob McDonnell. The AG race was a lot closer than the race for governor. It went to recount, which didn't change the outcome.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 30, 2019, 01:05:00 PM
Senate passes bill to raise reckless driving threshold

RICHMOND – Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Roanoke County, is making another attempt this year at raising the reckless driving threshold, and this time he hopes the bill will go the distance.

The state Senate passed his bill that would raise from 80 to 85 mph the threshold for reckless driving in areas of Virginia where a 70 mph limit is posted. SB 1578 passed on a bipartisan vote of 35-5 on Tuesday.

Under Virginia's driving laws, reckless driving is 20 mph over the speed limit. What Suetterlein is trying to address is more of an issue on the interstates, where speed limits may be set at 70 mph. So going 11 mph over is considered a reckless driving offense.

If a police officer clocks a driver going over 80 mph in Virginia, that person faces a misdemeanor charge that can carry up to a year in jail or a $2,500 fine. While offenders may not get thrown behind bars, and judges will reduce the charge, drivers may hire lawyers because of the possible punishment.

The bill has now passed the Senate four times in a row. It died last year in a House committee.

https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general_assembly/general-assembly-notebook-senate-passes-bill-to-raise-reckless-driving/article_0fdb4fc4-115e-5370-9125-bb95cd8996cf.html



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 30, 2019, 03:09:50 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 30, 2019, 01:05:00 PM
Senate passes bill to raise reckless driving threshold

RICHMOND – Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Roanoke County, is making another attempt this year at raising the reckless driving threshold, and this time he hopes the bill will go the distance.

The state Senate passed his bill that would raise from 80 to 85 mph the threshold for reckless driving in areas of Virginia where a 70 mph limit is posted. SB 1578 passed on a bipartisan vote of 35-5 on Tuesday.

Under Virginia's driving laws, reckless driving is 20 mph over the speed limit. What Suetterlein is trying to address is more of an issue on the interstates, where speed limits may be set at 70 mph. So going 11 mph over is considered a reckless driving offense.

If a police officer clocks a driver going over 80 mph in Virginia, that person faces a misdemeanor charge that can carry up to a year in jail or a $2,500 fine. While offenders may not get thrown behind bars, and judges will reduce the charge, drivers may hire lawyers because of the possible punishment.

The bill has now passed the Senate four times in a row. It died last year in a House committee.

https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general_assembly/general-assembly-notebook-senate-passes-bill-to-raise-reckless-driving/article_0fdb4fc4-115e-5370-9125-bb95cd8996cf.html

I $uspect it'll be DOA in the House as usual...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 03:23:52 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 30, 2019, 03:09:50 PM
I $uspect it'll be DOA in the House as usual...

I $$$upect that if you watch your $$$peedometer, that you won't get a ticket.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 30, 2019, 05:06:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 03:23:52 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 30, 2019, 03:09:50 PM
I $uspect it'll be DOA in the House as usual...

I $$$upect that if you watch your $$$peedometer, that you won't get a ticket.
I'm not sure which of you made me roll my eyes harder.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 05:44:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 03:23:52 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 30, 2019, 03:09:50 PM
I $uspect it'll be DOA in the House as usual...

I $$$upect that if you watch your $$$peedometer, that you won't get a ticket.
11 over when you're driving with the flow of traffic on the interstate doesn't warrant thousands of dollars for one ticket. The penalty for reckless driving should begin at 85 MPH. When the maximum speed limit was 65 MPH, it was 80 MPH. Now that's it 70 MPH, it should be 85 MPH.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 08:47:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 05:44:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 03:23:52 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 30, 2019, 03:09:50 PM
I $uspect it'll be DOA in the House as usual...
I $$$upect that if you watch your $$$peedometer, that you won't get a ticket.
11 over when you're driving with the flow of traffic on the interstate doesn't warrant thousands of dollars for one ticket. The penalty for reckless driving should begin at 85 MPH. When the maximum speed limit was 65 MPH, it was 80 MPH. Now that's it 70 MPH, it should be 85 MPH.

Then why does 16 over warrant thousands of dollar$$$$$ for one ticket? 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 30, 2019, 08:57:05 PM
It doesn't, but baby steps.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:04:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 08:47:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 05:44:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 03:23:52 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 30, 2019, 03:09:50 PM
I $uspect it'll be DOA in the House as usual...
I $$$upect that if you watch your $$$peedometer, that you won't get a ticket.
11 over when you're driving with the flow of traffic on the interstate doesn't warrant thousands of dollars for one ticket. The penalty for reckless driving should begin at 85 MPH. When the maximum speed limit was 65 MPH, it was 80 MPH. Now that's it 70 MPH, it should be 85 MPH.

Then why does 16 over warrant thousands of dollar$$$$$ for one ticket?
I don't agree with the high penalty as it is, but it gives a 15 MPH cushion like there was before. Those penalities should only apply to a truly reckless driver, not just one cruising down the interstate at 82 MPH with everybody else, not harming anybody. The dude weaving in and out of lanes at 87 MPH, tailgating, etc. can get the high fines and reckless driving charge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 09:36:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:04:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 08:47:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 05:44:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 03:23:52 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 30, 2019, 03:09:50 PM
I $uspect it'll be DOA in the House as usual...
I $$$upect that if you watch your $$$peedometer, that you won't get a ticket.
11 over when you're driving with the flow of traffic on the interstate doesn't warrant thousands of dollars for one ticket. The penalty for reckless driving should begin at 85 MPH. When the maximum speed limit was 65 MPH, it was 80 MPH. Now that's it 70 MPH, it should be 85 MPH.
Then why does 16 over warrant thousands of dollar$$$$$ for one ticket?
I don't agree with the high penalty as it is, but it gives a 15 MPH cushion like there was before. Those penalities should only apply to a truly reckless driver, not just one cruising down the interstate at 82 MPH with everybody else, not harming anybody. The dude weaving in and out of lanes at 87 MPH, tailgating, etc. can get the high fines and reckless driving charge.

Needing a "cushion" is just the speak of an aggressive driver that wants to go 20 to 25 mph over the limit.

Did you know that Virginia had a 70 mph freeway speed limit for a year before the 1973 NMSL?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 09:36:08 PM
Needing a "cushion" is just the speak of an aggressive driver that wants to go 20 to 25 mph over the limit.
Can you do math? 85 MPH is 15 over 70 MPH, not 20 or 25. Most state's have that type of cushion.

Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 09:36:08 PM
Did you know that Virginia had a 70 mph freeway speed limit for a year before the 1973 NMSL?
I thought it was 65 MPH on all highways, regardless of freeway or non-limited-access (and it still should be).

What interstate was it? I-85? Or all of them?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 10:08:04 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 09:36:08 PM
Needing a "cushion" is just the speak of an aggressive driver that wants to go 20 to 25 mph over the limit.
Can you do math? 85 MPH is 15 over 70 MPH, not 20 or 25. Most state's have that type of cushion.

Why do you need a "cushion"?   To rest your head?

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 09:36:08 PM
Did you know that Virginia had a 70 mph freeway speed limit for a year before the 1973 NMSL?
I thought it was 65 MPH on all highways, regardless of freeway or non-limited-access (and it still should be).
What interstate was it? I-85? Or all of them?

It was raised from 65 mph cars / 55 mph trucks to 70 mph cars / 60 mph trucks in 1972, on nearly all the rural Interstate mileage.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 10:08:04 PM
It was raised from 65 mph cars / 55 mph trucks to 70 mph cars / 60 mph trucks in 1972, on nearly all the rural Interstate mileage.
So it initially was raised to 70 MPH for a year, but then it dropped back down again... why didn't they raise the 4-lane non-limited-access speed back up to 65 MPH? I'd argue most highways could handle that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 11:10:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 10:08:04 PM
It was raised from 65 mph cars / 55 mph trucks to 70 mph cars / 60 mph trucks in 1972, on nearly all the rural Interstate mileage.
So it initially was raised to 70 MPH for a year, but then it dropped back down again... why didn't they raise the 4-lane non-limited-access speed back up to 65 MPH? I'd argue most highways could handle that.

For one thing none of those 4-lane nonlimited-access highways were raised to 65 before the NMSL was enacted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:50:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 11:10:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 10:08:04 PM
It was raised from 65 mph cars / 55 mph trucks to 70 mph cars / 60 mph trucks in 1972, on nearly all the rural Interstate mileage.
So it initially was raised to 70 MPH for a year, but then it dropped back down again... why didn't they raise the 4-lane non-limited-access speed back up to 65 MPH? I'd argue most highways could handle that.

For one thing none of those 4-lane nonlimited-access highways were raised to 65 before the NMSL was enacted.
You said it yourself - no reason why it couldn't be approved again.

Texas has 75 MPH divided highways. Works fine.
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 08:52:08 PM
A half year before the 1973 NMSL, a 65 mph possible maximum was approved for 4-lane divided nonlimited-access highways, which the NMSL canceled before any went into effect.  No reason why it could not be approved again.  (And don't give me this garbage that it would "reduce the ticket revenue").
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 12:16:54 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:50:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 11:10:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 10:08:04 PM
It was raised from 65 mph cars / 55 mph trucks to 70 mph cars / 60 mph trucks in 1972, on nearly all the rural Interstate mileage.
So it initially was raised to 70 MPH for a year, but then it dropped back down again... why didn't they raise the 4-lane non-limited-access speed back up to 65 MPH? I'd argue most highways could handle that.
For one thing none of those 4-lane nonlimited-access highways were raised to 65 before the NMSL was enacted.
You said it yourself - no reason why it couldn't be approved again.
Texas has 75 MPH divided highways. Works fine.
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 08:52:08 PM
A half year before the 1973 NMSL, a 65 mph possible maximum was approved for 4-lane divided nonlimited-access highways, which the NMSL canceled before any went into effect.  No reason why it could not be approved again.  (And don't give me this garbage that it would "reduce the ticket revenue").

The fact that something was actually implemented gives more weight and experience to doing it again.

If US-58 between I-95 and I-264 was posted at 65 mph on the nonlimited-access sections, and 70 mph on the bypasses, would kind of shoot more holes in the advocacy for Vanity I-87.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 31, 2019, 08:04:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:50:00 PM
Texas has 75 MPH divided highways. Works fine.

Texas also has wide open spaces, longer sightlines, fewer hills and curves, and less overall traffic...especially western Texas.  Oh, and far fewer driveways and private access points.

In fact, even in Texas, where they allow higher-than-70 speeds is dependent on population density.  Lower population density = higher allowable speed.  The only exception being the tolled TX 130...and that only has an 85 limit to encourage traffic to pay the toll to avoid I-35.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 08:16:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2019, 08:04:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:50:00 PM
Texas has 75 MPH divided highways. Works fine.
Texas also has wide open spaces, longer sightlines, fewer hills and curves, and less overall traffic...especially western Texas.  Oh, and far fewer driveways and private access points.

Those central western states have always trended about 10 mph higher than eastern states, for those reasons, even before the 1973 NMSL.

Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2019, 08:04:21 AM
In fact, even in Texas, where they allow higher-than-70 speeds is dependent on population density.  Lower population density = higher allowable speed.  The only exception being the tolled TX 130...and that only has an 85 limit to encourage traffic to pay the toll to avoid I-35.

TX-130 is an expensive tollroad and it serves the allegedly toll-free San Antonio area.  It starts on the outskirts but nevertheless serves as an I-35 bypass of Austin on the busy corridor between San Antonio and DWF.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 04:48:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 08:16:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2019, 08:04:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:50:00 PM
Texas has 75 MPH divided highways. Works fine.
Texas also has wide open spaces, longer sightlines, fewer hills and curves, and less overall traffic...especially western Texas.  Oh, and far fewer driveways and private access points.

Those central western states have always trended about 10 mph higher than eastern states, for those reasons, even before the 1973 NMSL.
Most highways in the east and north also carry 75 MPH speed limits. Four-lane divided highways including US 281, US 77, US 59, etc. along with many others are major trucking routes, carry 20,000+ AADT, and have a mix of curves and straightaways. All of them include numerous connecting driveways, cross roads, etc.

There's roads in Virginia that obviously wouldn't be 75, but could easily handle 65 MPH or even 70, though it's Virginia so that's a stretch. US 58 is a flat, straight road, with a few exceptions at certain locations, US 17, etc. If it was located within Texas, that would easily meet their standard of 75 MPH. I go there all the time - I've seen the roads. Many aren't that different from Virginia's in generalized characteristics. Trees behind the houses doesn't change the characteristics of the highway.

For freeways - Loop 1604 is a 4-lane divided freeway around San Antonio, carries heavy amounts of traffic, lots of entry / exit points, developed all around, it holds a speed of 70 MPH. A more local example - Raleigh's heavily traveled I-540 and Charlotte's I-485 hold 70 MPH speed limits as well, however that's less entrance / exit points, but is still nonetheless an urban freeway.

Most freeways around Hampton Roads could see increases to 65 MPH without any issues. Especially I-664 (arguably could be 70 MPH), parts of I-64 near Bowers Hill, US 58 around Suffolk, VA-168, Dominion Blvd, etc. I-64 on the peninsula was just raised to 65 MPH back in December from as far south as I-664 heading north. US 17 in Southern Chesapeake and US 58 between Bowers Hill and Suffolk could also handle 65 MPH, though current law does not permit that. Only limited-access highways (freeways) can be posted above 60 MPH.

Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 08:16:49 AM
TX-130 is an expensive tollroad and it serves the allegedly toll-free San Antonio area.  It starts on the outskirts but nevertheless serves as an I-35 bypass of Austin on the busy corridor between San Antonio and DWF.
The intent of the road is take traffic coming from Laredo, Mexico, and points south of San Antonio, including San Antonio around Austin. It's not a toll road of San Antonio, it's 45 miles away from Downtown, and about 25 miles from the edges of the entire metro. No freeway in the metro area, Loop 1604, I-410, I-10, I-35, I-37, US 281, TX-151, US 90, and the Wurzbach Pkwy include any forms of tolls. US 281 is getting the freeway mainline extended around 5 miles north of Loop 1604, and Loop 1604 is getting extended south on the western side around 5 miles. Both of those projects were originally going to be tolled, but were instead fully funded by TXDOT.

Loop 1604 is a 4-lane divided freeway, and was proposed to be widened to 8 lanes. This would've involved constructing two HO/T lanes in each direction. Instead, they changed that due to funding, and it's now going to be a 10 lane freeway with 4 GP + 1 HOV (not HO/T) in each direction.

Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2019, 08:04:21 AM
The only exception being the tolled TX 130...and that only has an 85 limit to encourage traffic to pay the toll to avoid I-35.
That's not the reason the toll road is 85 MPH. The northern 40 miles is 80 MPH, and the southern 40 miles is 85 MPH. It has to do with road design. The real goal was to divert long-distance truck traffic around Austin - no truck is going to safely be able to push past 75 MPH.

There's been proposals to pay off the toll road and make it toll-free so more people would actually use it, and I-35 would get even more less congested (it certainly has either way), and those would involve retaining the high amount of speed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 05:22:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 04:48:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 08:16:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 31, 2019, 08:04:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 11:50:00 PM
Texas has 75 MPH divided highways. Works fine.
Texas also has wide open spaces, longer sightlines, fewer hills and curves, and less overall traffic...especially western Texas.  Oh, and far fewer driveways and private access points.
Those central western states have always trended about 10 mph higher than eastern states, for those reasons, even before the 1973 NMSL.

Most highways in the east and north also carry 75 MPH speed limits.

What?  WHAT??  WHAT???

<Remaining Sprjus4 speed limit discussion summarily snipped>

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 04:48:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 08:16:49 AM
TX-130 is an expensive tollroad and it serves the allegedly toll-free San Antonio area.  It starts on the outskirts but nevertheless serves as an I-35 bypass of Austin on the busy corridor between San Antonio and DWF.
The intent of the road is take traffic coming from Laredo, Mexico, and points south of San Antonio, including San Antonio around Austin. It's not a toll road of San Antonio, it's 45 miles away from Downtown, and about 25 miles from the edges of the entire metro.

Guadalupe County contains the southern 14 miles of TX-130 and that county is part of the San Antonio—New Braunfels Metropolitan Statistical Area.
https://tinyurl.com/yafvowuj
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_San_Antonio

The San Antonio commutershed extends well beyond the official MSA boundaries.

TX-130 in conjunction with a segment of I-10 bypasses that whole congested I-35 corridor between San Antonio and north of Georgetown, and I-35 between San Antonio and Dallas/Fort Worth is by far the busiest Interstate corridor that serves San Antonio, so I certainly would assert that Toll TX-130 is part of the San Antonio regional highway system.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 05:50:55 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 31, 2019, 01:51:07 PM
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/01/new-american-legion-bridge-within-years-says-md-highway-administrator/
QuoteWASHINGTON – Soon after Virginia announced its plans to extend Express Lanes almost three miles from Tysons Corner to the American Legion Bridge, Maryland has confirmed a new bridge will be equipped to handle extra traffic.

Without committing to a precise timeline, Maryland's highway administrator Greg Slater said a new American Legion Bridge will be built within the next several years.

"We are focused on the bridge as our first order of business,"  Slater told WUSA9. "We want to get out there and move that traffic."
QuoteThe only way to address that bridge, and have more capacity on that bridge, is to build a new bridge,"  Slater said.

What's still not clear is the configuration of the bridge, although Slater confirmed to Channel 9 that the new bridge would have additional lanes to allow a seamless flow from Virginia Express Lane traffic into Maryland.

In 2017, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan announced plans for a public-private partnership to add toll lanes to I-270 and the Beltway, but didn't provide specifics on how the Legion Bridge, which was built in 1963, would carry traffic.

Slater said private developers interested in being part of the project are being directed to develop plans that would add new Beltway lanes within the Interstate's existing footprint, leaving open the possibilities of stacked roadways or travel underground.

This is good news!  If the bridge is widened to 14 lanes (1-4-2-2-4-1) that will be an expensive project. 

At 1,263 feet long it is much shorter than the Wilson Bridge, and does not need navigational clearance, but the banks on either side are elevated enough that the bridge still has considerable height above the river.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 06:10:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 05:22:29 PM
What?  WHAT??  WHAT???
East and north Texas. Though Maine and Michigan do carry 75 MPH speed limits on highways, and Michigan has 65 MPH posted on two-lane and four-lane divided highways as well.

Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 05:22:29 PM
Guadalupe County contains the southern 14 miles of TX-130 and that county is part of the San Antonio—New Braunfels Metropolitan Statistical Area.
https://tinyurl.com/yafvowuj
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_San_Antonio

The San Antonio commutershed extends well beyond the official MSA boundaries.
Same argument that Currituck County, and Elizabeth City are part of the overall Hampton Roads Statistical Area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Roads

I-87 would serve a direct routing from Hampton Roads to Raleigh. Elizabeth City or Currituck County to Raleigh, direct routing.

That logic doesn't work for you with I-87, and doesn't work with San Antonio either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 08:24:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 06:10:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 05:22:29 PM
What?  WHAT??  WHAT???
East and north Texas.

My reply was in reference to your "Most highways in the east and north also carry 75 MPH speed limits."  You gave no indication that you were referring only to Texas with that statement.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 06:10:07 PM
Though Maine and Michigan do carry 75 MPH speed limits on highways, and Michigan has 65 MPH posted on two-lane and four-lane divided highways as well.

There are 25 states east of the Mississippi River, and no others have over 70 mph.  In the case of Maine that is only on the northern reaches of I-95 in a very rural part of the state. 

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 06:10:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 05:22:29 PM
Guadalupe County contains the southern 14 miles of TX-130 and that county is part of the San Antonio—New Braunfels Metropolitan Statistical Area.
The San Antonio commutershed extends well beyond the official MSA boundaries.
Same argument that Currituck County, and Elizabeth City are part of the overall Hampton Roads Statistical Area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Roads

Only thru creative snipping can it be considered the same logic as what I presented. 
TX-130 is a tollroad and it bypasses orders of magnitude more urbanization and traffic.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 06:10:07 PM
I-87 would serve a direct routing from Hampton Roads to Raleigh.

You keep repeating the same lie that has been refuted dozens of times.  Look Mr. Sprjus4, this is heading beyond the point of my merely expressing irritation and annoyance, it is heading toward the range of expressing mockery and ridicule.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 06:10:07 PM
Elizabeth City or Currituck County to Raleigh, direct routing.

I would agree with that, but they don't need an Interstate highway for that routing.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 06:10:07 PM
That logic doesn't work for you with I-87, and doesn't work with San Antonio either.

The San Antonio region has a major tollroad, despite the allegation that it did not.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 08:37:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 08:24:00 PM
You keep repeating the same lie that has been refuted dozens of times.
I-87 would run a direct route from Hampton Roads to Raleigh. Elizabeth City is apart of Hampton Roads, and therefore, runs a direct routing. You cannot refute that fact.

Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 08:24:00 PM
The San Antonio region has a major tollroad, despite the allegation that it did not.
And again, I-87 would run a direct routing from Hampton Roads (Elizabeth City) to Raleigh. You cannot refute that then, if I cannot refute San Antonio has a toll road. If you're going to play statistical, then same goes here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 10:05:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 08:37:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 08:24:00 PM
You keep repeating the same lie that has been refuted dozens of times.
I-87 would run a direct route from Hampton Roads to Raleigh. Elizabeth City is apart of Hampton Roads, and therefore, runs a direct routing. You cannot refute that fact.
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 08:24:00 PM
The San Antonio region has a major tollroad, despite the allegation that it did not.
And again, I-87 would run a direct routing from Hampton Roads (Elizabeth City) to Raleigh. You cannot refute that then, if I cannot refute San Antonio has a toll road. If you're going to play statistical, then same goes here.

Then why doesn't the proposed "I-87" end at Elizabeth City?  Norfolk is 48 miles north of Elizabeth City.  Raleigh is west of Elizabeth City.

I direct readers to the "Interstate 87 (NC-VA)" thread.  I will deal with this matter there in the future.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 10:19:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 10:05:36 PM
Then why doesn't the proposed "I-87" end at Elizabeth City?  Norfolk is 48 miles north of Elizabeth City.  Raleigh is west of Elizabeth City.

I direct readers to the "Interstate 87 (NC-VA)" thread.  I will deal with this matter there in the future.
Elizabeth City - Hampton Roads is a major corridor. 13,000 AADT, major truck traffic, a commuter route, and a freeway has been discussed for decades on this route. That explains the leg north of Elizabeth City. South of Elizabeth City, heads to I-95 and Raleigh.

If any readers are actually interested, you've mentioned your few vanity, anti-interstate rhetoric points. It's 25 miles slower, will carry no traffic whatsoever between I-95 and Norfolk, and is already serviced by a high-speed arterial highway. Did I miss anything? I just saved people the time of clicking through at least 15 pages of the same thing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on January 31, 2019, 11:40:14 PM
Enough out of both of you. New topic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 11:51:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 31, 2019, 11:40:14 PM
Enough out of both of you. New topic.
You should see the I-87 forum. But I won't reply back to this thread unless something Virginia related warrants.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.950
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 31, 2019, 11:59:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 31, 2019, 11:40:14 PM
Enough out of both of you. New topic.

No problem.  I knew the moderators were watching. 
And wondering what it would take to halt things.


Quote from: sprjus4 on January 31, 2019, 11:51:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 31, 2019, 11:40:14 PM
Enough out of both of you. New topic.
You should see the I-87 forum. But I won't reply back to this thread unless something Virginia related warrants.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.950

The implication is that the directive is global.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on February 01, 2019, 10:50:37 AM
Elizabeth City part of Hampton Roads? Funny, I always thought of the Outer Banks when I thought of Elizabeth City, not Hampton Roads.

(And yes, I know that Elizabeth City is NOT on the east side of the sound.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on February 01, 2019, 01:35:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 01, 2019, 10:50:37 AM
Elizabeth City part of Hampton Roads? Funny, I always thought of the Outer Banks when I thought of Elizabeth City, not Hampton Roads.

(And yes, I know that Elizabeth City is NOT on the east side of the sound.)
EC is in the Hampton Roads media market along with the Outer Banks and the rest of NE NC (I think the dividing line is the Chowan River). It's definitely not considered a core area, but crimes, school closings, et al. are definitely reported on the local news. Things get interesting when they have to disambiguate between Northampton County, NC and Northampton County, VA (on the Eastern Shore and also part of the media market)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on February 01, 2019, 01:35:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 01, 2019, 10:50:37 AM
Elizabeth City part of Hampton Roads? Funny, I always thought of the Outer Banks when I thought of Elizabeth City, not Hampton Roads.  (And yes, I know that Elizabeth City is NOT on the east side of the sound.)
EC is in the Hampton Roads media market along with the Outer Banks and the rest of NE NC (I think the dividing line is the Chowan River). It's definitely not considered a core area, but crimes, school closings, et al. are definitely reported on the local news. Things get interesting when they have to disambiguate between Northampton County, NC and Northampton County, VA (on the Eastern Shore and also part of the media market)

The central Maryland Eastern Shore is part of the Baltimore and Washington media market, and I am not just talking about Kent Island.  My dad lives in Talbot County and he get their TV stations via an outdoor antenna.  Of course many natives of the Eastern Shore will disavow any real connections with the Western Shore!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 02:56:42 PM
New American Legion Bridge within years, says Md. highway administrator
By Neal Augenstein, WTOP
January 31, 2019

WASHINGTON – Soon after Virginia announced its plans to extend Express Lanes almost three miles from Tysons Corner to the American Legion Bridge, Maryland has confirmed a new bridge will be equipped to handle extra traffic.

Without committing to a precise timeline, Maryland's highway administrator, Greg Slater, said a new American Legion Bridge will be built within the next several years.

"We are focused on the bridge as our first order of business,"  Slater told WUSA9. "We want to get out there and move that traffic."

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam announced Tuesday new Express Lanes will run in each direction of the Beltway from the Dulles Access Road to the Legion Bridge at the Maryland border. Construction could begin next year.

The announcement left open the question: How would Maryland deal with more traffic on the bridge, that currently carries four lanes over the Potomac River, into Maryland?  In each direction, the bridge has four through-lanes, and one exit lane.  "The only way to address that bridge, and have more capacity on that bridge, is to build a new bridge,"  Slater said.

What's still not clear is the configuration of the bridge, although Slater confirmed to Channel 9 that the new bridge would have additional lanes to allow a seamless flow from Virginia Express Lane traffic into Maryland.

In 2017, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan announced plans for a public-private partnership to add toll lanes to I-270 and the Beltway, but didn't provide specifics on how the Legion Bridge, which was built in 1963, would carry traffic.

Slater said private developers interested in being part of the project are being directed to develop plans that would add new Beltway lanes within the Interstate's existing footprint, leaving open the possibilities of stacked roadways or travel underground.

In announcing Virginia's $1 billion deal with Transurban to build four road projects in Northern Virginia, Transportation Secretary Shannon Valentine said: "It's also going to provide for Virginians, regardless of what happens in Maryland, direct access to the George Washington Parkway."

Valentine was asked how, and how quickly the new project would provide relief to those who currently deal with overflow traffic.

"I would like to say immediately,"  she said. "Of all the issues, this is one of the top that we hear from citizens about, is the cut-through traffic in McLean."

Currently, about a quarter million vehicles cross the bridge daily, but over the next 20 years planners estimate that will climb to 300,000 per day.


SMK: I can see some engineering difficulties for the approach transitions to a double-decked bridge, and for the steep grades needed to transition to a tunnel under the river to say nothing of the cost.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 01, 2019, 03:27:53 PM
I was pondering how a new Legion Bridge could work recently...

I agree a tunnel would be a difficult facility to build given the proximity of exits on both sides of the river and the elevation changes required to get underneath the river.

A thought I had that might not be so hard as a double-decker concept would be to have both directions of the express lanes be on an upper level by themselves.  You could widen the current footprint more easily for just an additional lane + shoulder in each direction on the bottom level instead of that plus 2 express lanes in each direction.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadsguy on February 01, 2019, 03:30:52 PM
The Legion bridge might warrant a thread of its own, otherwise the discussion will be split across the two state threads.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 03:32:31 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 01, 2019, 03:27:53 PM
I was pondering how a new Legion Bridge could work recently...
A thought I had that might not be so hard as a double-decker concept would be to have both directions of the express lanes be on an upper level by themselves.  You could widen the current footprint more easily for just an additional lane + shoulder in each direction on the bottom level instead of that plus 2 express lanes in each direction.

Good point, the current bridge has 4 GP lanes and one AUX lane, which is needed.  The problem is that there are minimal shoulders and they need to have a 12-foot shoulder on each side of each roadway, so the replacement bridge needs to be wider, and I believe given its age it should be completely replaced.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 01, 2019, 03:34:05 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 01, 2019, 03:30:52 PM
The Legion bridge might warrant a thread of its own, otherwise the discussion will be split across the two state threads.

It is more than just the Legion Bridge, it is I-495 widening between VA-267 and I-270.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on February 01, 2019, 06:51:12 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 09:36:08 PM
Needing a "cushion" is just the speak of an aggressive driver that wants to go 20 to 25 mph over the limit.
Can you do math? 85 MPH is 15 over 70 MPH, not 20 or 25. Most state's have that type of cushion.

Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 09:36:08 PM
Did you know that Virginia had a 70 mph freeway speed limit for a year before the 1973 NMSL?
I thought it was 65 MPH on all highways, regardless of freeway or non-limited-access (and it still should be).

What interstate was it? I-85? Or all of them?
I remember I-64 in Chesapeake posted at 70 mph in 1972-73.  Of course, it was a lot more rural then (no Greenbrier interchange, no Oak Grove Connector, no Exit 297, only 6-lane section was between I-464 and Battlefield Blvd.).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 07:07:30 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on February 01, 2019, 06:51:12 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 09:36:08 PM
Needing a "cushion" is just the speak of an aggressive driver that wants to go 20 to 25 mph over the limit.
Can you do math? 85 MPH is 15 over 70 MPH, not 20 or 25. Most state's have that type of cushion.

Quote from: Beltway on January 30, 2019, 09:36:08 PM
Did you know that Virginia had a 70 mph freeway speed limit for a year before the 1973 NMSL?
I thought it was 65 MPH on all highways, regardless of freeway or non-limited-access (and it still should be).

What interstate was it? I-85? Or all of them?
I remember I-64 in Chesapeake posted at 70 mph in 1972-73.  Of course, it was a lot more rural then (no Greenbrier interchange, no Oak Grove Connector, no Exit 297, only 6-lane section was between I-464 and Battlefield Blvd.).
Really? I knew it was rural, but I did not think it was up to that standard, maybe 65 MPH. Well, that goes to show right there, I-64 can easily handle 65 MPH today.

What other highways around here were 70 MPH? 65 MPH?

I heard a rumor the VA Beach - Norfolk Expressway toll was 70 MPH. Was that true as well, or was it 65 MPH?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on February 01, 2019, 07:43:13 PM
The I-64 lanes you see now from Bowers Hill to the east end of the High Rise Bridge is what it was back then--two lanes and fairly narrow left shoulders.  Plus, until the mid 1990's, the ramps to I-264 East and to US 13/460 were single lane ramps (no I-664 until 1992).  Until the mid to late 1970's, I-264 ended at an at-grade intersection with US 13/460 (Military Highway) near where the America's Best Value motel is currently (the roads have been reconfigured since then).

I do believe the Norfolk-Va. Beach Expressway was 70 mph also.  It was just four lanes from Newtown Rd. to the end/beginning at 21st and 22nd Streets, and not quite as crowded.  It was also signed as VA 44 along with a round, green Norfolk-Va. Beach Expressway logo on a pole beside the VA 44 sign.  There were also 7 original interchanges (marked as Exit 1, Newtown Road-Exit 7, Birdneck Road).  The First Colonial interchange wasn't built until the late 1980's, I believe.

IIRC, US 17 from VA 135 to the James River Bridge, excepting the two bridges over the Nansemond River and Chuckatuck Creek, was signed at 60 mph until 1973.  Those two above bridges were built the same way as the original James River Bridge, narrow as crap!

I am certain I-64 from Jefferson Ave. in Newport News to the then temporary end west of the Camp Peary interchange was signed at 70 mph also.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 01, 2019, 08:06:13 PM
I think I-264 between Witchduck and Birdneck can easily handle 60 mph; not sure why VDOT refuses to do any study.  West of Witchduck the traffic and tightly spaced interchanges might be an issue though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 09:22:18 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on February 01, 2019, 07:43:13 PM
The I-64 lanes you see now from Bowers Hill to the east end of the High Rise Bridge is what it was back then--two lanes and fairly narrow left shoulders.  Plus, until the mid 1990's, the ramps to I-264 East and to US 13/460 were single lane ramps (no I-664 until 1992).  Until the mid to late 1970's, I-264 ended at an at-grade intersection with US 13/460 (Military Highway) near where the America's Best Value motel is currently (the roads have been reconfigured since then).

I do believe the Norfolk-Va. Beach Expressway was 70 mph also.  It was just four lanes from Newtown Rd. to the end/beginning at 21st and 22nd Streets, and not quite as crowded.  It was also signed as VA 44 along with a round, green Norfolk-Va. Beach Expressway logo on a pole beside the VA 44 sign.  There were also 7 original interchanges (marked as Exit 1, Newtown Road-Exit 7, Birdneck Road).  The First Colonial interchange wasn't built until the late 1980's, I believe.

IIRC, US 17 from VA 135 to the James River Bridge, excepting the two bridges over the Nansemond River and Chuckatuck Creek, was signed at 60 mph until 1973.  Those two above bridges were built the same way as the original James River Bridge, narrow as crap!

I am certain I-64 from Jefferson Ave. in Newport News to the then temporary end west of the Camp Peary interchange was signed at 70 mph also.
Wow, this is interesting. Thanks for the info. Never guessed US 17 was one of the 60 MPH, at least this far south.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 01, 2019, 08:06:13 PM
I think I-264 between Witchduck and Birdneck can easily handle 60 mph; not sure why VDOT refuses to do any study.  West of Witchduck the traffic and tightly spaced interchanges might be an issue though.
65 MPH east of Witchduck, and 60 to Downtown Norfolk. All the 55 speed limits could raise to 60, and most of the existing 60's could be 65.

They raised I-64 between I-664 and Jefferson Ave from 60 MPH to 65 MPH two months ago. The next best candidate IMHO is the entirety of I-664. It's easy to drive at 70 MPH today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 01, 2019, 09:48:46 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on February 01, 2019, 07:43:13 PM
The I-64 lanes you see now from Bowers Hill to the east end of the High Rise Bridge is what it was back then--two lanes and fairly narrow left shoulders.  Plus, until the mid 1990's, the ramps to I-264 East and to US 13/460 were single lane ramps (no I-664 until 1992).  Until the mid to late 1970's, I-264 ended at an at-grade intersection with US 13/460 (Military Highway) near where the America's Best Value motel is currently (the roads have been reconfigured since then).

I do believe the Norfolk-Va. Beach Expressway was 70 mph also.  It was just four lanes from Newtown Rd. to the end/beginning at 21st and 22nd Streets, and not quite as crowded.  It was also signed as VA 44 along with a round, green Norfolk-Va. Beach Expressway logo on a pole beside the VA 44 sign.  There were also 7 original interchanges (marked as Exit 1, Newtown Road-Exit 7, Birdneck Road).  The First Colonial interchange wasn't built until the late 1980's, I believe.

IIRC, US 17 from VA 135 to the James River Bridge, excepting the two bridges over the Nansemond River and Chuckatuck Creek, was signed at 60 mph until 1973.  Those two above bridges were built the same way as the original James River Bridge, narrow as crap!

I am certain I-64 from Jefferson Ave. in Newport News to the then temporary end west of the Camp Peary interchange was signed at 70 mph also.

VA 44 definitely had a 70 mph design.  See pdf pg. 38 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-10-1965-01.pdf.  Regrettably the CTB stopped documenting speed limits assigned to various highways in 1966.

First Colonial Rd interchange formally recommended to CTB by the toll road commission in 1977...see pdf pg. 16 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-07-1977-02.pdf; contract awarded June 1984 (pg. 14 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-06-1984-01.pdf); Historic Aerials no help on completion and oddly Official maps show it open and with exit number 6A-6B on the 1984 issue.

It is very likely 60 mph was assigned to the 4-laned parts of US 17 in Isle of Wight/Nanesmond Counties as Virginia seemed to place 60 mph on most of its rural 4-lane routes starting from 1960.  The multilaning of US 17 there is after the CTB stopped explicitly assigning limits to sections of roadway.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 11:10:20 PM
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/I-64-Widening-Project-Update.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=9RfziryAqG0

I-64 Peninsula Widening Phase #2 should be completed by the end of March, which would open up 6 lanes from Hampton to Williamsburg.

Towards of the end of February, they will begin traffic shifts to resurface the entire highway with asphalt.

The speed limit would be raised back up from 55 MPH to 65 MPH.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 01, 2019, 11:56:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 09:22:18 PM

65 MPH east of Witchduck, and 60 to Downtown Norfolk. All the 55 speed limits could raise to 60, and most of the existing 60's could be 65.

They raised I-64 between I-664 and Jefferson Ave from 60 MPH to 65 MPH two months ago. The next best candidate IMHO is the entirety of I-664. It's easy to drive at 70 MPH today.



What about the HRBT?  I think the eastbound tube has a 60 mph design speed, but not sure about the westbound tube.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 11:59:40 PM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on February 01, 2019, 11:56:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 09:22:18 PM

65 MPH east of Witchduck, and 60 to Downtown Norfolk. All the 55 speed limits could raise to 60, and most of the existing 60's could be 65.

They raised I-64 between I-664 and Jefferson Ave from 60 MPH to 65 MPH two months ago. The next best candidate IMHO is the entirety of I-664. It's easy to drive at 70 MPH today.



What about the HRBT?  I think the eastbound tube has a 60 mph design speed, but not sure about the westbound tube.
Likely to stay at 55 MPH, due to the westbound tube. The approaches + rest of highway could handle 60 MPH however.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 02, 2019, 10:20:26 AM
I'm not old enough to remember the pre-NMSL days, although I have an old Virginia highway map upstairs somewhere that refers to the 70-mph speed limit. I'm curious, if anyone knows (recognizing Mapmikey's comment about the CTB not tracking speed limits), how widespread were 60-mph speed limits back then? It seems like nowadays Virginia makes more widespread use of 60-mph limits than most other East Coast states. Was that the case back then? I'm just curious whether there's some history here with that number.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 12:00:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2019, 10:20:26 AM
I'm not old enough to remember the pre-NMSL days, although I have an old Virginia highway map upstairs somewhere that refers to the 70-mph speed limit. I'm curious, if anyone knows (recognizing Mapmikey's comment about the CTB not tracking speed limits), how widespread were 60-mph speed limits back then? It seems like nowadays Virginia makes more widespread use of 60-mph limits than most other East Coast states. Was that the case back then? I'm just curious whether there's some history here with that number.

60 mph was the usual and the statuary maximum on rural 4-lane nonlimited-access highways.  There were a few urban Interstate segments with that limit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 02:49:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 02, 2019, 12:00:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2019, 10:20:26 AM
I'm not old enough to remember the pre-NMSL days, although I have an old Virginia highway map upstairs somewhere that refers to the 70-mph speed limit. I'm curious, if anyone knows (recognizing Mapmikey's comment about the CTB not tracking speed limits), how widespread were 60-mph speed limits back then? It seems like nowadays Virginia makes more widespread use of 60-mph limits than most other East Coast states. Was that the case back then? I'm just curious whether there's some history here with that number.

60 mph was the usual and the statuary maximum on rural 4-lane nonlimited-access highways.  There were a few urban Interstate segments with that limit.
Was the common on urban interstates 55 MPH at the time?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 02, 2019, 06:11:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2019, 10:20:26 AM
I'm not old enough to remember the pre-NMSL days, although I have an old Virginia highway map upstairs somewhere that refers to the 70-mph speed limit. I'm curious, if anyone knows (recognizing Mapmikey's comment about the CTB not tracking speed limits), how widespread were 60-mph speed limits back then? It seems like nowadays Virginia makes more widespread use of 60-mph limits than most other East Coast states. Was that the case back then? I'm just curious whether there's some history here with that number.

The general Assembly acted in 1960 to allow 60 mph speed limits on 4-lane divided routes.

The CTB then assigned them (all are 60 assignments unless indicated; some duplicate segments may be listed as later the CTB imposed minimum speeds on some segments; it also appears that interstates changing from 60 to 65 were not explicitly in the tables)

Also note that the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike had a 60 mph speed limit (per official maps) by 1961.

Aug 1960: (pp 24-27 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-08-1960-01.pdf)
US 11 - ECL Wytheville to past Ft Chiswell, 8 miles
US 11 - WCL Dublin to ECL Pulaski, 4.6 mi
US 460 - WCL Bedford west 12.1 mi
US 11/460 - Roanoke Riv bridge w 9.6 mi
US 460 - near US 501 e 6.4 mi
US 29 - 6.9 mi segment btw Chatham and Gretna
US 58 - WCL S. Boston to ECL Danville, 27 mi
US 60 - WCL Richmond to Midlothian, 8.7 mi
US 60 - james City line to Bottoms Bridge, 19 mi
US 301 - Sussex/PG line north 6.9 mi
US 360 - from 6 mi w of Richmond west 15 mi
US 60/VA 168/VA 168Y - New Kent line to Queen Ck bridge, 5.2 mi
US 301 - PG line south 18 mi
I-64 HRBT approach to VA 168, 13 mi
US 15/29/211 - ECL Warrenton east 13.5 mi
US 29/211 - 2.9 mi section roughly btw Buckland and VA 28
VA 350 - US 1 to VA 7, 4.3 mi
US 29 - 5.7 mi segment north ending at SR 649 near Charlottesville
US 11 - Augusta/Rockbridge line s 11.2 mi (except village of fairfield)
US 522 - just n of Double Tollgate s 7.4 mi
I-81 - Harrisonburg Byp, 7.5 mi

Mar 1961: (pg 13 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-03-1961-01.pdf)
I-95 - 5.4 mi segment from near VA 35 to near SR 626
I-95 - Emporia Byp, 4.5 mi
I-81 - near Pulaski/Wythe line n 8 mi
I-81 - Buchanan n 5.3 mi
I-81 - Bristol Byp, 5 mi
I-381 - all
I-81 - Abingdon byp, 6.9 mi
I-81 - 5.8 mi segment in northern Wythe county

Jan 1962: (pp 24-25 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-01-1962-01.pdf)
I-66 - Centerville to Gainesville, 8.7 mi
I-495 - VA 350 to US 50, 8 mi
I-495 - US 1 to WW Bridge, 0.45 mi
US 13 - Northampton SR 645 north 5.6 mi

Mar 1962: (pg 8 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-03-1962-01.pdf)
I-81 - 3.4 mi segment connecting the segments in Wythe/Pulaski Counties above
I-95 - VA 54 south 8.2 mi
I-95 - PG SR 626 to 1.6 mi north of Petersburg NCL, 5.2 mi

Apr 1964: (pp 22-23 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-04-1964-01.pdf)
US 58 - ECL Martinsville east 4.7 mi
VA 304 (now US 360) - ECL S Boston to VA 344, 7.2 mi
US 58 - VA 51 to SR 622, 6.2 mi
US 360 - US 15 Keysville e 5.7 mi
VA 10 - Chesterfield SR 732 south 3.9 mi
US 360 - from 2 mi w of amelia/Chesterfield line to previous US 360 segment above
US 360 - SR 705 to near Manquin, 9.7 mi
US 33 - I81 east 6.2 mi

Aug 1964: (pg 39 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-08-1964-01.pdf)
US 460 - 1.8 mi segment eastern Campbell County

Sep 1964: (pg 11 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-09-1964-01.pdf)
US 17 - Gloucester SR 615 south 9 mi
VA 3 - 6.9 mi segment w of Fredericksburg

Nov 1964: (pg 18 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-11-1964-01.pdf)
VA 33 - essentially between what is now VA 249 and VA 273, 2.6 mi

Feb 1965: (pp 19-20 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-02-1965-01.pdf)
US 460 WCL Appomattox west 6.7 mi
I-64 changed back to 55 mph for the 1.6 miles leading to the HRBT toll plaza in Hampton; assigned 45 mph on HRBT bridges, and it appears the tunnel itself was assigned 60 mph
US 60 - 2.7 mi segment York/James City line area
US 301 - north side of Rappahannock bridge north 9.4 mi

Mar 1965: (pp 14-15 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-03-1965-01.pdf)
US 360 - VA 153 w 3.9 mi
US 17 - Gloucester SR 615 n 1.9 mi
US 11 - 1 mi segment centered around Rockbridge SR 645

May 1965: (pg 10 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-05-1965-01.pdf)
US 360 - Hanover SR 705 w 4.7 mi

Aug 1965: (pp 20-21 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-08-1965-01.pdf)
US 58 - Henry/Pittsylvania line w 4 mi in two segments
US 360 - VA 344 e 4.2 mi
US 58 - new WCL Danville w 4.4 mi
US 13 - about VA 184 n 7.9 mi
US 33 - extend Harrisonburg segment above e 4.2 mi

Sep 1965: (pg 10 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-09-1965-01.pdf)
US 220 - Bassett Forks n 5 mi
US 460 - ECL Roanoke e 11 mi
US 29 - 3 segments totaling 5.2 mi centered roughly around Nelson SR 623
VA 10 - 2.4 mi segment just west of Appomattox R bridge

Oct 1965: (pp 16-17 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-10-1965-02.pdf)
US 460 - VA 24 w 6.2 mi
US 360 - Chula w 10.5 mi
US 1 - VA 46 n 3.1 mi (except the SB lanes for 0.62 mi would remain 55 mph)
US 1 - Brunswick SR 657 n 2.7 mi
US 58 - near VA 46 w 3.8 mi
US 1 - Dinwiddie SR 657 n 2.7 mi
US 1 - 1.4 mi segment around Dinwiddie/Brunswick line
US 60 - 1.6 mi segment in James City/York area
US 29 - Albemarle SR 649 n to Greene line, 4.6 mi
US 211 - 2 mi segment centered around eastern US 522 jct

Dec 1965: (pg 48 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-12-1965-01.pdf)
US 58 ALT - near St Paul ECL e 2.6 mi
US 58 - WCL Franklin w 2.4 mi
US 29 - Albemarle SR 712 s 2.7 mi
US 15/17/29 - essentially Opal to SCL Warrenton, 5.1 mi
US 522 - NCL Winchester n 5.5 mi

Jan 1966: (pg 31 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-01-1966-01.pdf)
US 360 - Ontario w 1.7 mi
US 17/360 - Hoskins Ck bridge to route split, 1.5 mi
US 50 - 1.2 mi centered around SR 709 near middleburg
US 11 - Steele Tavern n 1.5 mi

Feb 1966: (pg 23 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-02-1966-01.pdf)
US 460 - Prince Edward SR 607 e 2.6 mi

Mar 1966: (pp 23-25 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-03-1966-01.pdf)
US 58 - 0.4 mi segment near Henry SR 620
US 11/460 - Montgomery/Roanoke line w 9.5 mi
US 15/360 - Keysville Byp assigned 65 mph
US 58 - about 18 mi centered around Pittsylvania/Halifax line
US 58 - from VA 46 segment above w 3.6 mi
US 60 - Bottoms Bridge to VA 30, about 24 mi
I-64 Hampton Ck bridge w to James City line, about 20 mi assigned 65 mph
VA 168 - VA 168Y to near VA 143, 7.6 mi
VA 168Y - all
US 13 - Northampton SR 646 n 14 mi
US 11 - Rockbridge SR 710 n 9.1 mi
US 60 - 1.4 mi segment centered around Rockbridge SR 608
US 11 - 1 mi segment centered around Rockingham SR 704
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 07:19:35 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 02, 2019, 06:11:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2019, 10:20:26 AM
I'm not old enough to remember the pre-NMSL days, although I have an old Virginia highway map upstairs somewhere that refers to the 70-mph speed limit. I'm curious, if anyone knows (recognizing Mapmikey's comment about the CTB not tracking speed limits), how widespread were 60-mph speed limits back then? It seems like nowadays Virginia makes more widespread use of 60-mph limits than most other East Coast states. Was that the case back then? I'm just curious whether there's some history here with that number.

The general Assembly acted in 1960 to allow 60 mph speed limits on 4-lane divided routes.

The CTB then assigned them (all are 60 assignments unless indicated; some duplicate segments may be listed as later the CTB imposed minimum speeds on some segments; it also appears that interstates changing from 60 to 65 were not explicitly in the tables)

Also note that the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike had a 60 mph speed limit (per official maps) by 1961.

Aug 1960: (pp 24-27 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-08-1960-01.pdf)
US 11 - ECL Wytheville to past Ft Chiswell, 8 miles
US 11 - WCL Dublin to ECL Pulaski, 4.6 mi
US 460 - WCL Bedford west 12.1 mi
US 11/460 - Roanoke Riv bridge w 9.6 mi
US 460 - near US 501 e 6.4 mi
US 29 - 6.9 mi segment btw Chatham and Gretna
US 58 - WCL S. Boston to ECL Danville, 27 mi
US 60 - WCL Richmond to Midlothian, 8.7 mi
US 60 - james City line to Bottoms Bridge, 19 mi
US 301 - Sussex/PG line north 6.9 mi
US 360 - from 6 mi w of Richmond west 15 mi
US 60/VA 168/VA 168Y - New Kent line to Queen Ck bridge, 5.2 mi
US 301 - PG line south 18 mi
I-64 HRBT approach to VA 168, 13 mi
US 15/29/211 - ECL Warrenton east 13.5 mi
US 29/211 - 2.9 mi section roughly btw Buckland and VA 28
VA 350 - US 1 to VA 7, 4.3 mi
US 29 - 5.7 mi segment north ending at SR 649 near Charlottesville
US 11 - Augusta/Rockbridge line s 11.2 mi (except village of fairfield)
US 522 - just n of Double Tollgate s 7.4 mi
I-81 - Harrisonburg Byp, 7.5 mi

Mar 1961: (pg 13 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-03-1961-01.pdf)
I-95 - 5.4 mi segment from near VA 35 to near SR 626
I-95 - Emporia Byp, 4.5 mi
I-81 - near Pulaski/Wythe line n 8 mi
I-81 - Buchanan n 5.3 mi
I-81 - Bristol Byp, 5 mi
I-381 - all
I-81 - Abingdon byp, 6.9 mi
I-81 - 5.8 mi segment in northern Wythe county

Jan 1962: (pp 24-25 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-01-1962-01.pdf)
I-66 - Centerville to Gainesville, 8.7 mi
I-495 - VA 350 to US 50, 8 mi
I-495 - US 1 to WW Bridge, 0.45 mi
US 13 - Northampton SR 645 north 5.6 mi

Mar 1962: (pg 8 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-03-1962-01.pdf)
I-81 - 3.4 mi segment connecting the segments in Wythe/Pulaski Counties above
I-95 - VA 54 south 8.2 mi
I-95 - PG SR 626 to 1.6 mi north of Petersburg NCL, 5.2 mi

Apr 1964: (pp 22-23 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-04-1964-01.pdf)
US 58 - ECL Martinsville east 4.7 mi
VA 304 (now US 360) - ECL S Boston to VA 344, 7.2 mi
US 58 - VA 51 to SR 622, 6.2 mi
US 360 - US 15 Keysville e 5.7 mi
VA 10 - Chesterfield SR 732 south 3.9 mi
US 360 - from 2 mi w of amelia/Chesterfield line to previous US 360 segment above
US 360 - SR 705 to near Manquin, 9.7 mi
US 33 - I81 east 6.2 mi

Aug 1964: (pg 39 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-08-1964-01.pdf)
US 460 - 1.8 mi segment eastern Campbell County

Sep 1964: (pg 11 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-09-1964-01.pdf)
US 17 - Gloucester SR 615 south 9 mi
VA 3 - 6.9 mi segment w of Fredericksburg

Nov 1964: (pg 18 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-11-1964-01.pdf)
VA 33 - essentially between what is now VA 249 and VA 273, 2.6 mi

Feb 1965: (pp 19-20 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-02-1965-01.pdf)
US 460 WCL Appomattox west 6.7 mi
I-64 changed back to 55 mph for the 1.6 miles leading to the HRBT toll plaza in Hampton; assigned 45 mph on HRBT bridges, and it appears the tunnel itself was assigned 60 mph
US 60 - 2.7 mi segment York/James City line area
US 301 - north side of Rappahannock bridge north 9.4 mi

Mar 1965: (pp 14-15 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-03-1965-01.pdf)
US 360 - VA 153 w 3.9 mi
US 17 - Gloucester SR 615 n 1.9 mi
US 11 - 1 mi segment centered around Rockbridge SR 645

May 1965: (pg 10 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-05-1965-01.pdf)
US 360 - Hanover SR 705 w 4.7 mi

Aug 1965: (pp 20-21 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-08-1965-01.pdf)
US 58 - Henry/Pittsylvania line w 4 mi in two segments
US 360 - VA 344 e 4.2 mi
US 58 - new WCL Danville w 4.4 mi
US 13 - about VA 184 n 7.9 mi
US 33 - extend Harrisonburg segment above e 4.2 mi

Sep 1965: (pg 10 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-09-1965-01.pdf)
US 220 - Bassett Forks n 5 mi
US 460 - ECL Roanoke e 11 mi
US 29 - 3 segments totaling 5.2 mi centered roughly around Nelson SR 623
VA 10 - 2.4 mi segment just west of Appomattox R bridge

Oct 1965: (pp 16-17 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-10-1965-02.pdf)
US 460 - VA 24 w 6.2 mi
US 360 - Chula w 10.5 mi
US 1 - VA 46 n 3.1 mi (except the SB lanes for 0.62 mi would remain 55 mph)
US 1 - Brunswick SR 657 n 2.7 mi
US 58 - near VA 46 w 3.8 mi
US 1 - Dinwiddie SR 657 n 2.7 mi
US 1 - 1.4 mi segment around Dinwiddie/Brunswick line
US 60 - 1.6 mi segment in James City/York area
US 29 - Albemarle SR 649 n to Greene line, 4.6 mi
US 211 - 2 mi segment centered around eastern US 522 jct

Dec 1965: (pg 48 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-12-1965-01.pdf)
US 58 ALT - near St Paul ECL e 2.6 mi
US 58 - WCL Franklin w 2.4 mi
US 29 - Albemarle SR 712 s 2.7 mi
US 15/17/29 - essentially Opal to SCL Warrenton, 5.1 mi
US 522 - NCL Winchester n 5.5 mi

Jan 1966: (pg 31 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-01-1966-01.pdf)
US 360 - Ontario w 1.7 mi
US 17/360 - Hoskins Ck bridge to route split, 1.5 mi
US 50 - 1.2 mi centered around SR 709 near middleburg
US 11 - Steele Tavern n 1.5 mi

Feb 1966: (pg 23 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-02-1966-01.pdf)
US 460 - Prince Edward SR 607 e 2.6 mi

Mar 1966: (pp 23-25 http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-03-1966-01.pdf)
US 58 - 0.4 mi segment near Henry SR 620
US 11/460 - Montgomery/Roanoke line w 9.5 mi
US 15/360 - Keysville Byp assigned 65 mph
US 58 - about 18 mi centered around Pittsylvania/Halifax line
US 58 - from VA 46 segment above w 3.6 mi
US 60 - Bottoms Bridge to VA 30, about 24 mi
I-64 Hampton Ck bridge w to James City line, about 20 mi assigned 65 mph
VA 168 - VA 168Y to near VA 143, 7.6 mi
VA 168Y - all
US 13 - Northampton SR 646 n 14 mi
US 11 - Rockbridge SR 710 n 9.1 mi
US 60 - 1.4 mi segment centered around Rockbridge SR 608
US 11 - 1 mi segment centered around Rockingham SR 704
Interesting information. So, essentially, a lot of the interstates, when they were just segmented bypasses at the time, not full continuous freeway routes for miles, they were simply posted at 60 MPH?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 08:02:15 PM
Interesting pricing information. These are candidate projects VDOT & HRTPO are evaluating for the 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan, and give 2019 cost estimates. This is from January 30.
Other projects currently apart of the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan along with 2019 cost estimates.
All of these projects are $19.8 billion total in 2019 dollars, plus the I-64 / I-264 Interchange Improvements Phase 3, U.S. Route 58 Corridor, and Air Terminal Interchange costs.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P7-2045_LRTP_Candidate_Projects.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 02, 2019, 08:57:12 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 07:19:35 PM

Interesting information. So, essentially, a lot of the interstates, when they were just segmented bypasses at the time, not full continuous freeway routes for miles, they were simply posted at 60 MPH?

It appears that 65 mph didn't come along until 1963, per official maps.  Some larger segments of interstates were opening by then.  My thought is that any rural interstate segment opening 1963 or later got a 65 mph limit while urban interstates were assigned something by the CTB, who didn't bother to formally announce the uptick in limits (unless for some reason the limits didn't actually go up until after March 1966).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 09:24:37 PM
This is interesting. A few months back, the US 58/460/13 Connector study was suspended, and remaining funds were returned to HRTAC. Looks like they are no longer interested in this for the time being.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/111518%2013%20Route%20460%2058%2013%20Connector%20Study%20Update.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 02, 2019, 09:34:59 PM
It's moreso a case that they determined the existing 6 lanes will be adequate for 2040, so they no longer could use the funding source used for the study.  That funding source "is only to be used to fund projects that address significant congestion."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 09:40:24 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 02, 2019, 09:34:59 PM
It's moreso a case that they determined the existing 6 lanes will be adequate for 2040, so they no longer could use the funding source used for the study.  That funding source "is only to be used to fund projects that address significant congestion."
That also kills the chances of interchanges and a full interstate upgrade. That would not address congestion issues, which currently do not exist.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 02, 2019, 11:01:35 PM
Doesn't necessarily kill the chances.  Just means they can't use regional funding and thus need to apply for funding through SmartScale.  Or Suffolk and Chesapeake can pay "out of their own pocket" if they deem it important enough....not unlike what Fairfax County and Virginia Beach (for two examples) have done for road improvements in their jurisdictions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 11:07:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 02, 2019, 11:01:35 PM
Doesn't necessarily kill the chances.  Just means they can't use regional funding and thus need to apply for funding through SmartScale.  Or Suffolk and Chesapeake can pay "out of their own pocket" if they deem it important enough....not unlike what Fairfax County and Virginia Beach (for two examples) have done for road improvements in their jurisdictions.
It's estimated to cost $400 million. Chesapeake did a project for $345 million. They used tolls. That project was far more important and beneficial than this highway. Besides, Chesapeake's interests are on I-87 / US 17, not US 58.

It's not going to get locality funding, and it certainly isn't going to get any significant SmartScale funding. SmartScale isn't going to fund a highway which already has 6 lanes, limited-access, no traffic issues, just to build some interchanges and widen the shoulders for $400 million. SmartScale can't even fund some needed projects, it's certainly not going to for this.

It's going to be a stretch before any funding is used. Not to mention the wetland impacts. The decision to widen it to, not 4, but 6 lanes in 1970 was a smart one, because it's 2019 and can still adequately handle the traffic counts today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 02, 2019, 11:24:14 PM
^ From your last sentence, I'm guessing you weren't aware that segment of 58 was 4-laned in the 1940s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 02, 2019, 11:42:32 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 02, 2019, 11:24:14 PM
^ From your last sentence, I'm guessing you weren't aware that segment of 58 was 4-laned in the 1940s.
I'm referring to when they constructed the new westbound lanes, and converted the old roadway into eastbound lanes.

It could've been done with 4 lanes, but they instead decided to do it with 6, or left it as is.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 03, 2019, 12:02:53 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 02, 2019, 09:34:59 PM
It's moreso a case that they determined the existing 6 lanes will be adequate for 2040, so they no longer could use the funding source used for the study.  That funding source "is only to be used to fund projects that address significant congestion."

They only need 2 interchanges and some service roads to provide full freeway design on US-58/US-13/US-460 between Suffolk Bypass and I-64/I-264/I-664.  If they can't afford the whole project then they should focus on building those interchanges.

The busier easterly half of the interchange at the landfill already exists.  The other half needs to be built.  A full interchange is needed at the general aviation airport.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 13, 2019, 07:19:23 AM
WTOP reports the proposal to put tolls or (more likely) HO/T lanes on the Fairfax County Parkway is dead (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/02/tolls-off-the-table-for-fairfax-co-parkway/).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 13, 2019, 10:00:15 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 13, 2019, 07:19:23 AM
WTOP reports the proposal to put tolls or (more likely) HO/T lanes on the Fairfax County Parkway is dead (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/02/tolls-off-the-table-for-fairfax-co-parkway/).

HO/T lanes and/or tolls on a road that isn't even a freeway doesn't make sense to me, so I'm glad it's dead.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 13, 2019, 10:27:38 AM
Some of it is functionally a freeway...through Fort Belvoir North and from Popes Head Rd to the US 50 ramps.  Enough of it is limited-access to where you could still do HOV/HOT lanes with appropriate transitions for turn lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 05:13:34 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 13, 2019, 10:00:15 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 13, 2019, 07:19:23 AM
WTOP reports the proposal to put tolls or (more likely) HO/T lanes on the Fairfax County Parkway is dead (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/02/tolls-off-the-table-for-fairfax-co-parkway/).

HO/T lanes and/or tolls on a road that isn't even a freeway doesn't make sense to me, so I'm glad it's dead.
Say hello to US 74 south of Charlotte. 6-lane roadway with tight urban interchanges, connecting driveways, 50 MPH speed limit, no cross roads, and future HO/T lanes in the median. A creative way to convert a non-freeway into a free-flowing road, still allow full business access, sidewalks, and no traffic lights & cross roads, as opposed to a full freeway upgrade, relocation of every business, or numerous service roads, wide interchange footprints, etc.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 13, 2019, 08:17:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 05:13:34 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 13, 2019, 10:00:15 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 13, 2019, 07:19:23 AM
WTOP reports the proposal to put tolls or (more likely) HO/T lanes on the Fairfax County Parkway is dead (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/02/tolls-off-the-table-for-fairfax-co-parkway/).

HO/T lanes and/or tolls on a road that isn't even a freeway doesn't make sense to me, so I'm glad it's dead.
Say hello to US 74 south of Charlotte. 6-lane roadway with tight urban interchanges, connecting driveways, 50 MPH speed limit, no cross roads, and future HO/T lanes in the median. A creative way to convert a non-freeway into a free-flowing road, still allow full business access, sidewalks, and no traffic lights & cross roads, as opposed to a full freeway upgrade, relocation of every business, or numerous service roads, wide interchange footprints, etc.
"a Jersey freeway"
"similar to what NJ has been doing for decades"
"wow that was creative"
🤔
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 08:50:31 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 13, 2019, 08:17:25 PM
"a Jersey freeway"
"similar to what NJ has been doing for decades"
"wow that was creative"
🤔
Fair point. I've never really seen it built in the south though, so it's a new concept for those of us who aren't as familiar with the north.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadsguy on February 13, 2019, 09:46:34 PM
To be fair, while NJ has plenty of barrier-divided roads with jughandles, they don't have nearly as many 100% free-flowing jersey freeways like what's being proposed for US 74. NJ 17 between US 46 and I-287, NJ 208 and NJ 4 between I-287 and I-95/NJTP, and US 46 and NJ 3 between I-80/NJ 23 and NJ 495 are the only examples that come to mind. I'm sure there's more that I'm just forgetting, but simple jughandle-laden divided highways are far more common.

That response would be more fitting if sprjus4 were acting as though NC had just invented the jughandle. :P
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 14, 2019, 12:38:28 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 13, 2019, 09:46:34 PM
To be fair, while NJ has plenty of barrier-divided roads with jughandles, they don't have nearly as many 100% free-flowing jersey freeways like what's being proposed for US 74. NJ 17 between US 46 and I-287, NJ 208 and NJ 4 between I-287 and I-95/NJTP, and US 46 and NJ 3 between I-80/NJ 23 and NJ 495 are the only examples that come to mind. I'm sure there's more that I'm just forgetting, but simple jughandle-laden divided highways are far more common.

That response would be more fitting if sprjus4 were acting as though NC had just invented the jughandle. :P
I thought it was an article quote, so I was responding to WTOP. Anyway yes, there are others: US 1 in parts north of Trenton, US 9 south of the 1 split, US 22 east of the last traffic light, US 30 west of US 130... there are others of course.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: PHLBOS on February 14, 2019, 08:53:45 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 13, 2019, 08:17:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 05:13:34 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 13, 2019, 10:00:15 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 13, 2019, 07:19:23 AM
WTOP reports the proposal to put tolls or (more likely) HO/T lanes on the Fairfax County Parkway is dead (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/02/tolls-off-the-table-for-fairfax-co-parkway/).

HO/T lanes and/or tolls on a road that isn't even a freeway doesn't make sense to me, so I'm glad it's dead.
Say hello to US 74 south of Charlotte. 6-lane roadway with tight urban interchanges, connecting driveways, 50 MPH speed limit, no cross roads, and future HO/T lanes in the median. A creative way to convert a non-freeway into a free-flowing road, still allow full business access, sidewalks, and no traffic lights & cross roads, as opposed to a full freeway upgrade, relocation of every business, or numerous service roads, wide interchange footprints, etc.
"a Jersey freeway"
"similar to what NJ has been doing for decades"
"wow that was creative"
🤔
I believe the point that WillWeaverRVA was conveying is that, aside from tolled water-crossings, Jersey-type/non-limited-access freeways aren't tolled.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on February 14, 2019, 09:31:28 AM
The Virginia General Assembly -- where subcommittees rule.

Two highway-related bills met their death in a subcommittee of the House Courts of Justice Committee -- reckless driving and license suspensions. Another bill is on shaky ground after the transportation subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee voted 5-0 to not advance the bill that would provide funds for I-73.

Quote
RICHMOND – A bill that would raise the reckless driving threshold collided with a General Assembly panel on Wednesday.

The bill from Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Roanoke County, would have raised from 80 to 85 mph the threshold for reckless driving in areas of Virginia where a 70 mph limit is posted. With little discussion, a subcommittee of the House Courts of Justice Committee voted down SB 1578 on a vote of 5-1.

Under Virginia's driving laws, reckless driving is 20 mph over the speed limit. What Suetterlein was trying to address is more of an issue on the interstates, where speed limits may be set at 70 mph and going 11 mph over is considered a reckless driving offense.

If a police officer clocks a driver going over 80 mph in Virginia, that person faces a misdemeanor charge that can carry up to a year in jail or a $2,500 fine. Suetterlein said it's likely the charge will get reduced, but faced with a harsh punishment, most people will pay for an attorney.

Suetterlein called the legislation "common sense reform."

The bill passed on a bipartisan vote of 35-5 in the Senate.

A similar bill has passed the Senate four times in a row. It also died last year in a House committee.

------
Quote
Bill to provide funding for I-73 stalls

A bill to earmark funding for the proposed Interstate 73 came to a halt in the General Assembly on Wednesday.

Interstate 73 would create an avenue for high-speed travel between Roanoke and the North Carolina line south of Martinsville. It was proposed more than two decades ago, but the $6 billion project has long been stalled because of funding issues. The bill from Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin, would've put the interstate next in line for funding that's currently being allocated to U.S. 58. When the money was available, I-73 would have received about $40 million a year.

The transportation subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee voted not to advance SB 1014 on a 5-0 vote, but the chairman of the committee, Del. Chris Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, said the legislation could be revived Friday at the full Transportation Committee.

The bill passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote of 28-11.

The bill has been introduced in previous General Assembly sessions.
https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general-assembly-notebook-panel-kills-reckless-driving-threshold-increase-effort/article_5563168f-4bc3-5dc1-92a8-9c3eb190d20a.html

Quote
RICHMOND – Four Republicans voted to halt a bill with bipartisan support that would repeal current state law that suspends the Virginia driver's license of anyone who doesn't promptly pay court fines or costs unrelated to driving offenses.

Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin, estimates more than 600,000 people in Virginia currently have suspended driver's licenses. Lawmakers on the House Courts of Justice subcommittee expressed concern about the potential impact on money collected from license reinstatement fees.

Four Republicans on the House Courts of Justice subcommittee voted to kill the bill, SB 1013: Majority Leader Todd Gilbert, Shenandoah; Del. Rob Bell, Albemarle; Del. Chris Collins, Frederick; and Del. Margaret Ransone, Westmoreland. Three Democrats – Charniele Herring, Alexandria; Mike Mullin, Newport News; and Vivian Watts, Fairfax – voted against stopping the bill.
[\quote]
https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/house-panel-votes-down-bill-to-end-driver-s-license/article_508ac733-8615-50fa-aa2d-083db9d6b654.html

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on February 14, 2019, 10:15:28 AM
Quote from: LM117 on January 30, 2019, 03:09:50 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 30, 2019, 01:05:00 PM
Senate passes bill to raise reckless driving threshold

RICHMOND – Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Roanoke County, is making another attempt this year at raising the reckless driving threshold, and this time he hopes the bill will go the distance.

The state Senate passed his bill that would raise from 80 to 85 mph the threshold for reckless driving in areas of Virginia where a 70 mph limit is posted. SB 1578 passed on a bipartisan vote of 35-5 on Tuesday.

Under Virginia's driving laws, reckless driving is 20 mph over the speed limit. What Suetterlein is trying to address is more of an issue on the interstates, where speed limits may be set at 70 mph. So going 11 mph over is considered a reckless driving offense.

If a police officer clocks a driver going over 80 mph in Virginia, that person faces a misdemeanor charge that can carry up to a year in jail or a $2,500 fine. While offenders may not get thrown behind bars, and judges will reduce the charge, drivers may hire lawyers because of the possible punishment.

The bill has now passed the Senate four times in a row. It died last year in a House committee.

https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general_assembly/general-assembly-notebook-senate-passes-bill-to-raise-reckless-driving/article_0fdb4fc4-115e-5370-9125-bb95cd8996cf.html

I $uspect it'll be DOA in the House as usual...

Quote from: VTGoose on February 14, 2019, 09:31:28 AM
The Virginia General Assembly -- where subcommittees rule.

Two highway-related bills met their death in a subcommittee of the House Courts of Justice Committee -- reckless driving and license suspensions. Another bill is on shaky ground after the transportation subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee voted 5-0 to not advance the bill that would provide funds for I-73.

Quote
RICHMOND – A bill that would raise the reckless driving threshold collided with a General Assembly panel on Wednesday.

The bill from Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Roanoke County, would have raised from 80 to 85 mph the threshold for reckless driving in areas of Virginia where a 70 mph limit is posted. With little discussion, a subcommittee of the House Courts of Justice Committee voted down SB 1578 on a vote of 5-1.

Under Virginia's driving laws, reckless driving is 20 mph over the speed limit. What Suetterlein was trying to address is more of an issue on the interstates, where speed limits may be set at 70 mph and going 11 mph over is considered a reckless driving offense.

If a police officer clocks a driver going over 80 mph in Virginia, that person faces a misdemeanor charge that can carry up to a year in jail or a $2,500 fine. Suetterlein said it's likely the charge will get reduced, but faced with a harsh punishment, most people will pay for an attorney.

Suetterlein called the legislation "common sense reform."

The bill passed on a bipartisan vote of 35-5 in the Senate.

A similar bill has passed the Senate four times in a row. It also died last year in a House committee.

https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general-assembly-notebook-panel-kills-reckless-driving-threshold-increase-effort/article_5563168f-4bc3-5dc1-92a8-9c3eb190d20a.html

:coffee:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 14, 2019, 12:27:52 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 13, 2019, 10:00:15 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 13, 2019, 07:19:23 AM
WTOP reports the proposal to put tolls or (more likely) HO/T lanes on the Fairfax County Parkway is dead (https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/02/tolls-off-the-table-for-fairfax-co-parkway/).

HO/T lanes and/or tolls on a road that isn't even a freeway doesn't make sense to me, so I'm glad it's dead.

As a general matter, I think HO/T lanes or similar on the Fairfax County Parkway probably aren't needed yet and are probably premature until they see how well certain other planned improvements work, the most notable being the planned interchange at Popes Head Road. In my experience over the years that light tends to back up traffic in both directions more than a lot of other areas of the Parkway, though I'm not entirely sure why. I do know that when there's an event at the Patriot Center over at GMU it's best to avoid the Parkway through that area because you can be delayed ten or 15 minutes trying to get through the light at Popes Head, I guess because the only two logical routes east from the Parkway to GMU are Popes Head Road to 123 and Braddock Road. Hopefully the combination of the grade-separation and the related extension of Shirley Gate Road might relieve some of that situation.

Aside from there, I think rather than focusing on HO/T lanes it might make more sense first to try to replace some of the other traffic lights with grade-separated interchanges of some sort, recognizing that in some places there are space constraints and in others the volume on the other road might not merit an interchange, and in the case of the Franconia—Springfield Parkway at I-95 it would be exceedingly difficult to redesign it to eliminate the lights on the Parkway. I don't think all the at-grade intersections with smaller residential streets need to be eliminated, though I wonder whether the configuration could be altered either to RIRO in some cases or to some setup that provides acceleration space for people turning left out of the residential streets. The couple of residential streets that have at-grade intersections with the Parkway between Popes Head and Burke Centre Parkway seem like they might be candidates for redesign once the Popes Head interchange is open (and even more so if Burke Centre were to be converted to an interchange to eliminate the traffic light). Traffic goes through there fairly fast now (when there isn't a backup) and might reasonably be expected to pick up speed with the elimination of that traffic light. On the other hand, there aren't that many houses on those particular residential streets, so it's questionable how much should be spent to deal with the issue. In some other places there may not be room for an interchange but there could be an overpass, but the question would be how much of an inconvenience VDOT is willing to impose on residents in terms of leaving their neighborhoods. The light at the bottom of the hill west of the Rolling Road interchange where the Parkway meets Whitlers Creek Drive is a good example of this: There probably isn't room to build an interchange, but if there could be a grade-separation, people who live in the neighborhood north of the Parkway could use Hooes Road up the hill to Gambrill Road to exit their neighborhood. I have no idea whether VDOT would force something like that on them. I suppose the other consideration in terms of volume is that it may not make a lot of sense to eliminate some of the lights if you leave a lower-volume light right in between them (I'm thinking of if you eliminate the lights at Huntsman Boulevard and Lee Chapel Road, but you still have the light at the rec center right in between those two–the Huntsman light is a tough one anyway due to residential and commercial development directly abutting the Parkway).

Based on what I've read and on the survey the county circulated, I think to some degree what Fairfax County really wants to do is to find some way to provide bus service on the Parkway once Phase II of the Silver Line opens. They want to be able to run bus service from either the Herndon/Monroe Silver Line stop, the Reston Town Center stop, and/or Reston Town Center itself down the Parkway to link to the Franconia—Springfield Metro/VRE stop to make cross-county commutes possible for people who don't want to drive but who are (understandably!) put off by the need to take the Metro all the way in to Rosslyn if you want to ride back out to Reston. That's certainly a noble goal and something worth exploring, but the big challenge is what the buses would serve between the Silver Line corridor and Springfield. There are a couple of slug lots that are easy to reach from the Parkway that could serve as bus stops, but in general, the Parkway corridor doesn't have the density that you need to make regular bus service practical (unless instead the goal is to have a next-to-no-stop "super-express" type service–similar to the old JFK Express or the short-lived NX subway service in New York–but who knows how much demand there would be for that). The Burke VRE stop is not especially close to the Fairfax County Parkway. It's up Roberts Parkway near where the at-grade railroad crossing and the Guinea Road roundabout used to be. A bus would either go up Roberts Parkway to the VRE or would use a combination of Roberts and Burke Centre Parkways. Setting that aside, it seems unlikely the bus service would generate enough business to justify the expense of the dedicated bus lanes on the Fairfax County Parkway that would probably be necessary to make longer-distance bus service work there, so no doubt that's why the county and VDOT were exploring the option of HO/T lanes as a way of paying for something buses could use to bypass traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 07:21:57 PM
$3.3 billion contract awarded to Hampton Roads Connector Partners for the Interstate 64 Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel expansion.

Project completion date is November 1, 2025, about 2 years later than originally projected.


"NORFOLK–Governor Ralph Northam today announced that the Commonwealth of Virginia has selected Hampton Roads Connector Partners, a design-build team, to deliver the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (HRBT) Expansion Project. The fixed price ($3.3 billion) and fixed completion date (November 1, 2025) contract is expected to be executed in April 2019.

This announcement follows a yearlong competitive procurement that started in December 2017 with three qualified design-build teams. Two teams submitted comprehensive technical proposals and price bids. After detailed evaluation, the proposal submitted by Hampton Roads Connector Partners has been selected as the best value proposal based on bid price and technical score. The details of the best value evaluation will be presented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) and the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC) at their respective meetings in March.

The primary source of funding for the project is HRTAC, with applications for state and federal financial support in the process of being finalized. In addition, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will fund replacement of the bridge trestles on the Norfolk side.

"This project supports and expands critical transportation infrastructure, creating opportunity for families, military personnel, and businesses in the Hampton Roads region,"  said Governor Northam. "I am proud of the hard work and negotiations that have taken place over this past year to deliver significant improvements that will relieve daily congestion, increase safety, and drive economic growth throughout this important corridor."

"VDOT's largest transportation project is being constructed in the heart of a region vital to Virginia's economy, military readiness, and regional connectivity,"  said Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine. "This would not have happened without close coordination and strategic partnership between the Commonwealth of Virginia and HRTAC."

"HRTAC's regional tax and user-supported funding, with anticipated state and federal funds, for the HRBT Expansion Project will continue to ensure future congestion relief and connectivity through regional solutions and partnership with VDOT,"  said HRTAC Chairman Michael Hipple. "HRTAC and the Commonwealth Transportation Board are already funding partners in the delivery of more than a billion dollars' worth of transportation projects that will enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in the Hampton Roads region."

"This is a landmark day for our region and the Commonwealth. The hard-working citizens of the Hampton Roads region have asked for and deserve common-sense solutions to the traffic congestion that chokes our region,"  said Chairman Chris Jones. "This infrastructure investment in the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel is a win-win for our families, communities, and military personnel who rely on this vital structure every day."

"This announcement is the culmination of five years of hard work among all the leaders in our region,"  said Senator Frank Wagner. "From the creation of HRTAC to today's announcement, we will ensure that our region's economy will continue to grow and unite our region as never before. I want to personally thank Governor Northam and his team for making this day possible."

This project will add two new two-lane tunnels. It will widen the four-lane sections of Interstate 64 in Hampton between Settlers Landing Road and the Phoebus shoreline, as well as the four-lane section of I-64 in Norfolk between the Willoughby shoreline and the I-564 interchange. More than 100,000 vehicles currently use this facility during peak travel periods.

"Today's announcement signals a major milestone in this generational project that will improve accessibility throughout the region,"  said VDOT Commissioner Stephen Brich. "VDOT is committed to collaborating with regional partners across the Commonwealth to deliver transportation solutions that work for the citizens in the communities we serve."

Hampton Roads Connector Partners is a joint venture consisting of multiple partners, with Dragados USA serving as lead contractor and HDR and Mott MacDonald as lead designers. The team also includes Flatiron Constructors, Vinci Construction, and Dodin Campenon Bernard.

Additional information is available on www.hrbtexpansion.org."


https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2019/february/headline-838681-en.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:07:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 07:21:57 PM
$3.3 billion contract awarded to Hampton Roads Connector Partners for the Interstate 64 Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel expansion.
Project completion date is November 1, 2025, about 2 years later than originally projected.
[...]
This project will add two new two-lane tunnels. It will widen the four-lane sections of Interstate 64 in Hampton between Settlers Landing Road and the Phoebus shoreline, as well as the four-lane section of I-64 in Norfolk between the Willoughby shoreline and the I-564 interchange.
Additional information is available on www.hrbtexpansion.org."

Don't see details of exactly what will be done with the existing tunnels and marine bridges. 

There will be a project briefing at the CTB meeting on Tuesday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:16:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:07:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 07:21:57 PM
$3.3 billion contract awarded to Hampton Roads Connector Partners for the Interstate 64 Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel expansion.
Project completion date is November 1, 2025, about 2 years later than originally projected.
[...]
This project will add two new two-lane tunnels. It will widen the four-lane sections of Interstate 64 in Hampton between Settlers Landing Road and the Phoebus shoreline, as well as the four-lane section of I-64 in Norfolk between the Willoughby shoreline and the I-564 interchange.
Additional information is available on www.hrbtexpansion.org."

Don't see details of exactly what will be done with the existing tunnels and marine bridges. 

There will be a project briefing at the CTB meeting on Tuesday.
My best bet is that they will be retained for cost purposes.

What should happen with this project IMHO -

Replace the existing bridges with two 4-lane bridges, retain the existing tunnels, and construct one 4-lane tunnel.

Unless one 4-lane tunnel is drastically more expensive than 2 two-lane tunnels, I see no reason why not. Let's say in the future, they choose to have 3 GP / 1 HO/T lane. With one 4-lane tunnel, they can maneuver which lanes are managed, which are not, etc. The current 2 two-lane tunnels restrict it to be 2 HO/T, 2 GP.

In the future, if the road is widened from 6 to 8 lanes, then the remaining existing 2 tunnels can be demolished and replaced by another 4 lane tunnel, with a full end result of two 4-lane tunnels. Or better, retain the existing tunnels as well for that future 8-lane project, have 8 GP (two 4-lane tunnels) lanes + 2 HO/T (existing tunnels) lanes in each direction.

Seems better when thinking ahead 20 - 30 years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:20:51 PM
One 4-lane tunnel is drastically more expensive than 2 two-lane tunnels. 
See the Fort McHenry Tunnel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:21:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:20:51 PM
One 4-lane tunnel is drastically more expensive than 2 two-lane tunnels. 
See the Fort McHenry Tunnel.
Wasn't one 3-lane tunnel initially proposed for this?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:24:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:21:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:20:51 PM
One 4-lane tunnel is drastically more expensive than 2 two-lane tunnels. 
See the Fort McHenry Tunnel.
Wasn't one 3-lane tunnel initially proposed for this?

It was found that two 2-lane tunnels could be built for the same cost.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:26:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:24:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:21:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:20:51 PM
One 4-lane tunnel is drastically more expensive than 2 two-lane tunnels. 
See the Fort McHenry Tunnel.
Wasn't one 3-lane tunnel initially proposed for this?

It was found that two 2-lane tunnels could be built for the same cost.
And an additional lane would cost way more? Isn't 4-lanes being built in the end result either way, just over two tunnels? In my mind, under one roof would be cheaper, but there must be I'm missing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:36:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:26:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:24:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:21:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:20:51 PM
One 4-lane tunnel is drastically more expensive than 2 two-lane tunnels. 
See the Fort McHenry Tunnel.
Wasn't one 3-lane tunnel initially proposed for this?
It was found that two 2-lane tunnels could be built for the same cost.
And an additional lane would cost way more? Isn't 4-lanes being built in the end result either way, just over two tunnels? In my mind, under one roof would be cheaper, but there must be I'm missing.

A 2-lane tunnel has a square or round cross-section that is more suited to resisting the underground pressures.  A 4-lane tunnel would have a rectangular or elliptical cross-section that would require far more concrete and steel than two 2-lane tunnels.

That is how the engineers at the Fort McHenry Tunnel project explained it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:56:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:36:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:26:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:24:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:21:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:20:51 PM
One 4-lane tunnel is drastically more expensive than 2 two-lane tunnels. 
See the Fort McHenry Tunnel.
Wasn't one 3-lane tunnel initially proposed for this?
It was found that two 2-lane tunnels could be built for the same cost.
And an additional lane would cost way more? Isn't 4-lanes being built in the end result either way, just over two tunnels? In my mind, under one roof would be cheaper, but there must be I'm missing.

A 2-lane tunnel has a square or round cross-section that is more suited to resisting the underground pressures.  A 4-lane tunnel would have a rectangular or elliptical cross-section that would require far more concrete and steel than two 2-lane tunnels.

That is how the engineers at the Fort McHenry Tunnel project explained it.
Wasn't I-664 built as one structure technically, just with a wall in between the two?

But I get what you're saying.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 11:26:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:56:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:36:42 PM
A 2-lane tunnel has a square or round cross-section that is more suited to resisting the underground pressures.  A 4-lane tunnel would have a rectangular or elliptical cross-section that would require far more concrete and steel than two 2-lane tunnels.
That is how the engineers at the Fort McHenry Tunnel project explained it.
Wasn't I-664 built as one structure technically, just with a wall in between the two?
But I get what you're saying.

I can't find a good photo of it, but this is a similar design.  Circular cross-section steel vessel with a steel "jacket" around that that thousands of tons of concrete are poured into during the immersion process.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/FMcHT_Tube_End_WA_0283_1.jpg

That is where the tunnel element extends up onto land.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 11:33:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 11:26:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:56:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:36:42 PM
A 2-lane tunnel has a square or round cross-section that is more suited to resisting the underground pressures.  A 4-lane tunnel would have a rectangular or elliptical cross-section that would require far more concrete and steel than two 2-lane tunnels.
That is how the engineers at the Fort McHenry Tunnel project explained it.
Wasn't I-664 built as one structure technically, just with a wall in between the two?
But I get what you're saying.

I can't find a good photo of it, but this is a similar design.  Circular cross-section steel vessel with a steel "jacket" around that that thousands of tons of concrete are poured into during the immersion process.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/FMcHT_Tube_End_WA_0283_1.jpg

That is where the tunnel element extends up onto land.
Isn't that essentially what a I-64 4-lane tunnel would be? Just without the middle dividers?

And what's the plan for the two 2-lane tunnels? Like this, or separated 2-lane tunnels?

I know the plan is the cheapest and works out now, but it's my belief that one 4-lane tunnel will work better off in 20 - 30 years operational wise, especially if have to expand capacity later on. Like I mentioned, one solution could be 8 GP + 4 HO/T. That would involve the existing tunnels, plus a conceptional 4-lane tunnel built now, and a future 4-lane tunnel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 01:06:42 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 11:33:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 11:26:59 PM
I can't find a good photo of it, but this is a similar design.  Circular cross-section steel vessel with a steel "jacket" around that that thousands of tons of concrete are poured into during the immersion process.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/FMcHT_Tube_End_WA_0283_1.jpg
That is where the tunnel element extends up onto land.
Isn't that essentially what a I-64 4-lane tunnel would be? Just without the middle dividers?

They are two separate 2-lane tunnel elements, round in cross-section.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 11:33:25 PM
And what's the plan for the two 2-lane tunnels? Like this, or separated 2-lane tunnels?

Bored tunnels.  TBMs are round in cross-section.  Probably 2 separate bores.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 11:33:25 PM
I know the plan is the cheapest and works out now, but it's my belief that one 4-lane tunnel will work better off in 20 - 30 years operational wise, especially if have to expand capacity later on. Like I mentioned, one solution could be 8 GP + 4 HO/T. That would involve the existing tunnels, plus a conceptional 4-lane tunnel built now, and a future 4-lane tunnel.

That would be fantastically expensive for little gain.

The next Hampton Roads tunnel project will be to expand I-664 with two more 2-lane tubes, and to build the I-564 bridge-tunnel to I-664.

No need for further HRBT expansion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 16, 2019, 10:12:11 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 11:26:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 15, 2019, 10:56:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 10:36:42 PM
A 2-lane tunnel has a square or round cross-section that is more suited to resisting the underground pressures.  A 4-lane tunnel would have a rectangular or elliptical cross-section that would require far more concrete and steel than two 2-lane tunnels.
That is how the engineers at the Fort McHenry Tunnel project explained it.
Wasn't I-664 built as one structure technically, just with a wall in between the two?
But I get what you're saying.

I can't find a good photo of it, but this is a similar design.  Circular cross-section steel vessel with a steel "jacket" around that that thousands of tons of concrete are poured into during the immersion process.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/FMcHT_Tube_End_WA_0283_1.jpg

That is where the tunnel element extends up onto land.

When it opened, the Virginian Pilot had a terrific diagram of how the 664 tunnel was designed and built.  Can't find it online though I found a reference that said the paper devoted 14 pages to it.

This article contains some photos of the 664 tunnel construction.  Photo 15 shows the binocular sections at a drydock in Baltimore awaiting transport to Newport News - https://www.dailypress.com/news/traffic/dp-look-back-building-the-monitormerrimac-memorial-bridgetunnel-20150424-photogallery.html

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 16, 2019, 02:28:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 01:06:42 AM
That would be fantastically expensive for little gain.
The road carries close to 100,000 AADT. That could be close to 200,000 AADT in 20 years, which would warrant more capacity. It's a waste now, but it might be needed in 20 years, if traffic does increase.

Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 01:06:42 AM
The next Hampton Roads tunnel project will be to expand I-664 with two more 2-lane tubes, and to build the I-564 bridge-tunnel to I-664.
Most likely going in the order. If an HRBT got expanded again, that would beyond these projects, and if capacity warrants it. I'm now seeing that either way, the existing project would satisfy that. If an HRBT was to be expanded to 8 GP + 4 HO/T, that could be satisfied by the existing tunnels being 4 HO/T, the proposed 2 new tunnels here being split 4 to 2+2 GP like the Fort McHenry Tunnel is, then build another 2 two-lane tunnels.

http://hamptonroadscrossingstudy.org/documents/2017/fseis_appendix_b_alts_mapping.pdf
This is an interesting document. It shows schematics on how all of I-664 would be 8-laned, new tunnels, the I-564 Connector, etc. would be built. For the I-664 expansion, it shows two 2-lane tunnels for all general purpose, then a 4-lane bridge. It would split like the Fort McHenry Tunnel does. One option also shows this, plus a 2 lane tunnel for HO/T.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 16, 2019, 03:09:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2019, 02:28:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 01:06:42 AM
That would be fantastically expensive for little gain.
The road carries close to 100,000 AADT. That could be close to 200,000 AADT in 20 years, which would warrant more capacity. It's a waste now, but it might be needed in 20 years, if traffic does increase.

Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 01:06:42 AM
The next Hampton Roads tunnel project will be to expand I-664 with two more 2-lane tubes, and to build the I-564 bridge-tunnel to I-664.
Most likely going in the order. If an HRBT got expanded again, that would beyond these projects, and if capacity warrants it. I'm now seeing that either way, the existing project would satisfy that. If an HRBT was to be expanded to 8 GP + 4 HO/T, that could be satisfied by the existing tunnels being 4 HO/T, the proposed 2 new tunnels here being split 4 to 2+2 GP like the Fort McHenry Tunnel is, then build another 2 two-lane tunnels.

http://hamptonroadscrossingstudy.org/documents/2017/fseis_appendix_b_alts_mapping.pdf
This is an interesting document. It shows schematics on how all of I-664 would be 8-laned, new tunnels, the I-564 Connector, etc. would be built. For the I-664 expansion, it shows two 2-lane tunnels for all general purpose, then a 4-lane bridge. It would split like the Fort McHenry Tunnel does. One option also shows this, plus a 2 lane tunnel for HO/T.

Not to intervene between you two lovebirds, but "close to 100,000" right now (let's say 90,000), in 20 years at any reasonable growth rate, is only getting up to about 135,000. What you're also losing in this is that I-64 is still a constraint and will continue to be more and more of one. Traffic leaving the 7 cities wants to head northwest. Not northeast, not due west, northwest. I-64 needs to be at least 4 lanes each way from Richmond to Norfolk to consider adding multiple tubes at all of the crossings. Otherwise, all you're doing is backing people up from Williamsburg instead of at several intermediate points.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 16, 2019, 03:21:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 16, 2019, 03:09:36 PM
Not to intervene between you two lovebirds
Aren't you the mod who told us to stop name calling?  :no:

Quote from: Alps on February 16, 2019, 03:09:36 PM
but "close to 100,000" right now (let's say 90,000), in 20 years at any reasonable growth rate, is only getting up to about 135,000. What you're also losing in this is that I-64 is still a constraint and will continue to be more and more of one. Traffic leaving the 7 cities wants to head northwest. Not northeast, not due west, northwest. I-64 needs to be at least 4 lanes each way from Richmond to Norfolk to consider adding multiple tubes at all of the crossings. Otherwise, all you're doing is backing people up from Williamsburg instead of at several intermediate points.
Consider summer weekend traffic. That 100,000 number is already higher.

I-64 is 8-lanes between I-664 and Jefferson Ave (about 160,000 near I-664, then 120,000 near Jefferson). By 2021, it'll then be 3-lanes to VA-199, and by 2030, hopefully 6-lanes the entire distance between Williamsburg and I-295. Plans are to expand the recently done 6 lane section to 8 lanes up to Williamsburg in the future, which is about 90,000 - 100,000 AADT.

From Williamsburg northwards, 6-lanes will suffice, at about 60 - 70,000 AADT, could be up to 100,000 in 20 years. The expansion of the tubes combined with 4 lanes each way to Williamsburg or even to Jefferson today will be efficient.

I think it's a false statement to say all the traffic is heading northwest. There's a fair share of traffic that heads west on US-58 to I-95 and points south, or down US-17. It's not nearly as much as I-64 granted, but it's still there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 04:09:37 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 16, 2019, 03:09:36 PM
Not to intervene between you two lovebirds, but "close to 100,000" right now (let's say 90,000), in 20 years at any reasonable growth rate, is only getting up to about 135,000. What you're also losing in this is that I-64 is still a constraint and will continue to be more and more of one. Traffic leaving the 7 cities wants to head northwest. Not northeast, not due west, northwest. I-64 needs to be at least 4 lanes each way from Richmond to Norfolk to consider adding multiple tubes at all of the crossings. Otherwise, all you're doing is backing people up from Williamsburg instead of at several intermediate points.

I-64 thru lower Hampton will have a tough time being widened to 8 lanes although it is possible.  I can't see it ever being wider than that; just look at Google Maps aerial to see the constraints and impacts to creeks, the environment and the residential areas.

Future cross-harbor expansion needs to be focused on I-664 widening and I-564 extension, and that is currently in the long-range plan.
 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on February 16, 2019, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2019, 03:21:29 PM
There's a fair share of traffic that heads west on US-58 to I-95 and points south, or down US-17.
About 2 (trips, not percent) of that traffic goes down US 17 and then turns west on US 64 all the way to Raleigh.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 16, 2019, 05:22:49 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 16, 2019, 05:02:46 PM
About 2 (trips, not percent) of that traffic goes down US 17 and then turns west on US 64 all the way to Raleigh.
I said "down U.S. 17". Where did I mention "U.S. 64"?  :pan:

Coming up with things out of your head, trying to attack a completely different subject. Good job  :clap:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 16, 2019, 05:55:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 16, 2019, 05:22:49 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 16, 2019, 05:02:46 PM
About 2 (trips, not percent) of that traffic goes down US 17 and then turns west on US 64 all the way to Raleigh.
I said "down U.S. 17". Where did I mention "U.S. 64"?  :pan:

Coming up with things out of your head, trying to attack a completely different subject. Good job  :clap:
Yup! I, for one, appreciate the I-87 allusion. Just for the lulz.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on February 21, 2019, 07:08:15 PM
A proposed project to relocate the Shula Drive intersection on US-29 in northern Pittsylvania County just got a big bump.

(Behind paywall)

https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/in-northern-end-of-county-road-project-to-relocate-crash/article_ec03d42c-356c-11e9-85a4-8bb79fe8c5e0.html (https://www.godanriver.com/news/pittsylvania_county/in-northern-end-of-county-road-project-to-relocate-crash/article_ec03d42c-356c-11e9-85a4-8bb79fe8c5e0.html)

QuoteHURT – Over the past four years of living in their home, Steve and Vanessa Coffey said they've woken up in the middle of the night to the screams of people who have wrecked at the intersection of Shula Drive and U.S. 29 in northern Pittsylvania County, calling out for their children.

The intersection is less than a tenth of a mile from their house along Highwayview Road – the road that connects to the dangerous intersection. The couple said crashes "happen all the time."

It's a high-speed road with multiple vehicle turning onto it.

"From the time we moved down here, we've seen numerous crashes,"  said Vanessa Coffey. Including several where people are killed, she added.

Steve Coffey said, "Some aren't reported. We see the ones that spin out and then just pull out and keep driving."

Due to the significant number of wrecks – 21 in the seven years leading up to 2017 – at the intersections, talks in 2016 with the Virginia Department of Transportation led to the development of a plan to redesign and relocate the intersection.

However, without the funds for the $4.7 million project, the department settled on more feasible options like placing flashing caution signs at the intersection.

Now, the proposed Shula Drive intersection relocation project is in the running to be fully funded after receiving the second highest SmartScale score – the state system used to prioritize proposed road projects – in the district as they decide on what projects to prioritize for the 2020 fiscal year.

After review by VDOT, the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, and Department of Rail and Public Transportation, the Shula Drive project made the third round of recommended draft funding scenarios.

"This particular project is relocating further downstream to increase spacing and improve safety through turning movements and relocating traffic downstream,"  said Lynchburg District Planning Manager Rick Youngblood.

The Lynchburg District will receive $23.8 million to fund road projects for 2020, said Youngblood.

Because this is only a draft funding scenario, the money hasn't been guaranteed yet. The public involvement phase will be the next step.

Youngblood said a public meeting will be held in late March or early April where local government entities are invited to speak on behalf of their projects in front of VDOT and and Department of Rail and Public Transportation staff as well as the Commonwealth Transportation Board member – a 17-member state citizen board – for the district.

That citizen board will ultimately decide which projects are chosen for state funds.

To the Coffeys, the intersection is an issue of safety. Despite their close proximity to the intersection, they don't use it to access U.S. 29 or the area on the other side.

Vanessa Coffey said they prefer to drive an extra mile up to the overpass, where it's safer.

"We use the other one up there because of all the accidents over there,"  she said.

When he learned the project was finally in the running to receive funding, Steve Coffey said, "This is all a really good idea, and this is something that needs to be done."

Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors member Elton Blackstock, who represents the Staunton River district, said he was excited that the project could receive approval for the final funding.

"The community itself has in the past demanded changes, and we had a number of public meetings with public input,"  said Blackstock. "I think this is a result of all those meetings and public outcry."

With the caution lights in place, Blackstock said the implementation of the relocation would be the second phase of those conversations coming to fruition.

"I'm hoping that we would see less accidents and certainly fatalities at that intersection and help everyone who has been involved in that process,"  he said.

The Coffey's noted the northern end of Pittsylvania County is often forgotten when it comes to improvement projects and development.

Blackstock said Shula Drive's relocation would be one more project for the northern end accomplished, adding to things like the Wayside Park improvements, the Staunton River Regional Industrial Authority and the building of a new bridge between Altavista and Hurt.

The $33.4 million construction of a connector road to the Southern Virginia Mega Site at Berry Hill in Danville ranked third in the district to receive funding, requesting $30.9 million in funds through the SmartScale program.

Youngblood said if that project goes through, it will be funded through a separate pool of money from the district. Instead, those funds would come from a state pool as it received the highest economic development score in the state.

"That's how it received a justifiable score,"  he said.

Youngblood said at this stage in the process, it's the applicant's chance to voice their support.

"Being silent won't provide you any benefit,"  he said. "Now, you can have that dialogue with the appropriate staff representatives who will be the ultimate decision makers."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2019, 07:42:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 21, 2019, 07:08:15 PM
A proposed project to relocate the Shula Drive intersection on US-29 in northern Pittsylvania County just got a big bump.

(Behind paywall)
(https://i.ibb.co/fxNqySm/Shula-Dr-Intersection-Altavista-US-29.png)
This is the plan for the project. It would be better in my opinion to also include a median acceleration lane for both of the offset intersections, to reduce crashes even more, similar to this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4350579,-76.3385218,450m/data=!3m1!1e3) on US 17 at South Mills, NC.

Obviously, a full buildout would involve an overpass crossing US 29, though on a restricted budget, this is a good solution -for now-.

An overpass would likely involve a half mile of road relocated along with raising Shula Dr onto a two-lane, 300 feet long bridge over US 29 & the tracks. Likely a $10+ million project. It would also convert another 1 mile of US 29 into limited-access freeway.
(https://i.ibb.co/nmPBTbG/Shula-Dr-Overpass-Build.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 21, 2019, 09:18:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 21, 2019, 07:42:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 21, 2019, 07:08:15 PM
A proposed project to relocate the Shula Drive intersection on US-29 in northern Pittsylvania County just got a big bump.
(Behind paywall)
This is the plan for the project. It would be better in my opinion to also include a median acceleration lane for both of the offset intersections, to reduce crashes even more, similar to
Obviously, a full buildout would involve an overpass crossing US 29, though on a restricted budget, this is a good solution -for now-.
An overpass would likely involve a half mile of road relocated along with raising Shula Dr onto a two-lane, 300 feet long bridge over US 29 & the tracks. Likely a $10+ million project. It would also convert another 1 mile of US 29 into limited-access freeway.

So are they planning on keeping the existing intersection open?  Your overpass suggestion doesn't provide access to US-29, so presumably the existing crossover could be closed and RIRO ramps built at the current intersection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2019, 09:35:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2019, 09:18:51 PM
So are they planning on keeping the existing intersection open?  Your overpass suggestion doesn't provide access to US-29, so presumably the existing crossover could be closed and RIRO ramps built at the current intersection.
With the current $4 million proposal, the western side would be closed off. The east side would stay open with a full-access T-intersection w/ US-29. The west side would be relocated to the plan I posted above. Two offset intersections to reduce conflict points.

With my overpass concept, for the interim, the entire intersection would remain in place, but with RIRO only, closing the median break. In the future, if US-29 is ever upgraded to a full freeway, the intersection would fully close. From my proposed overpass, the existing frontage road would provide access to a US-29 interchange for northerly access, and a future southerly frontage road if ever built would provide access to properties south of this intersection, likely leading to a southerly interchange at another location, allowing this one intersection to be fully closed.

Or, an interchange could be built at the overpass location in the future, however that would be a complex design, or would relocate US-29 slightly to the west.

Either way, with my concept, access would be provided one way or another, either via RIRO with the existing, or frontage roads with a full US-29 freeway build out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 21, 2019, 10:22:58 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 21, 2019, 09:35:23 PM
With the current $4 million proposal, the western side would be closed off. The east side would stay open with a full-access T-intersection w/ US-29. The west side would be relocated to the plan I posted above. Two offset intersections to reduce conflict points.
With my overpass concept, for the interim, the entire intersection would remain in place, but with RIRO only, closing the median break. In the future, if US-29 is ever upgraded to a full freeway, the intersection would fully close. From my proposed overpass, the existing frontage road would provide access to a US-29 interchange for northerly access, and a future southerly frontage road if ever built would provide access to properties south of this intersection, likely leading to a southerly interchange at another location, allowing this one intersection to be fully closed.

Proper RIRO would mean building 2 acceleration lanes and 2 deceleration lanes, and about 15 mph curves between the side road and the main road, and these lanes would need to be at least 600 feet long and preferably 1,000 feet long for smooth transition.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2019, 10:49:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2019, 10:22:58 PM
Proper RIRO would mean building 2 acceleration lanes and 2 deceleration lanes, and about 15 mph curves between the side road and the main road, and these lanes would need to be at least 600 feet long and preferably 1,000 feet long for smooth transition.
A full freeway upgrade would fully close the RIRO and intersection. Frontage roads (existing to the north, one would be built to the south) would lead to full interchanges providing access to US 29. If no freeway is built, and simply the overpass, a RIRO would work.

This design (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5443511,-79.441319,225m/data=!3m1!1e3), used on the US-29 Danville Bypass (which is a freeway) could be used (the one on the south side, with basic turns, but acceleration lanes. Or, it could be straight up RIRO with no acceleration. That is also a common design, but the basic turn with acceleration (seen on the link above, south side) would be preferred. I'll draw a conceptual design tomorrow, along with how a freeway would work, etc.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 21, 2019, 11:45:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 21, 2019, 10:49:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2019, 10:22:58 PM
Proper RIRO would mean building 2 acceleration lanes and 2 deceleration lanes, and about 15 mph curves between the side road and the main road, and these lanes would need to be at least 600 feet long and preferably 1,000 feet long for smooth transition.
A full freeway upgrade would fully close the RIRO and intersection. Frontage roads (existing to the north, one would be built to the south) would lead to full interchanges providing access to US 29. If no freeway is built, and simply the overpass, a RIRO would work.
This design (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5443511,-79.441319,225m/data=!3m1!1e3), used on the US-29 Danville Bypass (which is a freeway) could be used (the one on the south side, with basic turns, but acceleration lanes. Or, it could be straight up RIRO with no acceleration. That is also a common design, but the basic turn with acceleration (seen on the link above, south side) would be preferred. I'll draw a conceptual design tomorrow, along with how a freeway would work, etc.

If they are going to go to the effort of providing an overpass for the crossroad, then IMO they should consider that a freeway upgrade and at minimum construct the RIRO movements that I listed.  So that would be about 4,000 feet of 12-foot lane construction, plus channelization where the lane curves into the crossroad.

I have looked at the GMSV of the site, and it appears that when the Altavista-Hurt Bypass was built, that the southern connection to the pre-existing highway ran for about 3,500 feet south of the current Shula Drive intersection, reconstruction mostly along the pre-existing highway, with the limited access feature ending at that point (about 3,500 feet south of the current Shula Drive intersection). 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on February 22, 2019, 08:54:00 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 21, 2019, 07:42:41 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 21, 2019, 07:08:15 PM
A proposed project to relocate the Shula Drive intersection on US-29 in northern Pittsylvania County just got a big bump.

(Behind paywall)
This is the plan for the project. It would be better in my opinion to also include a median acceleration lane for both of the offset intersections, to reduce crashes even more, similar to this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4350579,-76.3385218,450m/data=!3m1!1e3) on US 17 at South Mills, NC.

Obviously, a full buildout would involve an overpass crossing US 29, though on a restricted budget, this is a good solution -for now-.

An overpass would likely involve a half mile of road relocated along with raising Shula Dr onto a two-lane, 300 feet long bridge over US 29 & the tracks. Likely a $10+ million project. It would also convert another 1 mile of US 29 into limited-access freeway.
(https://i.ibb.co/nmPBTbG/Shula-Dr-Overpass-Build.png)

VDOT sure likes its band-aids.

Of course, the tax-avoiding General Assembly doesn't help. I wonder if the people who see this "fix" are concerned that if the accident rate goes down then the intersection will be declared "safe" and no further improvements will be needed? The same thing happened here in Blacksburg, where N. Main Street connects to the U.S. 460 bypass. It is a bad intersection, with limited visibility to the east due to a grade in the bypass and with eastbound traffic coming down off a long, straight drop off Brush Mountain and into a curve. For years, residents and the local governments called for improvements due to the high number of accidents at the intersection. One solution was to build an overpass and interchange just east of the current intersection -- but that was too costly (and there was some VDOT/CTB maneuvering going on), so the solution everyone was stuck with was two R-cuts on either side of the intersection. It is cheap but not a total fix, there was just an accident at that intersection this week.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 22, 2019, 03:51:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 21, 2019, 07:42:41 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/fxNqySm/Shula-Dr-Intersection-Altavista-US-29.png)
This is the plan for the project. It would be better in my opinion to also include a median acceleration lane for both of the offset intersections, to reduce crashes even more, similar to this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4350579,-76.3385218,450m/data=!3m1!1e3) on US 17 at South Mills, NC.

Obviously, a full buildout would involve an overpass crossing US 29, though on a restricted budget, this is a good solution -for now-.

You wouldn't even need anything that dramatic. Something like this example on WA-3 (http://bit.ly/2NnQPrt) near Montesano would be sufficiently cheap, but still helpful in reducing the need to accelerate fully within the through lanes.

My time driving in Virginia has been relatively limited, but I found it rather annoying how often one has to deal with drivers pulling out from a stop into these divided highways (which are relatively rare in WA overall, ergo I have very little experience driving them), since there is rarely any merge lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 04:48:49 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on February 22, 2019, 08:54:00 AM
VDOT sure likes its band-aids.
Gotta love VDOT. You need $15 million for an overpass? Nah, only $4 million for an offset intersection. It'll be the same thing, just cheaper.

Here in Hampton Roads, an intersection in Virginia Beach at Indian River / Kempsville Rd has major congestion issues.

For an improvement, an improvement project was proposed. One would create an a grade-separated interchange with Indian River Rd having the overpass, which on the east side, continues onto a limited-access (non freeway, but no driveways) roadway. Estimated at $60 million and would've been a big improvement.

Instead they went with the at-grade cheap option. An extremely confusing hybrid of two non-traditional intersections. I thought the CFI (continuous flow intersection) built at Military Hwy / Northampton Blvd in Norfolk was bad, but this goes further. Funny, it was estimated at $10 million, it's costing about $25 million in reality. It's currently under construction.

The intersection will only cause confusion, and will not truly improve the intersection. An interchange with a SPUI (single point urban interchange) at Kempsville Rd and Indian River Rd free-flowing would relieve congestion way more, but it costs too much, so slap a band-aid on it.

(https://i.ibb.co/DfkycBH/Indian-River-Kempsville-Interchange.png)

Quote from: VTGoose on February 22, 2019, 08:54:00 AM
Of course, the tax-avoiding General Assembly doesn't help. I wonder if the people who see this "fix" are concerned that if the accident rate goes down then the intersection will be declared "safe" and no further improvements will be needed? The same thing happened here in Blacksburg, where N. Main Street connects to the U.S. 460 bypass. It is a bad intersection, with limited visibility to the east due to a grade in the bypass and with eastbound traffic coming down off a long, straight drop off Brush Mountain and into a curve. For years, residents and the local governments called for improvements due to the high number of accidents at the intersection. One solution was to build an overpass and interchange just east of the current intersection -- but that was too costly (and there was some VDOT/CTB maneuvering going on), so the solution everyone was stuck with was two R-cuts on either side of the intersection. It is cheap but not a total fix, there was just an accident at that intersection this week.
I've read about that intersection. That's a joke of an improvement. It cuts people off, and while it makes it safer, and it makes it confusing and harder to navigate. If an interchange was built, it would have been way safer than this, and provided full movements.

But anything to save $10 million. VDOT doesn't even care, people complained, so they had to shoot a couple million to shut people up. They won't dedicate the true improvement. It's not I-81, or east of Charlottesville, so screw it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 22, 2019, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 04:48:49 PM
Gotta love VDOT. You need $15 million for an overpass? Nah, only $4 million for an offset intersection. It'll be the same thing, just cheaper.
Here in Hampton Roads, an intersection in Virginia Beach at Indian River / Kempsville Rd has major congestion issues.

At least no "road diets" yet like are all the rage in some states like Oregon and Kalifornia and New Yawk.  Of course some of them could be catagorized as "road anorexia/bulimia".   :-|    :-O===== ralph!

It's not like money isn't being spent, regarding the Altavista intersection discussion, I looked up the project to replace the Business US-29 bridge there over the Roanoke River, it is now under construction, $28 million to replace a 1930s era 1,700 foot 2-lane bridge and rebuild the approaches.  Highway construction has become obscenely expensive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 05:09:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2019, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 04:48:49 PM
Gotta love VDOT. You need $15 million for an overpass? Nah, only $4 million for an offset intersection. It'll be the same thing, just cheaper.
Here in Hampton Roads, an intersection in Virginia Beach at Indian River / Kempsville Rd has major congestion issues.

At least no "road diets" yet like are all the rage in some states like Oregon and Kalifornia.  Of course some of them could be catagorized as "road anorexia/bulimia".   :-|
Oh we've had our fair share too. Here's one (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8646194,-76.2887354,3a,53.7y,198.11h,85.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZ4NgewX0ynlcDri2lWD8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) near Downtown Norfolk done a few years back.

Norfolk wants to reduce Hampton Blvd (a major six-lane corridor between the Navy Base / Port of Virginia and Downtown Norfolk / US 58 / I-464 / I-264) to 4 lanes for a good portion to reduce accidents. It's 4 lanes south of ODU (Old Dominion University), but 6 lanes from there northward. They want to extend the 4 lanes through ODU and north of there, eliminating the 3rd lane in each direction. No care for traffic flow, just safety and easier bike access (they already have sidewalks?)

Ooh, here's a better idea. Let's make it 1 lane in each direction. That will please them!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 22, 2019, 05:11:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 05:09:43 PM
Norfolk wants to reduce Hampton Blvd (a major six-lane corridor between the Navy Base / Port of Virginia and Downtown Norfolk / US 58 / I-464 / I-264) to 4 lanes for a good portion to reduce accidents. It's 4 lanes south of ODU (Old Dominion University), but 6 lanes from there northward. They want to extend the 4 lanes through ODU and north of there, eliminating the 3rd lane in each direction. No care for traffic flow, just safety and easier bike access (they already have sidewalks?)

"Wanting to" is not in the same league as "doing it".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 06:00:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2019, 11:45:34 PM
If they are going to go to the effort of providing an overpass for the crossroad, then IMO they should consider that a freeway upgrade and at minimum construct the RIRO movements that I listed.  So that would be about 4,000 feet of 12-foot lane construction, plus channelization where the lane curves into the crossroad.
For the interim, the example I used on the Danville Bypass would suffice. Since it only be interim, not permanent, a full build of ramps wouldn't be necessary as they'd be removed later. If this was the final build, then by all means, but the final buildout here is a freeway. If a full freeway build is done, here's a conceptual alignment, which would not require access at the existing intersection.

The sections where new northbound lanes would be constructed, and the existing southbound lanes would become a frontage road, a consistent 60 foot median would be provided with the new lanes. The sections with a frontage road built parallel with the existing roadway staying in place, it has about a 40 foot median.

That's about 3 miles of freeway upgrade. With the terrain involved, leveling, etc. this would likely be at least $100 - 120 million for 3 miles ($33 to 40 million per mile).
(https://i.ibb.co/Y7ZKh7J/US29-Freeway1.png)

(https://i.ibb.co/DV80JMC/US29-Freeway2.png)

(https://i.ibb.co/g3vSQP4/US29-Freeway3.png)

(https://i.ibb.co/2qMrFSn/US29-Freeway4.png)

(https://i.ibb.co/F4ryyKc/US29-Freeway5.png)

(https://i.ibb.co/JcdPh6B/US29-Freeway6.png)

(https://i.ibb.co/T1pBJK0/US29-Freeway7.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 22, 2019, 06:09:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 06:00:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2019, 11:45:34 PM
If they are going to go to the effort of providing an overpass for the crossroad, then IMO they should consider that a freeway upgrade and at minimum construct the RIRO movements that I listed.  So that would be about 4,000 feet of 12-foot lane construction, plus channelization where the lane curves into the crossroad.
For the interim, the example I used on the Danville Bypass would suffice. Since it only be interim, not permanent, a full build of ramps wouldn't be necessary as they'd be removed later. If this was the final build, then by all means, but the final buildout here is a freeway. If a full freeway build is done, here's a conceptual alignment, which would not require access at the existing intersection.

All those houses near the Shula Road intersection would lose their easy and close access to US-29.  Most residents would likely object.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 06:15:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2019, 06:09:41 PM
All those houses near the Shula Road intersection would lose their easy and close access to US-29.  Most residents would likely object.
A couple of things - the interchange with US 29 / Highwayview Road is one mile north of this location. Secondly, a high speed frontage road would be constructed parallel to the freeway, or existing US 29 would be the frontage road, along the entire distance, providing access.

Second, I've said it before, you worked on I-95 in Central Virginia south of Richmond. That segment is 18 miles long, and has 4 interchanges. Besides properties at the interchange locations, every single home along the route and cross-roads intersect the frontage road, with no access to the US 301 freeway mainline (I-95). They have to travel a distance to reach an interchange to get onto the US 301 freeway mainline (I-95). Before, they had easy and close access. Now, they don't. No different here. It's this design concept that's been used for decades in highway engineering - upgrading an arterial roadway into an interstate highway / freeway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 22, 2019, 06:32:16 PM
I guess I'm weird. I quite like it when agencies have limited budgets and are forced to think outside the box. Sometimes I feel like grade separation is too obvious, when there are other solutions that could potentially be just as fulfilling, without costing as much.

In my area of Washington State (I'm more familiar with my home state than I am with Virginia for the time being), an eight block stretch of road was recently switched to FYAs from doghouse signals, and an adaptive signal system installed (another step beyond typical detection systems). Although all the intersections remain of the typical design, the capacity of the roadway was improved somewhere around 10-20%, which is a huge improvement that was achieved without having to add any lanes. The signals now operate with random phasing (sometimes leading, sometimes lagging, usually combo of both) as it's literally adapting to conditions on the fly. It's a very impressive setup, especially as it was relatively cheap.

If VDOT had, say, $100M to spend on intersection improvements, I'd rather they spent $12.5M on eight intersections, instead of $25M on four intersections. Or, worse, $50M on two intersections because of a costly overpass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 06:57:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 22, 2019, 06:32:16 PM
I guess I'm weird. I quite like it when agencies have limited budgets and are forced to think outside the box. Sometimes I feel like grade separation is too obvious, when there are other solutions that could potentially be just as fulfilling, without costing as much.

In my area of Washington State (I'm more familiar with my home state than I am with Virginia for the time being), an eight block stretch of road was recently switched to FYAs from doghouse signals, and an adaptive signal system installed (another step beyond typical detection systems). Although all the intersections remain of the typical design, the capacity of the roadway was improved somewhere around 10-20%, which is a huge improvement that was achieved without having to add any lanes. The signals now operate with random phasing (sometimes leading, sometimes lagging, usually combo of both) as it's literally adapting to conditions on the fly. It's a very impressive setup, especially as it was relatively cheap.

If VDOT had, say, $100M to spend on intersection improvements, I'd rather they spent $12.5M on eight intersections, instead of $25M on four intersections. Or, worse, $50M on two intersections because of a costly overpass.
I agree to some extent. The only issues with "innovative" intersections are they are only band-aids in these examples. On other highways, they can work quite fine.

US-29 is a major north-south long-distance route, and is slated to become a freeway one day between Danville and Lynchburg. Constructing freeway designs now will help and save money in the future.

US 460 / US 460 Business intersection is a major turning movement. The innovative intersection IIRC cuts off a roadway, and provides harder access. Safety issues still exist here. An interchange with a bridge and ramps would eliminate these safety issues, make it way easier to access the highway from a major junction point. Now, per se, one of the minor intersections north of this location could handle an innovative intersection without issue. But at a major junction, an "innovative" intersection does not provide adequate capacity, does not address all safety issues, and truly is only a band-aid solution.

By all means, build these intersections. But be prepared to have a long-term solution that can easily be built, and don't treat these intersections are permanent.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 22, 2019, 10:31:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 06:15:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2019, 06:09:41 PM
All those houses near the Shula Road intersection would lose their easy and close access to US-29.  Most residents would likely object.
A couple of things - the interchange with US 29 / Highwayview Road is one mile north of this location. Secondly, a high speed frontage road would be constructed parallel to the freeway, or existing US 29 would be the frontage road, along the entire distance, providing access.
Second, I've said it before, you worked on I-95 in Central Virginia south of Richmond. That segment is 18 miles long, and has 4 interchanges. Besides properties at the interchange locations, every single home along the route and cross-roads intersect the frontage road, with no access to the US 301 freeway mainline (I-95). They have to travel a distance to reach an interchange to get onto the US 301 freeway mainline (I-95). Before, they had easy and close access. Now, they don't. No different here. It's this design concept that's been used for decades in highway engineering - upgrading an arterial roadway into an interstate highway / freeway.

It's not I-95 and US-301 remains open on the west side of the highway and it is not the 1970s.  You want to extend the US-29 Altavista-Hurt Bypass for 2 miles and sever the close and direct access of about 40 homes.  Public involvement on such a project study will undoubtedly have a variety of opinions and goals that are different from yours.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 06:57:15 PM
US-29 is a major north-south long-distance route, and is slated to become a freeway one day between Danville and Lynchburg. Constructing freeway designs now will help and save money in the future.

Like when?  It is not yet in any long-range plan, and building bits and pieces may have no significant aggregate benefit.
 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 23, 2019, 02:16:59 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 06:57:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 22, 2019, 06:32:16 PM
I guess I'm weird. I quite like it when agencies have limited budgets and are forced to think outside the box. Sometimes I feel like grade separation is too obvious, when there are other solutions that could potentially be just as fulfilling, without costing as much.

In my area of Washington State (I'm more familiar with my home state than I am with Virginia for the time being), an eight block stretch of road was recently switched to FYAs from doghouse signals, and an adaptive signal system installed (another step beyond typical detection systems). Although all the intersections remain of the typical design, the capacity of the roadway was improved somewhere around 10-20%, which is a huge improvement that was achieved without having to add any lanes. The signals now operate with random phasing (sometimes leading, sometimes lagging, usually combo of both) as it's literally adapting to conditions on the fly. It's a very impressive setup, especially as it was relatively cheap.

If VDOT had, say, $100M to spend on intersection improvements, I'd rather they spent $12.5M on eight intersections, instead of $25M on four intersections. Or, worse, $50M on two intersections because of a costly overpass.
I agree to some extent. The only issues with "innovative" intersections are they are only band-aids in these examples. On other highways, they can work quite fine.

US-29 is a major north-south long-distance route, and is slated to become a freeway one day between Danville and Lynchburg. Constructing freeway designs now will help and save money in the future.

US 460 / US 460 Business intersection is a major turning movement. The innovative intersection IIRC cuts off a roadway, and provides harder access. Safety issues still exist here. An interchange with a bridge and ramps would eliminate these safety issues, make it way easier to access the highway from a major junction point. Now, per se, one of the minor intersections north of this location could handle an innovative intersection without issue. But at a major junction, an "innovative" intersection does not provide adequate capacity, does not address all safety issues, and truly is only a band-aid solution.

By all means, build these intersections. But be prepared to have a long-term solution that can easily be built, and don't treat these intersections are permanent.

If the ultimate plan is for the road to be a freeway, then I would agree that they should probably work towards that goal instead of something else.

But if there are no long-term goals for a specific road, I see no reason not to be creative in the interim, especially at a "dangerous" intersection that could use some more creative layouts that limit turns or whatnot.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 23, 2019, 07:40:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2019, 10:31:53 PM
It's not I-95 and US-301 remains open on the west side of the highway and it is not the 1970s.  You want to extend the US-29 Altavista-Hurt Bypass for 2 miles and sever the close and direct access of about 40 homes.  Public involvement on such a project study will undoubtedly have a variety of opinions and goals that are different from yours.
It was one concept and of course there's other options. But it's important to note, my concept has a two-lane frontage road on the entire west side, and part uses the existing US 29. The new location frontage road might not be the old road, but it can still be designed with two 12 foot lanes, and 4 foot paved shoulders, and act very efficiently, just like US-301 does. That's essentially how I-95 is today - Mainline freeway in the middle, and a two-lane frontage road on the entire west side.

Every part of I-95 that has an overpass with a connection to US-301, restricted access to the mainline, that has to travel to reach one of the 4 interchanges. Just like US 301, traffic from the residential area will have a parallel frontage road serving the corridor to reach the mainline interchange.

Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2019, 10:31:53 PM
Like when?  It is not yet in any long-range plan, and building bits and pieces may have no significant aggregate benefit.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 23, 2019, 02:16:59 AM
If the ultimate plan is for the road to be a freeway, then I would agree that they should probably work towards that goal instead of something else.

But if there are no long-term goals for a specific road, I see no reason not to be creative in the interim, especially at a "dangerous" intersection that could use some more creative layouts that limit turns or whatnot.
http://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Culpeper/Route_29/final/Chapt_5.pdf

The US 29 Corridor Study completed back in 2009 identified "The vision for Route 29 from North Carolina to Amherst County is to develop the road as a limited access highway with grade separated interchanges."

The concept lays out -
- Constructing new freeway between Danville and Chatham bypasses
- Constructing new freeway between Chatham and Gretna bypasses
- Upgrading existing US 29 to freeway between Gretna and Altavista bypasses
- Constructing new freeway between Altavista and Lynchburg / Madison Heights bypasses

The VDOT web page identified -
"The goal is to create a Route 29 corridor blueprint that includes a short-term action plan, intermediate recommendations and a vision plan that identifies long-range goals, policies and recommendations."

"The results of the study will be used to help establish local, regional and statewide goals for a long-range transportation blueprint that will form the basis for future projects along the Route 29 corridor."

https://web.archive.org/web/20180601023627/http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/lynchburg/route_29_corridor_study.asp

It may not be on any official plans at the moment, however the long-range goal is to eventually develop that roadway as a limited-access freeway. It doesn't have to be one project to do that, but building phases & small projects over time will eventually create one continuous limited-access freeway / interstate (I-785) between Greensboro (and really from I-85, I-40, and I-73), through Danville to Lynchburg.

I just believe an at-grade intersection improvement seems to go against the vision, or if they are going to build an at-grade intersection improvement, they at least consider how a long-term improvement could be implemented later on (I.E. overpass, interchange, etc.).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 23, 2019, 08:02:50 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 23, 2019, 07:40:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2019, 10:31:53 PM
It's not I-95 and US-301 remains open on the west side of the highway and it is not the 1970s.  You want to extend the US-29 Altavista-Hurt Bypass for 2 miles and sever the close and direct access of about 40 homes.  Public involvement on such a project study will undoubtedly have a variety of opinions and goals that are different from yours.
It was one concept and of course there's other options. But it's important to note, my concept has a two-lane frontage road on the entire west side, and part uses the existing US 29.

Your "concepts" never seem to take into account things like public involvement and the desires of the people who live there. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 23, 2019, 08:29:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2019, 08:02:50 AM
Your "concepts" never seem to take into account things like public involvement and the desires of the people who live there.
Well, the "concept" for a US 29 freeway between Lynchburg and North Carolina did not include an interchange at this location. It has one about 3-4 miles south of here, presumably with a frontage road serving it.

You don't need an interchange at every public roadway. Frontage roads exist. Overpasses exist. You're trying to make the I-95 upgrade seem different than this idea, when in reality it's the same exact concept - a continuous frontage road to serve every home and business along it, and to direct it to an interchange location to access the mainline. You act like these home owners have to drive out of the way to access the roadway. Following a 55 MPH frontage road in the direction of travel to reach a public interchange to enter a 65 or 70 MPH freeway in that same direction isn't an "inconvenience". Hell, a lot of frontage roads require you drive the opposite direction of desired travel, to then reach the interchange to drive the other way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 23, 2019, 12:20:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 23, 2019, 08:29:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2019, 08:02:50 AM
Your "concepts" never seem to take into account things like public involvement and the desires of the people who live there.
Well, the "concept" for a US 29 freeway between Lynchburg and North Carolina did not include an interchange at this location. It has one about 3-4 miles south of here, presumably with a frontage road serving it.
You don't need an interchange at every public roadway. Frontage roads exist. Overpasses exist. You're trying to make the I-95 upgrade seem different than this idea, when in reality it's the same exact concept - a continuous frontage road to serve every home and business along it, and to direct it to an interchange location to access the mainline. You act like these home owners have to drive out of the way to access the roadway. Following a 55 MPH frontage road in the direction of travel to reach a public interchange to enter a 65 or 70 MPH freeway in that same direction isn't an "inconvenience". Hell, a lot of frontage roads require you drive the opposite direction of desired travel, to then reach the interchange to drive the other way.

I have said this repeatedly, and it doesn't seem to be sinking in.   US-301 between Jarratt and VA-35 is not a "frontage road", it is the original 2-lane US-301 with a few short relocations for interchanges and overpasses, and it does retain the 4-lane divided for 1.5 miles near Carson where I-95 was relocated for 1.7 miles.

So the westside access along I-95, is a primary highway US-301 like it always has been, and it doesn't carry enough traffic to prevent full highway speeds thruout.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 23, 2019, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2019, 12:20:30 PM
I have said this repeatedly, and it doesn't seem to be sinking in.   US-301 between Jarratt and VA-35 is not a "frontage road", it is the original 2-lane US-301 with a few short relocations for interchanges and overpasses, and it does retain the 4-lane divided for 1.5 miles near Carson where I-95 was relocated for 1.7 miles.
You need to look at the concept I provided again. About 1 mile of roadway is relocated slightly to the west to allow a mainline US-29 freeway to use the existing alignment. The other mile south of there retains the existing US-29, and converts the northbound lanes + new alignment into the mainline freeway.

I want you to tell me how these two options will result in traffic flowing differently, more opposition, than the other.

1) keeping US-29 open on original alignment, and building US 29 freeway over the existing northbound lanes + new alignment (exactly as I-95 did)
2) shifting two-lane US 29 to the west by 40 feet to serve as a continous frontage road (like US 301 serves).

The build and design is obviously different, but they end up resulting in the same configuration - 2-lane continuous road serving properties and 4-lane freeway parallel to it.

You act like constructing continuous frontage road is a practice that should never be used, even though it's used all the time as well. The best part about it - it does the same exact thing as US 301 does, it's just shifted from the original alignment slightly.

Obviously, in this instance, it's preferred to have the existing 2-lane US-29 open and not use it for the freeway, however tracks on the east side require that a frontage road be constructed. The parts where there's not tracks directly next to the highway, the existing alignment is used. But it results in the same configuration, as I've stated many times. That frontage road would have two 12 foot lanes, and 4 foot paved shoulders, because it would be designed to carry a decent amount of traffic (as opposed to a 16 foot strip of pavement that 1 or 2 cars use each day).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 23, 2019, 04:04:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2019, 12:20:30 PM
US-301 between Jarratt and VA-35 is not a "frontage road", it is the original 2-lane US-301
Here's another concept of a freeway upgrade, if the existing roadway must be retained. For the entire distance, the new northbound lanes are built 60 feet to the east of the existing roadway, and the existing northbound lanes are upgraded into southbound lanes. The existing southbound roadway is retained, and re-striped to be a 2-way US-29. At certain locations, the tracks are relocated to provide ample space for the new northbound lanes.

Typical Section for Mainline - 12 foot travel lanes, 10 foot right paved shoulders, 4 foot left paved shoulders, 60 foot grassy median, 70 MPH speed limit.

https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/US_Route_29_Freeway/sF6YWHPSLQ

Map Key -
Red - U.S. Route 29 Mainline
Pink - Other Roadways
Blue - Bridge
Green - Ramp
Brown - Relocated Railroad Track
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 23, 2019, 04:44:04 PM
Beltway and sprjus4, even though this conversation seems civilized right now, make sure to be careful and not turn this into another I-87 thread or I will lock it temporarily. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 23, 2019, 05:35:05 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 23, 2019, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2019, 12:20:30 PM
I have said this repeatedly, and it doesn't seem to be sinking in.   US-301 between Jarratt and VA-35 is not a "frontage road", it is the original 2-lane US-301 with a few short relocations for interchanges and overpasses, and it does retain the 4-lane divided for 1.5 miles near Carson where I-95 was relocated for 1.7 miles.
You need to look at the concept I provided again. About 1 mile of roadway is relocated slightly to the west to allow a mainline US-29 freeway to use the existing alignment. The other mile south of there retains the existing US-29, and converts the northbound lanes + new alignment into the mainline freeway.

I don't see the point of upgrading a mile or two of highway in the fashion that you suggest.  Once again, you aren't taking into account concepts like public involvement and resident input that would be a necessary part of any such official project study.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 23, 2019, 06:35:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2019, 05:35:05 PM
I don't see the point of upgrading a mile or two of highway in the fashion that you suggest.
Look at the new concept on the interactive map I linked above. Same exact concept as I-95.

Any freeway upgrade would be apart of upgrading between North Carolina and Lynchburg, the segment between Altavista and Gretna would be one phase likely. The map depicts about half of that, to specifically show how traffic would access US-29 mainline when and if Shula Dr is given an overpass with no connections.

Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2019, 05:35:05 PM
Once again, you aren't taking into account concepts like public involvement and resident input that would be a necessary part of any such official project study.
It's a concept I drafted based on a logical alignment, not a preferred alternative in an EIS. Factors like public involvement, environmental, etc. aren't tackled in a basic draw up like this. That's what a EIS and public involvement refine, and come up with a preferred alternative that works around and with those things. I just don't see the logical point to have a RIRO interchange on a rural 70 MPH major north-south freeway corridor, built in the 21st century, especially when a full one exists a mile north, and 55 MPH frontage roads would lead to the south.

Let me ask, why wasn't there an interchange constructed at Lansing Rd along I-95 in the 1980 upgrade? https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0511401,-77.3791308,1784m/data=!3m1!1e3 There's a lot of homes cluttered around here, and an interchange would be beneficial. How do they all access I-95?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 23, 2019, 07:12:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 23, 2019, 06:35:57 PM
Let me ask, why wasn't there an interchange constructed at Lansing Rd along I-95 in the 1980 upgrade? https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0511401,-77.3791308,1784m/data=!3m1!1e3 There's a lot of homes cluttered around here, and an interchange would be beneficial. How do they all access I-95?

US-301 to the north and south, some using VA-604 and VA-623.  Knowing the area 40 years ago nearly all that was rural then and the vast majority of the homes especially to the east of I-95 have been built since then. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 23, 2019, 07:32:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2019, 07:12:36 PM
US-301 to the north and south, some using VA-604 and VA-623.
And 2-lane retained US-29 would serve the corridor in my proposal. No different.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 24, 2019, 01:57:10 PM
Locking temporarily for a cooldown.  I also cleaned up the above personal insults. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 24, 2019, 03:25:56 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLumK87nGxE
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 25, 2019, 04:52:01 PM
Unlocking after 27 hour cooldown because I was still at work at 24 hours.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 25, 2019, 07:18:49 PM
Quote
Let me ask, why wasn't there an interchange constructed at Lansing Rd along I-95 in the 1980 upgrade?
It's only a mile or so to the Carson interchange (exit 38), which has more homes and businesses in the vicinity.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 25, 2019, 09:34:17 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 25, 2019, 07:18:49 PM
It's only a mile or so to the Carson interchange (exit 38), which has more homes and businesses in the vicinity.
I know. My point was that closing Shula Dr and providing access at the existing interchange and a southerly interchange outlined in my conceptual alignment, and turning the existing US-29 into a local road would sufficiently work, in the same manner as this interchange does. You have to drive a mile to reach the highway, or you can take the old US-301.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on February 26, 2019, 09:10:25 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 04:48:49 PM
But anything to save $10 million. VDOT doesn't even care, people complained, so they had to shoot a couple million to shut people up. They won't dedicate the true improvement. It's not I-81, or east of Charlottesville, so screw it.

You can take I-81 off that list -- our fine General Assembly, eyeing the upcoming elections this fall, caved to special interests (trucking lobbyists and business lobbyists) and their own special interest (they want to go back to the good life in the GA next January) and agreed to do yet another study of the problems with I-81. Everyone agreed that it is a problem highway and everyone agreed that improvements needed to be paid for but no one wanted to be on the wrong side of a vote to approve tolls or raise taxes. Conveniently the report is to be completed by December (after Election Day) to be ready for the 2020 session of the GA. The fate of the interstate will be a factor in some elections (mainly in the districts that I-81 runs through) but it will be overshadowed by other issues across the state and country. Even at that, funding may be iffy -- there was support from both Democrats and Republicans for tolls and/or taxes and funding measures still failed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 26, 2019, 04:25:39 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on February 26, 2019, 09:10:25 AM
You can take I-81 off that list -- our fine General Assembly, eyeing the upcoming elections this fall, caved to special interests (trucking lobbyists and business lobbyists) and their own special interest (they want to go back to the good life in the GA next January) and agreed to do yet another study of the problems with I-81. Everyone agreed that it is a problem highway and everyone agreed that improvements needed to be paid for but no one wanted to be on the wrong side of a vote to approve tolls or raise taxes. Conveniently the report is to be completed by December (after Election Day) to be ready for the 2020 session of the GA. The fate of the interstate will be a factor in some elections (mainly in the districts that I-81 runs through) but it will be overshadowed by other issues across the state and country. Even at that, funding may be iffy -- there was support from both Democrats and Republicans for tolls and/or taxes and funding measures still failed.
Let's face it. I-81 will be 4 lanes in 2030.

They said in 2000 that by 2020 it'd be 6 or more lanes all throughout. We see how that went.

I support tolling to some extent, the way it was proposed was an interesting concept that only tolls long-distance traffic, like the West Virginia Turnpike. I would support having toll booths as an option as well as "Express Lanes" for E-ZPass (think VA-895 in Richmond), because with long-distance out of state travelers, not everybody owns an E-ZPass or wants to go through the complicated, expensive, and overall confusing Toll By Plate option. I, for one, avoid any all electronic toll roads that aren't E-ZPass, because I'm not going to deal with the whole system. I find it disappointing to see how many toll roads are turning to the all electronic option, no booth option. It creates so many issues on the customer side of things if they don't own the pass (which for the record, a lot of people coming from the west or south via I-81 are not going to own E-ZPass).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 26, 2019, 05:29:50 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 26, 2019, 04:25:39 PM
Let's face it. I-81 will be 4 lanes in 2030.
They said in 2000 that by 2020 it'd be 6 or more lanes all throughout. We see how that went.

Fluor Virginia Inc. had a proposal in 2003 to add two lanes in the median of VA I-81 for $1.8 billion by 2011 for the entire length of the route, under the TEA-21 ISRRPP pilot project, and to pay for it entirely with tolls on cars and trucks.  Too bad that it wasn't supported enough to go forward.  Now they are looking at least $7 billion for a project like that due to the astronomical increases in highway construction costs.   S T U P I D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 26, 2019, 05:34:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2019, 05:29:50 PM
Fluor Virginia Inc. had a proposal in 2003 to add two lanes in the median of VA I-81 for $1.8 billion by 2011 for the entire length of the route, under the TEA-21 ISRRPP pilot project, and to pay for it entirely with tolls on cars and trucks.  Too bad that it wasn't supported enough to go forward.  Now they are looking at least $7 billion for a project like that due to the astronomical increases in highway construction costs.   S T U P I D
It's ridiculous. There's no set decision everybody will support, so they keep pushing it off for later. These people don't realize that costs are going way up, and by the time I-81 becomes a full gridlock (like I-95 is), it'll be tens of billions or more needed, and won't get any funding, or some extremely expensive tolls if anything is built years from now.

Speaking of I-95... in the same boat as I-81.

At least they're pushing forward with I-64 which is currently more of priority than I-81 (both 4 lanes, I-64 carries at least 60,000 AADT between Williamsburg and I-295, I-81 mainly 40,000 AADT), but I-81 needs to be on the radar as well.

----------------
And wow, 8 lanes the entire way for only $1.8 billion? That's only about $6 million per mile for 325 miles. That sounds like a good deal, shameful it didn't go. Nowadays, it'd be about $30 million per mile, so likely $10 billion in today's cost. Oh, that's only for 6 lanes. 8 lanes would be more likely.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 26, 2019, 05:44:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 26, 2019, 05:34:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2019, 05:29:50 PM
Fluor Virginia Inc. had a proposal in 2003 to add two lanes in the median of VA I-81 for $1.8 billion by 2011 for the entire length of the route, under the TEA-21 ISRRPP pilot project, and to pay for it entirely with tolls on cars and trucks.  Too bad that it wasn't supported enough to go forward.  Now they are looking at least $7 billion for a project like that due to the astronomical increases in highway construction costs.   S T U P I D
It's ridiculous. There's no set decision everybody will support, so they keep pushing it off for later. These people don't realize that costs are going way up, and by the time I-81 becomes a full gridlock (like I-95 is), it'll be tens of billions or more needed, and won't get any funding, or some extremely expensive tolls if anything is built years from now.

The same thing happened with the Midtown Tunnel and MLK Freeway extension.  In 1999 a proposal by a private enterprise called Hampton Roads Public-Private Development, to provide 90% or more of the funds, under the provisions of Virginia's PPTA, to build essentially what was just completed in 2017, except for the full rehabs of the Downtown Tunnels, the funds to be recouped through revenues from the re-tolling of the Midtown Tunnel and the Downtown Tunnel.  It was $600 million then and it cost $1.4 billion when it was finally built.  D U M B
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 26, 2019, 06:20:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2019, 05:44:10 PM
The same thing happened with the Midtown Tunnel and MLK Freeway extension.  In 1999 a proposal by a private enterprise called Hampton Roads Public-Private Development, to provide 90% or more of the funds, under the provisions of Virginia's PPTA, to build essentially what was just completed in 2017, except for the full rehabs of the Downtown Tunnels, the funds to be recouped through revenues from the re-tolling of the Midtown Tunnel and the Downtown Tunnel.  It was $600 million then and it cost $1.4 billion when it was finally built.  D U M B
I thought the reason the Downtown Tunnel was tolled is because it did receive a full rehab? In my opinion, only the Midtown Tunnel should be tolled because that's all that got a substantial improvement (the new tunnel), whereas the Downtown Tunnel did not receive much, yet now 100,000 vehicles per day have to pay a toll to fund another tunnel they don't even use.

The MLK Freeway received public funding from what was supposed to go to the US 460 relocation, so that's not tolled, even today.

Another example - the Third Crossing projects. Those were discussed since the early 2000s, and I believe were only projected to cost about $3 billion for I-664 widening, the new location bridge-tunnel, and VA-164 Craney Island Connector. All of those projects today would cost north of $6 billion. The first piece of it, the 2.8 mile Intermodal Connector cost $170 million alone ($60 million per mile), and that includes a 100+ foot median for future mainline lanes to the future I-664 Connector. It will have a final typical section of 60 foot median when and if completed.

Now the question remains - how to pay for all this? Will HRPTO & HRTAC fund it like they've been doing with other multi-billion dollar projects around here, or will it have a little electronic sensor that deducts $3 from your E-ZPass account every time you go through? It would be nice if it was funded, however, if tolling is necessary, I say go for it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 26, 2019, 06:26:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 26, 2019, 06:20:22 PM
I thought the reason the Downtown Tunnel was tolled is because it did receive a full rehab? In my opinion, only the Midtown Tunnel should be tolled because that's all that got a substantial improvement (the new tunnel), whereas the Downtown Tunnel did not receive much, yet now 100,000 vehicles per day have to pay a toll to fund another tunnel they don't even use.

Traffic imbalance, has been discussed extensively.  And only about $60 million was needed for the rebabs.  Downtown Tunnel users do directly benefit from the 4-lane Midtown Tunnel.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 26, 2019, 06:20:22 PM
The MLK Freeway received public funding from what was supposed to go to the US 460 relocation, so that's not tolled, even today.

The MLK Freeway received funding from the project as well, as it provides traffic support to both tunnels.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 26, 2019, 06:32:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2019, 06:26:40 PM
Downtown Tunnel users do directly benefit from the 4-lane Midtown Tunnel.
I hate to say it, but the thousands of commuters who use the tunnel daily, sit in miles of traffic, and have had a burden placed on them since 2014 don't believe that. That's why HRTPO has formed a group to study ways to fund $1.4 billion to fully buy out the tolls and eliminate them permanently on both facilities. I support the efforts, and hopefully it can go forward in the future.

Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2019, 06:26:40 PM
The MLK Freeway received funding from the project as well, as it provides traffic support to both tunnels.
My point was the MLK Freeway would have been a toll road as well if it weren't for the US 460 relocation money funding the rest which were originally supposed to be covered by tolls on that facility.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 26, 2019, 06:44:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 26, 2019, 06:32:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 26, 2019, 06:26:40 PM
Downtown Tunnel users do directly benefit from the 4-lane Midtown Tunnel.
I hate to say it, but the thousands of commuters who use the tunnel daily, sit in miles of traffic, and have had a burden placed on them since 2014 don't believe that.

Then they need to be educated.  There would be a major traffic imbalance if the Midtown Tunnel was tolled and the Downtown Tunnel was untolled, and to the detriment of the Downtown Tunnel users.  The upgraded Midtown Tunnel and the MLK provide a major relief route to the Downtown Tunnel.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 26, 2019, 06:32:51 PM
That's why HRTPO has formed a group to study ways to fund $1.4 billion to fully buy out the tolls and eliminate them permanently on both facilities. I support the efforts, and hopefully it can go forward in the future.

Good luck, that is a very large sum.  Given the unique nature of the port and military installations in the area, and its impact on what needs to be built to cross the waters, IMHO the FHWA should provide at least $1 billion over and above VDOT's normal FHWA allocations for that project.  I don't know if they would ever do that retroactively, though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 26, 2019, 10:52:22 PM
^ If using the heavy military presence as your justification, that $1 billion would need to come from DoD, not FHWA.  Not that that shouldn't happen.  I also believe DoD should be contribute at least 9-digits to the HRBT expansion.

In full disclosure, I'm retired Navy and did two tours in Norfolk.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 26, 2019, 11:14:27 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 26, 2019, 10:52:22 PM
If using the heavy military presence as your justification, that $1 billion would need to come from DoD, not FHWA.  Not that that shouldn't happen.  I also believe DoD should be contribute at least 9-digits to the HRBT expansion.
In full disclosure, I'm retired Navy and did two tours in Norfolk.

Yes, the largest naval base in the world, and has been since at least WW II, plus major Army, Air Force, Marine and Coast Guard bases in the area.  Tunnels built to satisfy Navy requirements, that are far more expensive than bridges.

That is right about FHWA, the money would come from the General Fund of the Government.  BTW, 9 digits is 100 million or more, I think you meant 10 digits, and I agree about the HRBT, plus add the I-564 bridge-tunnel and I-664 bridge-tunnel expansion, should those projects be built.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 27, 2019, 10:41:38 AM
^ I doubt you'd convince Congress to put $1B in the DoD budget to "pay the Navy's share" for those projects.  But something on the order of 9 digits isn't out of the question....*IF* you could convince the DoD brass to agree to request it.

The problem then becomes that you've now set a precedent for other areas with heavy or even moderate military presence to demand DoD help fund their road improvements.  You'd then wind up with a wide swath of funding demands to DoD for projects that aren't on the bases.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on February 27, 2019, 12:54:02 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 27, 2019, 10:41:38 AM
^ I doubt you'd convince Congress to put $1B in the DoD budget to "pay the Navy's share" for those projects.  But something on the order of 9 digits isn't out of the question....*IF* you could convince the DoD brass to agree to request it.

The problem then becomes that you've now set a precedent for other areas with heavy or even moderate military presence to demand DoD help fund their road improvements.  You'd then wind up with a wide swath of funding demands to DoD for projects that aren't on the bases.

Kentucky committed a large sum of money to improvements in Hardin and Meade counties when BRAC was announced and the impacts on Fort Knox were made known. I'm not sure how much money the feds (FHWA vs. DOD) contributed to those projects.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 27, 2019, 01:03:26 PM
BRAC funds definitely contributed $ to improvements on I-395 around the Mark Center in Arlington and also to improvements for MD 355 in the vicinity of Walter Reed in Bethesda which was expanded in the recent BRAC reorganization.

IIRC at least one of those fundings came after complaints from local officials...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 27, 2019, 02:43:20 PM
The rebuilding of two I-5 interchanges in Tacoma that are primarily for access to Joint-Base Lewis-McChord and Camp Murray, as well as off-base housing, is completely funded by local gas taxes:

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I5/MountsRdThorneLn/default.htm (scroll to bottom of page -- "CWA" is Connecting Washington Account, which is sourced from gas taxes).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 27, 2019, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 27, 2019, 10:41:38 AM
I doubt you'd convince Congress to put $1B in the DoD budget to "pay the Navy's share" for those projects.  But something on the order of 9 digits isn't out of the question....*IF* you could convince the DoD brass to agree to request it.
The problem then becomes that you've now set a precedent for other areas with heavy or even moderate military presence to demand DoD help fund their road improvements.  You'd then wind up with a wide swath of funding demands to DoD for projects that aren't on the bases.

This is somewhat unique in that I don't know of any other place where the Navy made tunnels a requirement, and given the width of the Hampton Roads estuary and Chesapeake Bay, and the number of crossings needed thereof, provides especially high costs.

What would be fair ... 90% federal funding?  80%?  60%?  I would argue at least 50% and preferably higher.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 28, 2019, 05:03:47 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 27, 2019, 01:03:26 PM
BRAC funds definitely contributed $ to improvements on I-395 around the Mark Center in Arlington and also to improvements for MD 355 in the vicinity of Walter Reed in Bethesda which was expanded in the recent BRAC reorganization.

Also around the Fort Belvoir area, and to the Fairfax County Parkway, and other roads.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 28, 2019, 05:17:48 PM
Meetings scheduled in March in regards to the U.S. Route 58 Arterial Management Study in Suffolk, Franklin, and Emporia.

http://www.virginiadot.org/VDOT/Projects/asset_upload_file697_136441.pdf

When the final draft of the study is released, it will include a conceptual long-term vision and alignment of relocating or upgrading U.S. Route 58 to interstate standards between Suffolk and I-95. No funding has been identified for an improvement this large though, so it may be years off before ever constructed. How to tackle Emporia is the real question. It's likely if an interstate is ever constructed along U.S. 58, the existing bypass will be extended to wrap around to the north side, a large cloverleaf (and one flyover from US 58 West to I-95 South) interchange with I-95, and tie back in west of the developed areas, to accommodate traffic heading west of I-95 as well. This study's results of upgrading U.S. Route 58 may lead into a further study strictly focused on upgrading U.S. 58 to interstate standards, though only if it's determined a necessity in the next 20 years or so. The current study's scope is making safety improvements along the corridor, short-term upgrades, etc.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 28, 2019, 09:12:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2019, 05:17:48 PM
Meetings scheduled in March in regards to the U.S. Route 58 Arterial Management Study in Suffolk, Franklin, and Emporia.
When the final draft of the study is released, it will include a conceptual long-term vision and alignment of relocating or upgrading U.S. Route 58 to interstate standards between Suffolk and I-95. No funding has been identified for an improvement this large though, so it may be years off before ever constructed. How to tackle Emporia is the real question. It's likely if an interstate is ever constructed along U.S. 58, the existing bypass will be extended to wrap around to the north side, a large cloverleaf (and one flyover from US 58 West to I-95 South) interchange with I-95, and tie back in west of the developed areas, to accommodate traffic heading west of I-95 as well. This study's results of upgrading U.S. Route 58 may lead into a further study strictly focused on upgrading U.S. 58 to interstate standards, though only if it's determined a necessity in the next 20 years or so. The current study's scope is making safety improvements along the corridor, short-term upgrades, etc.

Looks like at least 2,000 miles of highway is in the following program --
VDOT Arterial Preservation Program
http://www.virginiadot.org/programs/vdot_arterial_preservation_program.asp

The Arterial Preservation Network includes segments of selected major highways that are part of the Corridors of Statewide Significance (CoSS) system or are functionally classified as principal or other principal arterials.

US-58 is a CoSS.  I have run mapping software on the route and the segment that I was focusing on actually does not have much delay.  That is the 8 miles between the Holland and Suffolk bypasses, and the mapping software gives 9 minutes of travel time, so that means that the traffic signals don't cause much delay.  Peak traffic will be addressed by the 3.5 mile 6-lane widening and access management project starting in 2020.  The biggest recent improvement there was the Suffolk Southwest Bypass, which opened in 2003, and the big improvement for US-58 was that it relegated a 4-phase signalized intersection at the end of the east-west bypass to a minor signalized local movement.

For improving thru traffic travel time probably the most 'bang for the buck' would be upgrading the 24 miles between the Emporia and Courtland bypasses to Interstate standards, and connecting the Courtland and Franklin bypasses with a seamless freeway segment.  Largely rural construction.  The paved right shoulders on the two bypasses look like they are 8 feet wide and would need to be widened to 10 feet.  Except for the curve at the Blackwater River all the rest of the 39 miles to the east end of the Franklin Bypass should be postable at 70 mph, assuming of course that the new freeway construction meets that design speed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 01, 2019, 07:34:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2019, 09:12:06 PM
Peak traffic will be addressed by the 3.5 mile 6-lane widening and access management project starting in 2020.
Debatable. If the traffic signals are all timed to provide continuous movement, it may well work. 30,000 AADT. One concern I've noted is on peak weekends for holidays, etc. I've ran into situations frequently where I'm coming back to Hampton Roads from I-95 and I've sat in traffic for well over 15 minutes and 3 miles of distance crawling along. Cleared through the area to realize, there's no wreck, just a sh*t ton of cars on the roadway. Hopefully a 6-lane will address this problem fully.

Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2019, 09:12:06 PM
The biggest recent improvement there was the Suffolk Southwest Bypass, which opened in 2003, and the big improvement for US-58 was that it relegated a 4-phase signalized intersection at the end of the east-west bypass to a minor signalized local movement.
Can't say that the bypass did much improvement for U.S. Route 58... That intersection was already a local movement. The bypass simply built ramps over the existing roadway, the intersection is still in place as it was before 2003. The bypass was built for U.S. Route 13, which at the time, the main thru movement was through downtown Suffolk on what is now U.S. Route 13 Business.
(https://i.ibb.co/yqPWVDp/US131994and2003.png)

Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2019, 09:12:06 PM
For improving thru traffic travel time probably the most 'bang for the buck' would be upgrading the 24 miles between the Emporia and Courtland bypasses to Interstate standards, and connecting the Courtland and Franklin bypasses with a seamless freeway segment.  Largely rural construction.  The paved right shoulders on the two bypasses look like they are 8 feet wide and would need to be widened to 10 feet.
I'd have to disagree on that, though I do agree the entire corridor should eventually be upgraded if funds are available. It would likely cost $1 billion or more for the rural segment (the connect the bypass segment is $200 million alone IIRC), and would simply allow a 70 MPH speed limit over the existing 60 MPH. The prioritized segment should be between the Franklin and Suffolk bypasses, about 16 miles long. That would cost between $500 million and $1 billion and would allow a 45 - 55 MPH segment with numerous of traffic signals and local traffic to be bypassed by a 70 MPH freeway, and I believe that should be the first piece constructed. That segment also has 20,000 - 30,000 AADT, whereas it's under 15,000 AADT for the rural segments. I understand the 6 lane widening will help, however the bypass should still be a priority over there as opposed to a rural area already posted 60 MPH with light traffic.

Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2019, 09:12:06 PM
Except for the curve at the Blackwater River all the rest of the 39 miles to the east end of the Franklin Bypass should be postable at 70 mph, assuming of course that the new freeway construction meets that design speed.
That segment should be postable at 70 MPH as well... I've never had any issues taking that curve. Take this example (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8873105,-77.5406252,1873m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1) along the U.S. Route 64 freeway over the Tar River in Tarboro, NC. It's a tighter curve, about 2,510 ft radius (as opposed to U.S. Route 58 which is about 2,710 ft) and posted at 70 MPH. That example also has auxiliary lanes and exits on both sides of the bridge & curve.

The Franklin Bypass needs some improvements before it's being posted 70 MPH, notably the U.S. Route 258 interchange. Those curves aren't pleasant taking at 70 MPH.

Here's a conceptual alignment on a reconstruction which would involve fixing that curve and providing wider ramps that meet a 70 MPH design speed.
(https://i.ibb.co/8dVLbtX/US58-US258-Reconstruction.png)

A few other notes about the Franklin and Courtland bypasses. At the VA-671 / U.S. 58 interchange, both of the off-ramps would need to be lengthened significantly to meet a higher design speed. The ramps at the VA-714 / U.S. 58 interchange in the southeast quadrant need to be relocated to the southeast to provide a longer ramp, again to meet a 70 MPH design speed. On the Courtland bypass, the ramps at the VA-35 interchange on the western side need to be relocated to provide longer acceleration and deceleration distances for 70 MPH. The median on the two bypasses is also questionable for the rural environment, though could be workable.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 01, 2019, 08:00:48 AM
sprjus is right about the signal at the end of the Suffolk bypass.  It was a 3-leg intersection before the Southwest Suffolk Bypass was built, and it remains a 3-leg intersection.

Quote from: BeltwayFor improving thru traffic travel time probably the most 'bang for the buck' would be upgrading the 24 miles between the Emporia and Courtland bypasses to Interstate standards, and connecting the Courtland and Franklin bypasses with a seamless freeway segment.

I would agree with the latter given the commercial buildup on the edge of Courtland and the signal next to Food Lion, but there's very little need from a traffic perspective for upgrading between Courtland and Emporia.  Courtland-Franklin would by far be the biggest bang-for-the-buck.  I'd argue #2 would go to Franklin-Holland, though even that section is primarily safety-based and not traffic-based.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 10:21:35 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2019, 08:00:48 AM
sprjus is right about the signal at the end of the Suffolk bypass.  It was a 3-leg intersection before the Southwest Suffolk Bypass was built, and it remains a 3-leg intersection.

The heavy local movement between both directions of US-58 and Turnlington Road via Kilby Shores Drive was largely replaced by the bypass extension and the new ramps.  While that intersection physically looks similar it is now phased heavily toward favoring the US-58 thru traffic.

US-58 to Bus. US-58 to Kilby Shores Drive to Turnlington Road to US-13 was the heavy local movement that was replaced by the bypass extension.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 01, 2019, 07:34:34 AM
A few other notes about the Franklin and Courtland bypasses. At the VA-671 / U.S. 58 interchange, both of the off-ramps would need to be lengthened significantly to meet a higher design speed. The ramps at the VA-714 / U.S. 58 interchange in the southeast quadrant need to be relocated to the southeast to provide a longer ramp, again to meet a 70 MPH design speed. On the Courtland bypass, the ramps at the VA-35 interchange on the western side need to be relocated to provide longer acceleration and deceleration distances for 70 MPH. The median on the two bypasses is also questionable for the rural environment, though could be workable.

Is this an engineering analysis?  Those bypasses work fine at 60 mph.  No reason why they couldn't handle another 10 mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 01, 2019, 06:00:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 10:21:35 AM
The heavy local movement between both directions of US-58 and Turnlington Road via Kilby Shores Drive was largely replaced by the bypass extension and the new ramps.  While that intersection physically looks similar it is now phased heavily toward favoring the US-58 thru traffic.

US-58 to Bus. US-58 to Kilby Shores Drive to Turnlington Road to US-13 was the heavy local movement that was replaced by the bypass extension.
Would have to agree. The way you made it sound though is that the physical intersection was reconstructed, when it wasn't.

2002 traffic volumes show 5,400 AADT on Turlington Road between US-13 and Kilby Shores Drive.

2004 traffic volumes show 2,200 AADT on that same segment, and the bypass had 8,000 AADT. Today, the bypass has 13,000 AADT, and Turlington Road is the same.

Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 10:21:35 AM
Is this an engineering analysis?
From personal experience driving US 58 frequently and have done 70 MPH, those ramps are slightly short for that fast speed, having to quickly decelerate and short ramps onto the highway. I wouldn't recommend those short ramps be incorporated into a modern 21st century long-distance freeway / interstate in this manner.

Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 10:21:35 AM
Those bypasses work fine at 60 mph.  No reason why they couldn't handle another 10 mph.
For a 70 MPH posted speed limit, the minimum radius for a loop ramp should be at least 230 feet. The exit ramp at VA-714 in the southeast quadrant has a 180 feet radius, and would likely have to be relocated (along with the adjacent entrance ramp) to the southeast. The ramps on the northwest side has a 280 feet radius, and is fine. As for leg ramps, preferably should be at least 1,000 feet long from the point it leaves the highway to where it intersects the crossroad. The westbound off ramp at VA-671 and the ramps in the western quadrant at the VA-35 interchange are only about 800 feet long, and would likely have to be extended slightly.

Here's a concept on what would have to happen -
(https://i.ibb.co/XXK92j9/US58-Improvements-VA35-Interchange.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/4Ts3rYz/US58-Improvements-VA671-Interchange.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/8dVLbtX/US58-US258-Reconstruction.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/jwV1znC/US58-Improvements-VA714-Interchange.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 09:15:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 01, 2019, 06:00:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 10:21:35 AM
Those bypasses work fine at 60 mph.  No reason why they couldn't handle another 10 mph.
For a 70 MPH posted speed limit, the minimum radius for a loop ramp should be at least 230 feet.

Where did you get that spec from?   Loop ramps usually are not one simple curve, usually they have 3 curves, with the middle curve being the sharpest.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 01, 2019, 06:00:18 PM
The exit ramp at VA-714 in the southeast quadrant has a 180 feet radius, and would likely have to be relocated (along with the adjacent entrance ramp) to the southeast. The ramps on the northwest side has a 280 feet radius, and is fine. As for leg ramps, preferably should be at least 1,000 feet long from the point it leaves the highway to where it intersects the crossroad. The westbound off ramp at VA-671 and the ramps in the western quadrant at the VA-35 interchange are only about 800 feet long, and would likely have to be extended slightly.

Where did you get those specs from?  In the case of finger ramps and loop ramps, if the length or curvature is below the desired amount then that can be addressed by lengthening the acceleration or deceleration lane, to give ample overall length to provide a smooth transition to or from full highway speed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 01, 2019, 10:12:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 09:15:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 01, 2019, 06:00:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 10:21:35 AM
Those bypasses work fine at 60 mph.  No reason why they couldn't handle another 10 mph.
For a 70 MPH posted speed limit, the minimum radius for a loop ramp should be at least 230 feet.

Where did you get that spec from?   Loop ramps usually are not one simple curve, usually they have 3 curves, with the middle curve being the sharpest.

I'd like to know as well.  For ramps, the only thing the mainline speed would really have any bearing on is the length of the accel/decel lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on March 01, 2019, 11:00:53 PM
AASHTO has a "green book" specifically for Interstate highways. It's a smaller guide. The reference could be somewhere in there - keep in mind he said "should", this is a design rec but routinely violated in constrained spaces. I doubt it would stop a highway from Interstate conversion as long as proper ramp lengths are provided.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 01, 2019, 11:29:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 09:15:17 PM
Where did you get that spec from?   Loop ramps usually are not one simple curve, usually they have 3 curves, with the middle curve being the sharpest.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1504A_Report_2017.pdf - Page 24 (PDF) "it is recommended that the substandard loop be reconstructed to desirable interstate standards (30 mph, 230' radius)"

As a basis for a 30 MPH design speed, a minimum of radius of 230 feet would be needed. On a 70 MPH interstate highway, that would be desired as much as possible. The study did mention "desirable", so it's not required, but just a preference in a safety perspective.

On U.S. Route 70, an interchange was recently reconstructed with a loop similar to the one in the southeast quadrant of the VA-714 interchange, and now that it's being incorporated into I-42 and a 70 MPH interstate highway, the feasibility study for that road specifically includes relocating the ramp to provide a wider radius and a faster design speed.

Granted, it could be incorporated into 70 MPH, however it's just a recommendation for the higher speed. For example, the study I posted recommended the curvature be widened for safety reasons, however it's currently posted at 70 MPH, and that loop is not stopping it. However, the interchange at U.S. Route 258 would need to be fully reconstructed in the manner I suggested or similar. That interchange has safety deficiencies and from my experience, couldn't handle 70 MPH on those curves. 65 MPH maybe, but no higher.

Quote from: Alps on March 01, 2019, 11:00:53 PM
I doubt it would stop a highway from Interstate conversion as long as proper ramp lengths are provided.
It's not against interstate standards at all, it's just a recommendation for an interstate highway being posted at 70 MPH. If an interstate highway was posted 55 MPH through there, the entire bypass would be up to standard, including the U.S. 258 interchange. For a 70 MPH highway however, at least that interchange would need a full overhaul. The one in question about the loops is a preference, but not required, even at 70 MPH.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 11:45:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 01, 2019, 11:29:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 09:15:17 PM
Where did you get that spec from?   Loop ramps usually are not one simple curve, usually they have 3 curves, with the middle curve being the sharpest.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1504A_Report_2017.pdf - Page 24 (PDF) "it is recommended that the substandard loop be reconstructed to desirable interstate standards (30 mph, 230' radius)"

Sorry, after seeing what NCDOT did at Asheboro, I am not going to accept them as any national standard of Interstate highway standards.

Look at the US-50/US-301 freeway on Kent Island, MD.  Tight curves on ramps built to minimize impacts to existing adjacent development as much as possible, and very long acceleration and deceleration lanes.  This is not an Interstate route and the speed limit is 60 mph, but such a design could be used on a 70 mph Interstate highway with long enough acceleration and deceleration lanes.  Likewise the bypass at Franklin would not need any interchange overhauls, but possibly safety projects to lengthen some of the acceleration and deceleration lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 12:05:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 11:45:06 PM
Likewise the bypass at Franklin would not need any interchange overhauls, but possibly safety projects to lengthen some of the acceleration and deceleration lanes.
*except the U.S. 258 interchange. Extending acceleration lanes isn't the issue, it's the geometric design of the highway.

Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 11:45:06 PM
Sorry, after seeing what NCDOT did at Asheboro, I am not going to accept them as any national standard of Interstate highway standards.
The feasibility study was done by another agency, not NCDOT themselves. Also, all of the standards indicated on that study come from the Green Book. I'll dig through it if you really don't want to believe it, but that's what is.

QuoteCriteria for Improvements
- AASHTO Green Book, AASHTO Interstate Guide,
and NCDOT Design Manual, Standards
- Typical Section
- Bridges
- Widening Alternatives (Wendell to Zebulon)
- Adjacent MPO and NCDOT projects

Criteria for replacing bridges:
- Older that 1970
- Poor sufficiency rating
- "Functionally Obsolete"  — i.e. doesn't meet standards, doesn't have enough width, doesn't' have enough vertical clearance
- Design Changes

Mainline Typical Section:
- # of travel lanes (4, 6 or 8): Capacity/LOS, Cost, Life Expect.
- Paved shoulders (4', 10', 12')
- Median protection (G/R, Cable, Barrier)
- >=46' Median / Concrete Barrier Section
- >=posted 70-mph Vertical, Horizontal/Superelevation (as-builts)
- Plus: 30-mph Loop Ramps (R=230')
- Plus: Interchange Ramp widths (16')
http://www.ucprpo.org/Documents/feasibility/FS-1504A%20RKK_P2_DsnMtg_Presentation_Attendees.pdf

If you're going to not accept NCDOT anymore because of a design exception granted by the FHWA and AASHTO, then you can do that, but I really don't see why. This is a study to upgrade that section of US-64 to full interstate highway standards, and notes replacing many bridges, widening ramps, realigning ramps all to meet 70 MPH (well to modern 70 MPH limits, the highway is already posted at 70 MPH, though needs improvements to be safer) speed limits, and proper interstate standards indicated by AASHTO standards. There's conceptual improvements provided in the feasibility study. There's a lot more proposed than just widening shoulders. That's why it's projected to cost over $300 million for the US-64 existing freeway leg of I-87 alone. There's no "exceptions" in there.

Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 11:45:06 PM
Look at the US-50/US-301 freeway on Kent Island, MD.  Tight curves on ramps built to minimize impacts to existing adjacent development as much as possible, and very long acceleration and deceleration lanes.  This is not an Interstate route and the speed limit is 60 mph, but such a design could be used on a 70 mph Interstate highway with long enough acceleration and deceleration lanes.
That is a fairly urbanized highway, and has a 55 MPH speed limit, not 60 MPH. It for sure could not handle 70 MPH, and a design in that alignment would be poor for a rural area. Even with long acceleration and deceleration lanes, you're flowing at 70 MPH in the right lane, and someone comes to the right doing 20 MPH, and using human instinct, they'll merge in as soon as there's a clear space, even if still at 35 MPH speeding up. You can't just provide a super long acceleration lane and expect it to be used all the way to the end. Not to mention, most of those "long acceleration lanes" are auxiliary lanes, the ones with actual deceleration and acceleration lanes are about 600 to 700 feet long, and certainly at 70 MPH would involve breaking hard. A ramp should provide you up to about the speed limit, so when you flow on the highway, you can smoothly merge in. It's a lot safer.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 12:37:02 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 12:05:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 11:45:06 PM
Likewise the bypass at Franklin would not need any interchange overhauls, but possibly safety projects to lengthen some of the acceleration and deceleration lanes.
*except the U.S. 258 interchange. Extending acceleration lanes isn't the issue, it's the geometric design of the highway.

Wrong.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 12:05:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 11:45:06 PM
Sorry, after seeing what NCDOT did at Asheboro, I am not going to accept them as any national standard of Interstate highway standards.
The feasibility study was done by another agency, not NCDOT themselves. Also, all of the standards indicated on that study come from the Green Book. I'll dig through it if you really don't want to believe it, but that's what is.

The study was commissioned by NCDOT, conducted by civil engineering consultant Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP, and reviewed / signed off / approved by NCDOT employees.  IOW it belongs to NCDOT lock, stock and barrel.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 12:05:27 AM
If you're going to not accept NCDOT anymore because of a design exception granted by the FHWA and AASHTO, then you can do that, but I really don't see why.

Now I didn't go so far as say I would not accept them anymore.  They have done a good job in highway administration many ways and areas.

It is the combination of questionable highway design claims by yourself, and your using NCDOT as a source for design standards for ramps on an Interstate highway.  Asheboro really detracts from their Interstate design philosophies and makes me question how many other places have they cheated on designs, including on items not visible to the naked eye such as pavement designs and bridge structural designs.

Three people have explained to you how that lengthening of accell and decell lanes on those ramps could address your concerns.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 12:05:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2019, 11:45:06 PM
Look at the US-50/US-301 freeway on Kent Island, MD.  Tight curves on ramps built to minimize impacts to existing adjacent development as much as possible, and very long acceleration and deceleration lanes.  This is not an Interstate route and the speed limit is 60 mph, but such a design could be used on a 70 mph Interstate highway with long enough acceleration and deceleration lanes.
That is a fairly urbanized highway, and has a 55 MPH speed limit, not 60 MPH. It for sure could not handle 70 MPH, and a design in that alignment would be poor for a rural area. Even with long acceleration and deceleration lanes, you're flowing at 70 MPH in the right lane, and someone comes to the right doing 20 MPH, and using human instinct, they'll merge in as soon as there's a clear space, even if still at 35 MPH speeding up. 

Yes it could and does, and it is not "urbanized" but happened to have a smattering of rural development near the original 4-lane at-grade expressway, and they didn't want to be bought out.  This is one of the projects that I watched closely while in planning and under construction (compl. 1991).

Traffic on that highway often runs at 65 to 70 mph, and people don't just dart out into a freeway lane when they are going 25 mph and there is a very long accell lane ahead of them.
 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex on March 02, 2019, 10:08:45 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 02, 2018, 07:58:28 PM
There is a BGS on I-564 WB that says NIT Gate 1 with something covered underneath. 

But the more important discovery is that I-564 now has exit numbers:
1 - Intermodal Connector
2 - Terminal Blvd
3 - I64

I inquired with VDOT about the Interstate 564 exit numbering last month and got a response:

QuoteThank you for your inquiry on the I-564 exits. The following reflects what will be signed on I-564 at the completion of the I-564 Intermodal Connector Project (currently estimated for spring/early summer):


·         Exit 1 will be to NIT North Gate and Naval Station Norfolk Gates 5 & 6

·         Exit 2 will be to Terminal Blvd (Rte 406 West)

·         Exit 3 will be to I-64 (East & West) and Granby Street

·         Exit 4 will be to Little Creek Road (Rte 165)


Note that motorists on 564 will encounter Exit 2 (Terminal Blvd) before they get to Exit 1 (the Intermodal to NIT/Naval Station Norfolk). The rules of the interstate numbering system dictated the exits to be numbered that way.

The sign for Exit 1 to NIT North Gate went up in December 2017 for the opening of the Intermodal Connector to port traffic. I've not found an answer for when the Exit 4 sign went up, but I have updated the VDOT web page to better reflect the actual exits from I-564: http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/exit-numbers-564.asp

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 10:50:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 12:37:02 AM
Yes it could and does, and it is not "urbanized" but happened to have a smattering of rural development near the original 4-lane at-grade expressway, and they didn't want to be bought out.  This is one of the projects that I watched closely while in planning and under construction (compl. 1991).
When you're trying to prove a substandard 60 MPH freeway can handle 70 MPH, using a 55 MPH RIRO freeway and claiming "it could handle 70 MPH" as your backing support doesn't help you that much. Provide an example of a freeway in this design actually posted at 70 MPH, then I'll believe you more.

Weren't you the one who said US-17 in Chesapeake couldn't be posted at 65 MPH or 70 MPH if it was a rural freeway with about 5 or 6 rural design interchanges, yet you're advocating this 25 MPH RIRO every 1/2 mile 6-lane expressway could be posted at 70 MPH? The hypocrisy here is real.

Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 12:37:02 AM
Traffic on that highway often runs at 65 to 70 mph
So I-64 on the Hampton Roads Beltway should be 70 MPH? Traffic flows 70 MPH daily during rush hour between the base and I-464, and there's no issues.
VA-168 and US-17 should also be 70 MPH then. Most people drive that fast. Hell, every freeway in Hampton Roads, and every urban area should be 70 MPH if that's the standard we're using.

Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 12:37:02 AM
and people don't just dart out into a freeway lane when they are going 25 mph and there is a very long accell lane ahead of them.
I've driven this highway before. They do. I've seen it. Frequently. I know this because either A) my speed decreases from 65 MPH to 40 MPH, or I have to quickly weave in the middle lane to go around them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 01:12:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 10:50:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 12:37:02 AM
Yes it could and does, and it is not "urbanized" but happened to have a smattering of rural development near the original 4-lane at-grade expressway, and they didn't want to be bought out.  This is one of the projects that I watched closely while in planning and under construction (compl. 1991).
When you're trying to prove a substandard 60 MPH freeway can handle 70 MPH, using a 55 MPH RIRO freeway and claiming "it could handle 70 MPH" as your backing support doesn't help you that much. Provide an example of a freeway in this design actually posted at 70 MPH, then I'll believe you more.

Substandard by what measure?   US-50/US-301 on Kent Island is not a "RIRO freeway" the curves are more generous than that.  Full left and right paved shoulders and open grass median.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 10:50:03 AM
Weren't you the one who said US-17 in Chesapeake couldn't be posted at 65 MPH or 70 MPH if it was a rural freeway with about 5 or 6 rural design interchanges, yet you're advocating this 25 MPH RIRO every 1/2 mile 6-lane expressway could be posted at 70 MPH? The hypocrisy here is real.

I did not say "couldn't", I said "wouldn't", based on the revealed posting practices in metropolitan areas such as South Hampton Roads.  A modern at-grade expressway and it still is 55 mph.

You were right about the 55 mph on US-50/US-301, as Maryland has no non-Interstate freeway posted above that other than two that I know of.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 10:50:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 12:37:02 AM
and people don't just dart out into a freeway lane when they are going 25 mph and there is a very long accell lane ahead of them.
I've driven this highway before. They do. I've seen it. Frequently. I know this because either A) my speed decreases from 65 MPH to 40 MPH, or I have to quickly weave in the middle lane to go around them.

I have driven it hundreds of times over the last 45 years, and I don't see any major merging problem.  The fact that it has 3 directional lanes helps a lot over only having 2.  Helps in light travel periods, and in heavy travel periods the prevailing speeds can drop well below the current speed limit.  The AADT is about 70,000 and the ADT can approach 100,000 on peak summer days.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: odditude on March 02, 2019, 03:12:52 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 02, 2019, 01:34:23 PM
:popcorn:

:bigass:
this popcorn is still stale and getting staler by the minute.

changing topics entirely - who would be responsible for improvements to a secondary highway? i understand they're generally privately constructed and as long as they meet the design requirements, they can be handed over to the state for maintenance. does the same apply for improvements, or are they solely in VDOT's hands post-handoff?

what raised my curiosity is the current state of Frying Pan Rd (SR 608) between Sunrise Valley Dr and Centerville Rd (SR 657) (Fairfax County east of IAD) - it's a narrow 2-lane section on an otherwise 4-lane road, and is regularly clogged by commuters heading to and from VA 28.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 02, 2019, 03:32:45 PM
Quote from: odditude on March 02, 2019, 03:12:52 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 02, 2019, 01:34:23 PM
:popcorn:

:bigass:
this popcorn is still stale and getting staler by the minute.

changing topics entirely - who would be responsible for improvements to a secondary highway? i understand they're generally privately constructed and as long as they meet the design requirements, they can be handed over to the state for maintenance. does the same apply for improvements, or are they solely in VDOT's hands post-handoff?

what raised my curiosity is the current state of Frying Pan Rd (SR 608) between Sunrise Valley Dr and Centerville Rd (SR 657) (Fairfax County east of IAD) - it's a narrow 2-lane section on an otherwise 4-lane road, and is regularly clogged by commuters heading to and from VA 28.

This is on VDOT's radar...

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/NVTA_presentation_1-22-15.pdf

This widening scores in the lower half of projects in NOVA...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on March 02, 2019, 04:31:23 PM
Anyone know who manages the traffic lights and pavement markings in Arlington County? They both seem slightly different than what I've seen outside of the county...

* most lights in Arlington County lack backplates
* most of the crosswalks are the "zebra" style instead of the parallel lines that VDOT uses
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 02, 2019, 04:43:13 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2019, 04:31:23 PM
Anyone know who manages the traffic lights and pavement markings in Arlington County? They both seem slightly different than what I've seen outside of the county...

* most lights in Arlington County lack backplates
* most of the crosswalks are the "zebra" style instead of the parallel lines that VDOT uses

https://transportation.arlingtonva.us/traffic-signal-specification-updates/
http://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/11/DES-Pavement-Marking-Standards.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 05:26:54 PM
Quote from: Alex on March 02, 2019, 10:08:45 AM
Quote from: VDOTThank you for your inquiry on the I-564 exits. The following reflects what will be signed on I-564 at the completion of the I-564 Intermodal Connector Project (currently estimated for spring/early summer):
·         Exit 1 will be to NIT North Gate and Naval Station Norfolk Gates 5 & 6
·         Exit 2 will be to Terminal Blvd (Rte 406 West)
·         Exit 3 will be to I-64 (East & West) and Granby Street
·         Exit 4 will be to Little Creek Road (Rte 165)

So are they saying that the new Intermodal Connector will be designated as I-564? 

If so what will happen to the designation of the current I-564 west of the connection to the Intermodal Connector?

That the exit numbering will advance from the terminus back to I-64?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 02, 2019, 06:41:14 PM
Please calm down and stay on topic. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on March 02, 2019, 08:01:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 05:26:54 PM
Quote from: Alex on March 02, 2019, 10:08:45 AM
Quote from: VDOTThank you for your inquiry on the I-564 exits. The following reflects what will be signed on I-564 at the completion of the I-564 Intermodal Connector Project (currently estimated for spring/early summer):
·         Exit 1 will be to NIT North Gate and Naval Station Norfolk Gates 5 & 6
·         Exit 2 will be to Terminal Blvd (Rte 406 West)
·         Exit 3 will be to I-64 (East & West) and Granby Street
·         Exit 4 will be to Little Creek Road (Rte 165)

So are they saying that the new Intermodal Connector will be designated as I-564? 

If so what will happen to the designation of the current I-564 west of the connection to the Intermodal Connector?

That the exit numbering will advance from the terminus back to I-64?
I-764.
I can't tell from that quote alone whether 564 is being switched, or whether this is just called the 564 Intermodal Connector. The exit numbering thing is weird, but if you also numbered the northern terminus of 564 as Exit 1, then... I still can't figure it out, yeah.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 08:08:24 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 02, 2019, 08:01:38 PM
I-764.
I can't tell from that quote alone whether 564 is being switched, or whether this is just called the 564 Intermodal Connector. The exit numbering thing is weird, but if you also numbered the northern terminus of 564 as Exit 1, then... I still can't figure it out, yeah.
It makes no sense. What's this I-764?

It should be -
Exit 1 - Gate 3
Exit 2 - NIT North Gate / NAS Norfolk / Future Third Crossing
Exit 3 - Terminal Blvd
Exit 4 - I-64 / Granby Street
Exit 5 - Little Creek Road

The Intermodal Connector and eventually Third Crossing to I-664 should be designated as I-864. I-564 should remain in place. If I-564 was slated to flow onto the Third Crossing, then A) the numbering still makes no sense and B) why wasn't continuity given to the connector, and you have to exit off to continue onto existing I-564 / future something else. Signing the Third Crossing / Intermodal Connector as I-564 just creates an unnecessary left exit situation that can be avoided.

Talking interstates, I-164 also needs to be designated along the entire length between I-664 and I-264. Why is it VA-164?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 08:11:17 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 02, 2019, 08:01:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 05:26:54 PM
So are they saying that the new Intermodal Connector will be designated as I-564? 
If so what will happen to the designation of the current I-564 west of the connection to the Intermodal Connector?
That the exit numbering will advance from the terminus back to I-64?
I-764.
I can't tell from that quote alone whether 564 is being switched, or whether this is just called the 564 Intermodal Connector. The exit numbering thing is weird, but if you also numbered the northern terminus of 564 as Exit 1, then... I still can't figure it out, yeah.

So VDOT has announced I-764?

If the I-564 bridge-tunnel is eventually built, then presumably the exit numbering will be changed, with the zero milepost at I-664.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 08:16:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 08:08:24 PM
Talking interstates, I-164 also needs to be designated along the entire length between I-664 and I-264. Why is it VA-164?

That was one of 6 highways that I submitted to VDOT in the fall of 2017 for Interstate designation recommendation. 

My I-164 proposal was the Western Freeway, Port Norfolk Connector, and Midtown Tunnel.  Between I-664 and Brambleton Avenue.

They did a formal inventory study in response, and detailed the places where these highways did not meet Interstate highway standards.  There were 3 or 4 items on the I-164 proposal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on March 02, 2019, 08:18:08 PM
Exit 1 is the new connector. I-564 will still continue to the trumpet at Gate 3A, which will not have an exit number.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 08:24:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 08:16:20 PM
That was one of 6 highways that I submitted to VDOT in the fall of 2017 for Interstate designation recommendation. 

My I-164 proposal was the Western Freeway, Port Norfolk Connector, and Midtown Tunnel.  Between I-664 and Brambleton Avenue.

They did a formal inventory study in response, and detailed the places where these highways did not meet Interstate highway standards.  There were 3 or 4 items on the I-164 proposal.
I couldn't see I-164 going into the Midtown Tunnel, but rather to I-264. The current VA-164 designation stretches between I-264 via the MLK Freeway, Port Norfolk Connector, and Western Freeway to I-664. I'd assume an interstate designation for the route would follow the exact same path, as that entire corridor is a major thoroughfare, and acts as a bypass of Bowers Hill for Norfolk/Portsmouth traffic bound to the MMMBT and points north. The only segment I could see not meeting interstate standards is between London Blvd and US-58 Midtown Tunnel, as that wasn't built under any VA-164 projects (Western Freeway (1992), Port Norfolk Connector (2005), MLK Freeway (2016)) but rather a connector from Portsmouth to the tunnel in the late 70s. The rest I believe was built to interstate standards.

What locations specifically did they indicate do not meet standards?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 08:36:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 08:24:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 08:16:20 PM
That was one of 6 highways that I submitted to VDOT in the fall of 2017 for Interstate designation recommendation. 
My I-164 proposal was the Western Freeway, Port Norfolk Connector, and Midtown Tunnel.  Between I-664 and Brambleton Avenue.
They did a formal inventory study in response, and detailed the places where these highways did not meet Interstate highway standards.  There were 3 or 4 items on the I-164 proposal.
I couldn't see I-164 going into the Midtown Tunnel, but rather to I-264. The current VA-164 designation stretches between I-264 via the MLK Freeway, Port Norfolk Connector, and Western Freeway to I-664. I'd assume an interstate designation for the route would follow the exact same path, as that entire corridor is a major thoroughfare, and acts as a bypass of Bowers Hill for Norfolk/Portsmouth traffic bound to the MMMBT and points north. The only segment I could see not meeting interstate standards is between London Blvd and US-58 Midtown Tunnel, as that wasn't built under any VA-164 projects (Western Freeway (1992), Port Norfolk Connector (2005), MLK Freeway (2016)) but rather a connector from Portsmouth to the tunnel in the late 70s. The rest I believe was built to interstate standards.
What locations specifically did they indicate do not meet standards?

I need to find the file and I am not sure where I stored it.  They said the tunnel itself would not meet Interstate standards for vertical and horizontal curves.  I think the shoulders on the older part of the West Norfolk Bridge.  At least one other item on the Western Freeway.

My proposal would have been an Interstate spur between I-664 and the downtowns of Portsmouth and Norfolk.

VA-164 ==> I-164
MLK Fwy segment ==> I-764

I propose utilizing Interstate I-164 on the Western Freeway and then thru the 2-lane ramps of the Pinners Point Interchange that connect to the Midtown Tunnel approach highway, thru the Midtown Tunnel, and with I-164 terminating at the interchange with West Brambleton Avenue and Hampton Boulevard in downtown Norfolk.

I-164 would be an Interstate spur route connecting I-664 to downtown Norfolk and Hampton Boulevard.  I-664 and I-164 would comprise an appropriately designated Interstate highway connector between Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth and Norfolk.  It could even function as an "interim third Hampton Roads crossing", exploiting the fact that currently the I-664 HR tunnel carries about 1/2 of the volume of the I-64 HR tunnel.

The Martin Luther King Freeway between the Pinners Point Interchange and I-264 near downtown Portsmouth, would be designated as Interstate I-764.  This is a short but vital freeway that would connect I-164 and the Midtown Tunnel to I-264 and the Downtown Tunnel / Berkley Bridge complex.

VA-164 would be de-designated.

For US-58 continuity it would remain on a segment of I-764 and a segment of I-164, this is needed as US-58 passes from near Cumberland Gap to the Virginia Beach oceanfront.

Regarding 3-digit Interstate spur routes branching from other 3-digit Interstate highways, this is a valid practice.  A few examples are I-370 from I-270 in Maryland, I-795 from I-695 in Maryland, and I-195 from I-295 in New Jersey.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on March 02, 2019, 09:06:24 PM
It's my fault this went fictional... I was joking with 764.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 09:36:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 02, 2019, 08:18:08 PM
Exit 1 is the new connector. I-564 will still continue to the trumpet at Gate 3A, which will not have an exit number.

Lots of sites including the project website that call the new highway the I-564 Intermodal Connector, but I can't find any site that specifies a route number for the connector.  So it may just be an Intermodal Connector to and from I-564.

I agree with using I-864 for the bridge-tunnel future extension to I-664.  I would keep I-564 where it is now, and sign I-864 between I-664 and I-64 at Wards Corner.  I-564 and I-864 would connect to I-64 at Wards Corner and have about 1.5 mile of overlap.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 02, 2019, 10:11:29 PM
The number 364 has been previously floated in a VDOT document for whatever 3rd crossing comes to pass.

See pdf pg 193 at https://web.archive.org/web/20111217233755/http://vtrans.org/resources/VSTP_Entire_Report.pdf

Oddly they also float the number 245 for the Craney Island Connector, which is odd because there is already a VA 245.  Typo of 246 (may as well not exist) or 248 (not currently used)...?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 02, 2019, 10:11:50 PM
It's somewhat amusing that VDOT's starting with NIT/Gate 6 for Exit 1.  Per Section 2E.31 of the MUTCD, "Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route".

Quote from: BeltwayLots of sites including the project website that call the new highway the I-564 Intermodal Connector, but I can't find any site that specifies a route number for the connector.  So it may just be an Intermodal Connector to and from I-564.

Mapmikey and I found VA 510 was used for the Intermodal Connector in both the 2001 and 2003 VDOT Route Logs.  However, no known documentation since 2003 has used that route number.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 10:28:30 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 02, 2019, 10:11:50 PM
It's somewhat amusing that VDOT's starting with NIT/Gate 6 for Exit 1.  Per Section 2E.31 of the MUTCD, "Spur route interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route".
Someone probably assumed because it's east-west, the west end gets Exit 1, and the east end gets the higher number... but why is NIT / Gate 6 the first exit when it's 2-3 miles in from I-564's actual starting point? Why was Gate 3 completely skipped, and no room in the scheme (maybe an Exit 0?) to be added later. It makes no sense.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 10:32:09 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 02, 2019, 10:11:29 PM
The number 364 has been previously floated in a VDOT document for whatever 3rd crossing comes to pass.

See pdf pg 193 at https://web.archive.org/web/20111217233755/http://vtrans.org/resources/VSTP_Entire_Report.pdf

Oddly they also float the number 245 for the Craney Island Connector, which is odd because there is already a VA 245.  Typo of 246 (may as well not exist) or 248 (not currently used)...?
I got some other questions about that document.

It also numbers the proposed Southeastern Parkway & Greenbelt as VA-961... Guess a major freeway that would carry up to 30,000 AADT and serve as a 4-lane 60 MPH bypass to 2-lane local routes is a secondary route? Also the MLK Freeway extension is cited as VA-958. This document has some odd numbering concepts.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on March 02, 2019, 10:39:05 PM
http://www.hrbtexpansion.org/learn_more/maps.asp
Then is this project going to happen?

Excuse me, but I do not follow closely on VA Roads, and been away from this board lately due to lack of internet at my home. I moved and did not get internet as of yet, and anything I post I go to places like local restaurants and use their free WiFi but are on it not that long to scroll through all posts.

Google linked me to this site saying that the third tube will be built in 2020 with bids going out this year for a builder.  Is this page still valid?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 10:48:32 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 02, 2019, 10:11:50 PM
Quote from: BeltwayLots of sites including the project website that call the new highway the I-564 Intermodal Connector, but I can't find any site that specifies a route number for the connector.  So it may just be an Intermodal Connector to and from I-564.
Mapmikey and I found VA 510 was used for the Intermodal Connector in both the 2001 and 2003 VDOT Route Logs.  However, no known documentation since 2003 has used that route number.

I have seen I-564 itself used for the new third crossing in one of the long range needs plans, back around 2005 IIRC.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 10:50:39 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 02, 2019, 10:39:05 PM
http://www.hrbtexpansion.org/learn_more/maps.asp
Then is this project going to happen?
Google linked me to this site saying that the third tube will be built in 2020 with bids going out this year for a builder.  Is this page still valid?

Contractor LNTP (Limited Notice to Proceed):  Apr 2019

See: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11915.275  Post# 276
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadsguy on March 02, 2019, 11:21:49 PM
Speaking of x64s, has VDOT ever intended to redesignate VA 164 as I-164? I don't believe any of it is tolled.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2019, 11:56:42 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 02, 2019, 11:21:49 PM
Speaking of x64s, has VDOT ever intended to redesignate VA 164 as I-164? I don't believe any of it is tolled.

Unfortunately no ... check upthread about 20 posts.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on March 03, 2019, 02:20:29 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 02, 2019, 04:43:13 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 02, 2019, 04:31:23 PM
Anyone know who manages the traffic lights and pavement markings in Arlington County? They both seem slightly different than what I've seen outside of the county...

* most lights in Arlington County lack backplates
* most of the crosswalks are the "zebra" style instead of the parallel lines that VDOT uses

https://transportation.arlingtonva.us/traffic-signal-specification-updates/
http://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/11/DES-Pavement-Marking-Standards.pdf

Very helpful! Thank you.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 03, 2019, 09:18:23 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 02, 2019, 11:21:49 PM
Speaking of x64s, has VDOT ever intended to redesignate VA 164 as I-164? I don't believe any of it is tolled.

VDOT applied for VA 164 to be an interstate in 1968 along with these other 4 requests (see pdf pg 41 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-08-1968-01.pdf):
Today's I-195
Today's I-664 (described as an extension of I-64)
Today's VA 288
A parallel crossing east of the Berkley bridge connecting I-464 and I-264.  This description is 0.6 miles which is too long to be just the newer I-264 EB span that was eventually built...?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 03, 2019, 09:34:07 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 10:32:09 PM

I got some other questions about that document.

It also numbers the proposed Southeastern Parkway & Greenbelt as VA-961... Guess a major freeway that would carry up to 30,000 AADT and serve as a 4-lane 60 MPH bypass to 2-lane local routes is a secondary route? Also the MLK Freeway extension is cited as VA-958. This document has some odd numbering concepts.

Possible these are just placeholder numbers in the way VDOT used to call lots of things VA 599 before they were actually built.

pdf pg. 12 at this document (https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/HR-2040-LRTP-Projects.pdf) shows the Southeastern Parkway/Greenbelt as a primary system endeavor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 03, 2019, 09:48:47 AM
Quote from: MapmikeyA parallel crossing east of the Berkley bridge connecting I-464 and I-264.  This description is 0.6 miles which is too long to be just the newer I-264 EB span that was eventually built...?

Actually, 0.6mi is about the right distance from the 264/464 junction to where 264 had previously been authorized on the Norfolk side.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadsguy on March 03, 2019, 11:13:03 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2019, 10:32:09 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 02, 2019, 10:11:29 PM
The number 364 has been previously floated in a VDOT document for whatever 3rd crossing comes to pass.

See pdf pg 193 at https://web.archive.org/web/20111217233755/http://vtrans.org/resources/VSTP_Entire_Report.pdf

Oddly they also float the number 245 for the Craney Island Connector, which is odd because there is already a VA 245.  Typo of 246 (may as well not exist) or 248 (not currently used)...?
I got some other questions about that document.

It also numbers the proposed Southeastern Parkway & Greenbelt as VA-961... Guess a major freeway that would carry up to 30,000 AADT and serve as a 4-lane 60 MPH bypass to 2-lane local routes is a secondary route? Also the MLK Freeway extension is cited as VA-958. This document has some odd numbering concepts.

Weren't the Fairfax County and Franconia-Springfield Parkways four-digit secondary routes for years?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 03, 2019, 11:25:27 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 03, 2019, 11:13:03 AM

Weren't the Fairfax County and Franconia-Springfield Parkways four-digit secondary routes for years?

Yes but there is no such thing as a secondary route in an independent city.  A non-primary route in an independent city would be called an urban route (which has an unposted numerical designation that can be any number) or a residential street.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 03, 2019, 11:48:54 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 03, 2019, 11:25:27 AM
Yes but there is no such thing as a secondary route in an independent city.  A non-primary route in an independent city would be called an urban route (which has an unposted numerical designation that can be any number) or a residential street.
Some secondary routes still exist in the Western Branch area of Chespaeake, an independent city, and plenty more existed throughout the entire city in the early 2000s, though have been removed since.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 03, 2019, 12:35:04 PM
^ Some of that was spillover from when VDOT still maintained most of Suffolk's roads into the 2000s.  Chesapeake's roads have not officially had secondary routes since 1963.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 03, 2019, 12:40:50 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 03, 2019, 12:35:04 PM
^ Some of that was spillover from when VDOT still maintained most of Suffolk's roads into the 2000s.  Chesapeake's roads have not officially had secondary routes since 1963.
Some roads south of the Intracoastal Water had secondary route numbers until the early 2000s. I recall Centerville Tpke having VA-604, and Blackwater Rd had one IIRC.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 03, 2019, 12:51:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 03, 2019, 12:40:50 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 03, 2019, 12:35:04 PM
^ Some of that was spillover from when VDOT still maintained most of Suffolk's roads into the 2000s.  Chesapeake's roads have not officially had secondary routes since 1963.
Some roads south of the Intracoastal Water had secondary route numbers until the early 2000s. I recall Centerville Tpke having VA-604, and Blackwater Rd had one IIRC.
Those weren't official, though. Same with the 615 shields in Virginia Beach.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 03, 2019, 02:16:19 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 03, 2019, 09:18:23 AM
VDOT applied for VA 164 to be an interstate in 1968 along with these other 4 requests (see pdf pg 41 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-08-1968-01.pdf):
Today's I-195
Today's I-664 (described as an extension of I-64)
Today's VA 288
A parallel crossing east of the Berkley bridge connecting I-464 and I-264.  This description is 0.6 miles which is too long to be just the newer I-264 EB span that was eventually built...?

The Berkley Bridge and the Downtown Tunnel were not part of the I-264 that was authorized in 1956, the 2.2 miles of highway was built as the Norfolk-Portsmouth Bridge-Tunnel in 1952.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Downtown-Tunnel%20postcard-1952.jpg

In 1976, FHWA approval was provided for Interstate 90% federal-aid to expand the Downtown Tunnel/Berkley Bridge complex, as part of I-264.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 12, 2019, 03:54:36 PM
VA 357 decommissioning on the March 2019 CTB agenda...

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/mar/agendas/ctb_action_meeting_march_2019.pdf

The Southside Training Facility was torn down and redeveloped by private interests.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 18, 2019, 11:54:02 AM
For anyone interested in old bridges....

https://twitter.com/pwcpolice/status/1107628037473030145?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 19, 2019, 09:07:43 PM
https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/gloucester/gloucester-co-supervisors-approve-60-mph-increase-on-portion-of-route-17/1838149721

Gloucester Co. supervisors approve speed limit increase on portion of Route 17

"GLOUCESTER COUNTY, Va. (WAVY) -- The speed limit along a nearly 20-mile portion of Route 17 through Gloucester County will soon be increased.

The Virginia Department of Transportation recommended that the speed limit from 8710 George Washington Memorial Highway to the Middlesex County line should be increased to 60 mph from 55 mph.

The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution during their monthly meeting on Tuesday to accept VDOT's recommendation.

VDOT conducted a 60 MPH Speed Limit Engineering Study on Route 17 and a part of Route 3 and presented the results to the board last month.

The board decided not to approve the recommended speed limit increase for Route 3 at this time. The portion of Route 3 that would have been affected was from Crab Thicket Road to just before the Mathews County line. "





Nice to see some new increases. This is an area that can definitely handle it. Route 3 could also handle it, though I suppose since it serves more a local route, they don't feel as obligated to go along with it. Route 17 on the other hand handles thru-traffic.

Hopefully we see more of U.S. Route 17 throughout Virginia get raised now that it's been allowed under speed limit law since last year.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on March 20, 2019, 10:52:34 AM
Local governments have approval or veto power over speed limit decisions on state-maintained routes?  :confused:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Avalanchez71 on March 20, 2019, 12:15:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 20, 2019, 10:52:34 AM
Local governments have approval or veto power over speed limit decisions on state-maintained routes?  :confused:
I was thinking the same thing.  Apparently county government in VA has more powers than in TN.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 20, 2019, 12:17:13 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 12, 2019, 03:54:36 PM
VA 357 decommissioning on the March 2019 CTB agenda...

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/mar/agendas/ctb_action_meeting_march_2019.pdf

The Southside Training Facility was torn down and redeveloped by private interests.
It's been demolished for a couple years now, but the signs have remained.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ipeters61 on March 20, 2019, 01:18:25 PM
I've planned a day trip to the Hampton Roads region in 2 weeks (planning on leaving early on a Friday morning and arriving home on Saturday evening/night).  Just had two questions:

1. I saw that the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel (the main reason I'm going on this trip) has the fishing pier closed to construct the parallel tunnels, meaning there's no observation deck.  Is there any way to take photos of it?  I'm traveling solo so I can't take pictures while driving.  I can do video (and just let the camera take care of it), but that's about it.

2. What road sights are worth seeing in the Hampton Roads region?  I'm arriving on the Bay Bridge-Tunnel and staying in Chesapeake, if that helps.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 03:00:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 19, 2019, 09:07:43 PM
Nice to see some new increases. This is an area that can definitely handle it. Route 3 could also handle it, though I suppose since it serves more a local route, they don't feel as obligated to go along with it. Route 17 on the other hand handles thru-traffic.

What was the proposed speed limit on VA-3? 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on March 20, 2019, 03:12:30 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on March 20, 2019, 01:18:25 PM
I'm traveling solo so I can't take pictures while driving.

Sure you can. Lots of us do it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 20, 2019, 04:17:15 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on March 20, 2019, 01:18:25 PM
What road sights are worth seeing in the Hampton Roads region?  I'm arriving on the Bay Bridge-Tunnel and staying in Chesapeake, if that helps.
-the four other tunnels (Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel on 64, Monitor-Merrimack Bridge Tunnel on 664, and the tolled Midtown and Downtown tunnels on 264 and 58)
-the James River Bridge on US 17/258
-the east end of US 60 at Rudee Inlet in Virginia Beach (the oceanfront is also home to the east end of US 58)
-the construction on US 17 in Chesapeake
-the fairly new Jordan and Gilmerton Bridges on VA 337 and US 13/460 respectively
-the now-incomplete VA 125 in Suffolk, which had a bridge demolished and not replaced
-VA 189 and 272 in far southwestern Suffolk have some seriously old concrete surfaces
-VA 164 was extended on a new freeway segment not long ago. I think 164 in general is an interesting route.
-if you have time to head up to the Williamsburg area, there's the Colonial Parkway and the Jamestown Ferry
This is by no means a complete list.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 20, 2019, 04:19:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 03:00:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 19, 2019, 09:07:43 PM
Nice to see some new increases. This is an area that can definitely handle it. Route 3 could also handle it, though I suppose since it serves more a local route, they don't feel as obligated to go along with it. Route 17 on the other hand handles thru-traffic.

What was the proposed speed limit on VA-3? 

The statute allows 60 mph. The article he posted implies that's what was proposed for some portion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 04:25:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2019, 04:19:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 03:00:49 PM
What was the proposed speed limit on VA-3? 
The statute allows 60 mph. The article he posted implies that's what was proposed for some portion.

It does?  Last I looked only certain nonlimited-access highways had been authorized for 60 mph, and then only certain sections of them.  US-17, US-29, US-58, Alt. US-58, US-360, US-460.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 20, 2019, 04:30:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 04:25:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2019, 04:19:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 03:00:49 PM
What was the proposed speed limit on VA-3? 
The statute allows 60 mph. The article he posted implies that's what was proposed for some portion.

It does?  Last I looked only certain nonlimited-access highways had been authorized for 60 mph, and then only certain sections of them.  US-17, US-29, US-58, Alt. US-58, US-360, US-460.

I was surprised too, but I looked it up the other day and it's apparently been amended again. The previous time I'd looked at this, I don't recall either state route being listed, and I recall US-17 being restricted to the segment from Port Royal to Saluda (I think).

Quote§ 46.2-870. Maximum speed limits generally.
Except as otherwise provided in this article, the maximum speed limit shall be 55 miles per hour on interstate highways or other limited access highways with divided roadways, nonlimited access highways having four or more lanes, and all state primary highways.

The maximum speed limit on all other highways shall be 55 miles per hour if the vehicle is a passenger motor vehicle, bus, pickup or panel truck, or a motorcycle, but 45 miles per hour on such highways if the vehicle is a truck, tractor truck, or combination of vehicles designed to transport property, or is a motor vehicle being used to tow a vehicle designed for self-propulsion, or a house trailer.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the maximum speed limit shall be 70 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on (i) interstate highways; (ii) multilane, divided, limited access highways; and (iii) high-occupancy vehicle lanes if such lanes are physically separated from regular travel lanes. The maximum speed limit shall be 60 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on U.S. Route 17, U.S. Route 23, U.S. Route 29, U.S. Route 58, U.S. Alternate Route 58, U.S. Route 301, U.S. Route 360, U.S. Route 460, U.S. Route 501 between the Town of South Boston and the North Carolina state line, State Route 3, and State Route 207 where such routes are nonlimited access, multilane, divided highways.

Code 1950, § 46-212; 1950, p. 881; 1952, c. 666; 1954, c. 244; 1956, c. 364; 1958, c. 541, §§ 46.1-193, 46.1-401; 1960, c. 153; 1962, c. 307; 1964, cc. 118, 408; 1966, c. 85; 1968, c. 641; 1972, cc. 89, 546, 553, 608; 1974, c. 528; 1975, c. 533; 1977, c. 577; 1978, c. 605; 1980, c. 347; 1986, c. 639; 1988, cc. 662, 897; 1989, cc. 276, 526, 727; 1992, c. 598; 1994, c. 423; 1996, c. 1; 1998, cc. 546, 560; 1999, c. 142; 2001, c. 298; 2002, c. 872; 2003, c. 838; 2004, c. 696; 2005, cc. 266, 267, 268; 2006, c. 213; 2007, cc. 222, 544; 2010, cc. 26, 56; 2014, c. 91; 2018, cc. 160, 339, 340, 345.


Edited to add: I haven't been on Route 3 down that way very often, so I may well be mistaken about it being a proposed increase to 60. I pretty much assumed that's what it was based on how the article was written combined with looking at the statute. The only segment of Route 3 I use regularly is the part between I-95 and Route 20 at Wilderness. It's part of my normal route to and from Charlottesville.

Edited again: It's the following paragraph that made me believe it was a 60-mph proposal (emphasis supplied): "VDOT conducted a 60 MPH Speed Limit Engineering Study on Route 17 and a part of Route 3 and presented the results to the board last month."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 04:42:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2019, 04:30:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 04:25:13 PM
Last I looked only certain nonlimited-access highways had been authorized for 60 mph, and then only certain sections of them.  US-17, US-29, US-58, Alt. US-58, US-360, US-460.
I was surprised too, but I looked it up the other day and it's apparently been amended again. The previous time I'd looked at this, I don't recall either state route being listed, and I recall US-17 being restricted to the segment from Port Royal to Saluda (I think).
QuoteU.S. Route 17, U.S. Route 23, U.S. Route 29, U.S. Route 58, U.S. Alternate Route 58, U.S. Route 301, U.S. Route 360, U.S. Route 460, U.S. Route 501 between the Town of South Boston and the North Carolina state line, State Route 3, and State Route 207 where such routes are nonlimited access, multilane, divided highways.

So it would be included.  Probably aimed mainly at the completed VA-3 corridor between Culpeper and US-301.

They ought to do what they did around 1960, all 4-lane nonlimited-access highways authorized up to for 60 mph.  Granted that took a lot more work to study them given all the varying design characteristics, than the Interstate system.  From what Mapmikey posted recently, it took from 1960 to 1966 to study and post all the 60 mph speed limits around the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 20, 2019, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 04:25:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2019, 04:19:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 03:00:49 PM
What was the proposed speed limit on VA-3? 
The statute allows 60 mph. The article he posted implies that's what was proposed for some portion.

It does?  Last I looked only certain nonlimited-access highways had been authorized for 60 mph, and then only certain sections of them.  US-17, US-29, US-58, Alt. US-58, US-360, US-460.
In the past, it was those highways. On March 19, 2018, legislation was approved to allow 60 MPH along US-23, US-301, State Route 3, and State Route 207. It also removed "between the Town of Port Royal and Saluda" code, allowing every part of US-17 in Virginia to eligible to 60 MPH.

I was informed by the City of Chesapeake last year a study was being conducted to raise the speed limit on US-17 between George Washington Hwy and the NC border to 60 MPH as a result of this legislation as well. The City code would have to amended however, which currently restricts the maximum speed limit to 55 MPH in the city, except on interstate highways (I-64 & I-464 are 60 MPH through Chesapeake).

Eventually I could see the code being revised to eliminate the selection-based increases, and permit 60 MPH on every divided highway in Virginia, after a speed study is conducted of course. Almost every divided highway in the 1960s and early 70s had 60 MPH in Virginia, and I could easily see it again.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 20, 2019, 04:48:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 04:42:56 PM
....

They ought to do what they did around 1960, all 4-lane nonlimited-access highways authorized up to for 60 mph.  Granted that took a lot more work to study them given all the varying design characteristics, than the Interstate system.  From what Mapmikey posted recently, it took from 1960 to 1966 to study and post all the 60 mph speed limits around the state.

I agree with you in general, although I can think of places where 65 would be more appropriate (though I'll concede I'll take 60 over 55!). I've long thought this system of codifying exceptions specific to certain highways or parts thereof is inefficient and stupid, and I think VDOT would be more qualified to assess appropriate speed limits than the General Assembly members.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 20, 2019, 04:49:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2019, 04:48:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 04:42:56 PM
....

They ought to do what they did around 1960, all 4-lane nonlimited-access highways authorized up to for 60 mph.  Granted that took a lot more work to study them given all the varying design characteristics, than the Interstate system.  From what Mapmikey posted recently, it took from 1960 to 1966 to study and post all the 60 mph speed limits around the state.

I agree with you in general, although I can think of places where 65 would be more appropriate (though I'll concede I'll take 60 over 55!). I've long thought this system of codifying exceptions specific to certain highways or parts thereof is inefficient and stupid, and I think VDOT would be more qualified to assess appropriate speed limits than the General Assembly members.
Most of the arterial highway system in Virginia can handle 65 MPH. Let's just be honest.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 04:56:12 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 20, 2019, 04:49:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2019, 04:48:20 PM
I agree with you in general, although I can think of places where 65 would be more appropriate (though I'll concede I'll take 60 over 55!). I've long thought this system of codifying exceptions specific to certain highways or parts thereof is inefficient and stupid, and I think VDOT would be more qualified to assess appropriate speed limits than the General Assembly members.
Most of the arterial highway system in Virginia can handle 65 MPH. Let's just be honest.

Maybe.  The limited-access mileage of the arterial highway system is 27% of the system, and nearly all of that could be 65 mph, and 70 in some places.  The US-29 Madison Heights Bypass is 70 mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 20, 2019, 05:42:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 04:56:12 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 20, 2019, 04:49:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2019, 04:48:20 PM
I agree with you in general, although I can think of places where 65 would be more appropriate (though I'll concede I'll take 60 over 55!). I've long thought this system of codifying exceptions specific to certain highways or parts thereof is inefficient and stupid, and I think VDOT would be more qualified to assess appropriate speed limits than the General Assembly members.
Most of the arterial highway system in Virginia can handle 65 MPH. Let's just be honest.

Maybe.  The limited-access mileage of the arterial highway system is 27% of the system, and nearly all of that could be 65 mph, and 70 in some places.  The US-29 Madison Heights Bypass is 70 mph.
The freeways mainly can handle 65 MPH, I agree, a lot them 70 MPH. As for non-limited-access, the older roadways that are windy with no shoulders, narrow lanes, etc. should remain 60 MPH IMHO. A good majority of the highways though have 12 foot lanes, and at least a few feet of shoulder that could be studied to determine if it could handle 65 MPH. The stretches with at least 6 foot paved shoulders, 12 foot lanes, etc. can definitely handle it IMHO. Some examples that come to mind are most of US-17, US-58, some of US-460, and others. Not to mention, most people exceed the 60 MPH limit on most of these highways. For instance, the average along the stretch of US-17 being raised north of Gloucester has an average speed of 65 MPH. A lot of times, in my experience anyways, traffic averages 70 MPH mainly. A posted speed of 65 MPH would be appropriate for those stretches.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 07:18:31 AM
Updates regarding the I-64 South Island Trestle Bridge replacement apart of the HRBT expansion, along with an updated cost estimate.

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/mar/pres/1_hrbt_update.pdf
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/mar/pres/2_trestles.pdf

The project for simply widening the I-64 corridor and constructing a new tunnel is estimated at $3,753,469,673. The I-64 South Island Trestle Bridge replacement was added to the estimate, costing $108,527,554 for the slightly over 1 mile span, bring the project cost up to $3,861,997,227.

The new bridge will be one eight-lane bridge with full shoulders on either side, and will be higher than the existing one to accommodate sea level rising. The bridge will be built with a 100 year life span.

For funding, HRTAC is providing $3,208,469,673, $345,000,000 will come from toll-backed bond proceeds (assumingly from the HO/T collections), SmartScale is providing $200,000,000, and VDOT is providing $108,527,554 for the South Island Trestle Bridge Replacement project under the State of Good Repair program.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 21, 2019, 07:37:03 AM
A fatal bus crash on I-95 northbound at the exit 45 offramp this week has brought concerns about the signage there. Apparently people, like the bus driver, occasionally think it’s for I-295, which is about a mile ahead, and take the ramp too fast and crash.
https://www.richmond.com/news/local/crime/exit-ramp-where-bus-crashed-along-i--already-was/article_2386c224-54f6-573e-808b-fe411366c6d8.html

https://www.progress-index.com/news/20190319/bus-driver-charged-with-manslaughter
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 10:49:57 AM
"to accommodate sea level rising"

Harrummph.  So why aren't they raising the manmade islands?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 21, 2019, 11:03:34 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 20, 2019, 04:43:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 04:25:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2019, 04:19:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 20, 2019, 03:00:49 PM
What was the proposed speed limit on VA-3? 
The statute allows 60 mph. The article he posted implies that's what was proposed for some portion.

It does?  Last I looked only certain nonlimited-access highways had been authorized for 60 mph, and then only certain sections of them.  US-17, US-29, US-58, Alt. US-58, US-360, US-460.
In the past, it was those highways. On March 19, 2018, legislation was approved to allow 60 MPH along US-23, US-301, State Route 3, and State Route 207. It also removed "between the Town of Port Royal and Saluda" code, allowing every part of US-17 in Virginia to eligible to 60 MPH.

....

The boldfaced text is not, strictly speaking, accurate. The 60-mph provision is limited by the clause at the end of the sentence:

QuoteThe maximum speed limit shall be 60 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on U.S. Route 17, U.S. Route 23, U.S. Route 29, U.S. Route 58, U.S. Alternate Route 58, U.S. Route 301, U.S. Route 360, U.S. Route 460, U.S. Route 501 between the Town of South Boston and the North Carolina state line, State Route 3, and State Route 207 where such routes are nonlimited access, multilane, divided highways.

Thus, for example, US-17 from I-66 at Delaplane up to US-50 at Paris is not eligible for a 60-mph speed limit because it's a two-lane road, meaning it's neither multilane nor divided. (That's setting aside that they wouldn't raise it even if it were eligible, given that it's currently posted at 45.) The boldfaced clause is a bit poorly placed. It ought to come after the word "data" and it ought to say "on the following routes where they are nonlimited access, multilane, divided highways: [followed by the list of routes]."

With that said, I'd be mildly interested in knowing how VDOT approaches concurrencies where one of the concurrent routes is eligible for the 60-mph limit and one is not. Again citing US-17, at Paris it turns west and runs concurrently with US-50 to Winchester as a nonlimited access, multilane, divided highway. Which one takes precedence? Is the segment eligible for 60 mph because Route 17 is eligible, or does the fact that Route 50 is not eligible mean that segment must be disqualified? (Setting aside that the odds are VDOT may not consider that segment either way for political reasons having to do with the portion of Route 50 between Paris and Gilbert's Corner.)


Edited to add: Upon reflection, I think I know the answer to the "concurrencies" question from driving on Route 29. It has a concurrency with US-15 from near Culpeper to south of Haymarket. Route 15 is not eligible for a 60-mph speed limit, but Route 29 is, and a 60-mph speed limit is posted from Opal south to beyond the end of the concurrency. So I guess if one route is eligible, they might consider the segment for the 60-mph limit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 21, 2019, 11:53:54 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 21, 2019, 11:03:34 AM

Edited to add: Upon reflection, I think I know the answer to the "concurrencies" question from driving on Route 29. It has a concurrency with US-15 from near Culpeper to south of Haymarket. Route 15 is not eligible for a 60-mph speed limit, but Route 29 is, and a 60-mph speed limit is posted from Opal south to beyond the end of the concurrency. So I guess if one route is eligible, they might consider the segment for the 60-mph limit.

Same as with US 11-460 west of Roanoke...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 21, 2019, 12:32:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 10:49:57 AM
"to accommodate sea level rising"

Harrummph.  So why aren't they raising the manmade islands?

They have to take into account the waves and sea level rise for all parts of the project, including the islands.  So they may indeed raise the islands some...

http://www.p3virginia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Part-2-HRBT-Addendum-1.pdf

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 01:23:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 21, 2019, 11:03:34 AM
Thus, for example, US-17 from I-66 at Delaplane up to US-50 at Paris is not eligible for a 60-mph speed limit because it's a two-lane road, meaning it's neither multilane nor divided. (That's setting aside that they wouldn't raise it even if it were eligible, given that it's currently posted at 45.) The boldfaced clause is a bit poorly placed. It ought to come after the word "data" and it ought to say "on the following routes where they are nonlimited access, multilane, divided highways: [followed by the list of routes]."

Right, that is why 4-lane undivided highways like most of US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk, is not eligible for a 60 mph speed limit, even though it is part of the US-460 corridor authorized for 60 mph in the statute.

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 21, 2019, 11:03:34 AM
With that said, I'd be mildly interested in knowing how VDOT approaches concurrencies where one of the concurrent routes is eligible for the 60-mph limit and one is not.

The statute should govern that.  In a basic legal sense if any one is eligible then the highway segment should be eligible.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 21, 2019, 01:43:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 01:23:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 21, 2019, 11:03:34 AM
With that said, I'd be mildly interested in knowing how VDOT approaches concurrencies where one of the concurrent routes is eligible for the 60-mph limit and one is not.

The statute should govern that.  In a basic legal sense if any one is eligible then the highway segment should be eligible.


Yeah, notice I edited my prior comment after remembering I'd driven on a 60-mph segment that answered the question.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 01:23:24 PM
Right, that is why 4-lane undivided highways like most of US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk, is not eligible for a 60 mph speed limit, even though it is part of the US-460 corridor authorized for 60 mph in the statute.
If it was legal, the rural sections of U.S. 460 could definitely handle 60 MPH. From my experience, as with a lot of roads I as you know by now, the average traffic flow is about 63 to 67 MPH on a good day. Not a lot of speeding through the towns though, mainly because of local police enforcement hiding in driveways, etc. A lot of straight, two lane roads built to proper rural standards (12 foot lanes, 4 foot paved shoulders) could also handle it IMHO. I wouldn't recommend higher than 60 MPH though, unless it had a full 10 foot paved shoulder, and there's really none of those in Virginia.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.694561,-78.1925966,3a,75y,58.77h,81.85t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1s7WU4HMAo6_rG09yfbL5tEw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D7WU4HMAo6_rG09yfbL5tEw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D139.31473%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

Stretches like this though, 4 lanes, undivided, with 10 foot paved shoulders could be 65 MPH IMHO, if per se the rest of the divided highway segments were increased. It could be 60 MPH at least.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 05:30:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 01:23:24 PM
Right, that is why 4-lane undivided highways like most of US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk, is not eligible for a 60 mph speed limit, even though it is part of the US-460 corridor authorized for 60 mph in the statute.
If it was legal, the rural sections of U.S. 460 could definitely handle 60 MPH. From my experience, as with a lot of roads I as you know by now, the average traffic flow is about 63 to 67 MPH on a good day. Not a lot of speeding through the towns though, mainly because of local police enforcement hiding in driveways, etc. A lot of straight, two lane roads built to proper rural standards (12 foot lanes, 4 foot paved shoulders) could also handle it IMHO. I wouldn't recommend higher than 60 MPH though, unless it had a full 10 foot paved shoulder, and there's really none of those in Virginia.

The Suffolk Bypass has 10 foot paved shoulders, and there are others that I am not going to spend the time locating at this moment.  That part of US-460 is more like 58-60 on average when including the trucks, from my many observations over the years.  It has 10.5 foot lanes and in most places the shoulders are not wide enough to stop on, and I would not recommend a speed limit increase.

That section of US-58 west of South Hill was rebuilt as part of the US-58 Corridor Program.  It has 5 12-foot lanes and 10-foot paved shoulders.  Also rebuilt the vertical alignment and leveled it considerably, but it is still more rolling than the more rural sections.  Lots of houses along the way.
 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 05:40:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 05:30:08 PM
The Suffolk Bypass has 10 foot paved shoulders, and there are others that I am not going to spend the time locating at this moment.
The Suffolk Bypass is not an undivided roadway. It's a freeway with a grassy median built to interstate standards. That alone should be 65 MPH IMHO.

Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 05:30:08 PM
It has 10.5 foot lanes and in most places the shoulders are not wide enough to stop on, and I would not recommend a speed limit increase.
[/quote]
A lot of divided highways in Virginia have smaller lanes and narrow shoulders with no room to stop, and are posted 60 MPH. The only difference about those and US-460 is that US-460 is undivided.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.629582,-79.6527606,3a,55y,278.24h,85.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svtY9JeYSZyHwTj7UjaoDMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This stretch of US-58 between Danville and Martinsville has 8 foot lanes, no shoulder, very hilly, and has lots of blind intersections. It's posted at 60 MPH. Trucks do about 55 or 60 MPH on average. I've seen a truck here drive off the road going around a corner at about 58 MPH, trying to maintain his lane. Luckily, it was minimal and there was a small portion of the grass on the side. He kept on going though after taking the corner and re-adjusting back into the lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 05:58:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 05:40:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 05:30:08 PM
The Suffolk Bypass has 10 foot paved shoulders, and there are others that I am not going to spend the time locating at this moment.
The Suffolk Bypass is not an undivided roadway. It's a freeway with a grassy median built to interstate standards. That alone should be 65 MPH IMHO.

But part of the 4-lane highway system that supplements the Interstate highway system.

It appears that VDOT delegated the 4-lane speed limit studies to the district office traffic engineering sections, with no central control from Central Office.  That is why a district like Hampton Roads posts 60 on these freeway bypasses and you see 65 and even 70 in some other districts.  That is a mistake if you ask me, even if assuming that each district section uses what they think are the highest engineering standards.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 05:40:31 PM
A lot of divided highways in Virginia have smaller lanes and narrow shoulders with no room to stop, and are posted 60 MPH. The only difference about those and US-460 is that US-460 is undivided.

That is a -massive- difference from a safety standpoint.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 05:40:31 PM
This stretch of US-58 between Danville and Martinsville has 8 foot lanes, no shoulder, very hilly, and has lots of blind intersections. It's posted at 60 MPH. 

20-foot roadway and 1-foot wedges (narrow shoulders) so actually 22 feet of usable roadway.

Again see my comment about inconsistent interpretation of standards from district to district.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 06:20:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 05:58:03 PM
But part of the 4-lane highway system that supplements the Interstate highway system.
We were discussing the undivided roadways. I agree the bypass should be 65 MPH. I wouldn't say 70 MPH, as that area is heavily developed, and traffic is very heavy, and some of the curves are questionable, but it could be 65 MPH.

Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 05:58:03 PM
It appears that VDOT delegated the 4-lane speed limit studies to the district office traffic engineering sections, with no central control from Central Office.  That is why a district like Hampton Roads posts 60 on these freeway bypasses and you see 65 and even 70 in some other districts.  That is a mistake if you ask me, even if assuming that each district section uses what they think are the highest engineering standards.
The system in Virginia is very strange. In some cases, the state maintains and determines the speed limits, in others it's the locality. For instance, the City of Suffolk maintains and determines the speed limit on the US 58 bypass. In Chesapeake, the same applies with VA-168. Major freeway corridors, though ran by the localities.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 05:40:31 PM
A lot of divided highways in Virginia have smaller lanes and narrow shoulders with no room to stop, and are posted 60 MPH. The only difference about those and US-460 is that US-460 is undivided.

Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 05:58:03 PM
That is a -massive- difference from a safety standpoint.
If the lanes were wider and at least 4 foot of shoulder was provided, it could handle higher.

Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 05:58:03 PM
20-foot roadway and 1-foot wedges (narrow shoulders) so actually 22 feet of usable roadway.
It's still a dangerous speed limit none the less. I was comfortable cruising about 65 MPH (in 55 MPH zones) to 70 MPH (in 60 MPH zones) in other areas from Suffolk to Danville along US-58, though through here, I didn't feel comfortable really above 57 MPH or so. It's too risky.

The state should be able to mandate a maximum speed limit of 55 MPH on this stretch, though I guess they have not decided to.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 07:47:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 06:20:50 PM
The system in Virginia is very strange. In some cases, the state maintains and determines the speed limits, in others it's the locality. For instance, the City of Suffolk maintains and determines the speed limit on the US 58 bypass. In Chesapeake, the same applies with VA-168. Major freeway corridors, though ran by the localities.

Since when, I never heard that before, and which parts?  The state controls the speed limit on US-58, and also on the state-built parts of VA-168 (Oak Grove Connector and Great Bridge Bypass).

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 06:20:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 05:58:03 PM
That is a -massive- difference from a safety standpoint.
If the lanes were wider and at least 4 foot of shoulder was provided, it could handle higher.

My minimum design for 60 mph on a 4-lane highway cross-section would be four 12-foot lanes, a 12-foot continuous left turn lane, and 10-foot stabilized (aggregate) shoulders.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 06:20:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 05:58:03 PM
20-foot roadway and 1-foot wedges (narrow shoulders) so actually 22 feet of usable roadway.
It's still a dangerous speed limit none the less. I was comfortable cruising about 65 MPH (in 55 MPH zones) to 70 MPH (in 60 MPH zones) in other areas from Suffolk to Danville along US-58, though through here, I didn't feel comfortable really above 57 MPH or so. It's too risky.

Some people are impleasable.  Most speed limits too low, but some too high and 'dangerous'.  I've not felt danger or risk on that segment.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 08:06:01 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 21, 2019, 12:32:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 10:49:57 AM
"to accommodate sea level rising"
So why aren't they raising the manmade islands?
They have to take into account the waves and sea level rise for all parts of the project, including the islands.  So they may indeed raise the islands some...
http://www.p3virginia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Part-2-HRBT-Addendum-1.pdf

That's odd, I thought that nowadays it was "global climate change".  That could mean falling sea levels if there is global cooling.

So why aren't they building the tunnels deeper so as to maintain design water depth above the floor of the bay?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 08:16:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 07:47:51 PM
Since when, I never heard that before, and which parts?  The state controls the speed limit on US-58, and also on the state-built parts of VA-168 (Oak Grove Connector and Great Bridge Bypass)

I recall seeing this tweet months back about the Suffolk Bypass - https://twitter.com/VaDOTHR/status/1072302510994587648

I can find documentation if you'd like, but Chesapeake does have full authority over the maintenance, operations, projects, and speed limits on the Great Bridge Bypass. For example, the city is currently finishing a slope stabilization project installing new drainage, stabilizing the slopes, etc. at the Great Bridge Bypass / Mt. Pleasant Rd interchange (Exit 11). They also have plans to reconstruct the interchange in the near future. If it was VDOT maintained, this would be done by VDOT, not the city. The City of Chesapeake has also done routine maintenance on the Great Bridge Bypass as well. I've never seen VDOT vehicles south of I-64.

The Oak Grove Connector was built by the City of Chesapeake, not VDOT. The only project VDOT constructed was the Great Bridge Bypass in 1980.

Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 07:47:51 PM
My minimum design for 60 mph on a 4-lane highway cross-section would be four 12-foot lanes, a 12-foot continuous left turn lane, and 10-foot stabilized (aggregate) shoulders.

Take this roadway in Florida for example. It safely can handle 60 MPH, and has two 12-foot lanes, and 5-foot paved shoulders.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4357148,-85.4355243,3a,37.5y,274.68h,83.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV53Vvg1V_KFBUCq6Xki5Qg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This roadway in Texas is even narrower. 12-foot lanes, and 3 foot paved shoulders. And that's 70 MPH.

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6759814,-97.4545086,3a,36.5y,188.52h,85.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sngFixfHbtmnIWzymzoLu1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That example in particular is a decent-traffic roadway. The TX-286 freeway north of there was previously a 70 MPH rural roadway with significant traffic volumes, and therefore was expanded to a 70 MPH four-lane freeway.

Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 07:47:51 PM
Some people are impleasable.  Most speed limits too low, but some too high and 'dangerous'.  I've not felt danger or risk on that segment.
Maybe "dangerous" or "too high" were the wrong words... I certainly wouldn't drive much above 60 MPH. But I suppose a high limit allows drivers to drive a comfortable speed within the legal limit. This section definitally wouldn't be a candidate of mine for 4-lane roads in Virginia for 65 MPH. Other parts of US-58 definitely, but not this stretch.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 08:31:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 08:16:09 PM
I recall seeing this tweet months back about the Suffolk Bypass -

Maintaining the roadway doesn't mean that a locality can set a speed limit on a principal arterial highway that is on the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET).  The US-58 Suffolk Bypass was built by VDH&T in the early 1970s so it wasn't originally built by the locality.  Not saying that it is impossible just rather unlikely.  It also fits the model of bypass speed limits west of there in that district.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 21, 2019, 09:07:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 08:06:01 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 21, 2019, 12:32:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 10:49:57 AM
"to accommodate sea level rising"
So why aren't they raising the manmade islands?
They have to take into account the waves and sea level rise for all parts of the project, including the islands.  So they may indeed raise the islands some...
http://www.p3virginia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Part-2-HRBT-Addendum-1.pdf

That's odd, I thought that nowadays it was "global climate change".  That could mean falling sea levels if there is global cooling.

So why aren't they building the tunnels deeper so as to maintain design water depth above the floor of the bay?

My guess is because the top of the tunnel is at or below the bottom of the shipping channel, per design document of the original tunnel (http://www.virginiadot.org/HRBT/documents/reference_document_library/design_and_construction_of_the_hampton_roads_tunnel.pdf).  This puts the tunnel minimum about 70 ft below the mean water line (in the 1950s) which is dredged to a 50 ft channel and authorized for 55 ft for future expansion of the channel.  So is it more likely over the course of the next 100 years that the ocean rises a little bit more or drops 10 ft...?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on March 21, 2019, 09:43:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 08:06:01 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 21, 2019, 12:32:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 10:49:57 AM
"to accommodate sea level rising"
So why aren't they raising the manmade islands?
They have to take into account the waves and sea level rise for all parts of the project, including the islands.  So they may indeed raise the islands some...
http://www.p3virginia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Part-2-HRBT-Addendum-1.pdf

That's odd, I thought that nowadays it was "global climate change".  That could mean falling sea levels if there is global cooling.

So why aren't they building the tunnels deeper so as to maintain design water depth above the floor of the bay?
Are you a science denier? Global warming is the correct term. On average, the globe is getting warmer. Cooling is not happening.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 10:00:57 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 21, 2019, 09:43:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 08:06:01 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 21, 2019, 12:32:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 10:49:57 AM
"to accommodate sea level rising"
So why aren't they raising the manmade islands?
They have to take into account the waves and sea level rise for all parts of the project, including the islands.  So they may indeed raise the islands some...
http://www.p3virginia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Part-2-HRBT-Addendum-1.pdf
That's odd, I thought that nowadays it was "global climate change".  That could mean falling sea levels if there is global cooling.
So why aren't they building the tunnels deeper so as to maintain design water depth above the floor of the bay?
Are you a science denier? Global warming is the correct term. On average, the globe is getting warmer. Cooling is not happening.

Definition of the scientific method --
- Observable
- Testable
- Repeatable

"Global climate change" is based on computer models, there is nothing scientific about it.  It can't be tested with repeatable experiments.

This from the link above --
"The design sea level rise has been set at 2.0 feet for this Project."

May as well kiss most of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton, Newport News and Virginia Beach goodbye.

I get Engineering News-Record and they have various articles about predictions about GCC that will generate more business for the contracting and heavy construction industry.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 21, 2019, 10:17:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 08:31:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 08:16:09 PM
I recall seeing this tweet months back about the Suffolk Bypass -

Maintaining the roadway doesn't mean that a locality can set a speed limit on a principal arterial highway that is on the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET).  The US-58 Suffolk Bypass was built by VDH&T in the early 1970s so it wasn't originally built by the locality.  Not saying that it is impossible just rather unlikely.  It also fits the model of bypass speed limits west of there in that district.

Section 46.2-1300 (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter13/section46.2-1300/) of the Code of Virginia gives counties, cities, and towns the authority to increase or decrease the speed limit within its boundaries, provided such increase or decrease in speed shall be based upon an engineering and traffic investigation by such county, city or town and provided such speed area or zone is clearly indicated by markers or signs.

As long as they don't exceed the general statutory limits in Section 46.2-870 (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-870/) and as long as they have concurrence in writing from the Commissioner of Highways (i.e. VDOT) on VDOT-maintained highways (2nd half of subsection A in Section 46.2-878 (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-878/)), local jurisdictions can change speed limits.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 10:19:58 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 21, 2019, 10:17:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 08:31:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 08:16:09 PM
I recall seeing this tweet months back about the Suffolk Bypass -

Maintaining the roadway doesn't mean that a locality can set a speed limit on a principal arterial highway that is on the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET).  The US-58 Suffolk Bypass was built by VDH&T in the early 1970s so it wasn't originally built by the locality.  Not saying that it is impossible just rather unlikely.  It also fits the model of bypass speed limits west of there in that district.

Section 46.2-1300 (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter13/section46.2-1300/) of the Code of Virginia gives counties, cities, and towns the authority to increase or decrease the speed limit within its boundaries, provided such increase or decrease in speed shall be based upon an engineering and traffic investigation by such county, city or town and provided such speed area or zone is clearly indicated by markers or signs.

As long as they don't exceed the general statutory limits in Section 46.2-870 (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-870/) and as long as they have concurrence in writing from the Commissioner of Highways (i.e. VDOT) on VDOT-maintained highways (2nd half of subsection A in Section 46.2-878 (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-878/)), local jurisdictions can change speed limits.
So in this case, since VDOT does not maintain VA-168 nor US-58, the localities would be permitted to set the limits as high as 70 MPH, without any state approval. Obviously, it would never be set that high given the urban nature of the environment, roadway design, etc., but legally it could.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 11:25:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 10:19:58 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 21, 2019, 10:17:41 PM
Section 46.2-1300 (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter13/section46.2-1300/) of the Code of Virginia gives counties, cities, and towns the authority to increase or decrease the speed limit within its boundaries, provided such increase or decrease in speed shall be based upon an engineering and traffic investigation by such county, city or town and provided such speed area or zone is clearly indicated by markers or signs.
As long as they don't exceed the general statutory limits in Section 46.2-870 (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-870/) and as long as they have concurrence in writing from the Commissioner of Highways (i.e. VDOT) on VDOT-maintained highways (2nd half of subsection A in Section 46.2-878 (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-878/)), local jurisdictions can change speed limits.
So in this case, since VDOT does not maintain VA-168 nor US-58, the localities would be permitted to set the limits as high as 70 MPH, without any state approval. Obviously, it would never be set that high given the urban nature of the environment, roadway design, etc., but legally it could.

Ahh, another case where it would take a legislative attorney to sort thru all those statutes and interpret them regarding this matter.

In § 46.2-878. Authority to change speed limits, it starts,
"Notwithstanding the other provisions of this article, the Commissioner of Highways or other authority having jurisdiction over highways ...".

Also -
"The increased or decreased speed limits over highways under the control of the Commissioner of Highways shall be effective only when prescribed in writing by the Commissioner of Highways and kept on file in the Central Office of the Department of Transportation."

VDH&T built the US-58 Suffolk Bypass.  The fact that they would turn over the maintenance to the locality does not mean that they no longer have jurisdiction over the highway, or that the right-of-way no longer belongs to VDOT, or that the highway is no longer under their control.  So VDOT would have control over the speed limit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 11:30:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 11:25:39 PM
VDH&T built the US-58 Suffolk Bypass.  The fact that they would turn over the maintenance to the locality does not mean that they no longer have jurisdiction over the highway, or that the right-of-way no longer belongs to VDOT, or that the highway is no longer under their control.  So VDOT would have control over the speed limit.
Could be true... the city may have the say, or the state does. But either way, an increase to 65 MPH, if it were to ever occur, would likely pass through both VDOT and Suffolk either way.

VA-168 is different as the city does maintain and operate the entire thing. I suppose the Great Bridge Bypass could be debated, though I'm fairly certain it's the city. The Oak Grove Connector and Chesapeake Expressway were both freeways constructed by the City of Chesapeake, and are operated by the City of Chesapeake. That's fully the City of Chesapeake's deal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 22, 2019, 12:14:52 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 11:30:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 11:25:39 PM
VDH&T built the US-58 Suffolk Bypass.  The fact that they would turn over the maintenance to the locality does not mean that they no longer have jurisdiction over the highway, or that the right-of-way no longer belongs to VDOT, or that the highway is no longer under their control.  So VDOT would have control over the speed limit.
Could be true... the city may have the say, or the state does. But either way, an increase to 65 MPH, if it were to ever occur, would likely pass through both VDOT and Suffolk either way.
VA-168 is different as the city does maintain and operate the entire thing. I suppose the Great Bridge Bypass could be debated, though I'm fairly certain it's the city. The Oak Grove Connector and Chesapeake Expressway were both freeways constructed by the City of Chesapeake, and are operated by the City of Chesapeake. That's fully the City of Chesapeake's deal.

I see now that I myself wrote that the Oak Grove Connector was built by the City of Chesapeake.  Article "Chesapeake Expressway (VA-168)".

But I see that I also quoted a city news release, and there was some state funding, and it doesn't really resolve the issue of who owns the highway, which would seem to resolve the issue of who sets the speed limit.

"The Virginia General Assembly approved legislation for State financing of the Oak Grove Connector in 1993. The financing is unique. The City is dedicating its share of the State recordation taxes distributed to localities to pay for approximately half of the annual debt service. The other half of the debt service will come from local general revenues and is being provided by the City of Chesapeake through a contract with the State. Sale of these State bonds resulted in the lowest true interest cost in the history of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The total project cost, including design, permits and right-of-way acquisitions, is $38 million. The Oak Grove Connector was designed by local companies including the engineering firm, Kimley-Horn & Associates. Road construction will be completed by the contracting firm of Higgerson-Buchanan, Inc."
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 22, 2019, 08:39:04 AM
WOW! The GW Parkway is completely closed in both directions this morning between the Beltway and Route 123. Seems yesterday's rain compromised the road. WTOP's article refers to a sinkhole that's at least three feet wide and six to eight feet deep, and it sounds like it's unclear whether it extends further under the road.

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/03/nb-george-washington-parkway-closed-because-of-road-damage/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NEW%20Breaking%20News%20-%20DO%20NOT%20USE&utm_term=2017_WTOP%20Breaking%20News


Edited to add photos the NPS put on Twitter after my original post. The tweet says the damage appears to be caused by a broken stormwater management pipe "deep underground,"  so this may take a while for them to investigate.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190322/fe2be8229b0abf2e16e2f9b19e909243.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190322/9f4d38f96eadf5f14e1c5fa6dc28cfa4.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190322/265f938c73e77d508c103846f3122af0.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on March 22, 2019, 09:04:01 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2019, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2019, 01:23:24 PM
Right, that is why 4-lane undivided highways like most of US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk, is not eligible for a 60 mph speed limit, even though it is part of the US-460 corridor authorized for 60 mph in the statute.
If it was legal, the rural sections of U.S. 460 could definitely handle 60 MPH.

Out here at the other end of the state, sections of U.S. 460 are posted for 60 MPH, in Bedford County and Giles County (and a short stretch in Montgomery County). The Blacksburg and Pearisburg bypasses are posted at 65 MPH. It has been a while since I've made the trip beyond Bluefield to Grundy, but I seem to remember sections of 460 in Tazewell County that were posted at 60 and 65.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 22, 2019, 09:13:40 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on March 22, 2019, 09:04:01 AM
Out here at the other end of the state, sections of U.S. 460 are posted for 60 MPH, in Bedford County and Giles County (and a short stretch in Montgomery County). The Blacksburg and Pearisburg bypasses are posted at 65 MPH. It has been a while since I've made the trip beyond Bluefield to Grundy, but I seem to remember sections of 460 in Tazewell County that were posted at 60 and 65.

I recall pre-NMSL that the US-460 Christiansburg Bypass was posted at 65 mph.  How about nowadays?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 22, 2019, 09:32:59 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 22, 2019, 09:13:40 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on March 22, 2019, 09:04:01 AM
Out here at the other end of the state, sections of U.S. 460 are posted for 60 MPH, in Bedford County and Giles County (and a short stretch in Montgomery County). The Blacksburg and Pearisburg bypasses are posted at 65 MPH. It has been a while since I've made the trip beyond Bluefield to Grundy, but I seem to remember sections of 460 in Tazewell County that were posted at 60 and 65.

I recall pre-NMSL that the US-460 Christiansburg Bypass was posted at 65 mph.  How about nowadays?

It's 65 now, too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 22, 2019, 09:40:25 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 22, 2019, 09:32:59 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 22, 2019, 09:13:40 AM
I recall pre-NMSL that the US-460 Christiansburg Bypass was posted at 65 mph.  How about nowadays?
It's 65 now, too.

The US-460 Lynchburg Bypass is 65 mph also.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: SP Cook on March 22, 2019, 10:47:06 AM
https://www.bdtonline.com/news/local_news/tennessee-man-sentenced-in-crash-resulting-in-amputation/article_84a8ca16-1aea-5635-8633-354845b91ec9.html

No winners.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 22, 2019, 11:39:15 AM
https://twitter.com/npsjennyas/status/1109092118017032192?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 22, 2019, 12:08:51 PM
More contract awards by the CTB --

In this month's meeting, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) also approved 11 VDOT contracts totaling $144.6 million.

A $59.6 million design-build contract was awarded to Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. of York, Pa. to construct a new interchange at Route 7 (East Market Street) and Battlefield Parkway in VDOT's Northern Virginia District.  The project will also modify the intersection of Route 7 and Cardinal Park Drive.  The project, expected to be complete in spring 2022, will relieve congestion, improve safety and enhance mobility for cyclists and pedestrians along the corridor.

A $29 million design-build contract was awarded to Orders Construction Company of St. Albans, W.Va. to replace two Smyth County bridges that carry Interstate 81 north and south over Route 11 (Lee Highway), the Middle Fork of the Holston River and the adjacent railroad in VDOT's Bristol District.  Completion is expected in spring 2022.

A $7.4 million contract was awarded to Brayman Construction Corporation of Saxonsburg, Pa. to replace the bridge that carries Route 122 (Moneta Road) over Goose Creek in Bedford County, part of VDOT's Salem District.  Completion is expected in summer 2021.

Additional contracts for paving related activities were awarded as follows:


http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/ctb-takes-critical-steps-on-hrbt-expansion-project3-22-2019.asp

This is the I-81 Bridge in Smyth County (http://www.google.com/maps/place/Smyth+County,+VA/@36.8746366,-81.3985505,364m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x885031e3bf9dcaa7:0x3cd48cf9af50fcb6!8m2!3d36.8687921!4d-81.5596427)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 22, 2019, 04:08:22 PM
NB GW Parkway to remain closed all weekend.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on March 22, 2019, 04:36:34 PM
Info about the I-81 bridge project:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/APD_Docs/RFQ/97555_RFQ_Info_Meeting_06_12_2018.pdf

The new structures will be at a higher elevation than the existing structures:
QuoteTo improve operations by replacing the existing structures which have substandard vertical clearances over US Route 11
There is an 14'1" clearance sign on US 11.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 22, 2019, 04:44:39 PM
Assuming that the bridge will be built with at least a 24 foot left shoulder in each direction to accommodate future 6-lane widening, like the other newer bridges on the I-81 corridor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on March 22, 2019, 05:50:33 PM
I don't think so.  The conceptual drawing only has a 86' wide roadway.  But of course that's not an actual design. 

This bridge further south in Bristol VA, which is 6 lanes, has approximately a 120' wide roadway. 
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6215146,-82.1889464,149m/data=!3m1!1e3

I had my doubts that $29 million would be enough to fund a six lane bridge of this size. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 22, 2019, 05:55:18 PM
The brand new bridges at the VA 140 interchange were not built for a 6-lane roadway either:  https://goo.gl/maps/25n4cnFKDYk
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 22, 2019, 06:04:06 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 22, 2019, 05:55:18 PM
The brand new bridges at the VA 140 interchange were not built for a 6-lane roadway either:  https://goo.gl/maps/25n4cnFKDYk
Poor planning IMHO then. Any new bridges on I-81 should be designed to accommodate 6 lanes. Saves money in the long run.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 22, 2019, 06:05:46 PM
Quote from: BrianP on March 22, 2019, 04:36:34 PM
Info about the I-81 bridge project:
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/APD_Docs/RFQ/97555_RFQ_Info_Meeting_06_12_2018.pdf
The new structures will be at a higher elevation than the existing structures:
QuoteTo improve operations by replacing the existing structures which have substandard vertical clearances over US Route 11
There is an 14'1" clearance sign on US 11.

That is standard; nowadays 18 or even 20 feet of vertical clearance is used on new Interstate highway bridges.

Earlier I e-mailed the project manager about the bridge widths and am awaiting a reply.

In that presentation it looks like a single new bridge for I-81, with 42 feet of deck width for each direction, separated by a median barrier.  Each direction, two 12-foot lanes, 12-foot right shoulder, 6-foot left shoulder.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 22, 2019, 06:04:06 PM
Poor planning IMHO then. Any new bridges on I-81 should be designed to accommodate 6 lanes. Saves money in the long run.

Not necessarily that much.  In the widening, build new piers and girders and deck, splice the two decks together, the only thing lost is the bridge parapet.

Unless they are going to widen it pretty soon, the extra money can be applied to other I-81 bridge replacements, as many of the bridges are now over 50 years old.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 22, 2019, 09:34:56 PM
I now better see why substandard bridges have issues. Earlier, I was driving eastbound on I-64 near Williamsburg, and a truck happened to break down on the Queen Creek bridges, reducing traffic to one lane, and resulting in a 4 mile backup. If the bridges had shoulders, the truck would've been able to pull off and not impede traffic.

Luckily, those bridges are currently being replaced apart of the I-64 widening, and are actually currently under construction. The new bridges will have 3 lanes in each direction, and 12 foot shoulders on either side.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 22, 2019, 10:25:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 22, 2019, 09:34:56 PM
I now better see why substandard bridges have issues. Earlier, I was driving eastbound on I-64 near Williamsburg, and a truck happened to break down on the Queen Creek bridges, reducing traffic to one lane, and resulting in a 4 mile backup. If the bridges had shoulders, the truck would've been able to pull off and not impede traffic.

Disabled vehicles actually have become rather rare over the last 30 years, I can remember when on a 50-mile Interstate highway trip it seemed like you would see at least 5 or 10 stopped on the shoulder along the way, and now usually it is zero.  By "disabled" I mean exclusive of accidents/crashes, which can happen anywhere.  Probably mainly due to improvements in tires, and the elimination of carburetors via electronic ignition and fuel injection, and even the older (15+ year old) cars on the road have these features.

Those bridges are just over 900 feet long, and that is long enough to create a higher statistical probability that a vehicle that is in the process of having a breakdown won't be able to make it off the bridge and onto a full shoulder.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on March 23, 2019, 02:52:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 22, 2019, 10:25:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 22, 2019, 09:34:56 PM
I now better see why substandard bridges have issues. Earlier, I was driving eastbound on I-64 near Williamsburg, and a truck happened to break down on the Queen Creek bridges, reducing traffic to one lane, and resulting in a 4 mile backup. If the bridges had shoulders, the truck would've been able to pull off and not impede traffic.

Disabled vehicles actually have become rather rare over the last 30 years, I can remember when on a 50-mile Interstate highway trip it seemed like you would see at least 5 or 10 stopped on the shoulder along the way, and now usually it is zero.  By "disabled" I mean exclusive of accidents/crashes, which can happen anywhere.  Probably mainly due to improvements in tires, and the elimination of carburetors via electronic ignition and fuel injection, and even the older (15+ year old) cars on the road have these features.

Those bridges are just over 900 feet long, and that is long enough to create a higher statistical probability that a vehicle that is in the process of having a breakdown won't be able to make it off the bridge and onto a full shoulder.
And this is why agencies are now tending to build full shoulders despite the extra cost and the ability to waive it on "long bridges" (which is not specifically defined IIRC). But yeah, I routinely see cars abandoned or disabled on the shoulder, maybe 1 or 2 per 50 miles instead of 5 or 10. People still drive cars into the ground.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 23, 2019, 07:49:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 23, 2019, 02:52:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 22, 2019, 10:25:25 PM
Those bridges are just over 900 feet long, and that is long enough to create a higher statistical probability that a vehicle that is in the process of having a breakdown won't be able to make it off the bridge and onto a full shoulder.
And this is why agencies are now tending to build full shoulders despite the extra cost and the ability to waive it on "long bridges" (which is not specifically defined IIRC). But yeah, I routinely see cars abandoned or disabled on the shoulder, maybe 1 or 2 per 50 miles instead of 5 or 10. People still drive cars into the ground.

VDOT has been building freeway long bridges with full shoulders since about the mid-1970s, such as the second HRBT bridges, the I-664 Hampton Roads bridges, the I-295 James River Bridge, the US-1 James River Bridge, the VA-288 James River Bridge, the VA-150 James River Bridge.  Common in other states as well.  The new I-95/I-495 Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

I don't have an exact number for the rate of disabled vehicles, I haven't even seen it discussed anywhere.  I know it catches my attention when I see one, whereby back in the 1970s or before it seemed like they were everywhere.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 23, 2019, 11:51:08 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 23, 2019, 02:52:18 AM
and the ability to waive it on "long bridges"
The ability to waive long bridges really only applies when an older, existing, non-interstate bridge is being incorporated into the interstate highway system. Even in that case, widening the bridge to include shoulders should be considered as an option, or replacing the bridge completely especially if it is a heavily traveled roadway. For that most part, that's what happens. As far as I'm aware, every new location interstate bridge is built with full shoulders. Arterial bridges nowadays are also mainly constructed with full shoulders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 23, 2019, 11:56:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2019, 11:51:08 AM
The ability to waive long bridges really only applies when an older, existing, non-interstate bridge is being incorporated into the interstate highway system.

That may have been valid in the early stages of the Interstate highway system with pre-Interstate turnpikes being incorporated into the Interstate highway system.

Since the original system has long since been completed, there should be no new Interstate highway authorized if it means incorporating major substandard features such as bridges that don't have full shoulders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 23, 2019, 11:58:35 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 23, 2019, 11:56:24 AM
Since the original system has long since been completed, there should be no new Interstate highway authorized if it means incorporating major substandard features such as bridges that don't have full shoulders.
I agree, but the interstate standards specifically outline that long bridges are permitted as long as they have 4 foot shoulders on either side. IIRC, it's been done even after the turnpikes and more recently too. I can't remember where though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 23, 2019, 12:40:56 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2019, 11:58:35 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 23, 2019, 11:56:24 AM
Since the original system has long since been completed, there should be no new Interstate highway authorized if it means incorporating major substandard features such as bridges that don't have full shoulders.
I agree, but the interstate standards specifically outline that long bridges are permitted as long as they have 4 foot shoulders on either side. IIRC, it's been done even after the turnpikes and more recently too. I can't remember where though.

This is from the 2005 AASHTO "A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System"

Existing Bridges to Remain in Place
Mainline bridges on the interstate system and bridges on routes to be incorporated into the system may remain in place if, as a minimum, they meet the following: a) the bridge cross section consists of 3.6 m (12 ft) lanes, 3.0 m (10ft) shoulder on the right and 1.1 m (3.5 ft) shoulder on the left; b) for long bridges, the offset to the face of parapet or bridge rail on both the left and right is 1.1 m (3.5 ft) measured from the edge of the nearest traveled lane; c) bridge railing shall meet or be upgraded to current standards.


So what is a "long bridge"?  The I-664 South Trestles are 3.2 miles long and they have full shoulders.

If a bridge 200 feet long needs full shoulders then why should a much longer bridge not need full shoulders?  If mile+ long new Interstate bridges were getting full shoulders up to 40 years ago then why should a bridge be allowed into the Interstate system today if it does not meet that standard?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 23, 2019, 02:01:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 23, 2019, 12:40:56 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2019, 11:58:35 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 23, 2019, 11:56:24 AM
Since the original system has long since been completed, there should be no new Interstate highway authorized if it means incorporating major substandard features such as bridges that don't have full shoulders.
I agree, but the interstate standards specifically outline that long bridges are permitted as long as they have 4 foot shoulders on either side. IIRC, it's been done even after the turnpikes and more recently too. I can't remember where though.

This is from the 2005 AASHTO "A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System"

Existing Bridges to Remain in Place
Mainline bridges on the interstate system and bridges on routes to be incorporated into the system may remain in place if, as a minimum, they meet the following: a) the bridge cross section consists of 3.6 m (12 ft) lanes, 3.0 m (10ft) shoulder on the right and 1.1 m (3.5 ft) shoulder on the left; b) for long bridges, the offset to the face of parapet or bridge rail on both the left and right is 1.1 m (3.5 ft) measured from the edge of the nearest traveled lane; c) bridge railing shall meet or be upgraded to current standards.


So what is a "long bridge"?  The I-664 South Trestles are 3.2 miles long and they have full shoulders.

If a bridge 200 feet long needs full shoulders then why should a much longer bridge not need full shoulders?  If mile+ long new Interstate bridges were getting full shoulders up to 40 years ago then why should a bridge be allowed into the Interstate system today if it does not meet that standard?
A long bridge is any bridge over 200 feet long, as per the current standards, listed below.

Essentially, the minimum standard allows 4 ft shoulders, though most DOTs use the practice of carrying the full 10 foot shoulder across the bridges, though it's not required, and has never been.

Three examples, while they haven't been officially done yet, are proposed in North Carolina. The two 2,640 ft bridges over the Perquimans River, the single 4-lane 9,504 ft bridge over the Chowan River, and the 1,056 ft bridges over the Roanoke River (depends, one alternative calls for constructing new bridges just south of the existing, the other two retain the existing), all three along US-17, are going be incorporated into Interstate 87 using the standard permitted.

I will say, I don't agree with it fully, I believe the US-17 bridge over the Chowan River (1999 build), the US-17 NB bridge over the Perquimans River (1994 build), and the US-17 bridges over the Roanoke River (1990 and 1992 build) (if they are retained) should have the outside 4 ft shoulders widened to 10 ft, and the US-17 SB bridge over the Perquimans River (1965 build), which doesn't have any shoulders should be fully replaced.

But nonetheless, if NCDOT chooses to retain the bridges, it would be permitted under the current Interstate standards.

The most recent 2016 edition of "A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate System (https://www.dot.state.al.us/dsweb/pdf/A%20Policy%20on%20Design%20Standards%20-%20Interstate%20System%20May%202016.pdf)" still permits the practice.
Quote
Cross Section
The width of bridges less than or equal to 200 ft in length shall not be less than the full paved width of the approach roadway, including shoulders. The bridge width is measured between the bridge railing, parapet, or barrier. Long bridges, defined as bridges having an overall length in excess of 200 ft, may have a lesser width and should be analyzed individually. On long bridges, a reduced shoulder width of 4 ft may be used on both the left and right sides

Existing Bridges to Remain in Place
Mainline bridges on the Interstate system and bridges on routes to be incorporated into the system may remain in place if, as a minimum, they meet all of the following criteria:

  • For bridges less than or equal to 200 ft in length, the bridge section consists of at least 12 ft lanes, 10 ft shoulder on the right and 3.5 ft shoulder on the left;
  • For long bridges, shoulder width on both the left and right is at least 3.5 ft measured from the edge of the nearest travel lane; and
  • Bridge railing meets or will be upgraded to current standards.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 23, 2019, 02:29:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2019, 02:01:54 PM
But nonetheless, if NCDOT chooses to retain the bridges, it would be permitted under the current Interstate standards.
The most recent 2016 edition of "A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate System" still permits the practice.

Nevertheless, a crappy and substandard design clause probably inserted by the advocacy and bullying of the likes of NCDOT (or as I like to say THSDOT,  Tar Heel State Department of Transportation).  Just because it is "permitted" doesn't mean that it is a wise and safe design practice.

Like I said full shoulders on an Interstate highway bridge of any length has effectively been a standard since the late 1970s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 23, 2019, 04:02:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 23, 2019, 02:29:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2019, 02:01:54 PM
But nonetheless, if NCDOT chooses to retain the bridges, it would be permitted under the current Interstate standards.
The most recent 2016 edition of "A Policy on Design Standards - Interstate System" still permits the practice.

Nevertheless, a crappy and substandard design clause probably inserted by the advocacy and bullying of the likes of NCDOT (or as I like to say THSDOT,  Tar Heel State Department of Transportation).  Just because it is "permitted" doesn't mean that it is a wise and safe design practice.

Like I said full shoulders on an Interstate highway bridge of any length has effectively been a standard since the late 1970s.
I agree, the bridges do need modifications. Despite what the feasibility study states, project "R-5869" (only partially funded) in the STIP to upgrade 4.5 miles of U.S. 17 near Hertford to interstate standards has a high cost estimate which may hint at a bridge replacement / widening.

Project "R-5869" is split up into three projects A, B, and C.

Project A is set to begin in 2026 and is funded for $36,900,000. That project would convert the Harvey Point Rd signalized intersection into an interchange with frontage roads to serve nearby businesses, along with right of way & demolishing approx. 8 homes and 4-5 businesses and also replace the Wayne Fork Rd intersection into a grade separation with no connections.

Project B is also set to begin in 2026 and is funded for $23,700,000. That project would convert the New Hope Rd signalized intersection into an interchange.

Project C is funded for programming and environmental study, but construction, R/W, utility relocation, etc. is not funded, and projected to cost $139,500,000. That project would likely construct an interchange at the Wiggins Rd intersection, a partial interchange the U.S. 17 Business southern junction, 2 miles of frontage road on the Hertford Bypass (1 mile on each side), 1,000 ft of frontage road just north of the river to serve the River Croft community, and fully right of way & demolish approx. 16 homes and 1 businesses.

For Project C, if you assume $20 million for an interchange, that's about $40 million for the two interchanges, and assuming $5 million per mile for frontage roads, about $10-15 million for frontage roads. That leaves $84 million leftover. About $20 million would likely go to right of way, leaving about $64 million. That $64 million could be programmed to replace one of the Perquimans River bridges, and widen the other one. Judging by other bridge projects done in North Carolina, $64 million or so could complete the bridge projects on US-17 to have 10 foot shoulders.

It's just a complete guess, but once the NEPA process begins for this section, we'll have a better idea if they are planning to replace the bridges, widen them, or retain them. I'm hoping they will either be replaced or widened, for reasons I've listed above.

No info regarding the other two bridges.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on March 25, 2019, 09:40:40 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 22, 2019, 09:13:40 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on March 22, 2019, 09:04:01 AM
Out here at the other end of the state, sections of U.S. 460 are posted for 60 MPH, in Bedford County and Giles County (and a short stretch in Montgomery County). The Blacksburg and Pearisburg bypasses are posted at 65 MPH. It has been a while since I've made the trip beyond Bluefield to Grundy, but I seem to remember sections of 460 in Tazewell County that were posted at 60 and 65.

I recall pre-NMSL that the US-460 Christiansburg Bypass was posted at 65 mph.  How about nowadays?

U.S. 460 from Roanoke Street in Christiansburg to North Main St. in Blacksburg is all four-lane limited access and is 65 mph between those points. With the opening of the Southgate interchange that eliminated the traffic light, that ended the short stretch of 55 mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 26, 2019, 06:28:12 PM
Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/caroline/caroline-board-oks-speed-limit-increase-on-a-p-hill/article_1f866d5b-44fe-5d54-a7ce-8965726b0ccb.html

Glad to see some more of these increases coming along.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 27, 2019, 07:04:08 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2019, 06:28:12 PM
Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/caroline/caroline-board-oks-speed-limit-increase-on-a-p-hill/article_1f866d5b-44fe-5d54-a7ce-8965726b0ccb.html

Glad to see some more of these increases coming along.

I am shocked that they confused the Nice Bridge with the CBBT in the article.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 27, 2019, 10:30:38 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 12, 2019, 03:54:36 PM
VA 357 decommissioning on the March 2019 CTB agenda...

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/mar/agendas/ctb_action_meeting_march_2019.pdf

The Southside Training Facility was torn down and redeveloped by private interests.

Annnnnnd it's gone. (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/mar/reso/1.pdf) VA 357 decommissioned.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 27, 2019, 11:20:46 AM
QuoteSpeed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

Not surprising.  Because of Fort A.P. Hill, most of it was limited-access to begin with.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 27, 2019, 11:23:48 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 27, 2019, 07:04:08 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2019, 06:28:12 PM
Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/caroline/caroline-board-oks-speed-limit-increase-on-a-p-hill/article_1f866d5b-44fe-5d54-a7ce-8965726b0ccb.html

Glad to see some more of these increases coming along.

I am shocked that they confused the Nice Bridge with the CBBT in the article.

Perhaps the writer meant the Bay Bridge (in Maryland) and simply used the wrong name. That seems far more plausible to me because Route 301 is indeed a major route to the Bay Bridge for people who want to avoid the Beltway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 27, 2019, 01:14:12 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 27, 2019, 11:20:46 AM
Not surprising.  Because of Fort A.P. Hill, most of it was limited-access to begin with.
Indeed, the entire 9 mile stretch is technically a freeway with one exception, because the military roadways that cross US 301 are grade separated. The only exception is there is one at-grade intersection to a facility roughly in the middle.

If that at-grade intersection did not exist, the entire stretch could have been posted as high as 70 MPH, legally under current law. Likely though, 65 MPH would've been the highest due to the roadway conditions even if it was fully freeway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 31, 2019, 05:13:26 PM
Quick question that I don't think is worth making a new thread over: Why is I-95 northbound so bad around Fredericksburg on weekends? It's not like there are any lane drops or anything. My guess is that it maybe has something to do with additional traffic via the US-17 concurrency but honestly I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 31, 2019, 07:22:08 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 31, 2019, 05:13:26 PM
Quick question that I don't think is worth making a new thread over: Why is I-95 northbound so bad around Fredericksburg on weekends? It's not like there are any lane drops or anything. My guess is that it maybe has something to do with additional traffic via the US-17 concurrency but honestly I'm not sure.
I-95 is a mess all over, anytime essentially.

The Fredericksburg section is the worst between US-17 and VA-3, the segment that crosses the Rappohannock River. Since it's the western most crossing of the river in 10+ miles in that direction, it serves a significant amount of local traffic between those two exits, clogging with the already congested I-95.

A massive overhaul of that segment is currently underway and will be completed by 2022. Currently, there's 3 lanes in each direction (6 total). Once completed, there will be 3 "express/thru (no tolls)" lanes in direction, plus 3 local lanes in each direction. It will bring the entire section up to 12 lanes, doubling the existing capacity, plus that split between local and thru traffic. That should significantly relieve the issues here.

Another reason I-95 northbound is a busy corridor on weekends, especially Sunday, is because there's a lot of people who work Monday-Friday in DC, then leave on the weekends, and commute back up on Sundays. A lot of government related jobs up that way that lead to this practice. On Fridays, it's the same going southbound.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 31, 2019, 08:22:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2019, 07:22:08 PM


Another reason I-95 northbound is a busy corridor on weekends, especially Sunday, is because there's a lot of people who work Monday-Friday in DC, then leave on the weekends, and commute back up on Sundays. A lot of government related jobs up that way that lead to this practice. On Fridays, it's the same going southbound.

This is the primary reason...DC empties out every Friday and returns on Sunday with it being worse in the summer months.  It's essentially an additional rush hour.

I can't imagine that many locals need to cross the Rappahannock to get from US 17 to VA 3.  Nearly anything one needs can be found on both sides of the river.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ipeters61 on March 31, 2019, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2019, 07:22:08 PM
Another reason I-95 northbound is a busy corridor on weekends, especially Sunday, is because there's a lot of people who work Monday-Friday in DC, then leave on the weekends, and commute back up on Sundays. A lot of government related jobs up that way that lead to this practice. On Fridays, it's the same going southbound.
So you're saying these people stay somewhere in DC only Monday-Friday? (i.e. they have two homes?)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 31, 2019, 08:43:13 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on March 31, 2019, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2019, 07:22:08 PM
Another reason I-95 northbound is a busy corridor on weekends, especially Sunday, is because there's a lot of people who work Monday-Friday in DC, then leave on the weekends, and commute back up on Sundays. A lot of government related jobs up that way that lead to this practice. On Fridays, it's the same going southbound.
So you're saying these people stay somewhere in DC only Monday-Friday? (i.e. they have two homes?)

You'd be surprised at the number of people who do some version of this...people stay in rooms or share apartments.  My step father had a townhouse near Front Royal to commute to DC and went home to the Lynchburg area on the weekends.  I currently work with someone (I work in Bethesda) who stays with his daughter during the week and goes home to his house in Kilmarnock on many weekends.  There are also a number of firefighter-type folks who stay in the firehouse when at work in 48 shifts (or whatever their tour is) and commute to DC on their off days from Bedford VA or places in Pennsylvania.

It's not the whole reason for the weekend travel surges but it is a portion...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on March 31, 2019, 08:57:59 PM
Yep, DC commuter population is quite transient residentially.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 31, 2019, 09:13:26 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 31, 2019, 08:22:13 PM
I can't imagine that many locals need to cross the Rappahannock to get from US 17 to VA 3.  Nearly anything one needs can be found on both sides of the river.
The AADT counts would disagree.

South of VA-3, the AADT on I-95 is 122,000. Between VA-3 and US-17 it's 147,000. North of US-17, it's 133,000.

To get more specific, the ramps from I-95 South to VA-3 West, and vice versa carry 19,000 AADT, and the ramps from I-95 North to US-17 North and vice versa carry 22,000 AADT.

So about 18-22,000 AADT, give or take a few, use I-95 daily between the two. It's a significant volume that impedes the already congested I-95. That's why the C/D lane project is currently under construction there, to give the 20,000 AADT their own roadway, and to keep them off the mainline of I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 31, 2019, 09:41:10 PM
Given that I've lived in Fredericksburg 23 years, I might have some insight.

Since the phenomenon being discussed is weekend NB traffic is heavy only on Sunday afternoon while being heavy SB on Fri/Sat, this would mean that the local traffic was spending the night after coming south across the river on Friday or Saturday.  Note that these trends are actually reversed when a big event in DC is planned on a weekend - inaugurations, marches, 4th of July, etc.

The C/D lanes are to eliminate the weaving/merging amongst the US 17 SB to I-95 ramp, the Virginia Welcome Center, and the VA 3 interchange.

The 20k estimate of people who use the I-95 bridge each direction are not necessarily the same people.  There is a heavy through traffic movement involving I-95 and US 17, as well as a smaller through movement involving I-95 (either direction) and VA 3 WB. 

During the weekday rush hour, there is more local traffic using the bridge as there are some employers up 17 north who surely have employees who live out VA 3 WB.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 31, 2019, 11:14:13 PM
From my observations, on weekends when traveling thru the area, there is a noticeable drop in traffic heading south after Exit 126 on I-95. That is if it isn't already backed up from the end of the HOT lanes to Fredericksburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: RoadPelican on April 01, 2019, 12:01:15 PM
I-95 northbound acts as a funnel on Sunday afternoon/evenings in the Summer.  A lot of residents in the DC Metro area are coming back from points South and East: Williamsburg, VA Beach and The Outer Banks, most of them take I-64 West to I-95 north.  However, 2-3 mile backups are also common place at the US 301 Potomac River Bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on April 01, 2019, 12:21:23 PM
I've noticed some pretty bad backups going into DC via 395 late into the evenings, even on weekends. But I'm not quite sure why this is. No idea if it's just pass-through traffic headed to Maryland, or traffic actually headed into the District.

Most of the time I see it while riding the Metro, but I also experienced it about a week ago while trying to merge left to exit at 14th.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 01, 2019, 01:01:09 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 01, 2019, 12:21:23 PM
I've noticed some pretty bad backups going into DC via 395 late into the evenings, even on weekends. But I'm not quite sure why this is. No idea if it's just pass-through traffic headed to Maryland, or traffic actually headed into the District.

Most of the time I see it while riding the Metro, but I also experienced it about a week ago while trying to merge left to exit at 14th.

Combination of reasons: Events in DC (including, but not limited to, sports at Verizon Center or Nationals Park), people who commute from DC or Maryland to Virginia (especially places like Crystal City and the Pentagon), some thru traffic bypassing the Wilson Bridge because it backs up every afternoon. I'm not sure the latter makes a lot of sense unless you're already inside the Beltway at the start of your trip, but based on what I see from the train if I go to Huntington instead of Springfield I'm pretty sure there are people who don't want to wait on the Beltway.

There are also a lot of people living in southern PG and Charles counties in Maryland whose morning commutes take them over the Wilson Bridge and then up through Old Town to the Pentagon or downtown. There don't seem to be quite as many in the afternoons, which suggests to me they might use I-295 or Suitland Parkway instead on the way home.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 01, 2019, 04:39:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 27, 2019, 11:23:48 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 27, 2019, 07:04:08 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2019, 06:28:12 PM
Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/caroline/caroline-board-oks-speed-limit-increase-on-a-p-hill/article_1f866d5b-44fe-5d54-a7ce-8965726b0ccb.html

Glad to see some more of these increases coming along.

I am shocked that they confused the Nice Bridge with the CBBT in the article.

Perhaps the writer meant the Bay Bridge (in Maryland) and simply used the wrong name. That seems far more plausible to me because Route 301 is indeed a major route to the Bay Bridge for people who want to avoid the Beltway.
The only thing preventing me from reminding the author of that article about that error, is that they only allow facebook posts as replies, and I don't have a facebook page.

BTW, I'm still thinking of taking a detour on the Boulevard Bridge in Richmond when I head up to NYC next week.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on April 02, 2019, 10:06:04 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 01, 2019, 04:39:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 27, 2019, 11:23:48 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 27, 2019, 07:04:08 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2019, 06:28:12 PM
Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/caroline/caroline-board-oks-speed-limit-increase-on-a-p-hill/article_1f866d5b-44fe-5d54-a7ce-8965726b0ccb.html

Glad to see some more of these increases coming along.

I am shocked that they confused the Nice Bridge with the CBBT in the article.

Perhaps the writer meant the Bay Bridge (in Maryland) and simply used the wrong name. That seems far more plausible to me because Route 301 is indeed a major route to the Bay Bridge for people who want to avoid the Beltway.
The only thing preventing me from reminding the author of that article about that error, is that they only allow facebook posts as replies, and I don't have a facebook page.

Get a throwaway email address and create a dummy Facebook account from it. Problem solved.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 10, 2019, 10:54:19 PM
VDOT News Release
April 10, 2019

CTB ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF INTERSTATE 95 CORRIDOR STUDY

RICHMOND — Today, at the monthly meeting of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine announced the launch of the Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Plan.
 
The CTB, supported by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Virginia State Police, will study Interstate 95 (I-95) to identify priorities as well as potential revenue sources that could be dedicated to improvements.  Senate Joint Resolution 276 and House Joint Resolution 581 during the 2019 General Assembly direct the CTB to identify targeted improvements and incident management strategies for the corridor, as well as financing options for suggested projects.
 
"I-95 is one of the most complex transportation corridors in our Commonwealth,"  said Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine.  "This study creates an opportunity to examine the use and needs of I-95 with the goals of relieving congestion, increasing safety, and advancing Virginia's economic competitiveness."  
 
The I-95 Corridor Study will begin with public meetings to solicit community, industry, and stakeholder feedback throughout the spring and summer, with a draft plan report expected in late fall.  The first public meetings will be held in the Fredericksburg District on May 9 and in the Northern Virginia District on May 13.  The CTB plans to report its findings to the General Assembly in December, prior to the start of the legislative session in January 2020.
 
The CTB also received updates from the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) on next steps anticipated for Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust funds dedicated to replacing heavy and medium-duty polluting vehicles with cleaner vehicles.
 
Last October, Governor Northam announced that the Commonwealth of Virginia will invest $14 million, or 15 percent, of the Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust to fund the deployment of all-electric transit buses across Virginia.  Three transit systems have committed to converting all or a portion of their fleets to electric vehicles: Alexandria DASH, Blacksburg Transit, and Hampton Roads Transit.  Staff-recommended projects in the Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP) include funding for vehicles and charging infrastructure.  DRPT and the Virginia Department of General Services (DGS) are in the process of procuring electric transit vehicles under a statewide contract in order to streamline purchase and deployment of these critical assets.  This allocation represents the first year of a three-year partnership between DRPT and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality intended to facilitate the conversion of the transit fleet to clean fuels.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 10, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
You might want to check your browser, reread that last paragraph that mentions the Governor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 11, 2019, 08:59:13 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 10, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
You might want to check your browser, reread that last paragraph that mentions the Governor.

The New Jersey internet police.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 11, 2019, 10:03:29 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 10, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
You might want to check your browser, reread that last paragraph that mentions the Governor.

I see a moderator edited it. Another nickname for the governor?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadsguy on April 11, 2019, 10:05:42 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 11, 2019, 10:03:29 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 10, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
You might want to check your browser, reread that last paragraph that mentions the Governor.

I see a moderator edited it. Another nickname for the governor?

Probably a browser text replacement extension that inserts "Blackface" before the word "Northam."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 11, 2019, 01:49:27 PM
This project is now complete with all paving completed, all lines painted, and all lanes open.  I drove it earlier today and it is nice. 

VA-711 Robious Road and Huguenot Trail is now all 4 lanes divided and a high-speed arterial design between US-60 Midlothian Turnpike and just west of VA-288.

This last 1.6 mile project replaced a 1930s style 2-lane highway and bridge.  Also has access management features.  Big improvement.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/route_711_robious_road-huguenot_trail_widening_and_bernards_creek_bridge_replacement_in_chesterfield-powhatan.asp

Route 711 (Robious Road/Huguenot Trail) Widening and Bernards Creek Bridge Replacement in Chesterfield/Powhatan

The project is widening Route 711 (Robious Road/Huguenot Trail) between Route 288 and the Chesterfield/Powhatan County line.

The project will improve safety and reduce congestion by widening Route 711 from two lanes to four lanes and adding bicycle lanes.  In addition, a sidewalk will be added to the Bernards Creek bridge.

Total estimated cost: $19.5 million
Estimated completion date: Summer 2019

 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 11, 2019, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2019, 01:49:27 PM
This project is now complete with all paving completed, all lines painted, and all lanes open.  I drove it earlier today and it is nice. 

VA-711 Robious Road and Huguenot Trail is now all 4 lanes divided and a high-speed arterial design between US-60 Midlothian Turnpike and just west of VA-288.

This last 1.6 mile project replaced a 1930s style 2-lane highway and bridge.  Also has access management features.  Big improvement.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/route_711_robious_road-huguenot_trail_widening_and_bernards_creek_bridge_replacement_in_chesterfield-powhatan.asp

Route 711 (Robious Road/Huguenot Trail) Widening and Bernards Creek Bridge Replacement in Chesterfield/Powhatan

The project is widening Route 711 (Robious Road/Huguenot Trail) between Route 288 and the Chesterfield/Powhatan County line.

The project will improve safety and reduce congestion by widening Route 711 from two lanes to four lanes and adding bicycle lanes.  In addition, a sidewalk will be added to the Bernards Creek bridge.

Total estimated cost: $19.5 million
Estimated completion date: Summer 2019

 

Yaaaaay. It's about time. This should really help eliminate the bottleneck that previously existed just before the Chesterfield/Powhatan county line.

Now if VDOT would upgrade SR 711 back to primary status...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 11, 2019, 04:46:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2019, 01:49:27 PM
This project is now complete with all paving completed, all lines painted, and all lanes open.  I drove it earlier today and it is nice. 

VA-711 Robious Road and Huguenot Trail is now all 4 lanes divided and a high-speed arterial design between US-60 Midlothian Turnpike and just west of VA-288.

This last 1.6 mile project replaced a 1930s style 2-lane highway and bridge.  Also has access management features.  Big improvement.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/route_711_robious_road-huguenot_trail_widening_and_bernards_creek_bridge_replacement_in_chesterfield-powhatan.asp

Route 711 (Robious Road/Huguenot Trail) Widening and Bernards Creek Bridge Replacement in Chesterfield/Powhatan

The project is widening Route 711 (Robious Road/Huguenot Trail) between Route 288 and the Chesterfield/Powhatan County line.

The project will improve safety and reduce congestion by widening Route 711 from two lanes to four lanes and adding bicycle lanes.  In addition, a sidewalk will be added to the Bernards Creek bridge.

Total estimated cost: $19.5 million
Estimated completion date: Summer 2019


Nice. Now I wish they'd get some money in for local projects down here in Hampton Roads.

VDOT was going to widen Route 165 (Mt. Pleasant Rd) from 2 to 4-lanes back in 2013, and was near the completion of design, everything funded, then retracted the funding. Now it remains a 2-lane roadway with 20,000 AADT and daily backups and congestion. The City of Chesapeake is doing a smaller project to add a center-turn lane, which will help some, though it ultimately will become a 6-lane corridor one day. The 4-lane widening VDOT proposed would have a wide enough median to accommodate 6 lanes.

They widened the portion between VA-168 (Chesapeake Expressway) and VA-168 Business (Battlefield Blvd) in the 90s to 4-lanes, though still haven't done east of VA-168.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 11, 2019, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 10, 2019, 10:59:59 PM
You might want to check your browser, reread that last paragraph that mentions the Governor.
.... and you just ruined it.  :clap:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 11, 2019, 05:04:42 PM
Segment 2 of the I-64 Peninsula Widening is nearing completion. All 6-lanes of traffic are now open, making I-64 at least 6 lanes between the HRBT and west of VA-199 (Exit 242), a distance of about 30 miles.

Work is still finalizing, and will be fully completed next month. It appears there still is some paving that needs to be completed on the existing lanes. Notice the difference in the picture.

Segment 3, extending another 8 miles to north of VA-199 (Exit 234), will be completed in 2021.

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/I-64-Widening-Project-Update.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=ZCYzjMqeOjA

(https://i.ibb.co/t4sJXLC/I64-Phase2-Completed-April11.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 11, 2019, 09:31:25 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 11, 2019, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2019, 01:49:27 PM
This project is now complete with all paving completed, all lines painted, and all lanes open.  I drove it earlier today and it is nice. 
VA-711 Robious Road and Huguenot Trail is now all 4 lanes divided and a high-speed arterial design between US-60 Midlothian Turnpike and just west of VA-288.
This last 1.6 mile project replaced a 1930s style 2-lane highway and bridge.  Also has access management features.  Big improvement.
Yaaaaay. It's about time. This should really help eliminate the bottleneck that previously existed just before the Chesterfield/Powhatan county line.

How bad was the bottleneck?  I never saw it at the peak of rush hour, so while I saw it pretty busy at times, I don't recall seeing a backup.

I do think it was smart to build this project to 4 lanes, since there will be traffic growth as the area develops. 

Like with the VA-288 interchange with VA-6 Patterson Avenue, the VA-711/VA-288 interchange has not seen any major development yet, but the counties have planned for it.  VA-288 was completed in 2005, and it surprising that they have not seen any major development yet.  The other interchanges (Lucks Lane, Woolridge Road, US-60, West Creek Parkway, Tuckahoe Parkway and US-250) have all seen major new development nearby since VA-288 was completed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 12, 2019, 09:21:07 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2019, 09:31:25 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 11, 2019, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 11, 2019, 01:49:27 PM
This project is now complete with all paving completed, all lines painted, and all lanes open.  I drove it earlier today and it is nice. 
VA-711 Robious Road and Huguenot Trail is now all 4 lanes divided and a high-speed arterial design between US-60 Midlothian Turnpike and just west of VA-288.
This last 1.6 mile project replaced a 1930s style 2-lane highway and bridge.  Also has access management features.  Big improvement.
Yaaaaay. It's about time. This should really help eliminate the bottleneck that previously existed just before the Chesterfield/Powhatan county line.

How bad was the bottleneck?  I never saw it at the peak of rush hour, so while I saw it pretty busy at times, I don't recall seeing a backup.

I do think it was smart to build this project to 4 lanes, since there will be traffic growth as the area develops. 

Like with the VA-288 interchange with VA-6 Patterson Avenue, the VA-711/VA-288 interchange has not seen any major development yet, but the counties have planned for it.  VA-288 was completed in 2005, and it surprising that they have not seen any major development yet.  The other interchanges (Lucks Lane, Woolridge Road, US-60, West Creek Parkway, Tuckahoe Parkway and US-250) have all seen major new development nearby since VA-288 was completed.

Westbound traffic could back up quite a ways during rush hour, occasionally as far back as before James River Drive in Chesterfield County. There are definitely worse bottlenecks in the area but this one was pretty annoying to deal with back when I commuted that way on a regular basis. The first phase of the SR 711 widening from Twin Team Drive to Robious Forest Way eased it somewhat.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 13, 2019, 03:41:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 10, 2019, 10:54:19 PM
VDOT News Release
April 10, 2019

CTB ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF INTERSTATE 95 CORRIDOR STUDY

RICHMOND — Today, at the monthly meeting of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine announced the launch of the Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Plan.
 
The CTB, supported by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Virginia State Police, will study Interstate 95 (I-95) to identify priorities as well as potential revenue sources that could be dedicated to improvements.  Senate Joint Resolution 276 and House Joint Resolution 581 during the 2019 General Assembly direct the CTB to identify targeted improvements and incident management strategies for the corridor, as well as financing options for suggested projects.
 
"I-95 is one of the most complex transportation corridors in our Commonwealth,"  said Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine.  "This study creates an opportunity to examine the use and needs of I-95 with the goals of relieving congestion, increasing safety, and advancing Virginia's economic competitiveness."  
 
The I-95 Corridor Study will begin with public meetings to solicit community, industry, and stakeholder feedback throughout the spring and summer, with a draft plan report expected in late fall.  The first public meetings will be held in the Fredericksburg District on May 9 and in the Northern Virginia District on May 13.  The CTB plans to report its findings to the General Assembly in December, prior to the start of the legislative session in January 2020.
 
The CTB also received updates from the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) on next steps anticipated for Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust funds dedicated to replacing heavy and medium-duty polluting vehicles with cleaner vehicles.
 
Last October, Governor Northam announced that the Commonwealth of Virginia will invest $14 million, or 15 percent, of the Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust to fund the deployment of all-electric transit buses across Virginia.  Three transit systems have committed to converting all or a portion of their fleets to electric vehicles: Alexandria DASH, Blacksburg Transit, and Hampton Roads Transit.  Staff-recommended projects in the Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP) include funding for vehicles and charging infrastructure.  DRPT and the Virginia Department of General Services (DGS) are in the process of procuring electric transit vehicles under a statewide contract in order to streamline purchase and deployment of these critical assets.  This allocation represents the first year of a three-year partnership between DRPT and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality intended to facilitate the conversion of the transit fleet to clean fuels.

Nice to at least see them studying it, but I'm sadly not expecting much out of it. If they're actually going to look at issues, I'm hoping at least a long-range vision of 8-lanes, or some sort of local-thru concept is recommended from at least the leg from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge.

The I-95 Fredericksburg C/D Lanes between south of Route 3 and north of Route 17 is costing approx. $264 million for both directions ($132 million each-way). Using that base number, that's $50 million per mile. If they invested $50 million per mile from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge to keep that C/D concept going, in addition with the reversible HO/T lane, that could result in 6 lanes in each direction, plus 8 lanes when the HO/T lanes are pointed in that direction, expanding that section to 12 lanes + 2 HO/T lanes total.

That could severely help traffic IMHO, and for about $1.5 billion using $50 million per mile.

South of Fredericksburg, about 40 miles of 8-lane widening at $30 million per mile would be about $1.2 billion.

So essentially, if the numbers are correct, $2.7 billion for 8-lanes south of Fredericksburg, and 12 lanes + 2 HO/T lanes north of Fredericksburg. I hope this gets considered or evaluated in their study. That could severely reduce congestion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on April 13, 2019, 08:15:04 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 13, 2019, 03:41:05 PM
Nice to at least see them studying it, but I'm sadly not expecting much out of it. If they're actually going to look at issues, I'm hoping at least a long-range vision of 8-lanes, or some sort of local-thru concept is recommended from at least the leg from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge.

The I-95 Fredericksburg C/D Lanes between south of Route 3 and north of Route 17 is costing approx. $264 million for both directions ($132 million each-way). Using that base number, that's $50 million per mile. If they invested $50 million per mile from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge to keep that C/D concept going, in addition with the reversible HO/T lane, that could result in 6 lanes in each direction, plus 8 lanes when the HO/T lanes are pointed in that direction, expanding that section to 12 lanes + 2 HO/T lanes total.

That could severely help traffic IMHO, and for about $1.5 billion using $50 million per mile.

South of Fredericksburg, about 40 miles of 8-lane widening at $30 million per mile would be about $1.2 billion.

So essentially, if the numbers are correct, $2.7 billion for 8-lanes south of Fredericksburg, and 12 lanes + 2 HO/T lanes north of Fredericksburg. I hope this gets considered or evaluated in their study. That could severely reduce congestion.

If the most recent state deal (the one partly relieving the Occoquan bottleneck) with Transburban has taught us anything, its that nothing will be none to I-95 north of Fredricksburg without either a massive compensation event or the state buying out the current long-term contract. Since both options are obviously extremely expensive, VA's best bang for buck would be to immediately start focusing on widening I-95 to 8-lanes from Fredericksburg south to I-295. Also if state's contract for the impending 10-mile I-95 HOT lanes southern extension is for some reason different than that of the current one, then it is possible this 8-lane expansion could go as far north as Garrisonville. From Garrisonville to Woodbridge, the state's primary focus should either be widening the HOT lanes themselves to 3-lanes, 6-laneing US-1, or both.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 13, 2019, 09:20:08 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 13, 2019, 08:15:04 PM
If the most recent state deal (the one partly relieving the Occoquan bottleneck) with Transburban has taught us anything, its that nothing will be none to I-95 north of Fredricksburg without either a massive compensation event or the state buying out the current long-term contract.

Excuse me, but there is no evidence from any state source that either one would be correct.  I won't be influenced to think that there will even be a small compensation event unless a detailed financial study in a specific project proposal (such as widening to 4 GP lanes each way) would conclude that.  Frankly the traffic demands are so high during peak hours that it is taking a toll of at least $15 to keep the I-95 Express lanes free flowing, and traffic will only grow.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 13, 2019, 10:00:28 PM
A compensation event won't necessarily mean $ transferred from VDOT to Transurban...

They worked out an agreement for Transurban to build a direct ramp from the HOT lanes to Opitz Blvd in exchange for VDOT adding the transition lane between VA 123 and VA 294.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 13, 2019, 10:08:09 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 13, 2019, 10:00:28 PM
A compensation event won't necessarily mean $ transferred from VDOT to Transurban...
They worked out an agreement for Transurban to build a direct ramp from the HOT lanes to Opitz Blvd in exchange for VDOT adding the transition lane between VA 123 and VA 294.

A win-win situation for all parties.  I don't see any design issues in adding that ramp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on April 13, 2019, 11:56:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 13, 2019, 09:20:08 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 13, 2019, 08:15:04 PM
If the most recent state deal (the one partly relieving the Occoquan bottleneck) with Transburban has taught us anything, its that nothing will be none to I-95 north of Fredricksburg without either a massive compensation event or the state buying out the current long-term contract.

Excuse me, but there is no evidence from any state source that either one would be correct.  I won't be influenced to think that there will even be a small compensation event unless a detailed financial study in a specific project proposal (such as widening to 4 GP lanes each way) would conclude that.  Frankly the traffic demands are so high during peak hours that it is taking a toll of at least $15 to keep the I-95 Express lanes free flowing, and traffic will only grow.

The evidence from the state is that in a recent smart-scale cycle, the CTB rejected and screened out a potential I-95 project that would have added a 4th lane in both directions south from VA-123 to VA-234 in fear of a compensation event. It is also my understanding that Transurban has more of an upper hand in deciding what exactly that compensation event would be (via the original contract), study or not. While I would also like to see a detailed financial study regarding theoretical projects and compensation events, I honestly think VA knows it won't be pretty or else surely it would have already happened by now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 14, 2019, 12:42:26 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 13, 2019, 11:56:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 13, 2019, 09:20:08 PM
Excuse me, but there is no evidence from any state source that either one would be correct.  I won't be influenced to think that there will even be a small compensation event unless a detailed financial study in a specific project proposal (such as widening to 4 GP lanes each way) would conclude that.  Frankly the traffic demands are so high during peak hours that it is taking a toll of at least $15 to keep the I-95 Express lanes free flowing, and traffic will only grow.
The evidence from the state is that in a recent smart-scale cycle, the CTB rejected and screened out a potential I-95 project that would have added a 4th lane in both directions south from VA-123 to VA-234 in fear of a compensation event.

OK, where in Smart Scale does it say that?

Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 13, 2019, 11:56:07 PM
It is also my understanding that Transurban has more of an upper hand in deciding what exactly that compensation event would be (via the original contract), study or not.

No they do not.  The state owns and controls the highway and the burden of proof would be on the private partner.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 13, 2019, 11:56:07 PM
While I would also like to see a detailed financial study regarding theoretical projects and compensation events, I honestly think VA knows it won't be pretty or else surely it would have already happened by now.

So there is no detailed study.   Such a project would have to compete with all the other projects in the state and along I-95.  I-95 needs widening all the way south to I-295.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on April 14, 2019, 01:55:40 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2019, 12:42:26 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 13, 2019, 11:56:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 13, 2019, 09:20:08 PM
Excuse me, but there is no evidence from any state source that either one would be correct.  I won't be influenced to think that there will even be a small compensation event unless a detailed financial study in a specific project proposal (such as widening to 4 GP lanes each way) would conclude that.  Frankly the traffic demands are so high during peak hours that it is taking a toll of at least $15 to keep the I-95 Express lanes free flowing, and traffic will only grow.
The evidence from the state is that in a recent smart-scale cycle, the CTB rejected and screened out a potential I-95 project that would have added a 4th lane in both directions south from VA-123 to VA-234 in fear of a compensation event.

OK, where in Smart Scale does it say that?

http://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9873d480d8f04a83b437a3a12c949db7
^While unfortunately the project scorecard and url link no longer work when you click on the project, here's the broad version and the specific version for why it was rejected:
http://vasmartscale.org/documents/fy18smartscalescreenedoutprojects.pdf
https://potomaclocal.com/2017/01/13/virginia-wont-consider-widening-i-95-blames-express-lanes/
QuoteIn a response, the CTB noted it wouldn't even consider the project because of the negative impacts it could have to the Express Lanes.

"As a result of this review, it has been determined that...[widening] I-95 from Occoquan River bridge to Route 234 is not eligible for the following reasons: The project's estimate would result in a compensation event for the I-95 Express Lanes..."  the letter stated.

The state's new Smart Scale process requires state transportation planners place every proposed transportation project under heavy scrutiny before any funds are awarded. The fact that the state could be forced to pay Transurban, the Austrailian company that operates the Express Lanes for the next 70 years, was enough for it shut down the widening idea, with the letter stating "this project will not proceed to the next step in the evaluation process."

Seems to me like the CTB is definitely afraid of a compensation event.
Btw the proposed project to widen I-95 just 8 miles would have cost $415 million! No way that would have scored well in smart scale regardless of it already being screened out. I'm also not 100% sure that cost estimate even included potential compensation adding to price either.

Since you obviously seem to know something that apparently many local transportation officials and politicians up here do not, I encourage you to write them an enlightening letter or an email so that this massive project can move forward relatively soon.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 14, 2019, 02:33:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 13, 2019, 10:08:09 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 13, 2019, 10:00:28 PM
A compensation event won't necessarily mean $ transferred from VDOT to Transurban...
They worked out an agreement for Transurban to build a direct ramp from the HOT lanes to Opitz Blvd in exchange for VDOT adding the transition lane between VA 123 and VA 294.

A win-win situation for all parties.  I don't see any design issues in adding that ramp.
Not so much a win-win for VDOT, as the infamous 4th lane drop south of the Occoquan which is the cause of 5+ mile daily backups will not be fixed or extended. Only an auxiliary lane between the VA-123 on-ramp and VA-294 off ramp. It will help some, but a full overhaul is needed in the long run (more like it's needed now, but it's not happening for another 5 years minimum).

Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 14, 2019, 01:55:40 AM
Btw the proposed project to widen I-95 just 8 miles would have cost $415 million!
Roughly $52 million per mile. I've estimated in the past that widening between Fredericksburg and the Occoquan River for 30 miles would be about $50 million per mile, give or take, being about $1.5 billion total. For the entire corridor to Richmond, if you use $50 million per mile, for 75 miles, that's about $3.75 billion.

Reasonable cost estimate IMHO. I-64 widening on the Peninsula here in Hampton Roads is similar. About $40 - $50 million per mile on the 6-lane widenings.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 13, 2019, 08:15:04 PM
If the most recent state deal (the one partly relieving the Occoquan bottleneck) with Transburban has taught us anything, its that nothing will be none to I-95 north of Fredricksburg without either a massive compensation event or the state buying out the current long-term contract. Since both options are obviously extremely expensive, VA's best bang for buck would be to immediately start focusing on widening I-95 to 8-lanes from Fredericksburg south to I-295. Also if state's contract for the impending 10-mile I-95 HOT lanes southern extension is for some reason different than that of the current one, then it is possible this 8-lane expansion could go as far north as Garrisonville. From Garrisonville to Woodbridge, the state's primary focus should either be widening the HOT lanes themselves to 3-lanes, 6-laneing US-1, or both.
That would be a horrible option. I-95 south of Fredericksburg has less traffic than north of Fredericksburg, and would be the last segment to be widened. That stretch mainly does fine traffic wise, except recurring congestion still can occur, especially on peak weekends. The segment north has way worse congestion that would be the top priority.

If you widened north of Fredericksburg and dropped from 8 to 6 lanes at Garrisonville as the volumes are increasing, that's how you create a whole new backup on it's own (see the Occoquan River choke point VDOT created when the 8-laned north of there)

It would be interesting to see the HO/T lanes widened to handle more traffic and to reduce congestion, but that would be the opposite of what Transurban wants. Currently, we see frequent $15 - $20 tolls because if it's any cheaper, the lanes would choke up. If you have 3 lanes now, $15 - $20 tolls wouldn't be able to fill the lanes to capacity. In order to fill up this new capacity, you'd need lower tolls which results in less money for Transurban.

Also, VDOT shouldn't prioritize widening the HO/T lanes over the GP lanes. The HO/T lanes don't choke up. The GP lanes do. GP lane widening, interchange expansion / reconfigurations, etc. should be the top priority.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 14, 2019, 08:44:50 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 14, 2019, 01:55:40 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2019, 12:42:26 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 13, 2019, 11:56:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 13, 2019, 09:20:08 PM
Excuse me, but there is no evidence from any state source that either one would be correct.  I won't be influenced to think that there will even be a small compensation event unless a detailed financial study in a specific project proposal (such as widening to 4 GP lanes each way) would conclude that.  Frankly the traffic demands are so high during peak hours that it is taking a toll of at least $15 to keep the I-95 Express lanes free flowing, and traffic will only grow.
The evidence from the state is that in a recent smart-scale cycle, the CTB rejected and screened out a potential I-95 project that would have added a 4th lane in both directions south from VA-123 to VA-234 in fear of a compensation event.
OK, where in Smart Scale does it say that?
http://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9873d480d8f04a83b437a3a12c949db7
^While unfortunately the project scorecard and url link no longer work when you click on the project, here's the broad version and the specific version for why it was rejected:
http://vasmartscale.org/documents/fy18smartscalescreenedoutprojects.pdf

Yes, I have seen that, and there is nothing about a "compensation event".

In 2018 estimated at $415 million for 8 miles of widening by one GP lane each way.  That is why it did not score well in Smart Scale (other priorities around the state).

Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 14, 2019, 01:55:40 AM
https://potomaclocal.com/2017/01/13/virginia-wont-consider-widening-i-95-blames-express-lanes/

I am looking for a -official- state source.  Not a Johnny Newspaper article.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 14, 2019, 10:36:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2019, 08:44:50 AM

Yes, I have seen that, and there is nothing about a "compensation event".


I am looking for a -official- state source.  Not a Johnny Newspaper article.

Here you go...the official VDOT response (https://s3.amazonaws.com/potomaclocal-images/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/VDOT-I-95-PWC-Widening-Project.pdf) to the Occoquan Supervisor's request, which was linked in Johnny Newspaper's article. 

However, IMO it appears the rejection isn't so much that there would be a compensation event, it's that at the time of submittal they didn't have enough information to know how much $ that would add to the cost of the project and therefore could not be accurately scored.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 14, 2019, 12:00:46 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 14, 2019, 10:36:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2019, 08:44:50 AM

Yes, I have seen that, and there is nothing about a "compensation event".


I am looking for a -official- state source.  Not a Johnny Newspaper article.

Here you go...the official VDOT response (https://s3.amazonaws.com/potomaclocal-images/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/VDOT-I-95-PWC-Widening-Project.pdf) to the Occoquan Supervisor's request, which was linked in Johnny Newspaper's article. 
No, you see, that letter is fake and was drafted by the Johnny Newspaper article  :pan:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on April 14, 2019, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 14, 2019, 10:36:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2019, 08:44:50 AM

Yes, I have seen that, and there is nothing about a "compensation event".


I am looking for a -official- state source.  Not a Johnny Newspaper article.

Here you go...the official VDOT response (https://s3.amazonaws.com/potomaclocal-images/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/VDOT-I-95-PWC-Widening-Project.pdf) to the Occoquan Supervisor's request, which was linked in Johnny Newspaper's article. 

However, IMO it appears the rejection isn't so much that there would be a compensation event, it's that at the time of submittal they didn't have enough information to know how much $ that would add to the cost of the project and therefore could not be accurately scored.

Yes and the reason they didn't know how much the compensation event would add to the already expensive project is that under the terms of the original contract, the concessionaire  (Transurban) reserves the right for:
 Collecting tolls for the length of the operating period
 Receiving payment under certain termination events
 Developing project enhancements
 Delay events
 Compensation events
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2011/dec/pres/95PP_CTB_Major_Business_Terms_Presentation.pdf

It also important to note that since the proposed project was screened out, no further progress in regards to finding out how much exactly this compensation event would cost has been made. I encourage anyone who disagrees with my take on this issue to attend one of the many upcoming public input and hearing meetings regarding the recently state launched I-95 corridor study. If there is one held near my neck of the woods then you can bet I will try and attend.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on April 14, 2019, 12:49:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2019, 02:33:27 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 13, 2019, 08:15:04 PM
If the most recent state deal (the one partly relieving the Occoquan bottleneck) with Transburban has taught us anything, its that nothing will be none to I-95 north of Fredricksburg without either a massive compensation event or the state buying out the current long-term contract. Since both options are obviously extremely expensive, VA's best bang for buck would be to immediately start focusing on widening I-95 to 8-lanes from Fredericksburg south to I-295. Also if state's contract for the impending 10-mile I-95 HOT lanes southern extension is for some reason different than that of the current one, then it is possible this 8-lane expansion could go as far north as Garrisonville. From Garrisonville to Woodbridge, the state's primary focus should either be widening the HOT lanes themselves to 3-lanes, 6-laneing US-1, or both.
That would be a horrible option. I-95 south of Fredericksburg has less traffic than north of Fredericksburg, and would be the last segment to be widened. That stretch mainly does fine traffic wise, except recurring congestion still can occur, especially on peak weekends. The segment north has way worse congestion that would be the top priority.

If you widened north of Fredericksburg and dropped from 8 to 6 lanes at Garrisonville as the volumes are increasing, that's how you create a whole new backup on it's own (see the Occoquan River choke point VDOT created when the 8-laned north of there)

It would be interesting to see the HO/T lanes widened to handle more traffic and to reduce congestion, but that would be the opposite of what Transurban wants. Currently, we see frequent $15 - $20 tolls because if it's any cheaper, the lanes would choke up. If you have 3 lanes now, $15 - $20 tolls wouldn't be able to fill the lanes to capacity. In order to fill up this new capacity, you'd need lower tolls which results in less money for Transurban.

Also, VDOT shouldn't prioritize widening the HO/T lanes over the GP lanes. The HO/T lanes don't choke up. The GP lanes do. GP lane widening, interchange expansion / reconfigurations, etc. should be the top priority.

A valid argument. I'm assuming that until I see sufficient evidence that proves I-95 north of Garrisonville can be widened realistically without too much compensation or financial loss, the current priority should be either near Richmond where there are frequent backups resulting from lane drop north of Sliding Hill Road or immediately south of where the future Rappahannock river crossing project will end. While I agree that dropping from 8 to 6 lanes at Garrisonville would result in a new choke point, it is nevertheless still being discussed by Stafford Transportation planners. Hope you don't mind another Johnny Newspaper article:
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/will-express-lanes-block-other-improvements-on-interstate-in-stafford/article_9fea40b3-d073-5b92-99f8-7ebed1c7d465.html
QuoteA few years from now, Interstate 95 will be transformed through the Fredericksburg area with the extension of the express lanes and the construction of the two mammoth Rappahannock River crossing projects.

Those projects are expected to help improve traffic flow through the corridor.

But transportation planners say it's likely the interstate will eventually still need more general purpose lanes. The widening could come in the form of a new fourth lane in each direction between the State Route 610 exit in North Stafford to U.S. 17, by converting the inside shoulder to a new lane.

But one of the congestion fixes could stand in the way of those fourth lanes ever being added.

The express lanes extension, from the current North Stafford merge to the area of U.S. 17, could include a clause that requires "competition compensation"  for any transportation projects that impact the electronically tolled lanes. The same clause was part of the agreement between the state and Transurban for the express lanes, which opened in late 2014.

In that vein, the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization will send a letter to the state asking to allow those lanes to be added without restrictions that could be part of the agreement between Virginia and Transurban for the express lanes extension.

FAMPO Administrator Paul Agnello said in an interview this week that there are no plans to add the fourth lanes in the near term, but eventually that would be the plan.

Regarding interchange expansion/reconfigurations, that would probably be ok. What interchanges do you think would need this north of Fredricksburg? I believe there are currently plans to add a northbound flyover ramp at the Fairfax County Parkway(Exit 166) but that's all I know of so far.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 14, 2019, 02:01:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2019, 12:00:46 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 14, 2019, 10:36:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 14, 2019, 08:44:50 AM
Yes, I have seen that, and there is nothing about a "compensation event".
I am looking for a -official- state source.  Not a Johnny Newspaper article.
Here you go...the official VDOT response (https://s3.amazonaws.com/potomaclocal-images/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/VDOT-I-95-PWC-Widening-Project.pdf) to the Occoquan Supervisor's request, which was linked in Johnny Newspaper's article. 
No, you see, that letter is fake and was drafted by the Johnny Newspaper article 

Several concerns:  A district administrator is not really at the level of someone who should issue an official response on such a matter, probably should be at the level of the Commissioner or the CTB itself.  That is a stand-alone letter pdf stored on a private website -- I would want to know what other letters were produced on both sides of that discussion to get the overall discussion.  Thirdly, a Google search on the project only finds a handful of articles, there is hardly any information out there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 14, 2019, 03:20:28 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 14, 2019, 12:49:31 PM
A valid argument. I'm assuming that until I see sufficient evidence that proves I-95 north of Garrisonville can be widened realistically without too much compensation or financial loss, the current priority should be either near Richmond where there are frequent backups resulting from lane drop north of Sliding Hill Road or immediately south of where the future Rappahannock river crossing project will end. While I agree that dropping from 8 to 6 lanes at Garrisonville would result in a new choke point, it is nevertheless still being discussed by Stafford Transportation planners. Hope you don't mind another Johnny Newspaper article:
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/will-express-lanes-block-other-improvements-on-interstate-in-stafford/article_9fea40b3-d073-5b92-99f8-7ebed1c7d465.html

Regarding interchange expansion/reconfigurations, that would probably be ok. What interchanges do you think would need this north of Fredricksburg? I believe there are currently plans to add a northbound flyover ramp at the Fairfax County Parkway(Exit 166) but that's all I know of so far.
I could be wrong, but it appears those lanes are simply converting the outside shoulder in an auxiliary lane. Granted it will help, but it is not a full interstate widening.

A massive project which is needed would construct an entire new inner lane, resulting in 4 GP lanes in each direction. Between exits, having a 5th auxiliary lane, what the current "widening" projects will do, will also be apart of that.

This project is a good start though, knocking the easier auxiliary lanes out first. Then, a 30 mile expansion to 6 lanes, likely $1.5 billion ($50 million per mile), is needed as a larger project.

As for interchange reconfigurations / expansions, I don't know any off the top of my head, though each interchange and surrounding area should be studied and evaluated to determine if reconfiguring lanes, adding turn lanes, adding new ramps, flyovers, etc. would help traffic flow getting on / off the highway, etc. and in turn, possibly have a positive impact to the overall flow of I-95 traffic. The current I-66 Outside the Beltway widening under construction is reconstructing many interchanges, converting some into diverging diamonds, adding a few flyovers, etc. all in hopes that traffic will flow better and to add capacity. The same should be considered with each I-95 interchange. The SR-630 Courthouse Rd (Exit 140) interchange is being reconfigured into a DDI as apart of the widening project. It was determined that a conventional diamond interchange has less capacity, and a DDI would better serve traffic needs. The pattern of development in some areas, and the additional traffic could be overloading some of these interchanges, and they may need to be reconstructed to meet demands.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on April 14, 2019, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2019, 03:20:28 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 14, 2019, 12:49:31 PM
A valid argument. I'm assuming that until I see sufficient evidence that proves I-95 north of Garrisonville can be widened realistically without too much compensation or financial loss, the current priority should be either near Richmond where there are frequent backups resulting from lane drop north of Sliding Hill Road or immediately south of where the future Rappahannock river crossing project will end. While I agree that dropping from 8 to 6 lanes at Garrisonville would result in a new choke point, it is nevertheless still being discussed by Stafford Transportation planners. Hope you don't mind another Johnny Newspaper article:
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/will-express-lanes-block-other-improvements-on-interstate-in-stafford/article_9fea40b3-d073-5b92-99f8-7ebed1c7d465.html

Regarding interchange expansion/reconfigurations, that would probably be ok. What interchanges do you think would need this north of Fredricksburg? I believe there are currently plans to add a northbound flyover ramp at the Fairfax County Parkway(Exit 166) but that's all I know of so far.
I could be wrong, but it appears those lanes are simply converting the outside shoulder in an auxiliary lane. Granted it will help, but it is not a full interstate widening.

A massive project which is needed would construct an entire new inner lane, resulting in 4 GP lanes in each direction. Between exits, having a 5th auxiliary lane, what the current "widening" projects will do, will also be apart of that.

This project is a good start though, knocking the easier auxiliary lanes out first. Then, a 30 mile expansion to 6 lanes, likely $1.5 billion ($50 million per mile), is needed as a larger project.

And yet the impression I got after the deal to add a southbound auxiliarily lane from the VA-123 on-ramp to the Prince William Parkway off-ramp is that both sides ( the state and Transurban) still can't seem to agree on whether or not an auxiliary lane constitutes a compensation event (still mad that at the very least a northbound auxiliarily lane within the same area was not also included in the deal). Only reason the deal even happened IMO was because Transurban is now allowed to build a new HOT lanes exit at Opitz Blvd. So I would think that constructing various auxiliary lanes throughout the entire corridor unfortunately won't be a very easy task either.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2019, 03:20:28 PM
As for interchange reconfigurations / expansions, I don't know any off the top of my head, though each interchange and surrounding area should be studied and evaluated to determine if reconfiguring lanes, adding turn lanes, adding new ramps, flyovers, etc. would help traffic flow getting on / off the highway, etc. and in turn, possibly have a positive impact to the overall flow of I-95 traffic. The current I-66 Outside the Beltway widening under construction is reconstructing many interchanges, converting some into diverging diamonds, adding a few flyovers, etc. all in hopes that traffic will flow better and to add capacity. The same should be considered with each I-95 interchange. The SR-630 Courthouse Rd (Exit 140) interchange is being reconfigured into a DDI as apart of the widening project. It was determined that a conventional diamond interchange has less capacity, and a DDI would better serve traffic needs. The pattern of development in some areas, and the additional traffic could be overloading some of these interchanges, and they may need to be reconstructed to meet demands.

One potential interchange project that comes to mind would be maybe adding a flyover ramp from Eastbound Prince William Parkway to Northbound I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 14, 2019, 07:13:12 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 14, 2019, 06:15:42 PM
One potential interchange project that comes to mind would be maybe adding a flyover ramp from Eastbound Prince William Parkway to Northbound I-95.
Even better -see below-. Only problem would be cost... but that's what would be built into an I-95 reconstruction & widening project. The ability to handle traffic for decades to come. Look at the I-95 / I-495 / I-395 interchange and the surrounding roadways. Similar concepts. Probably around $1.5 billion for base widening, and another $500 - $700 or more million for other improvements for the 30 miles between the Occoquan River and Fredericksburg.

(https://i.ibb.co/JQXTR3T/Prince-William-Pkwy-I95.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on April 14, 2019, 08:56:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2019, 07:13:12 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 14, 2019, 06:15:42 PM
One potential interchange project that comes to mind would be maybe adding a flyover ramp from Eastbound Prince William Parkway to Northbound I-95.
Even better -see below-. Only problem would be cost... but that's what would be built into an I-95 reconstruction & widening project. The ability to handle traffic for decades to come. Look at the I-95 / I-495 / I-395 interchange and the surrounding roadways. Similar concepts. Probably around $1.5 billion for base widening, and another $500 - $700 or more million for other improvements for the 30 miles between the Occoquan River and Fredericksburg.

(https://i.ibb.co/JQXTR3T/Prince-William-Pkwy-I95.png)

Nice! Yeah if there was funding I would to see something like this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 14, 2019, 09:21:52 PM
I'd like it if they found a way to connect the HO/T lanes directly to the Parkway, without the need for going through the slug lot, though configuring it to avoid yet another annoying traffic light would be no simple cheap matter. Of course I know that's the busiest slug lot of all.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 14, 2019, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 14, 2019, 09:21:52 PM
I'd like it if they found a way to connect the HO/T lanes directly to the Parkway, without the need for going through the slug lot, though configuring it to avoid yet another annoying traffic light would be no simple cheap matter. Of course I know that's the busiest slug lot of all.
It could be done. Certainly not cheap though.

(https://i.ibb.co/c1dHwSq/Prince-William-Pkwy-I95with-HOT.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 15, 2019, 08:42:21 AM
Northbound Route 29 in the Buckland area of Fauquier County is to be closed this summer (https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/04/va-to-level-part-of-route-29-in-summer-closure/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Wordpress%20Responsive%20Morning%20AB%20%28Version%20B%29&utm_term=Daily%20Headlines%20Other%20Half) to level out some hills on the approach to Vint Hill Road (VA-215) because there have been an inordinate number of crashes there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on April 15, 2019, 08:57:06 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2019, 08:42:21 AM
Northbound Route 29 in the Buckland area of Fauquier County is to be closed this summer (https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/04/va-to-level-part-of-route-29-in-summer-closure/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Wordpress%20Responsive%20Morning%20AB%20%28Version%20B%29&utm_term=Daily%20Headlines%20Other%20Half) to level out some hills on the approach to Vint Hill Road (VA-215) because there have been an inordinate number of crashes there.

A long time coming.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 17, 2019, 09:51:07 PM
I don't know when this occurred, but the speed limit between the Courtland and Franklin bypasses on US-58 has been lowered from 55 MPH to 50 MPH permanently. When I drove it last November, it was still at 55 MPH, though today, it was down to 50 MPH. Also noticed a significant increase in police patrolling the highway.

A VDOT report last year indicated that if it were not for the signal and businesses, it would be recommended for 60 MPH, though said a 55 MPH limit was appropriate. It appears to be a local decision to lower the limit, I would go out on a limb and say as a police trap, though who knows. It's certainly designed for 55 MPH, and there's no justification as to why it needs to be 50 MPH. Like I said, a VDOT speed study indicated 55 MPH was appropriate, and could almost handle 60 MPH.

UPDATE ----
The study, conducted 7/6/15, indicated the following -

"Based on the information contained in this report, Traffic Engineering does not recommend a change in the statutory 55mph speed limit. While the 85th percentile speed and low crash rate would seem to indicate that increasing the speed limit to 60 mph is warranted, this is offset by the number and spacing of commercial entrances in this segment"

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Lxi7NhsUf5gJ:www.southamptoncounty.org/MediaArchive/PDF/BOS%2520AGENDA%2520-%2520MAY%25202017/No.%252011%2520-%2520Planning%2520Commission%2520Recommendation%2520-%2520Speed%2520Limit%2520Reduction%2520-%2520U.S.%2520Route%252058.pdf+&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 17, 2019, 11:17:34 PM
Two years of citizen and official pressure to lower the speed limit for what they think are safety reasons.  This is the reason for this kind of decision in other places as well.

"At its May 11, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission resolved to request the Board of Supervisors to pursue a reduction in the statutory speed limit on that certain section of Southampton Parkway between Jerusalem Road and Camp Parkway.  A copy of their recommendation is attached."
. . . . .

"At their regular April 13, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission heard from several citizens during the public comment period requesting their attention to the issue of excessive speed along US 58 in the Food Lion/Dairy Queen area.  It was requested by the citizens that the Planning Commission members sign a petition that is to be submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation by local citizens making the request that for the sake of safety and economic development and continued viability, the speed limit along US 58 in that area be reduced from the posted 55 MPH to a posted 45 MPH."
. . . . .

Based on curvature, shoulder widths and lane widths, this is not a high quality 4-lane highway.  Numbers of adjacent businesses and driveways as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 18, 2019, 04:10:30 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 17, 2019, 11:17:34 PM
Two years of citizen and official pressure to lower the speed limit for what they think are safety reasons.  This is the reason for this kind of decision in other places as well.

I will say that this portion of US 58 is probably more justifable being 50 than US 460 between New Bohemia and Disputanta (http://www.nbc12.com/story/19577780/speed-limit-to-be-lowered-on-route-460-in-prince-george/).  The big difference is that the latter is still 98% 4-lane undivided between Petersburg and Suffolk.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 18, 2019, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 18, 2019, 04:10:30 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 17, 2019, 11:17:34 PM
Two years of citizen and official pressure to lower the speed limit for what they think are safety reasons.  This is the reason for this kind of decision in other places as well.
I will say that this portion of US 58 is probably more justifable being 50 than US 460 between New Bohemia and Disputanta (http://www.nbc12.com/story/19577780/speed-limit-to-be-lowered-on-route-460-in-prince-george/).  The big difference is that the latter is still 98% 4-lane undivided between Petersburg and Suffolk.

Similar issues and public feedback --

"PRINCE GEORGE, VA (WWBT) - Changes are being recommended on what many consider a dangerous stretch of roadway.
Route 460, between Bull Hill Road and Hines Road in Prince George, has been the scene of several deadly accidents.  Now, a new study highlights problems and possible solutions to increase safety."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 18, 2019, 09:57:04 AM
Clearly VDOT concurred with the Board of Supervisors if the speed limit was dropped to 50.  As I understand state law regarding speed limits, county boards can request speed limit changes, but it requires VDOT concurrence and a traffic/engineering/safety study to actually happen on VDOT-maintained roads (which US 58 there obviously is).

Scott's right, though.  You have a lot of driveways, substandard shoulders, and the traffic signal near Food Lion on that short stretch, so 50 does not surprise me.  The traffic signal alone would even warrant a brief reduction to 45 MPH given typical VDOT precedent elsewhere.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 18, 2019, 11:51:18 AM
I understand the reasoning for the speed drops, and in theory it sounds good. But the reality is, nobody obeys this new speed limit. I set my cruise to 50 MPH just to see how many people would pass me, and at least 6 people tailgated me for a while, then quickly flew past on the left doing 60+.

There's now a larger gap between the speed limit and the 85th percentile speed, which creates safety hazards itself.

At least it's only 50 MPH though. It would be worse if they had gotten the 45 MPH they wanted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 18, 2019, 05:51:48 PM
Uuuugggghh I hate that news. US 58 needs to be at least a high speed arterial between Hampton Roads and I-85 and that new speed limit drop is not helping, though I do see why the locals have their concerns. I'm already pissed that there are now four traffic signals between Emporia and South Hill (up from 3, the newest one is roughly 5 miles east of Edgerton). There should be zero signals between the Suffolk Bypass & South Hill.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 19, 2019, 02:10:11 PM
^ There's a long-term goal of bypassing that lower-speed-limit segment with a new-alignment connecting the Courtland and Franklin bypasses.

"5 miles east of Edgerton" would put the new signal at SR 634.  Sound about right?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 02:17:07 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2019, 02:10:11 PM
There's a long-term goal of bypassing that lower-speed-limit segment with a new-alignment connecting the Courtland and Franklin bypasses.

That is one of several alternatives, a seamless freeway, and the best one IMHO. 

The others would upgrade the existing highway to modern lane widths and full paved shoulders and roadside widening.  One would utilize access management and the other would be an at-grade expressway with service roads where needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 19, 2019, 02:19:16 PM
^ The Southampton County study I found indicated a strong preference for the bypass, though I don't recall offhand if it was THE preferred alternative.

(EDIT: )  I should add that the study was from several years ago, during the '00s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 02:51:05 PM
The only issue is cost - $172,525,000 (as of 2015, likely higher now). Here's the study (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Gryn9-ki7eAJ:www.southamptoncounty.org/MediaArchive/PDF/BOS%2520AGENDA%2520-%2520OCTOBER%25202015/No.%252010%2520-%2520U.S.%2520Route%252058%2520Corridor%2520Study.pdf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us). It was recommended as the preferred alternative in that particular study.

As of information in August 2018, there appears to be local concerns for the bypass, though that's to be expected. Link (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6CYKrZbXASQJ:www.southamptoncounty.org/MediaArchive/PDF/BOS%2520AGENDA%2520-%2520AUGUST%25202018/No.%25206%2520-%2520Highway%2520Matters.pdf+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

It'd be nice, though I couldn't see it being built anytime soon, unless HRTPO and VDOT were to go on a venture to upgrade the US-58 corridor to interstate standards to I-95 or I-85. It's simply one traffic light and some businesses. Minor inconvenience and local traffic flows compared to the high cost, I couldn't see it scoring well alone. A bypass of the congested area of US-58 just west of the Suffolk Bypass would be higher priority over this segment.

A cheaper alternative might be to convert the existing eastbound lanes into a frontage road, convert the westbound lanes into interstate-grade eastbound lanes, and construct new westbound lanes. An overpass at Storys Station Rd with frontage road connection, and an interchange at Camp Pkwy (US-58 Bus) and you could have an upgraded freeway on existing alignment. It would reduce the wetland impact where the bypass is proposed, likely reducing costs significantly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 03:03:52 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2019, 02:19:16 PM
(EDIT: )  I should add that the study was from several years ago, during the '00s.
Do you have a link to that particular study? The one I was aware of was from 2015, the one I posted above. Curious to see the differences.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on April 19, 2019, 03:09:11 PM
Here are VDOT's plans for the Bowers Hill Interchange:
https://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-bowers-hill-20190418-story.html
QuoteAdditional lanes and barriers to separate the streams of traffic that currently weave their way through the Bowers Hill interchange are state highway officials' proposed fix for one of Hampton Roads's worst bottlenecks.

They're going to recommend that approach rather than a costlier rebuilding of most of the interchange, including new flyovers and exit ramps, Jennifer Salyers, location studies project manager at the Virginia Department of Transportation, told the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Thursday.

The recommended alternative includes new barriers to separate traffic headed to I-664 and U.S. 58 as it moves off of Interstate 264, as well as for traffic moving onto I-64 and I-264 from U.S. 58.

It calls for an additional lane in each direction of I-64 and I-664, as well as a new ramp between U.S. 58 east and I-264 east and a new two lane ramp to connect I-64 to I-264 and U.S. 58.

Slayton said this approach would cost about $450 million, or two-thirds the likely expense of rebuilding the interchange. VDOT would need to acquire only about half the right of way, or 8.8 acres, and the project would affect only about a quarter of the wetlands that would be impacted by the rebuilding. But it would require relocating 11 homes, compared to three, and three businesses, compared to none.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-5cb8b02f%2Fturbine%2Fdp-1555607591-renjrwv2ih-snap-image%2F750%2F750x422&hash=2a7a5ea4589c24262827b57fceedd459fe1f3b22)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 03:24:34 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 19, 2019, 03:09:11 PM
Here are VDOT's plans for the Bowers Hill Interchange:
https://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-bowers-hill-20190418-story.html
QuoteAdditional lanes and barriers to separate the streams of traffic that currently weave their way through the Bowers Hill interchange are state highway officials' proposed fix for one of Hampton Roads's worst bottlenecks.

They're going to recommend that approach rather than a costlier rebuilding of most of the interchange, including new flyovers and exit ramps, Jennifer Salyers, location studies project manager at the Virginia Department of Transportation, told the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Thursday.

The recommended alternative includes new barriers to separate traffic headed to I-664 and U.S. 58 as it moves off of Interstate 264, as well as for traffic moving onto I-64 and I-264 from U.S. 58.

It calls for an additional lane in each direction of I-64 and I-664, as well as a new ramp between U.S. 58 east and I-264 east and a new two lane ramp to connect I-64 to I-264 and U.S. 58.

Slayton said this approach would cost about $450 million, or two-thirds the likely expense of rebuilding the interchange. VDOT would need to acquire only about half the right of way, or 8.8 acres, and the project would affect only about a quarter of the wetlands that would be impacted by the rebuilding. But it would require relocating 11 homes, compared to three, and three businesses, compared to none.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-5cb8b02f%2Fturbine%2Fdp-1555607591-renjrwv2ih-snap-image%2F750%2F750x422&hash=2a7a5ea4589c24262827b57fceedd459fe1f3b22)
I saw that article too... Besides this, I've not seen anywhere else official stating this was the preferred alternative.

Obviously, it's cheaper, though the full re-build would be the best option IMHO in the long run.

This is a detailed graphic of the braided ramps option (the cheaper one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9iKvysfOHA

Here's the full re-build (the more expensive one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fB2c9CWZis

The braided ramps would cost $450 million, and full reconstruction would be $632 million. It's important to note these costs have been inflated to be in 2032 dollars, not 2019 dollars. Way more detailed cost information is on the Alternatives Technical Report, linked below.

The full Environmental Assessment is on the the Bowers Hill Interchange website - http://bowershillinterchange.com

The Alternative Technical Report (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Bowers-Hill-Interchange/Alternatives_Technical_Report.pdf) contains detailed drawings of the improvements, which may be easier to understand.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 19, 2019, 03:25:07 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2019, 02:10:11 PM
"5 miles east of Edgerton" would put the new signal at SR 634.  Sound about right?

Here it is.

https://goo.gl/maps/W3m82wHGHy1vsfiY8
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 03:28:41 PM
Quote from: plain on April 19, 2019, 03:25:07 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2019, 02:10:11 PM
"5 miles east of Edgerton" would put the new signal at SR 634.  Sound about right?

Here it is.

https://goo.gl/maps/W3m82wHGHy1vsfiY8
That signal was temporary to accommodate the large amount of traffic accessing the power plant while it was under construction. That signal was removed a couple years ago after it was completed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 19, 2019, 03:33:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 03:28:41 PM
Quote from: plain on April 19, 2019, 03:25:07 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2019, 02:10:11 PM
"5 miles east of Edgerton" would put the new signal at SR 634.  Sound about right?

Here it is.

https://goo.gl/maps/W3m82wHGHy1vsfiY8
That signal was temporary to accommodate the large amount of traffic accessing the power plant while it was under construction. That signal was removed a couple years ago after it was completed.

It was still there when I went through there last summer during a trip to Charlotte from Newport News.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 03:36:30 PM
Quote from: plain on April 19, 2019, 03:33:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 03:28:41 PM
Quote from: plain on April 19, 2019, 03:25:07 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 19, 2019, 02:10:11 PM
"5 miles east of Edgerton" would put the new signal at SR 634.  Sound about right?

Here it is.

https://goo.gl/maps/W3m82wHGHy1vsfiY8
That signal was temporary to accommodate the large amount of traffic accessing the power plant while it was under construction. That signal was removed a couple years ago after it was completed.

It was still there when I went through there last summer during a trip to Charlotte from Newport News.
There was another signal added here (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7468002,-77.6357659,3a,75y,255.32h,83.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPXFGcwt3DtXKW5AuEKQ5Ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) when a second power station was being constructed. That was removed a few months ago. That's probably what you're thinking of. I drove US-58 between Hampton Roads and Martinsville back in December, and I believe there were not any signals in these two locations anymore. My memory is a little blurry on this, so I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain they were both removed.

I'm not planning to drive this stretch of US-58 anytime soon, so let's hope either someone else does, or street view comes through and figures this out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 04:41:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 02:51:05 PM
The only issue is cost - $172,525,000 (as of 2015, likely higher now). Here's the study (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Gryn9-ki7eAJ:www.southamptoncounty.org/MediaArchive/PDF/BOS%2520AGENDA%2520-%2520OCTOBER%25202015/No.%252010%2520-%2520U.S.%2520Route%252058%2520Corridor%2520Study.pdf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us). It was recommended as the preferred alternative in that particular study.

I have seen that study and that cost, but I find it hard to believe that 2 miles of relocated 4-lane highway and one interchange will even cost 1/2 of that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on April 19, 2019, 04:44:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 03:24:34 PM
I saw that article too... Besides this, I've not seen anywhere else official stating this was the preferred alternative.

Obviously, it's cheaper, though the full re-build would be the best option IMHO in the long run.

This is a detailed graphic of the braided ramps option (the cheaper one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9iKvysfOHA

Here's the full re-build (the more expensive one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fB2c9CWZis

The braided ramps would cost $450 million, and full reconstruction would be $632 million. It's important to note these costs have been inflated to be in 2032 dollars, not 2019 dollars. Way more detailed cost information is on the Alternatives Technical Report, linked below.

The full Environmental Assessment is on the the Bowers Hill Interchange website - http://bowershillinterchange.com

The Alternative Technical Report (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Bowers-Hill-Interchange/Alternatives_Technical_Report.pdf) contains detailed drawings of the improvements, which may be easier to understand.

Oh ok thank you for the clarification and yes I also agree that a full reconstruction would be the better option. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the cheaper version is chosen. Any idea when a decision will be made?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 05:08:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 04:41:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 02:51:05 PM
The only issue is cost - $172,525,000 (as of 2015, likely higher now). Here's the study (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Gryn9-ki7eAJ:www.southamptoncounty.org/MediaArchive/PDF/BOS%2520AGENDA%2520-%2520OCTOBER%25202015/No.%252010%2520-%2520U.S.%2520Route%252058%2520Corridor%2520Study.pdf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us). It was recommended as the preferred alternative in that particular study.

I have seen that study and that cost, but I find it hard to believe that 2 miles of relocated 4-lane highway and one interchange will even cost 1/2 of that.
For 2.5 miles, it's about $60 million per mile. Likely one reason of the high costs is because of the wetlands and the Nottoway Swamp it will cross. Two 3,000 - 5,000 feet or so bridges will likely be needed to traverse over this area, plus the compensation of wetlands that will be needed. Not to mention, in the middle of that, you have to likely raise Storys Station Rd to cross over this elevated US-58 structure or somehow have it pass underneath. And the interchange at Camp Pkwy, which will likely cost $20 million or so.

Upgrading the existing alignment or choosing another alignment with less impact would be needed to reduce costs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 05:09:07 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 19, 2019, 04:44:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 03:24:34 PM
I saw that article too... Besides this, I've not seen anywhere else official stating this was the preferred alternative.

Obviously, it's cheaper, though the full re-build would be the best option IMHO in the long run.

This is a detailed graphic of the braided ramps option (the cheaper one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9iKvysfOHA

Here's the full re-build (the more expensive one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fB2c9CWZis

The braided ramps would cost $450 million, and full reconstruction would be $632 million. It's important to note these costs have been inflated to be in 2032 dollars, not 2019 dollars. Way more detailed cost information is on the Alternatives Technical Report, linked below.

The full Environmental Assessment is on the the Bowers Hill Interchange website - http://bowershillinterchange.com

The Alternative Technical Report (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Bowers-Hill-Interchange/Alternatives_Technical_Report.pdf) contains detailed drawings of the improvements, which may be easier to understand.

Oh ok thank you for the clarification and yes I also agree that a full reconstruction would be the better option. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the cheaper version is chosen. Any idea when a decision will be made?
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/BHI_Public_Hearing_May_2019/use6_Bowers_Hill_Schedule-Next_Steps_LPH_Boards-draft6.pdf

CTB will chose the Preferred Alternative in the summer.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 05:08:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 04:41:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 02:51:05 PM
The only issue is cost - $172,525,000 (as of 2015, likely higher now). Here's the study (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Gryn9-ki7eAJ:www.southamptoncounty.org/MediaArchive/PDF/BOS%2520AGENDA%2520-%2520OCTOBER%25202015/No.%252010%2520-%2520U.S.%2520Route%252058%2520Corridor%2520Study.pdf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us). It was recommended as the preferred alternative in that particular study.
I have seen that study and that cost, but I find it hard to believe that 2 miles of relocated 4-lane highway and one interchange will even cost 1/2 of that.
For 2.5 miles, it's about $60 million per mile.
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 05:08:04 PM
Likely one reason of the high costs is because of the wetlands and the Nottoway Swamp it will cross. Two 3,000 - 5,000 feet or so bridges will likely be needed to traverse over this area, plus the compensation of wetlands that will be needed.

Disagree.  Looking at the aerial, a single 4-lane bridge 400 feet long should cross the wetlands without needing to destroy any wetlands.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 05:08:04 PM
Not to mention, in the middle of that, you have to likely raise Storys Station Rd to cross over this elevated US-58 structure or somehow have it pass underneath. And the interchange at Camp Pkwy, which will likely cost $20 million or so.

A regular embankment and overpass for Storys Station Road over US-58.  The limited-access right-of-way for the Camp Parkway interchange was acquired when the Franklin Bypass was built.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 05:08:04 PM
Upgrading the existing alignment or choosing another alignment with less impact would be needed to reduce costs.

Upgrading the existing alignment will have its own high costs, for right-of-way and construction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.
I don't think the study would lie. There's probably reasons it's so high. It was an engineering estimate, not some quickly came up with number.

Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
Disagree.  Looking at the aerial, a single 4-lane bridge 400 feet long should cross the wetlands without needing to destroy any wetlands.
Hard to say, but whatever bridge or however long said bridge is, it'd likely be two 2-lane bridges. The study indicated a depressed median alternative was preferred over a median barrier alternative (the design the Franklin and Courtland bypasses use). If US-58 was built as a full interstate highway between Hampton Roads and I-95 or I-85, a depressed median would be preferred over an urban, median barrier design.

Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
The limited-access right-of-way for the Camp Parkway interchange was acquired when the Franklin Bypass was built.
Not quite. Right of way was acquired for a trumpet interchange using the existing alignment. Looking at the Southampton County property map (http://www.southampton.interactivegis.com/index.php), and generally looking at it, here's how an interchange would fit in -
(https://i.ibb.co/7nHJmFB/Franklin-Bypass-Interchange-Camp-Pkwy.png)

A diamond interchange would be required if a bypass was constructed, with new right of way. If the existing alignment was upgraded to interstate standards, then this would indeed work.

Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
Upgrading the existing alignment will have its own high costs, for right-of-way and construction.
Right of way costs would be higher, for the properties on the north side that would need to be acquired. Construction would be lower though because the "eastbound" (current westbound) lanes would already be built, they would just need reconstruction. Also, no need to clear an entire new path through the wetlands & forested area for a highway, simply a new 2-lane + 10 foot shoulder carriageway 60 or 70 feet north of the existing one.

I'd be interested to see an engineering estimate for using the existing alignment as well, instead of only a bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.
I don't think the study would lie. There's probably reasons it's so high. It was an engineering estimate, not some quickly came up with number.

I'm not saying that anyone was lying.  Just mistaken in some ways.  It is not really clear whether VDOT conducted the study or whether it was validated after completion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on April 20, 2019, 12:49:11 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.
I don't think the study would lie. There's probably reasons it's so high. It was an engineering estimate, not some quickly came up with number.

I'm not saying that anyone was lying.  Just mistaken in some ways.  It is not really clear whether VDOT conducted the study or whether it was validated after completion.
It's an engineer's estimate. Engineers used engineering principles. I'm sure it's pretty sound. Have you personally read the report?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 20, 2019, 07:53:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 20, 2019, 12:49:11 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.
I don't think the study would lie. There's probably reasons it's so high. It was an engineering estimate, not some quickly came up with number.
I'm not saying that anyone was lying.  Just mistaken in some ways.  It is not really clear whether VDOT conducted the study or whether it was validated after completion.
It's an engineer's estimate. Engineers used engineering principles. I'm sure it's pretty sound. Have you personally read the report?

You're sure?  Engineers never make mistakes?  Engineers in fact produced that total figure listed in the document?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on April 20, 2019, 09:44:19 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2019, 07:53:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 20, 2019, 12:49:11 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.
I don't think the study would lie. There's probably reasons it's so high. It was an engineering estimate, not some quickly came up with number.
I'm not saying that anyone was lying.  Just mistaken in some ways.  It is not really clear whether VDOT conducted the study or whether it was validated after completion.
It's an engineer's estimate. Engineers used engineering principles. I'm sure it's pretty sound. Have you personally read the report?

You're sure?  Engineers never make mistakes?  Engineers in fact produced that total figure listed in the document?
"I'm sure it's pretty sound" != "It must be perfect"
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 20, 2019, 11:45:19 PM
New Topic: I mentioned that my recently proposed road trip to NYC and back was going to include a detour to VA 161 so I could take the Boulevard Bridge, and I did. I will be posting the images on the Wikimedia Commons hopefully before the month is over.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 21, 2019, 12:37:20 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 20, 2019, 11:45:19 PM
New Topic: I mentioned that my recently proposed road trip to NYC and back was going to include a detour to VA 161 so I could take the Boulevard Bridge, and I did. I will be posting the images on the Wikimedia Commons hopefully before the month is over.
This reminds me of a pic I found online a few years back of the toll plaza. I'm thinking this was not long after it was moved off the bridge and placed on the northern end.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190421/2c8d156b5f03d3eb6cd213164e27d13d.jpg)

SM-S820L

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 21, 2019, 09:22:43 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 20, 2019, 09:44:19 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 20, 2019, 07:53:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 20, 2019, 12:49:11 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 19, 2019, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 19, 2019, 08:39:58 PM
And it should be less than $30 million per mile.
I don't think the study would lie. There's probably reasons it's so high. It was an engineering estimate, not some quickly came up with number.
I'm not saying that anyone was lying.  Just mistaken in some ways.  It is not really clear whether VDOT conducted the study or whether it was validated after completion.
It's an engineer's estimate. Engineers used engineering principles. I'm sure it's pretty sound. Have you personally read the report?
You're sure?  Engineers never make mistakes?  Engineers in fact produced that total figure listed in the document?
"I'm sure it's pretty sound" != "It must be perfect"

I'm not saying that those entities can't reliably produce sound engineering studies.

Here are my concerns which go back a couple years when I first saw this report, and just now am I speaking out.

This 2.5-mile segment of rural freeway is not major in the overall scheme of things, and it doesn't bypass a town, and the existing highway is a 4-lane highway.  However, it would be a valuable improvement, and would link a 3-mile freeway town bypass with a 10-mile freeway town bypass, into a 16-mile seamless freeway, it would address the problems on the existing 4-lane highway segment (which could easily take $20+ million for basic improvements), and it would complete a link in a future US-58 freeway corridor.  The new Courtland interchange is configured to accept this bypass extension without further modification.  The other needed interchange at the west end of the Franklin Bypass would tie Camp Parkway into the existing 4-lane highway and provide ramps for the seamless freeway to and from this seamless segment of Business US-58.

So this $172 million figure appears in a county board of supervisors' report.  No matter how valuable this segment would be, I can't imagine supporting allocating that much funding to this project.

So this figure looks to me like it was intended to shut off and kill off any discussion about building this project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 07:33:37 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 26, 2019, 06:28:12 PM
Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/caroline/caroline-board-oks-speed-limit-increase-on-a-p-hill/article_1f866d5b-44fe-5d54-a7ce-8965726b0ccb.html

Glad to see some more of these increases coming along.

Update on this increase... the 55 MPH signage will be replaced with 60 MPH signage tomorrow.
QuoteVDOT SET TO INSTALL NEW SPEED LIMIT SIGNS ON ROUTE 301 IN CAROLINE COUNTY ON APRIL 25
Drivers should be alert to the new 60 mph speed limit on Route 301 between just north of Route 608 to just south of Route 17


FREDERICKSBURG, Va. — The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) crews will install new speed limit signs on a portion of Route 301 in Caroline County on Thursday, April 25.

Drivers should be alert to the speed limit increase from 55 mph to 60 mph on an 8.8 mile section of Route 301 from 0.76 mile north of Route 608 to 0.34 mile south of Route 17.   

VDOT crews will install the new speed limit signs along the shoulder on Route 301 between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m.  All travel lanes will remain open in the work zone.

In the event of inclement weather, the sign installation will take place on Friday, April 26.
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2019/vdot-set-to-install-new-speed-limit-signs-on-route-301-in-caroline-county-on-april-254-24-2019.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:30:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 07:33:37 PM
Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

I went thru there 2 weeks ago and was wondering why it wasn't yet 60.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 08:47:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:30:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 07:33:37 PM
Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

I went thru there 2 weeks ago and was wondering why it wasn't yet 60.
I had assumed when it was announced to be increased to 60 MPH last month, it would've been done two or three days later, I don't get why they waited a month.

Back in December, VDOT announced I-64 between Hampton Roads Center Pkwy and Jefferson Ave was being increased from 60 MPH to 65 MPH, and they put up the new signage two days after that. They weren't stalling or waiting around for anything.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:58:17 PM
It also appears that the 70 mph limit on I-95 was extended 2 miles south, from just south of VA-54 Ashland to just north of Parham Road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on April 24, 2019, 09:18:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:58:17 PM
It also appears that the 70 mph limit on I-95 was extended 2 miles south, from just south of VA-54 Ashland to just north of Parham Road.

Seems a lot longer than 2 miles - Parham Road is south of I-295
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 24, 2019, 09:18:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:58:17 PM
It also appears that the 70 mph limit on I-95 was extended 2 miles south, from just south of VA-54 Ashland to just north of Parham Road.

Seems a lot longer than 2 miles - Parham Road is south of I-295
That's more like 9 miles.

Interesting, I suppose the improvements and the interchange expansion recently completed in that area made that stretch of I-95 able to safely handle 70 MPH.

I believe this would also be the first 70 MPH stretch to enter inside the "beltway" (VA-288, I-295). Nice bonus for area commuters up that way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 09:40:26 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 24, 2019, 09:18:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:58:17 PM
It also appears that the 70 mph limit on I-95 was extended 2 miles south, from just south of VA-54 Ashland to just north of Parham Road.
Seems a lot longer than 2 miles - Parham Road is south of I-295
That's more like 9 miles.
Interesting, I suppose the improvements and the interchange expansion recently completed in that area made that stretch of I-95 able to safely handle 70 MPH.
I believe this would also be the first 70 MPH stretch to enter inside the "beltway" (VA-288, I-295). Nice bonus for area commuters up that way.

Correction:  to just north of VA-656 Lewistown Road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 25, 2019, 12:21:02 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:30:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 07:33:37 PM
Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

I went thru there 2 weeks ago and was wondering why it wasn't yet 60.
I felt the same way as you last week. In fact, I though even if it wasn't, it the increase in the speed limit was so inevitable, no county deputy sheriff, Virginia State Trooper, or MP was ever going to bother me or anyone else over it.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 25, 2019, 07:16:14 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 25, 2019, 12:21:02 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:30:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 07:33:37 PM
Speed limit raising on U.S. Route 301 between Port Royal and Bowling Green from 55 MPH to 60 MPH.

I went thru there 2 weeks ago and was wondering why it wasn't yet 60.
I felt the same way as you last week. In fact, I though even if it wasn't, it the increase in the speed limit was so inevitable, no county deputy sheriff, Virginia State Trooper, or MP was ever going to bother me or anyone else over it.
Agreed. It's a limited-access freeway with one at-grade intersection. It should be allowed for higher for 60 MPH simply for being limited-access, though Virginia code does not permit that currently.

At least 60 MPH is better then 55 MPH, I won't complain there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 25, 2019, 07:43:00 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 25, 2019, 07:16:14 AM
It's a limited-access freeway with one at-grade intersection. It should be allowed for higher for 60 MPH simply for being limited-access, though Virginia code does not permit that currently.

The code allows up to 70 mph for a 4-lane divided limited access highway.  As defined an at-grade expressway is a limited access highway.

"Limited access highway" means a highway especially designed for through traffic, over which abutters have no easement or right of light, air, or access by reason of the fact that their property abuts upon such limited access highway.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title33.2/chapter4/section33.2-400/

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the maximum speed limit shall be 70 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on (i) interstate highways; (ii) multilane, divided, limited access highways; and (iii) high-occupancy vehicle lanes if such lanes are physically separated from regular travel lanes.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-870/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 25, 2019, 04:58:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 25, 2019, 07:43:00 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 25, 2019, 07:16:14 AM
It's a limited-access freeway with one at-grade intersection. It should be allowed for higher for 60 MPH simply for being limited-access, though Virginia code does not permit that currently.

The code allows up to 70 mph for a 4-lane divided limited access highway.  As defined an at-grade expressway is a limited access highway.

"Limited access highway" means a highway especially designed for through traffic, over which abutters have no easement or right of light, air, or access by reason of the fact that their property abuts upon such limited access highway.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title33.2/chapter4/section33.2-400/

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the maximum speed limit shall be 70 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on (i) interstate highways; (ii) multilane, divided, limited access highways; and (iii) high-occupancy vehicle lanes if such lanes are physically separated from regular travel lanes.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-870/
The definition still doesn't specifically state whether at-grade intersections are permitted or not.

I recall in the past reading a VDOT study that used the term "controlled-access highway" for a highway with at-grade intersections, but no private connections, and a "limited-access highway" for a highway permitting no private connections, and that all crossroads must be grade separated with access via interchanges.

I wish the definition was more clear.

But nonetheless, no limited-access at-grade highway in Virginia has ever been posted above 60 MPH. Freeway bypasses have been posted at 65 MPH, and interstate highways (and US-29 at Lynchburg) at 70 MPH. They likely consider "limited-access highway" as a freeway.

Plus, the one at-grade intersection on US-301 at Fort A.P. Hill is technically a private driveway to a facility, so it's debatable.


UPDATE ---

This was the study, the I-73 Location Study, Page 2-11 (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/i73FEIS-2-Alternatives1.pdf) completed about a decade ago.

This provides a clear distinction what VDOT considers a "controlled-access highway" and a "limited-access highway".

QuoteThe controlled access facility provides similar geometric features to the Interstate (freeway) design along the mainline. The controlled access highway will likely require parallel frontage roads to access stranded properties on either side of the roadway. The controlled access highway would resemble an Interstate in that access would only be provided at key primary, secondary and arterial roads. At those locations the access would be at-grade and either signalized or unsignalized depending upon through and turning movement volumes at the intersection. This distinction separates the controlled access highway from the limited access highway. The limited access highway would have full control not only along the mainline but also at the key intersecting roads. The limited access facility would provide grade separated interchanges as opposed to the at-grade, signalized intersections prevalent in the controlled access highway. Typically, the controlled access highway would be designed to a 60 mph design standard and have a posted speed of 55 mph. The Interstate highway would be designed to a 70 mph design standard and have a posted speed of (*)65 mph. The controlled access design resembles the Interstate design in that the lane, shoulder and median width would be very similar.

To sum it up, the only difference between the two is that a "controlled-access highway" has at-grade intersections, whereas a "limited-access highway" has grade-separations. Everything else about them are the same - interstate / freeway cross section, no private access, etc.

(*)note it indicates 65 MPH, this was before interstates were permitted at 70 MPH.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 25, 2019, 09:03:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 25, 2019, 04:58:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 25, 2019, 07:43:00 AM
The code allows up to 70 mph for a 4-lane divided limited access highway.  As defined an at-grade expressway is a limited access highway.
"Limited access highway" means a highway especially designed for through traffic, over which abutters have no easement or right of light, air, or access by reason of the fact that their property abuts upon such limited access highway.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title33.2/chapter4/section33.2-400/
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the maximum speed limit shall be 70 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on (i) interstate highways; (ii) multilane, divided, limited access highways; and (iii) high-occupancy vehicle lanes if such lanes are physically separated from regular travel lanes.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-870/
The definition still doesn't specifically state whether at-grade intersections are permitted or not.

The way that the Code of Virginia defines "limited access highway" is based on the right-of-way disallowing any private access whether by driveway, field entrance, foot access, off-road vehicle, etc. 

An at-grade expressway is a limited access highway with at-grade intersections with public roads.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 25, 2019, 04:58:21 PM
I recall in the past reading a VDOT study that used the term "controlled-access highway" for a highway with at-grade intersections, but no private connections, and a "limited-access highway" for a highway permitting no private connections, and that all crossroads must be grade separated with access via interchanges.  I wish the definition was more clear.

I wouldn't use the I-73 study to try to override what is stated in the Code of Virginia.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 25, 2019, 04:58:21 PM
But nonetheless, no limited-access at-grade highway in Virginia has ever been posted above 60 MPH.

You're sure?  I would have had to drive every Virginia highway since the 1960s and at least every 5 years or so to be able to say that, and I have not done that.

The US-460 Christiansburg Bypass had a 65 mph speed limit the first time I drove in in 1972.  It was built with a limited access right-of-way and then its termini were at-grade intersections (US-11/US-460 east of town and US-460 north of town).  No intervening intersections or interchanges. 

Does that count?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 07:18:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 25, 2019, 09:03:53 PM
The way that the Code of Virginia defines "limited access highway" is based on the right-of-way disallowing any private access whether by driveway, field entrance, foot access, off-road vehicle, etc. 

An at-grade expressway is a limited access highway with at-grade intersections with public roads.
I suppose using what's specifically stated in the Code of Virginia, somebody could attempt to use this "loophole" to increase the speed limit on a limited-access at-grade highway to 65 or 70 MPH, though I don't believe that was the intent. But it's anybody's guess at this point.

Quote from: Beltway on April 25, 2019, 09:03:53 PM
I wouldn't use the I-73 study to try to override what is stated in the Code of Virginia.
Not necessarily overriding what's stated in the Code of Virginia, but rather puts more of an emphasis on what's the actual intent of the code was referring too.   

Quote from: Beltway on April 25, 2019, 09:03:53 PM
You're sure?  I would have had to drive every Virginia highway since the 1960s and at least every 5 years or so to be able to say that, and I have not done that.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=0038371d02d04fdd88fd04488297f8a9
VDOT's online speed limit map is helpful here. Go to "Content", under "VDOT Speed Limits" click on "Filter", change "Authority" to "Car Speed Limits", then enter value "65mph".

It allows you to view every highway posted strictly at 65 MPH, no other ones in the way. Looking around, all of those appear to be freeways, and no at-grade limited-access.

Quote from: Beltway on April 25, 2019, 09:03:53 PM
The US-460 Christiansburg Bypass had a 65 mph speed limit the first time I drove in in 1972.  It was built with a limited access right-of-way and then its termini were at-grade intersections (US-11/US-460 east of town and US-460 north of town).  No intervening intersections or interchanges.
The segments without intersections had 65 MPH speed limits, then it dropped to 55 MPH when encountering one. The US-460 Blacksburg Bypass in the same general area had an at-grade intersection / interchange at Southgate Drive, yet the bypass was posted at 65 MPH. Around the intersection, the speed limit decreased to 55 MPH, then increased back to 65 MPH. Ever since the new interchange opened there finally back in 2017 though, it's now all 65 MPH continuously.

I suppose the US-301 segment could be 65 MPH, then decrease to 60 MPH near the at-grade intersection, if that particular segment had the proper design for 65 MPH, or even 70 MPH.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 26, 2019, 09:54:04 AM
As I recall, VDOT flips the usual definitions of "limited access" and "controlled access", in that "limited access" = freeway and "controlled access" may include at-grade public intersections.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on April 26, 2019, 09:59:08 AM
On an unrelated topic, is there any reason why Skyline Drive was closed south of US 33? I recall hearing about ice or fires damaging the road, but I don't know why they had to close a whopping 40 miles of the road (perhaps flaggers could be possible?).

Anyways, that prevented me from clinching Skyline Drive a week ago, and now I'm missing it between US 250 and US 33.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on April 26, 2019, 10:01:12 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 26, 2019, 09:59:08 AM
On an unrelated topic, is there any reason why Skyline Drive was closed south of US 33? I recall hearing about ice or fires damaging the road, but I don't know why they had to close a whopping 40 miles of the road (perhaps flaggers could be possible?).

Anyways, that prevented me from clinching Skyline Drive a week ago, and now I'm missing it between US 250 and US 33.

My understanding is that the ice storms this winter (they were much more severe on the ridges than in the valleys) brought down an inordinate amount of trees, which required a very long time to clear.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 12:19:18 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 26, 2019, 09:54:04 AM
As I recall, VDOT flips the usual definitions of "limited access" and "controlled access", in that "limited access" = freeway and "controlled access" may include at-grade public intersections.

In what context and where?  The VDOT state highway map uses "Access Controlled" in the legend for freeways.   VDOT design project plans use "R/W & Limited Access" on the right-of-way line on both freeways and expressways.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 12:36:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 07:18:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 25, 2019, 09:03:53 PM
The way that the Code of Virginia defines "limited access highway" is based on the right-of-way disallowing any private access whether by driveway, field entrance, foot access, off-road vehicle, etc. 
An at-grade expressway is a limited access highway with at-grade intersections with public roads.
I suppose using what's specifically stated in the Code of Virginia, somebody could attempt to use this "loophole" to increase the speed limit on a limited-access at-grade highway to 65 or 70 MPH, though I don't believe that was the intent. But it's anybody's guess at this point.

You're overthinking things.  The law is what it is, there is no "loophole", it says that such a highway could have such a speed limit, if supported by a traffic engineering study (that all important qualifier).  I could see a high-quality at-grade expressway having a 65 mph speed limit, but of course there aren't very many in this state, such highways were usually built as freeways.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 07:18:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 25, 2019, 09:03:53 PM
You're sure?  I would have had to drive every Virginia highway since the 1960s and at least every 5 years or so to be able to say that, and I have not done that.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=0038371d02d04fdd88fd04488297f8a9
VDOT's online speed limit map is helpful here. Go to "Content", under "VDOT Speed Limits" click on "Filter", change "Authority" to "Car Speed Limits", then enter value "65mph".
It allows you to view every highway posted strictly at 65 MPH, no other ones in the way. Looking around, all of those appear to be freeways, and no at-grade limited-access.

That does not go back in history, and why isn't I-81 showing when clicking your link?

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 07:18:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 25, 2019, 09:03:53 PM
The US-460 Christiansburg Bypass had a 65 mph speed limit the first time I drove in in 1972.  It was built with a limited access right-of-way and then its termini were at-grade intersections (US-11/US-460 east of town and US-460 north of town).  No intervening intersections or interchanges.
The segments without intersections had 65 MPH speed limits, then it dropped to 55 MPH when encountering one. The US-460 Blacksburg Bypass in the same general area had an at-grade intersection / interchange at Southgate Drive, yet the bypass was posted at 65 MPH. Around the intersection, the speed limit decreased to 55 MPH, then increased back to 65 MPH. Ever since the new interchange opened there finally back in 2017 though, it's now all 65 MPH continuously.

I was talking about 1972, which is pre-1973 NMSL.  You weren't yet born in 1972 so how would you know what the speed limit was on the Christiansburg Bypass?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 05:01:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 12:36:57 PM
You're overthinking things.  The law is what it is, there is no "loophole", it says that such a highway could have such a speed limit, if supported by a traffic engineering study (that all important qualifier).  I could see a high-quality at-grade expressway having a 65 mph speed limit, but of course there aren't very many in this state, such highways were usually built as freeways.
As my link to the I-73 study, and as froggie mentioned above, I'm pretty sure "limited-access highway" is considered as a freeway, not at-grade. They've never attempted to raise a non-freeway above 60 MPH even though it's worded in a way it would be allowed.

"Controlled-access highway" is the word for limited-access highways with at-grade intersections under VDOT terms.

If the intention for the code is to be for freeways only, yet the code doesn't specify it, and somebody indeed is able to make a non-freeway have a higher limit than 60 MPH because of non-specific wording, then it's indeed a loophole.

IIRC, VDOT is intending on constructing the US-121 Coalfields Expressway in western Virginia (once money is found... ---cricket sounds---), but either way, it would be "controlled-access highway" meaning limited-access, interstate cross section, but at-grade intersections... similar to WVDOT's corridor roads. It would be interesting if they try to set the road higher than 60 MPH if actually constructed.

US-17 is a high-quality "controlled-access highway" in Southern Chesapeake for 12 miles, the average speed of drivers is approx. 67 MPH in my experience driving down it frequently, and the speed limit is 55 MPH. There's talks of raising it to 60 MPH, but realistically it could be 65 MPH. The roadway has gentle curves, superelevation, good sight distance, wide clearsides, 12 foot lanes, 8 foot paved shoulders, 42 foot median... it feels like driving on an rural interstate highway when there's long stretches with no intersections...there's really no issues with it. I've spoken to a lot of people who have driven down the roadway, and just about everybody agrees it could indeed be 65 MPH. That's not being considered though because it's not a freeway, and is restricted at 60 MPH.

Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 12:36:57 PM
That does not go back in history, and why isn't I-81 showing when clicking your link?
I don't know why I-81 isn't displayed, that's odd... It's VDOT's map, not mine, so I wouldn't know. Must be an error. Same on my side.

Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 12:36:57 PM
I was talking about 1972, which is pre-1973 NMSL.  You weren't yet born in 1972 so how would you know what the speed limit was on the Christiansburg Bypass?
I know it because you said it.

"The US-460 Christiansburg Bypass had a 65 mph speed limit the first time I drove in in 1972.  It was built with a limited access right-of-way and then its termini were at-grade intersections (US-11/US-460 east of town and US-460 north of town).  No intervening intersections or interchanges."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 05:42:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 05:01:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 12:36:57 PM
You're overthinking things.  The law is what it is, there is no "loophole", it says that such a highway could have such a speed limit, if supported by a traffic engineering study (that all important qualifier).  I could see a high-quality at-grade expressway having a 65 mph speed limit, but of course there aren't very many in this state, such highways were usually built as freeways.
As my link to the I-73 study, and as froggie mentioned above, I'm pretty sure "limited-access highway" is considered as a freeway, not at-grade. They've never attempted to raise a non-freeway above 60 MPH even though it's worded in a way it would be allowed.
"Controlled-access highway" is the word for limited-access highways with at-grade intersections under VDOT terms.

I had an opposite take on what Froggie said, see my comments about the legend on VDOT's state map, and what I said about VDOT design project plans is indeed the case.  Again, I don't see where the I-73 study would trump what is in the state Code.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 05:01:47 PM
If the intention for the code is to be for freeways only, yet the code doesn't specify it, and somebody indeed is able to make a non-freeway have a higher limit than 60 MPH because of non-specific wording, then it's indeed a loophole.

I have made the point many times over the years on roads forums, that limited access in Virginia highways refers to the right-of-way type, not the overall highway type.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 05:01:47 PM
IIRC, VDOT is intending on constructing the US-121 Coalfields Expressway in western Virginia (once money is found... ---cricket sounds---), but either way, it would be "controlled-access highway" meaning limited-access, interstate cross section, but at-grade intersections... similar to WVDOT's corridor roads. It would be interesting if they try to set the road higher than 60 MPH if actually constructed.

There is nothing in the Code of Virginia about "controlled-access highway".  Some other states use that term but that is not the case here.

I was thinking about 30+ miles segments of rural at-grade expressway when thinking of the higher speed limits, and Virginia doesn't have this so far.  I was thinking of something like US-15 in Maryland north of Frederick, essentially a rural Interstate standard of grade and alignment and cross section and lane and shoulder widths, a limited access right-of-way, and at-grade intersections only with public roads.  Something like that could qualify for 65 mph.  The state code in Virginia would cover that if such a highway was built.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 05:01:47 PM
US-17 is a high-quality "controlled-access highway" in Southern Chesapeake for 12 miles, the average speed of drivers is approx. 67 MPH in my experience driving down it frequently, and the speed limit is 55 MPH. There's talks of raising it to 60 MPH, but realistically it could be 65 MPH. The roadway has gentle curves, superelevation, good sight distance, wide clearsides, 12 foot lanes, 8 foot paved shoulders, 42 foot median... it feels like driving on an rural interstate highway when there's long stretches with no intersections...there's really no issues with it. I've spoken to a lot of people who have driven down the roadway, and just about everybody agrees it could indeed be 65 MPH. That's not being considered though because it's not a freeway, and is restricted at 60 MPH.

According to the Code of Virginia it could be 65 or 70, if a traffic engineering study supported that.  That comes down to engineering judgement, because there is no exact way to differentiate at that level.

I have commented in the past how it is apparent to me that each VDOT district traffic engineering unit is making their speed limit decisions with no statewide oversight.  That is how you get 60 mph on the Franklin and US-58 Suffolk bypasses, and 65 mph on the Lebanon and Tazewell bypasses, for one example.  No reason why they should not all be the same, all are just a tad below rural Interstate standards.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 05:01:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 12:36:57 PM
I was talking about 1972, which is pre-1973 NMSL.  You weren't yet born in 1972 so how would you know what the speed limit was on the Christiansburg Bypass?
I know it because you said it.
"The US-460 Christiansburg Bypass had a 65 mph speed limit the first time I drove in in 1972.  It was built with a limited access right-of-way and then its termini were at-grade intersections (US-11/US-460 east of town and US-460 north of town).  No intervening intersections or interchanges."

I also posed the question, "Does this count?"  Three miles of highway between two terminal at grade intersections, and a 65 mph speed limit.  Questionable whether I would call such a segment a freeway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 06:28:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 05:42:44 PM
I had an opposite take on what Froggie said, see my comments about the legend on VDOT's state map, and what I said about VDOT design project plans is indeed the case.  Again, I don't see where the I-73 study would trump what is in the state Code.
It's debatable I suppose. There's no clear evidence what the actual answer it. At this point, it's anyone's best guess.

Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 05:42:44 PM
I was thinking about 30+ miles segments of rural at-grade expressway when thinking of the higher speed limits, and Virginia doesn't have this so far.  I was thinking of something like US-15 in Maryland north of Frederick, essentially a rural Interstate standard of grade and alignment and cross section and lane and shoulder widths, a limited access right-of-way, and at-grade intersections only with public roads.  Something like that could qualify for 65 mph.  The state code in Virginia would cover that if such a highway was built.
I agree. US-13 on the Eastern Shore has about 30 miles of that highway design between Pocomoke and Salisbury, which then transitions into a 65 MPH freeway bypass. I could see all of that being raised to 65 MPH from Salisbury to Pocomoke as well. Certain stretches of US-50, also on the Eastern Shore, have a limited-access design as well.

I don't support speed limits being strictly dictated IMHO. They should be set at what's reasonable. There shouldn't be a mandated 55 MPH or 60 MPH for divided highways. It should simply set a maximum, 70 MPH, on any roadway.

Obviously, most non-freeways wouldn't be posted as high as 70 MPH or even 65 MPH, but if it was determined safe and reasonable, there shouldn't be anything stopping it. Stretches of non-limited-access recently widened portions of US-58, including between Courtland and Emporia that have a 40 foot median, 12 foot lanes, and 8 foot paved shoulders, gentle curves, good sight distance, wide clearsides, etc. could handle 65 or even 70 MPH, and likely would be set higher than 60 MPH if there wasn't restriction. Then again, the bypasses are also 60 MPH, and legally can be 70 MPH, so who knows.

The code in Texas simply dictates a 75 MPH maximum (exception - I-10 & I-20 are 80 MPH, and SH-130 Toll is as high as 85 MPH) on all roadways, no matter what classification. I agree, the roads down there have way better designs (full shoulders on most 2 or 4 lane highways, wide lanes (13 or 14 foot on a lot of 2-lanes), wide medians, etc), then Virginia, obviously, narrow roads wouldn't be increased to 70 MPH, 55 MPH is fast enough for a lot of them, but it would allow flexibility based on engineering judgment, especially on divided highways, not lawmakers in Richmond. But nonetheless, because of little restriction, most two-lane and just about every divided highway is posted at 70 or 75 MPH, because they're designed for that. I couldn't imagine driving 60 MPH on those highways. I've also noticed this when driving on major corridors between metros that are divided 75 MPH highways - most people don't go above 80 MPH, because the speed limit is posted at the 85th percentile, what's reasonable for the roadway. Most people, even long-distance traffic, is comfortable enough driving between 75 and 80 MPH, on a road with 10 foot paved shoulders, 12 foot travel lanes, divided median, even with lots of connecting driveways and intersections. It seems to work better than mandated slower speed limits on well-designed highways, designed for faster than actually posted, up in northern states.

Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 05:42:44 PM
I also posed the question, "Does this count?"  Three miles of highway between two terminal at grade intersections, and a 65 mph speed limit.  Questionable whether I would call such a segment a freeway.
There's no at-grade intersections, and that's good enough. For that reason, it could be considered an freeway. Either way, the rules then have changed, the discussion is in regards to limited-access at-grade highways now. Back then, all non-limited-access could've technically been 65 MPH, but the statewide 55 MPH speed limit came before that could be implemented. That 65 MPH code never returned since, only 60 MPH.

Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 05:42:44 PM
According to the Code of Virginia it could be 65 or 70, if a traffic engineering study supported that.  That comes down to engineering judgement, because there is no exact way to differentiate at that level.
Still questionable. One example, the 8-mile US-15 / US-360 bypass & relocation near Keysville, VA is limited-access, though some at-grade intersections exist. Only 4-miles is posted at 65 MPH, because no at-grade intersections exist, simply interchanges and overpasses. The speed drops to 60 MPH on the other 4-miles that have at-grade intersections, but still is limited-access.

If the Code of Virginia really permitted 65 or 70 on limited-access, at-grade highways, that stretch would remain 65 MPH even through the intersections, then finally decrease to 60 MPH where the non-limited-access begins.

That's why I still believe the 65 or 70 MPH code is strictly for freeways with no intersections whatsoever.

This is an example that supports my thought process.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 26, 2019, 10:32:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 06:28:41 PM

Still questionable. One example, the 8-mile US-15 / US-360 bypass & relocation near Keysville, VA is limited-access, though some at-grade intersections exist. Only 4-miles is posted at 65 MPH, because no at-grade intersections exist, simply interchanges and overpasses. The speed drops to 60 MPH on the other 4-miles that have at-grade intersections, but still is limited-access.


IIRC the CTB specifically removed the limited access designation from the parts of the Keysville Bypass with the at grade intersections, which are relatively recent compared to the age of the bypass.  The CTB historical search site is down otherwise I would find this and get the exact wording of what they did.

Before the site went down I tried to find a reference to designating US 301 through Fort AP Hill area as Limited Access.  I was trying to substantiate a theory that regardless of the definition of any of these terms, the CTB has to formally declare a road to be the designation for that designation to be in effect.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 10:45:55 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 26, 2019, 10:32:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 06:28:41 PM

Still questionable. One example, the 8-mile US-15 / US-360 bypass & relocation near Keysville, VA is limited-access, though some at-grade intersections exist. Only 4-miles is posted at 65 MPH, because no at-grade intersections exist, simply interchanges and overpasses. The speed drops to 60 MPH on the other 4-miles that have at-grade intersections, but still is limited-access.


IIRC the CTB specifically removed the limited access designation from the parts of the Keysville Bypass with the at grade intersections, which are relatively recent compared to the age of the bypass.  The CTB historical search site is down otherwise I would find this and get the exact wording of what they did.

Before the site went down I tried to find a reference to designating US 301 through Fort AP Hill area as Limited Access.  I was trying to substantiate a theory that regardless of the definition of any of these terms, the CTB has to formally declare a road to be the designation for that designation to be in effect.
Weird, it wouldn't make sense to remove limited-access designation on a new location facility. That only hurts itself in the long run, especially if development can freely occur.

US-17 throughout Chesapeake from North Carolina to I-64 is fully a limited-access facility. The southern 14 miles has limited-access right of way with at-grade intersections, and the northern 3 miles is limited-access freeway with interchanges. The southern 10 miles or so was completed in 2005 on new location, and the northern 7 miles was widened to a four-lane expressway / freeway in 2016. All of the project plans for those projects indicate limited-access right of way for the entire facility.

Before 2005, US-17 was a two-lane non-limited-access roadway from I-64 to NC.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 11:22:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 26, 2019, 06:28:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 05:42:44 PM
I had an opposite take on what Froggie said, see my comments about the legend on VDOT's state map, and what I said about VDOT design project plans is indeed the case.  Again, I don't see where the I-73 study would trump what is in the state Code.
It's debatable I suppose. There's no clear evidence what the actual answer it. At this point, it's anyone's best guess.

No guessing about it.  The law is clear as to what limited access means in Virginia, and that it is in the 70 mph category.  Whether a traffic engineering study would clear a segment for that is another matter entirely.

The way that the law is written includes all Interstate highways in the 70 mph category.  That means that I-95 thru the center of Richmond could qualify for 70 mph in a traffic engineering study supported it.  Given the geometry that won't happen, no way, but the legal framework puts all Interstate highways in the same legal category.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 27, 2019, 09:07:05 AM
Bear in mind that even if the traffic study supported it they might still decline to post a segment at 70 mph. The Beltway HO/T lanes are a good example. They were posted at 55 when they opened, then a year later they did the study to determine whether a higher speed limit was justified and, if so, what it would be. The study showed 70 mph would be appropriate, but instead they posted 65, and the news reports at the time said they never considered posting 70. I note that when I generally set my cruise control at 70 in the HO/T lanes, everyone else passes me. (Interesting side note is that the reports about the I-66 outside-the-Beltway project have said those lanes are expected to be posted at 70.)

I wonder if the use of the plastic bollards, rather than a harder barrier, was a factor in the decision, although if that were the case one might expect to see a 70-mph speed limit on the I-95 HO/T lanes instead of the 65-mph limit normally in effect there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 27, 2019, 10:31:31 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 27, 2019, 09:07:05 AM

I wonder if the use of the plastic bollards, rather than a harder barrier, was a factor in the decision, although if that were the case one might expect to see a 70-mph speed limit on the I-95 HO/T lanes instead of the 65-mph limit normally in effect there.

One drawing for the Express lane extension to Fredericksburg shows a posted 70 mph limit.  When completed I wonder if they will be posted at 70 everywhere south of Dale City.

QuoteWeird, it wouldn't make sense to remove limited-access designation on a new location facility. That only hurts itself in the long run, especially if development can freely occur.

The CTB makes changes to limited access segments all the time, for better or for worse.  For example, VA 73 was limited access when approved in Sept 1958 (see pg. 64 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-08-1958-01.pdf).  Limited access was alter in 1965 and again in 1992.  At this point it looks like only at the I-95 interchange itself is it still limited access.

To get an idea of what the CTB does, here is their action to remove a small section of US 460 from Limited Access control in Bedford for shopping center access:
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-07-2000-01.pdf

I don't know if they still do this but in the 1960s they would allow at-grades on some Limited Access designations such as the US 29 Lovingston and VA 297 Bedford Bypasses (pp. 27-30 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-03-1967-01.pdf).  Contrast with the US 211 Luray Bypass where they explicitly say no at-grades allowed (last page of http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-11-1966-01.pdf).

Note the Blacksburg BYpass was initially Limited Access throughout including at-grades per pg. 68 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-10-1966-01.pdf

I still can't find any evidence that US 301 through Fort AP HIll is limited access but this particular search expedition is difficult because the term is used often and the pdfs aren't searchable within them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 27, 2019, 11:01:31 AM
Unrelated to the above: WTOP has an article saying that Arlington County has deleted glass from the county-run recycling program and is asking residents either to throw out the glass or to take it to recycling drop-off points. It's the latter aspect that makes it relevant here, because the article says the glass collected at the drop-off points is taken to Fairfax County for use in experimental road paving that uses crushed-up glass.

Here's the info about the paving: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/publicworks/news/smart-cities-pilot-project-tests-recycled-materials-use-road-repairs

Seems this is being done at the roads on landfill property where heavy trucks constantly traverse the experimental pavement. Interesting concept.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 27, 2019, 11:26:19 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 27, 2019, 10:31:31 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 27, 2019, 09:07:05 AM
I wonder if the use of the plastic bollards, rather than a harder barrier, was a factor in the decision, although if that were the case one might expect to see a 70-mph speed limit on the I-95 HO/T lanes instead of the 65-mph limit normally in effect there.
One drawing for the Express lane extension to Fredericksburg shows a posted 70 mph limit.  When completed I wonder if they will be posted at 70 everywhere south of Dale City.

It comes down to the engineering judgment of the traffic engineers that conduct the study.  On a 5 mph difference, two different teams could have a different decision, with both believing that they utilized best engineering practices.

The I-95 HOT lanes in some places have a normal shoulder and a minimal shoulder, where they widened to 3 lanes.  That would impact the whole corridor down to Dale City.

The I-495 HOT lanes originally were planned on a dual-divided configuration, 4 separate roadways each with shoulders, a 4-2-2-4 roadway arrangement.  The 70 mph would have been much more likely on a separated express roadway.  That configuration would have necessitated right-of-way width that would have taken out somewhere between 250 and 300 homes.  Obviously safer but looked infeasible from a community impact standpoint.  Instead by rebuilding to 6 lane roadways each way they minimized it down to about 25 homes.  Thus the bollards in the 4-foot painted divider and minimal separation between the two painted roadways each way.

What happens when a vehicle goes thru the bollards?  I haven't seen yet what happens to the bollards.

Also a safety issue when the HOT lanes are going full speed and the GP lanes are moving slowly.  An errant vehicle on either roadway could cause a bad wreck if it went thru the bollards, with minimal reaction time possible.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 27, 2019, 11:44:46 AM
I've seen some flattened bollards from time to time, but I've never seen anyone run over one. From what I understand, if you hit them at full speed your car will take a fair amount of damage even though the bollard will give way.

On your last point about differential speeds, I've heard (but thankfully never seen) that in the Miami area it's fairly common for people in the slow-moving general-purpose lanes to get fed up and to cut through the bollards there. Major safety hazard, although there are some notable differences from Virginia: (1) bollards in Miami are spaced somewhat further apart than Virginia's are and (2) traffic in the HO/T lanes on I-95 in Miami moves significantly slower during peak hours, for the most part, than traffic in the Beltway lanes does (I think due in part to the configuration for exiting traffic at the Golden Glades where HO/T exiters merge together with left-side general-purpose exiters). The slower speeds in Miami probably make cutting through the bollards less likely, during peak hours anyway, to result in a catastrophic wreck. The last time I was in the Miami lanes on I-95 with our relatives, I think we were going maybe 25 mph while the general-purpose lanes were going around 10 mph. (Last time I was in any HO/T lanes down there was late night last Christmas Eve on I-595. Those lanes are more like I-95 between Turkeycock and the Prince William Parkway–three lanes, barrier-separated from the mainline, reversible carriageway, but unlike Virginia I-595's have full shoulders and a 70-mph speed limit.)

I certainly recall the first few times I was in the Beltway HO/T lanes flying past stopped traffic in the general-purpose lanes it was a bit nerve-wracking because the bollards didn't seem like much of a barrier (compare to Shirley Highway), but I got over that pretty quickly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 27, 2019, 12:05:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 27, 2019, 11:44:46 AM
I certainly recall the first few times I was in the Beltway HO/T lanes flying past stopped traffic in the general-purpose lanes it was a bit nerve-wracking because the bollards didn't seem like much of a barrier (compare to Shirley Highway), but I got over that pretty quickly.

That is why I consider the left lane to be the "cruising lane" on the HOT roadway, it is farther from the GP roadway, plus the ramp terminals are on the left, so things are the opposite of a normal GP roadway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 27, 2019, 12:49:04 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 27, 2019, 10:31:31 AM
I don't know if they still do this but in the 1960s they would allow at-grades on some Limited Access designations such as the US 29 Lovingston and VA 297 Bedford Bypasses (pp. 27-30 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-03-1967-01.pdf).  Contrast with the US 211 Luray Bypass where they explicitly say no at-grades allowed (last page of http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-11-1966-01.pdf).
The US-17 relocation in Chesapeake built in 2005 has limited-access right of way and has 7 intersecting roads, and 4 farm connections. The widened US-17 between the 2005 relocation and I-64 completed in 2016 also has limited-access right of way and has 3 driveway connections, 1 farm connection, and 2 intersecting roads.

Interestingly enough... that US-211 Luray Bypass you mention has 4 at-grade intersections... what's up with that?
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 11:22:13 PM
No guessing about it.  The law is clear as to what limited access means in Virginia, and that it is in the 70 mph category.  Whether a traffic engineering study would clear a segment for that is another matter entirely.
Let me know when a limited-access at-grade roadway is posted above 60 MPH under the current law, and then I'll believe you.

This 9 mile stretch of US-58 / US-23 / US-421 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.6376805,-82.5674987/36.6419624,-82.7245905/@36.6438735,-82.6671698,14351m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0) in Gate City, VA (just north of where I-26 ends at the VA state line) is a limited-access at-grade, high quality expressway, relocation of the old route. It's only posted 60 MPH... why's it not 65 MPH? It's limited-access. It's a high-quality expressway design. There's no private connections.

Same with the US-460 Blackstone, VA limited-access at-grade, high quality expressway bypass (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/37.1186682,-77.9471202/37.1457752,-78.0869074/@37.1351858,-78.0370666,14258m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0). And this 7 mile relocation of US-460 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/37.1586361,-77.7040614/37.1949071,-77.5926179/@37.1752393,-77.6682562,14251m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0) east of Bedford. Both are only 60 MPH. Why not 65 MPH?

I'm sure there's more around the state. None are above 60 MPH, even the highest quality ones. Even the lower quality ones, as soon as an overpass and interchange begins, the speed increases to 65 MPH. But as soon as an intersection comes, back down to 60 MPH, even if it's still limited-access. If limited-access at grade could have 65 MPH, then the 65 MPH would go through the intersection, at-grade portion as well, and not drop to 60 MPH.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 27, 2019, 04:54:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 27, 2019, 12:49:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2019, 11:22:13 PM
No guessing about it.  The law is clear as to what limited access means in Virginia, and that it is in the 70 mph category.  Whether a traffic engineering study would clear a segment for that is another matter entirely.
Let me know when a limited-access at-grade roadway is posted above 60 MPH under the current law, and then I'll believe you.

So you aren't going to believe me when I said that every mile of Interstate highway is in the 70 mph category, even though no urban Interstate segment has that speed limit?

The fact is that very few non-Interstate freeways are posted above 60 mph, for that matter.

Quote from: sprjus4 on April 27, 2019, 12:49:04 PM
This 9 mile stretch of US-58 / US-23 / US-421 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.6376805,-82.5674987/36.6419624,-82.7245905/@36.6438735,-82.6671698,14351m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0) in Gate City, VA (just north of where I-26 ends at the VA state line) is a limited-access at-grade, high quality expressway, relocation of the old route. It's only posted 60 MPH... why's it not 65 MPH? It's limited-access. It's a high-quality expressway design. There's no private connections.

Why aren't the US-58 Suffolk and Franklin bypasses posted at 65 mph or higher when Tazewell and Lebanon are?  I have pointed out that there are inconsistencies from district to district in how the district traffic engineering staff make their decisions.

That doesn't mean that the framework isn't in place for the possibility of higher speed limits.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 27, 2019, 06:01:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 27, 2019, 04:54:35 PM
So you aren't going to believe me when I said that every mile of Interstate highway is in the 70 mph category, even though no urban Interstate segment has that speed limit?
Urban interstates are limited at 65 MPH IIRC.

Quote from: Beltway on April 27, 2019, 04:54:35 PM
Why aren't the US-58 Suffolk and Franklin bypasses posted at 65 mph or higher when Tazewell and Lebanon are?  I have pointed out that there are inconsistencies from district to district in how the district traffic engineering staff make their decisions.

That doesn't mean that the framework isn't in place for the possibility of higher speed limits.
The example of the US-58 / US-23 / US-421 limited-access at-grade expressway in Gate City I gave is in the same district as those Tazewell and Lebanon bypasses are... so same standards...
The law doesn't permit a higher speed limit than 60 mph on any at-grade roadway, limited-access or non-limited-access.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title33.2/chapter29/section33.2-2900/

This section in the Code of Virginia may provide a more detailed definition of what a limited-access highway is...

Quote"Limited access highway" means a highway specially designed for through traffic over or to which owners or occupants of abutting property or other persons have no easement of or right to light, air, view, or access by reason of the fact that their property abuts upon such highway, and access to which highway is controlled by the Authority, the Commonwealth, the City of Richmond, the County of Henrico, or the County of Chesterfield so as to give preference to through traffic by providing access connections with selected public highways only and by prohibiting crossings at grade or direct private driveway connections.

No at-grade connections allowed on a "limited access highway". It's straightforward. It's never been attempted to post 65 or 70 on an at-grade roadway, limited-access or non-limited-access, because it does not fall under Virginia's definition of a "limited-access highway" which is a highway with grade separations and access points at interchanges only, and no private driveway connections.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 27, 2019, 10:54:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 27, 2019, 06:01:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 27, 2019, 04:54:35 PM
So you aren't going to believe me when I said that every mile of Interstate highway is in the 70 mph category, even though no urban Interstate segment has that speed limit?
Urban interstates are limited at 65 MPH IIRC.

....

Not by statute. The statute permits all Interstates and Interstate look-alikes to be posted at 70 mph upon completion of the required studies, but VDOT has so far elected not to post 70 on any urban highways (all forms of emphasis supplied):

Quote§ 46.2-870. Maximum speed limits generally.
Except as otherwise provided in this article, the maximum speed limit shall be 55 miles per hour on interstate highways or other limited access highways with divided roadways, nonlimited access highways having four or more lanes, and all state primary highways.

The maximum speed limit on all other highways shall be 55 miles per hour if the vehicle is a passenger motor vehicle, bus, pickup or panel truck, or a motorcycle, but 45 miles per hour on such highways if the vehicle is a truck, tractor truck, or combination of vehicles designed to transport property, or is a motor vehicle being used to tow a vehicle designed for self-propulsion, or a house trailer.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the maximum speed limit shall be 70 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on (i) interstate highways; (ii) multilane, divided, limited access highways; and (iii) high-occupancy vehicle lanes if such lanes are physically separated from regular travel lanes. The maximum speed limit shall be 60 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on U.S. Route 17, U.S. Route 23, U.S. Route 29, U.S. Route 58, U.S. Alternate Route 58, U.S. Route 301, U.S. Route 360, U.S. Route 460, U.S. Route 501 between the Town of South Boston and the North Carolina state line, State Route 3, and State Route 207 where such routes are nonlimited access, multilane, divided highways.

Code 1950, § 46-212; 1950, p. 881; 1952, c. 666; 1954, c. 244; 1956, c. 364; 1958, c. 541, §§ 46.1-193, 46.1-401; 1960, c. 153; 1962, c. 307; 1964, cc. 118, 408; 1966, c. 85; 1968, c. 641; 1972, cc. 89, 546, 553, 608; 1974, c. 528; 1975, c. 533; 1977, c. 577; 1978, c. 605; 1980, c. 347; 1986, c. 639; 1988, cc. 662, 897; 1989, cc. 276, 526, 727; 1992, c. 598; 1994, c. 423; 1996, c. 1; 1998, cc. 546, 560; 1999, c. 142; 2001, c. 298; 2002, c. 872; 2003, c. 838; 2004, c. 696; 2005, cc. 266, 267, 268; 2006, c. 213; 2007, cc. 222, 544; 2010, cc. 26, 56; 2014, c. 91; 2018, cc. 160, 339, 340, 345.

The effect of the italicized clause is, essentially, to say the maximum speed limit allowed on the specified classes of road is 55 mph unless (1) an exception applies and (2) the required study is performed to allow for implementation of that exception.




Regarding "limited access highways," I believe the generally-applicable definition is the one in Va. Code 33.2-400, but I'm not 100% positive, and since it's 10:53 PM I'm not going to do the research right now. I'm pretty sure 33.2-2900 is not the correct one to cite because it's circumscribed to refer to the Richmond area, both by its text and by the chapter in which it appears. But if you read the statute quoted above, it's essentially rather obvious how the term is being used: "limited access" means "no at-grade intersections" because the segments referred to as "nonlimited access" on which they've allowed 60-mph speed limits all have at-grade intersections. US-29 is an excellent example of this, especially south of Charlottesville, because it'll be posted at 60 mph and then you pass an interchange for a business route (such as the one at Gretna) and the bypass is posted at 65 mph (or 70, on the new Lynchburg/Madison Heights bypass) because it has interchanges instead of intersections. Then the bypass ends and bam, the speed limit immediately drops back to 60 mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 28, 2019, 11:09:56 PM
Quote from: plain on April 21, 2019, 12:37:20 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 20, 2019, 11:45:19 PM
New Topic: I mentioned that my recently proposed road trip to NYC and back was going to include a detour to VA 161 so I could take the Boulevard Bridge, and I did. I will be posting the images on the Wikimedia Commons hopefully before the month is over.
This reminds me of a pic I found online a few years back of the toll plaza. I'm thinking this was not long after it was moved off the bridge and placed on the northern end.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190421/2c8d156b5f03d3eb6cd213164e27d13d.jpg)

SM-S820L


Here's what it's like now. Sorry I don't have a full view:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richmond_Boulevard_Bridge;_NB_Toll_Booths.jpg

I'm also sorry I didn't get the bicycle route sign before the toll plaza.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 29, 2019, 07:15:07 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 28, 2019, 11:09:56 PM
Quote from: plain on April 21, 2019, 12:37:20 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 20, 2019, 11:45:19 PM
New Topic: I mentioned that my recently proposed road trip to NYC and back was going to include a detour to VA 161 so I could take the Boulevard Bridge, and I did. I will be posting the images on the Wikimedia Commons hopefully before the month is over.
This reminds me of a pic I found online a few years back of the toll plaza. I'm thinking this was not long after it was moved off the bridge and placed on the northern end.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190421/2c8d156b5f03d3eb6cd213164e27d13d.jpg)

SM-S820L


Here's what it's like now. Sorry I don't have a full view:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richmond_Boulevard_Bridge;_NB_Toll_Booths.jpg

I'm also sorry I didn't get the bicycle route sign before the toll plaza.

Nice to see RMTA replaced the red & green orbs with X's & arrows, plus the digital signs right below them. The plaza looks even cooler now. Thanks for posting, I will drive the bridge tomorrow to get a look.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 30, 2019, 06:31:49 PM
Don't know how long this has been proposed, but there's a "proposed" project to do a $75 million rehabilitation to the Berkley Bridge on I-264 outside Downtown Norfolk.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/berkley_bridge_rehabilitation.asp

Quote
The Berkley Bridge opened in 1952 and is part of the I-264 Downtown Tunnel complex crossing the eastern branch of the Elizabeth River and connecting the South Hampton Roads cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk.The bridge also merges I-464 traffic traveling from Chesapeake with I-264 traffic in the City of Norfolk.

In 1991, the bridge was expanded to eight lanes with a pedestrian walkway on the eastern side. An average of 55,000 vehicles cross this double leaf drawbridge daily.

Benefits
The purpose of this project is to replace existing drive motors, resistor banks, and brakes. It will include a new power room, replacement of electrical switchgear, submarine cables, transformers and backup generators, new starters, associated conduit, cable and terminal boxes and removal of all existing
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 03, 2019, 01:44:04 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 30, 2019, 06:31:49 PM
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/berkley_bridge_rehabilitation.asp
Quote
The Berkley Bridge opened in 1952 and is part of the I-264 Downtown Tunnel complex crossing the eastern branch of the Elizabeth River and connecting the South Hampton Roads cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk.The bridge also merges I-464 traffic traveling from Chesapeake with I-264 traffic in the City of Norfolk.
In 1991, the bridge was expanded to eight lanes with a pedestrian walkway on the eastern side. An average of 55,000 vehicles cross this double leaf drawbridge daily.

They could have worded it better.   One bridge was opened in 1952 and was 4 lanes undivided.  The second 4-lane bridge was opened in 1991 and has the pedestrian walkway.  The older bridge then received a major rehab, with the roadway deck removed and replaced, substructure rehab, and I think the bascule spans were replaced also.  It was the 2nd part of the project to build a parallel Downtown Tunnel.  Each bridge carries about 55,000 AADT today.

Looks like the current project items are all in the area of bascule electrical and mechanical system replacements.  For $75 million that price probably provides that for both bridges.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 03, 2019, 04:44:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 03, 2019, 01:44:04 PM
They could have worded it better.   One bridge was opened in 1952 and was 4 lanes undivided.  The second 4-lane bridge was opened in 1991 and has the pedestrian walkway.  The older bridge then received a major rehab, with the roadway deck removed and replaced, substructure rehab, and I think the bascule spans were replaced also.  It was the 2nd part of the project to build a parallel Downtown Tunnel.  Each bridge carries about 55,000 AADT today.
Agreed. I was a little surprised at the 55,000 AADT number, I had thought the number was over 100,000 (and indeed it is).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2019, 11:21:15 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_564
Someone did a goof in I-564 history.  They got the fact that I-564 replaced VA 170, but they got the information wrong about VA 170 though.  They confused it with VA 168 as that went across Hampton Roads and was where I-64 is now to VA 30.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 04, 2019, 12:42:55 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 03, 2019, 11:21:15 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_564
Someone did a goof in I-564 history.  They got the fact that I-564 replaced VA 170, but they got the information wrong about VA 170 though.  They confused it with VA 168 as that went across Hampton Roads and was where I-64 is now to VA 30.
I think VA-168 used to be VA-170 at one point, so that could be why. Who knows though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 04, 2019, 03:49:11 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 04, 2019, 12:42:55 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 03, 2019, 11:21:15 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_564
Someone did a goof in I-564 history.  They got the fact that I-564 replaced VA 170, but they got the information wrong about VA 170 though.  They confused it with VA 168 as that went across Hampton Roads and was where I-64 is now to VA 30.
I think VA-168 used to be VA-170 at one point, so that could be why. Who knows though.

This was the case south of Norfolk, but not north of it.

http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va168.htm

And thank you Mapmikey for recently finding this AWESOME! pic of the pre-I-64 VA 168/US 258 interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on May 04, 2019, 04:07:32 AM
Check out Mapmikey's Virginia Highways Project for the histories concerning both VA 168 and VA 170.  Originally, VA 168 was only on the Peninsula and VA 170 was only on the Southside and in North Carolina. It wasn't until the HRBT was completed that VA 168 was extended to the Southside and replaced much of VA 170 from South Norfolk down to the North Carolina line.  VA 170 then received a different routing when that occurred.

Check out that 1958 photo of the VA 168 (now I-64) freeway at the Military Hwy (now Mercury Blvd, Exit 263) interchange.  Not much of suburbia there.  That is really looking into the past. https://goo.gl/maps/Wuvk1yr1GWR4ZEu68  This is approximately the same view now.

Disclaimer: all statements above concerning the histories of VA 168 and VA 170 courtesy of Mapmikey's Virginia Highways Project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on May 04, 2019, 04:11:14 AM
I see plain was checking out the site and this board also.  :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 04, 2019, 04:29:22 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on May 04, 2019, 04:11:14 AM
I see plain was checking out the site and this board also.  :-D

It's all good.... because roadgeekism.

EDIT: roadgeek-izm
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 04, 2019, 10:25:45 AM
There have been 3 VA 170s...

The second one which used VA 168 south to NC did use the US 60 ferry to Hampton but followed today's VA 134 towards Yorktown.  Note that VA 168 did come to Southside about 15 years before HRBT, but went by ferry from Newport News to Norfolk Naval Base and was the predecessor to VA 170 east to Little Creek Rd and over to US 60 at the Amphib Base.

The Virginia Hwys Bulletin was a good source for some historic photos.  But I know VDOT has many more...some are trickling out on their Twitter feed as most Thursdays they publish one.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 04, 2019, 09:37:11 PM
Quote from: amroad17Disclaimer: all statements above concerning the histories of VA 168 and VA 170 courtesy of Mapmikey and froggie's Virginia Highways Project.

FTFY.  While Mike does do the bulk of the work on the site, I have made contributions (I also "pay the bills")...especially where the Norfolk routes are involved since I was stationed there twice.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on May 05, 2019, 10:10:39 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 04, 2019, 09:37:11 PM
Quote from: amroad17Disclaimer: all statements above concerning the histories of VA 168 and VA 170 courtesy of Mapmikey and froggie's Virginia Highways Project.

FTFY.  While Mike does do the bulk of the work on the site, I have made contributions (I also "pay the bills")...especially where the Norfolk routes are involved since I was stationed there twice.
I'm sorry I did not include froggie as well.  I did see froggie's name at the bottom of the index page the day after I posted.  No disrespect to you froggie.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 09, 2019, 11:23:48 PM
Just out of curiosity, which side of I-264 across the East Branch of the Elizabeth River (the Berkley Bridge) is the original draw span of that structure?

Also why is US 460 aligned to bypass Portsmouth but not Norfolk?  I always thought that sending US 460 on Military Highway to the south of the Hampton Roads area and then directly north into Norfolk was kind of odd.  Then the ALT route of US 460 (that should be really US 460) starting off with US 58 from Bowers Hill then hopping on the freeway of I-264 to go through the Downtown Tunnel over the Midtown Tunnel is odd as well.  Considering that US 58 goes through the Midtown and meets US 460 mainline in Downtown Norfolk at the Scope Coliseum should have had that designation stay on 58 all the way.

I understand that before the freeways US 58 going through both cities was the way to serve their downtowns and other neighborhoods more direct along with US 13 on Military Highway being the bypass of those cities, but US 460's awkward routing makes no sense for a straight through motorists to use in the pre-freeway era.  In fact US 460 heading east of Suffolk IMO seems like a waste of US route designation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 09, 2019, 11:31:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2019, 11:23:48 PM
Just out of curiosity, which side of I-264 across the East Branch of the Elizabeth River (the Berkley Bridge) is the original draw span of that structure?

The western span / westbound I-264.  You can see on aerial views that it is the narrower bridge of the two, 4 full width lanes but minimal shoulders.

Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2019, 11:23:48 PM
Also why is US 460 aligned to bypass Portsmouth but not Norfolk?  I always thought that sending US 460 on Military Highway to the south of the Hampton Roads area and then directly north into Norfolk was kind of odd.  Then the ALT route of US 460 (that should be really US 460) starting off with US 58 from Bowers Hill then hopping on the freeway of I-264 to go through the Downtown Tunnel over the Midtown Tunnel is odd as well.  Considering that US 58 goes through the Midtown and meets US 460 mainline in Downtown Norfolk at the Scope Coliseum should have had that designation stay on 58 all the way.

Military Highway makes an arc about equidistant from downtown Norfolk and Portsmouth.

Historical aerials of the area would probably show that eastern Norfolk was sparsely populated back when Military Highway was built.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 10, 2019, 02:23:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2019, 11:23:48 PM

Also why is US 460 aligned to bypass Portsmouth but not Norfolk?  I always thought that sending US 460 on Military Highway to the south of the Hampton Roads area and then directly north into Norfolk was kind of odd.  Then the ALT route of US 460 (that should be really US 460) starting off with US 58 from Bowers Hill then hopping on the freeway of I-264 to go through the Downtown Tunnel over the Midtown Tunnel is odd as well.  Considering that US 58 goes through the Midtown and meets US 460 mainline in Downtown Norfolk at the Scope Coliseum should have had that designation stay on 58 all the way.

I understand that before the freeways US 58 going through both cities was the way to serve their downtowns and other neighborhoods more direct along with US 13 on Military Highway being the bypass of those cities, but US 460's awkward routing makes no sense for a straight through motorists to use in the pre-freeway era.  In fact US 460 heading east of Suffolk IMO seems like a waste of US route designation.

US 460 in the Tidewater area has been a strange bird.

First, when it was created in 1933, US 460 did not follow US 58 from Suffolk to Portsmouth either.  It instead used today's VA 337 via Driver, until 1942.

Initially, 460 briefly used the US 58 ferry from Portsmouth to Norfolk then northeast to Chesapeake Beach (makes some sense as a way to get to the Kiptopeke Ferry area).  In late 1934, US 460 was rerouted to use the original Jordan Bridge.

Not long after Military Highway opened from Bowers Hill to east of the Gilmerton Bridge, US 460 was routed that way as a free alternative to get to Norfolk (US 58 ferry and Jordan Br were both tolled).  At about the same time, US 13 was extended south across the ferry and US 460 was rerouted to end in downtown Norfolk, still as a free alternative to the toll crossings to Norfolk.  This was in the 1942-43 timeframe.

When the Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge opened in 1952, the Bowers Hill split presented Norfolk as being via tunnel (US 460 ALT) or bridge (via US 460), although the free vs toll thing was still in play. See the pic below from the 1957 Virginia Highways Bulletin. As was common at the time in Virginia (though not absolute), bypass routes were given the ALTERNATE designation.  US 460 ALT today is terribly posted so its utility today is highly questionable.

What is more curious to me is the 1959 extension out to Ocean View.  Would've made some sense if the new Tidewater Dr was where they put it to give a path to the new HRBT but to have two primary routes head that way (VA 168) seems odd.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fbowershill-apr57.jpg&hash=1892883f7bdcc5b8fbeaeb326d24fac217fd0221)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 10, 2019, 06:46:18 PM
It's amusing to me that while we all think fondly of cutouts as old-style shields, those are definitely not cutouts.

Looking at those, I'm picturing a roadgeek Queen tribute band singing "Fat Bottomed Shields."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on May 10, 2019, 06:57:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 10, 2019, 06:46:18 PM
It's amusing to me that while we all think fondly of cutouts as old-style shields, those are definitely not cutouts.

I think of them as "fake cutouts". Lots of them around Roanoke.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 10, 2019, 07:11:58 PM
Quote from: oscar on May 10, 2019, 06:57:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 10, 2019, 06:46:18 PM
It's amusing to me that while we all think fondly of cutouts as old-style shields, those are definitely not cutouts.

I think of them as "fake cutouts". Lots of them around Roanoke.
That is true. I recall seeing them all over Roanoke when visiting last year. I was surprised they've been standing this long.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 10, 2019, 07:23:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2019, 07:11:58 PM
Quote from: oscar on May 10, 2019, 06:57:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 10, 2019, 06:46:18 PM
It's amusing to me that while we all think fondly of cutouts as old-style shields, those are definitely not cutouts.

I think of them as "fake cutouts". Lots of them around Roanoke.
That is true. I recall seeing them all over Roanoke when visiting last year. I was surprised they've been standing this long.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2019, 07:11:58 PM
Quote from: oscar on May 10, 2019, 06:57:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 10, 2019, 06:46:18 PM
It's amusing to me that while we all think fondly of cutouts as old-style shields, those are definitely not cutouts.

I think of them as "fake cutouts". Lots of them around Roanoke.
That is true. I recall seeing them all over Roanoke when visiting last year. I was surprised they've been standing this long.

The miniature white border shields in Roanoke only date back to early 90s and some are brand new. These are what replaced the Roanoke cutouts.

There are not many vintage white border shields remaining in Virginia who started using them in the late 40s and phased out new installs around 1970 or so.

Independent cities and towns where VDOT is not maintaining do what they want. The 400 series routes commissioned in 1981 in Alexandria were posted in full size white border shields and Vienna still uses them at the 123-243 jct
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 10, 2019, 09:03:03 PM
QuoteIndependent cities and towns where VDOT is not maintaining do what they want.

Indeed Alexandria has some very new seriously ugly unisigns.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 10, 2019, 09:38:24 PM
Virginia's Draft FY 2020 six year plan (SYIP) is out...

Unfortunately, they do not appear to put out anything that says what was new or changed from the FY 2019 like North Carolina does.

Below is a list of primary system projects of note that have not had any $ allocated through FY 2019 and so at least some of these would be new projects to reach the SYIP (not necessarily newly announced projects altogether).  You can look at their dashboard here (http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/allProjects.aspx) or separate pdfs with expanded entries in one place here (http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/reports.aspx)

meter ramp VA 123 to I-95 NB
auxilliary lane btw VA 123 and VA 294 (construction FY 28)
rehab and widen I-195 over CSX RR (construction FY 25)
I-81 SB between VA 311 and VA 419 "reconstruction w/added capacity" (no schedule)
roundabout US 33 and VA 20
roundabout US 1 Bus and US 17 Bus/VA 2
widen VA 171 btw US 17 and VA 134 (construction FY 25)
roundabout US 15 and US 360 near Wylliesburg (construction FY 23)
US 311 reroute onto Berry Hill Connector (no schedule) - http://www.wppdc.org/content/wppdc/uploads/PDF/transportation/corridor_studies/mpo_conn_rd_summary.pdf
US 15 finally grade separate RR south of VA 55 (construction FY 25)
US 15 widen to 4 lanes from Battlefield Blvd to a little south of Lucketts (construction FY 23)
VA 286 interchange with Popes Hill Rd (construction FY 23)
roundabout VA 5 and VA 106 (construction FY 28)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 10, 2019, 10:49:47 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 10, 2019, 02:23:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2019, 11:23:48 PM

Also why is US 460 aligned to bypass Portsmouth but not Norfolk?  I always thought that sending US 460 on Military Highway to the south of the Hampton Roads area and then directly north into Norfolk was kind of odd.  Then the ALT route of US 460 (that should be really US 460) starting off with US 58 from Bowers Hill then hopping on the freeway of I-264 to go through the Downtown Tunnel over the Midtown Tunnel is odd as well.  Considering that US 58 goes through the Midtown and meets US 460 mainline in Downtown Norfolk at the Scope Coliseum should have had that designation stay on 58 all the way.

I understand that before the freeways US 58 going through both cities was the way to serve their downtowns and other neighborhoods more direct along with US 13 on Military Highway being the bypass of those cities, but US 460's awkward routing makes no sense for a straight through motorists to use in the pre-freeway era.  In fact US 460 heading east of Suffolk IMO seems like a waste of US route designation.

US 460 in the Tidewater area has been a strange bird.

First, when it was created in 1933, US 460 did not follow US 58 from Suffolk to Portsmouth either.  It instead used today's VA 337 via Driver, until 1942.

Initially, 460 briefly used the US 58 ferry from Portsmouth to Norfolk then northeast to Chesapeake Beach (makes some sense as a way to get to the Kiptopeke Ferry area).  In late 1934, US 460 was rerouted to use the original Jordan Bridge.

Not long after Military Highway opened from Bowers Hill to east of the Gilmerton Bridge, US 460 was routed that way as a free alternative to get to Norfolk (US 58 ferry and Jordan Br were both tolled).  At about the same time, US 13 was extended south across the ferry and US 460 was rerouted to end in downtown Norfolk, still as a free alternative to the toll crossings to Norfolk.  This was in the 1942-43 timeframe.

When the Downtown Tunnel and Berkley Bridge opened in 1952, the Bowers Hill split presented Norfolk as being via tunnel (US 460 ALT) or bridge (via US 460), although the free vs toll thing was still in play. See the pic below from the 1957 Virginia Highways Bulletin. As was common at the time in Virginia (though not absolute), bypass routes were given the ALTERNATE designation.  US 460 ALT today is terribly posted so its utility today is highly questionable.

What is more curious to me is the 1959 extension out to Ocean View.  Would've made some sense if the new Tidewater Dr was where they put it to give a path to the new HRBT but to have two primary routes head that way (VA 168) seems odd.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fbowershill-apr57.jpg&hash=1892883f7bdcc5b8fbeaeb326d24fac217fd0221)


Thanks for the imput and the photo.  It does make sense now that you had a free bridge and a tolled tunnel.  In Savanah, GA they did the same with US 17 as they opened the Talmage Bridge as a tolled facility, so they created US 17 ALT to use that while those shunpiking used the mainline US 17 which was longer.

I knew there had to be a reason as with today you do not see it.

As far as both US 460 and VA 168 both going to the HRBT, VA 168 was the main route on both sides of Hampton Roads.  I know in Newport News  US 60 was built to lower quality standards on Warwick Blvd. then VA 168 which used to use Jefferson Avenue and Merrimac Trail which was much better standards.  In fact only from VA 5 to VA 132 was the only part of old 168 that was two lanes from the Hampton Roads to VA 168Y which connected to US 60 for those on 168 to continue on to Richmond while VA 168 went to West Point to terminate at VA 33.  Even an article on Wikipedia said VA 168 was the main artery of the Virginia Peninsula and not US 60.

Therefore south of the tunnel VA 168 was the main road (hence why US 60 exits itself at a directional interchange in Willoughby Spit) and took the main bridge traffic. to Norfolk and beyond as VA 168 did (and still does go) to NC and the Outer Banks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 11, 2019, 01:51:48 PM
Quote from: plain on April 29, 2019, 07:15:07 PM
Nice to see RMTA replaced the red & green orbs with X's & arrows, plus the digital signs right below them. The plaza looks even cooler now. Thanks for posting, I will drive the bridge tomorrow to get a look.
So what did you think of it?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 11, 2019, 02:00:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 10, 2019, 06:46:18 PM
It's amusing to me that while we all think fondly of cutouts as old-style shields, those are definitely not cutouts.

Looking at those, I'm picturing a roadgeek Queen tribute band singing "Fat Bottomed Shields."

Someone, I think it was Adam Prince, coined the term "chipmunk shields" for those of that style.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 11, 2019, 02:26:39 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 11, 2019, 01:51:48 PM
Quote from: plain on April 29, 2019, 07:15:07 PM
Nice to see RMTA replaced the red & green orbs with X's & arrows, plus the digital signs right below them. The plaza looks even cooler now. Thanks for posting, I will drive the bridge tomorrow to get a look.
So what did you think of it?

The toll plaza is nice. Basically the only difference from the last time I crossed the bridge is the signals on top of the plaza, plus the variable message signs right below it, as I said before. It has a modern, yet still classic look to it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 11, 2019, 02:52:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2019, 10:49:47 PM
As far as both US 460 and VA 168 both going to the HRBT, VA 168 was the main route on both sides of Hampton Roads.  I know in Newport News  US 60 was built to lower quality standards on Warwick Blvd. then VA 168 which used to use Jefferson Avenue and Merrimac Trail which was much better standards.  In fact only from VA 5 to VA 132 was the only part of old 168 that was two lanes from the Hampton Roads to VA 168Y which connected to US 60 for those on 168 to continue on to Richmond while VA 168 went to West Point to terminate at VA 33.  Even an article on Wikipedia said VA 168 was the main artery of the Virginia Peninsula and not US 60.

Therefore south of the tunnel VA 168 was the main road (hence why US 60 exits itself at a directional interchange in Willoughby Spit) and took the main bridge traffic. to Norfolk and beyond as VA 168 did (and still does go) to NC and the Outer Banks.

Yes...US 60 followed the Colonial Era routing and VA 168 was built as new construction in the late 1930s as a multilane direct highway.  It is a little surprising US 60 wasn't moved to it when the VA 168Y connector was built around 1942.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 12, 2019, 03:21:40 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 10, 2019, 09:38:24 PM
Virginia's Draft FY 2020 six year plan (SYIP) is out...

...rehab and widen I-195 over CSX RR (construction FY 25)

...widen VA 171 btw US 17 and VA 134 (construction FY 25)

That VA 171 widening is long overdue.

As for I-195 over the railroad tracks, it definitely needs to be rehabilitated, but widening?? I say this because maybe it would work only NB, but heeeelllllll no SB. Not sure what VDOT is thinking with this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 12, 2019, 08:16:33 AM
Quote from: plain on May 12, 2019, 03:21:40 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 10, 2019, 09:38:24 PM
Virginia's Draft FY 2020 six year plan (SYIP) is out...
...rehab and widen I-195 over CSX RR (construction FY 25)
...widen VA 171 btw US 17 and VA 134 (construction FY 25)
That VA 171 widening is long overdue.
As for I-195 over the railroad tracks, it definitely needs to be rehabilitated, but widening?? I say this because maybe it would work only NB, but heeeelllllll no SB. Not sure what VDOT is thinking with this.

Is this the bridge that they are referring to?
https://tinyurl.com/y266p7rw
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 12, 2019, 10:40:11 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 11, 2019, 02:52:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2019, 10:49:47 PM
As far as both US 460 and VA 168 both going to the HRBT, VA 168 was the main route on both sides of Hampton Roads.  I know in Newport News  US 60 was built to lower quality standards on Warwick Blvd. then VA 168 which used to use Jefferson Avenue and Merrimac Trail which was much better standards.  In fact only from VA 5 to VA 132 was the only part of old 168 that was two lanes from the Hampton Roads to VA 168Y which connected to US 60 for those on 168 to continue on to Richmond while VA 168 went to West Point to terminate at VA 33.  Even an article on Wikipedia said VA 168 was the main artery of the Virginia Peninsula and not US 60.

Therefore south of the tunnel VA 168 was the main road (hence why US 60 exits itself at a directional interchange in Willoughby Spit) and took the main bridge traffic. to Norfolk and beyond as VA 168 did (and still does go) to NC and the Outer Banks.

Yes...US 60 followed the Colonial Era routing and VA 168 was built as new construction in the late 1930s as a multilane direct highway.  It is a little surprising US 60 wasn't moved to it when the VA 168Y connector was built around 1942.



I am glad they used part of old 168 to build I-64 in the early 80's.  Its a shame they got rid of VA 168Y but the intersection now where US 60 and VA 30 swap alignments works as making a business route for I-64 though undesignated.    Part of old 168 is still around in the NE corner of that particular intersection as seen in satellite views.   

Yes US 60 should have been moved over to VA 168 later on being Jefferson Avenue was built to better standards than Warwick Boulevard and that US 60 was the original main highway before 1942.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 12, 2019, 11:34:47 AM
Quote from: plain on May 12, 2019, 03:21:40 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 10, 2019, 09:38:24 PM
Virginia's Draft FY 2020 six year plan (SYIP) is out...

...rehab and widen I-195 over CSX RR (construction FY 25)

...widen VA 171 btw US 17 and VA 134 (construction FY 25)

That VA 171 widening is long overdue.

As for I-195 over the railroad tracks, it definitely needs to be rehabilitated, but widening?? I say this because maybe it would work only NB, but heeeelllllll no SB. Not sure what VDOT is thinking with this.

I misread the I-195 entry.  It is w/o adding capacity.  It says it is MM 2.16 to 2.76 so I assume it is the bridge over the pile of RR tracks near I-64 (posted mile markers combine VA 195 and I-195 and the bridge I think it is is about 2.7 miles from McCloy Rd overpass where I-195 starts).

The bridge Scott showed is already under rehab construction per this SYIP (also w/o adding capacity).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 12, 2019, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 12, 2019, 11:34:47 AM
I misread the I-195 entry.  It is w/o adding capacity.  It says it is MM 2.16 to 2.76 so I assume it is the bridge over the pile of RR tracks near I-64 (posted mile markers combine VA 195 and I-195 and the bridge I think it is is about 2.7 miles from McCloy Rd overpass where I-195 starts).
The bridge Scott showed is already under rehab construction per this SYIP (also w/o adding capacity).

I don't see where either bridge needs more capacity.  The southbound flyover from Beltline to Downtown has 2 lanes and full shoulders.

The bridge MM 2.16 to 2.76 would be the Acca Yards Viaduct, 3 lanes each way and full right and left shoulders. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 12, 2019, 02:34:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 12, 2019, 02:31:55 PM
I don't see where either bridge needs more capacity.  The southbound flyover from Beltline to Downtown has 2 lanes and full shoulders.

The bridge MM 2.16 to 2.76 would be the Acca Yards Viaduct, 3 lanes each way and full right and left shoulders.
w/o means without.

Without any additional capacity.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 12, 2019, 02:51:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 12, 2019, 02:34:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 12, 2019, 02:31:55 PM
I don't see where either bridge needs more capacity.  The southbound flyover from Beltline to Downtown has 2 lanes and full shoulders.
The bridge MM 2.16 to 2.76 would be the Acca Yards Viaduct, 3 lanes each way and full right and left shoulders.
w/o means without.
Without any additional capacity.

"(also w/o adding capacity)" implies that someone suggested adding capacity. 

Otherwise why bother stating that they are not adding capacity.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 12, 2019, 03:10:03 PM
The SYIP entries quite often state whether capacity is being added. I'm guessing this is because some projects with titles like improving intersections are vague. Some projects are widening but without adding capacity so they want to say so.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 12, 2019, 03:17:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 12, 2019, 02:51:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 12, 2019, 02:34:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 12, 2019, 02:31:55 PM
I don't see where either bridge needs more capacity.  The southbound flyover from Beltline to Downtown has 2 lanes and full shoulders.
The bridge MM 2.16 to 2.76 would be the Acca Yards Viaduct, 3 lanes each way and full right and left shoulders.
w/o means without.
Without any additional capacity.

"(also w/o adding capacity)" implies that someone suggested adding capacity. 

Otherwise why bother stating that they are not adding capacity.

I think Mapmikey was simply saying that he had misread the document.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 12, 2019, 03:34:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 12, 2019, 02:51:42 PM
"(also w/o adding capacity)" implies that someone suggested adding capacity. 

Otherwise why bother stating that they are not adding capacity.
Mapmikey mistakenly stated above they are adding capacity, then he said he misread it and thought they were adding capacity but then he realized they are simply doing rehab "w/o adding capacity".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 13, 2019, 09:55:12 PM
Leaving Downtown Norfolk earlier, and happened to notice this.

West I-464?

Apparently it's been there for years. Why has nobody fixed it?

(https://i.ibb.co/m8g32Mp/WestI464.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 13, 2019, 11:10:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2019, 09:55:12 PM
Leaving Downtown Norfolk earlier, and happened to notice this.

West I-464?

Apparently it's been there for years. Why has nobody fixed it?

(https://i.ibb.co/m8g32Mp/WestI464.png)

That whole assembly is off. The "TOLL" should be above I-264 West only and below "TO". I-464 obviously should say "SOUTH" but it doesn't need cardinal directions listed here at all as 464 ends at 264 anyway. The way this is set up makes it look like both interstates are tolled.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 13, 2019, 11:20:18 PM
Quote from: plain on May 13, 2019, 11:10:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 13, 2019, 09:55:12 PM
Leaving Downtown Norfolk earlier, and happened to notice this.

West I-464?

Apparently it's been there for years. Why has nobody fixed it?

(https://i.ibb.co/m8g32Mp/WestI464.png)

That whole assembly is off. The "TOLL" should be above I-264 West only and below "TO". I-464 obviously should say "SOUTH" but it doesn't need cardinal directions listed here at all as 464 ends at 264 anyway. The way this is set up makes it look like both interstates are tolled.
A lot of the Downtown signage is off. When they tolled the tunnels, they just put the "Toll" sticker / tab anywhere I-264 West is mentioned, even if it overlapped w/ I-464 signage. They never did a full replacement of the signage.

It never really bothered me, but when I was getting on I-464 South earlier, that caught my attention. Weird, I've been through that interchange a lot, but have never noticed it until today.

I would bet this whole signage is extremely confusing to non-locals. There's at least 2 dozen "To I-464 / I-264" trailblazers all throughout Downtown, and they all point down different streets. They need better trailblazers and overhead signage at the actual major junctions leading to them. I don't see VDOT use overhead signage that much though, so I wouldn't expect much.

But they really need to fix the "West" and put "South". That's just straight up giving wrong directions. I've already reached out to them in regards to this, hopefully it will be swapped out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 10:15:37 AM
Interesting observation, I noticed that in the past 30 years or so, Virginia is been installing mast arms more than span wires.  I do know that DE, MD, and PA have all opted to go mast arms while the state of Florida is mixed.  Only South Florida, the Panhandle, Alachua County, and Naples are standardizing with mast arms (with horizontal heads) while Hillsborough is going for span wires being the norm while the rest of the state its whatever goes at time of installation making it a mix of both.

So I can attest that it could be either one of those two scenarios and being not from VA nor traveling there in a long time, I can't say if the mast arm verses span wire is a change in signal practice or that right to choose just given to the cities or signal contractors.

So is VDOT making a change or are they just allowing the option and that many places opted for the arms?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 14, 2019, 10:40:24 AM
Historically VDOT preferred span wire but in recent years they've shifted to mast arms. I grew up seeing span wire everywhere.

About eight years ago I had posted a comment here about VDOT's annoying habit of not posting overhead street signs at many intersections. From what I've read, the main reason has historically been their incorrect claim that street signs cannot be hung from span wire (untrue, it's quite common in North Carolina, for example). froggie noted in response that VDOT's standard for hanging lights had been updated to use mast arms instead. Prior discussion here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3952.msg99677#msg99677

The inconsistency about which I groused in my prior comment is still an issue around here and it's still a crapshoot whether there'll be a sign attached to the mast arm at any given intersection that has them. Still a lot of span wire around. The intersection north of the one seen in my prior post has nine lanes across on its north side (six southbound lanes–two right-only, two straight-only, two left-only–and three northbound lanes), yet it's a span wire intersection and thus has no overhead street name signs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 11:24:48 AM
Also another issue with signals is the fact that some GSV captions show many Hampton Roads signals now black instead of yellow.  I am guessing that is a city thing and VDOT most likely prefers yellow, but has no enforcement over that.

Texas is another that uses yellow but black is popping up in some cities like Houston and Galveston.  Though historically I remember Norfolk used to always have dark colors especially Downtown.  In fact I remember seeing some Jersey truss arms in some installations as a kid when we traveled there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 14, 2019, 04:31:47 PM
VDOT has indeed been utilizing mast arms in many districts over the past 30 years now, and the signals are indeed yellow with black backplates (though more and more backplates have the yellow reflective strips on them now, even on older installs).

Also as stated, many independent cities do their own thing. Roanoke in particular has been using black signals for as long as I can remember. Danville, Hampton, Suffolk and Winchester started using them in the last decade or so for new installs. Newport News started with yellow, then dark green, but now back to yellow and sometimes black on newer ones. All Virginia Beach signals are a dark gray-ish color now, I think these look pretty nice. And finally, Norfolk does pretty much whatever the hell they feel like doing  :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 04:55:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 11:24:48 AM
Also another issue with signals is the fact that some GSV captions show many Hampton Roads signals now black instead of yellow.  I am guessing that is a city thing and VDOT most likely prefers yellow, but has no enforcement over that.

Texas is another that uses yellow but black is popping up in some cities like Houston and Galveston.  Though historically I remember Norfolk used to always have dark colors especially Downtown.  In fact I remember seeing some Jersey truss arms in some installations as a kid when we traveled there.
I rarely see yellow signals here. It's mainly black nowadays.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 14, 2019, 05:27:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 04:55:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 11:24:48 AM
Also another issue with signals is the fact that some GSV captions show many Hampton Roads signals now black instead of yellow.  I am guessing that is a city thing and VDOT most likely prefers yellow, but has no enforcement over that.

Texas is another that uses yellow but black is popping up in some cities like Houston and Galveston.  Though historically I remember Norfolk used to always have dark colors especially Downtown.  In fact I remember seeing some Jersey truss arms in some installations as a kid when we traveled there.
I rarely see yellow signals here. It's mainly black nowadays.

Your neighbor to the west-southwest (Chesapeake) forever uses yellow signals, even for new installs.

Also I forgot to mention Portsmouth earlier, which switched to black.




Also, going back a bit to what 1995hoo said about the overhead street blades: if VDOT didn't want to hang them on the wire next to the signals, they could've placed them on the mast or poles the wires are attached to like Newport News often does in those cases.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:42:37 PM
Quote from: plain on May 14, 2019, 05:27:47 PM
Your neighbor to the west-southwest (Chesapeake) forever uses yellow signals, even for new installs.
Oh, I was thinking of having the black outer layer around the signal. NC doesn't have this, and some areas in VA don't either IIRC.

This is what I mean - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.292646,-76.2455819,3a,37.5y,352.42h,89.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZsIV9WxH_NelXrAvuon7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm actually in Chesapeake, so I get what you're saying now. My location is just set as Va Beach.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 14, 2019, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:42:37 PM
Quote from: plain on May 14, 2019, 05:27:47 PM
Your neighbor to the west-southwest (Chesapeake) forever uses yellow signals, even for new installs.
Oh, I was thinking of having the black outer layer around the signal. NC doesn't have this, and some areas in VA don't either IIRC.

This is what I mean - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.292646,-76.2455819,3a,37.5y,352.42h,89.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZsIV9WxH_NelXrAvuon7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm actually in Chesapeake, so I get what you're saying now. My location is just set as Va Beach.

Oh ok. The "black outer layer around the signals" are called backplates. And yes, some backplates actually do exist in NC, but they are definitely not very common at all, especially compared to VA.

What we were referring to earlier was the color of the signal housings themselves.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 06:25:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:42:37 PM
Quote from: plain on May 14, 2019, 05:27:47 PM
Your neighbor to the west-southwest (Chesapeake) forever uses yellow signals, even for new installs.
Oh, I was thinking of having the black outer layer around the signal. NC doesn't have this, and some areas in VA don't either IIRC.

This is what I mean - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.292646,-76.2455819,3a,37.5y,352.42h,89.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZsIV9WxH_NelXrAvuon7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm actually in Chesapeake, so I get what you're saying now. My location is just set as Va Beach.
North Carolina and South Carolina use telephone poles to string their wires out.  To me that looks cheap and in many state's are used for temporary signals during construction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 06:30:04 PM
Quote from: plain on May 14, 2019, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:42:37 PM
Quote from: plain on May 14, 2019, 05:27:47 PM
Your neighbor to the west-southwest (Chesapeake) forever uses yellow signals, even for new installs.
Oh, I was thinking of having the black outer layer around the signal. NC doesn't have this, and some areas in VA don't either IIRC.

This is what I mean - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.292646,-76.2455819,3a,37.5y,352.42h,89.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZsIV9WxH_NelXrAvuon7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm actually in Chesapeake, so I get what you're saying now. My location is just set as Va Beach.

Oh ok. The "black outer layer around the signals" are called backplates. And yes, some backplates actually do exist in NC, but they are definitely not very common at all, especially compared to VA.

What we were referring to earlier was the color of the signal housings themselves.
Interestingly enough, this new install (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7328174,-76.1874185,3a,75y,218.51h,83t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sVf0m77AcyGyF2PKnz6f_PA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DVf0m77AcyGyF2PKnz6f_PA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D94.56188%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100) last year at Butts Station Rd / Centerville Tpke has a yellow backplate as well.

Then down the road at Blue Ridge Rd / Centerville Tpke back in 2014 - 2015, another new signal (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.700451,-76.1853429,3a,37.5y,195.1h,86.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfWpm67GjYPDC9Bl3FhE4Wg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has a full black backplate and signal itself. Then again, it appears it was a special design to match the historic nature of the Fentress area.

Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 06:25:43 PM
North Carolina and South Carolina use telephone poles to string their wires out.  To me that looks cheap and in many state's are used for temporary signals during construction.
Agreed. Temporary signals similar to those were used on Dominion Blvd when it was under construction being converted from a two-lane roadway into the four-lane freeway it is today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 14, 2019, 06:54:26 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 06:30:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 06:25:43 PM
North Carolina and South Carolina use telephone poles to string their wires out.  To me that looks cheap and in many state's are used for temporary signals during construction.
Agreed. Temporary signals similar to those were used on Dominion Blvd when it was under construction being converted from a two-lane roadway into the four-lane freeway it is today.

Also agreed, though I know of one case in Henderson, NC that gives me hope, though this is still the only place I know of.

On Ruin Creek Rd, there's steel masts (thick ones at that) instead of telephone poles supporting the wires. They're located on both sides of I-85 (Exit 212), the intersection north of that (hospital/shopping center), and then north of that at US 158 (bypass).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 06:59:21 PM
At least NC got rid of the double red left balls on protected left turns.  Though Texas picked up where the Tar Heel State left off. I see more and more red arrows in NC, but one signal in Cheraw on US 1 and SC 9 (the east end of the wrong way concurrency) copied NC's old way of heading a protected left.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 14, 2019, 07:42:27 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 06:59:21 PM
At least NC got rid of the double red left balls on protected left turns.  Though Texas picked up where the Tar Heel State left off. I see more and more red arrows in NC, but one signal in Cheraw on US 1 and SC 9 (the east end of the wrong way concurrency) copied NC's old way of heading a protected left.

Interestingly Henrico County still uses double reds for single-lane protected lefts on county roads... not those "T" signals though, these are completely vertical (NC sometimes used these completely vertical ones too though, and Baltimore still has some). Nowadays even these have red arrows instead of balls.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on May 14, 2019, 08:08:05 PM
Quote from: plain on May 14, 2019, 07:42:27 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 06:59:21 PM
At least NC got rid of the double red left balls on protected left turns.  Though Texas picked up where the Tar Heel State left off. I see more and more red arrows in NC, but one signal in Cheraw on US 1 and SC 9 (the east end of the wrong way concurrency) copied NC's old way of heading a protected left.

Interestingly Henrico County still uses double reds for single-lane protected lefts on county roads... not those "T" signals though, these are completely vertical (NC sometimes used these completely vertical ones too though, and Baltimore still has some). Nowadays even these have red arrows instead of balls.

Baltimore County even uses one of those "double arrow" signals for dual left turn lanes.

Delaware uses the T signals with two red arrows (though both arrows never show simultaneously - one is steady and the other flashes).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 15, 2019, 03:43:03 AM
In response to an earlier comment, I've also seen all-black signals in Crystal City. Not too many.

Route 1 at 20th St has quite a few black signals, as do many of the intersections along Crystal Drive.

Don't remember seeing any all-black signals in the Courthouse or Rosslyn areas of Arlington.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 15, 2019, 07:18:58 AM
Many recent installs in Morganton NC, made by NCDot, have been black signal units on curved mast arm supports also Hunter green.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 15, 2019, 07:03:52 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on May 15, 2019, 07:18:58 AM
Many recent installs in Morganton NC, made by NCDot, have been black signal units on curved mast arm supports also Hunter green.

Could you specify any specific locations? Didn't find any on Google Maps.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 16, 2019, 05:16:44 PM
http://www.chesapeakeexpressway.com/

FYI for anybody traveling to the Outer Banks, tolls on the Chesapeake Expressway (VA-168) are increasing to $8 on weekends starting this Saturday, May 18.

https://wtkr.com/2019/05/16/as-summer-approaches-the-currituck-county-sheriffs-office-aims-to-stop-speeders/

Also, be sure to watch your speed heading into North Carolina as it drops from 55 MPH (for most, it's 70+ MPH on the expressway) to 45 MPH, there's heavy enforcement going through Moyock and Currituck County. The speed increases back to 55 MPH once past Moyock.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 17, 2019, 09:23:20 AM
I always found it odd but very interesting that I-64 in Norfolk lacks an interchange with Virginia Beach Blvd.  I am thinking that was done purposely to avoid weaving issues with weaving on I-64 with the original clever leaf with I-264 and VA 44 nearby and also thought it was redundant to having an interchange with two side by side E-W routes as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 17, 2019, 02:44:31 PM
^ Had it right the first time.  Too close to 264.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 17, 2019, 03:28:36 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 17, 2019, 02:44:31 PM
^ Had it right the first time.  Too close to 264.

I am hardly familiar with the area, but they could have built it, with enough money. You can unweave an interchange with enough ramps.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on May 17, 2019, 04:48:33 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 17, 2019, 02:44:31 PM
^ Had it right the first time.  Too close to 264.

I guess that's the same reason there's no I-40/US-301 interchange in Benson, NC.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on May 18, 2019, 06:56:02 AM
Latest progress update on US-29 in Danville.

https://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2019/traffic-pattern-change-on-us-29-bypass5-11-2019.asp (https://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2019/traffic-pattern-change-on-us-29-bypass5-11-2019.asp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 18, 2019, 09:35:19 AM
Quote from: LM117 on May 17, 2019, 04:48:33 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 17, 2019, 02:44:31 PM
^ Had it right the first time.  Too close to 264.

I guess that’s the same reason there’s no I-40/US-301 interchange in Benson, NC.
Yes, but they added a connection though via other roads.  I guess the same could be said here as you have Newtown Road which leads to I-264 that does interchange with I-64.

I say its interesting as well as odd is because of traffic growth from population in the area growing, its probably best that an interchange is not built there even though I am sure some planners have proposed the idea.  VA Beach Blvd had its share of congestion even in 1976 when we stayed in Norfolk and we used to eat at the many restaurants along US 58 in that area.  It took forever basically to reach the Oceanfront which is 12 miles from that uninterchanged crossing.  The stoplights were bad then and now its 43 years later in time, so I can imagine a trip on I-264 saves more than 3 times the amount of time using US 58 all the way to US 60.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 18, 2019, 02:17:21 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 18, 2019, 09:35:19 AM
Yes, but they added a connection though via other roads.  I guess the same could be said here as you have Newtown Road which leads to I-264 that does interchange with I-64.
I say its interesting as well as odd is because of traffic growth from population in the area growing, its probably best that an interchange is not built there even though I am sure some planners have proposed the idea.  VA Beach Blvd had its share of congestion even in 1976 when we stayed in Norfolk and we used to eat at the many restaurants along US 58 in that area.  It took forever basically to reach the Oceanfront which is 12 miles from that uninterchanged crossing.  The stoplights were bad then and now its 43 years later in time, so I can imagine a trip on I-264 saves more than 3 times the amount of time using US 58 all the way to US 60.

There is a lot of old development right up along US-58 and I-64 where they cross, including businesses. 

They would have needed a C-D system or braided ramps if they wanted I-64 interchanges at both I-264 and US-58, in addition to major right-of-way acquisitions as mentioned above. 

Granted that there were plenty of right-of-way acquisitions for the rest of I-64 and I-264, they may have wanted to avoid the added complexities of building an interchange at I-64/US-58, given that the connection could be made via Military Highway, I-264 and Newtown Road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 18, 2019, 04:22:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2019, 02:17:21 PM
They would have needed a C-D system or braided ramps if they wanted I-64 interchanges at both I-264 and US-58, in addition to major right-of-way acquisitions as mentioned above. 
If you're trying to meet today's traffic needs, you'd need braided ramps between I-264, US-58, and US-13 / VA-166. Where I-264 traffic heading towards the base comes in mixing with I-64 traffic heading the same direction, there's a 2 mile period between that mix and US-13 / VA-166 with a lot of merging and changing lanes to exit, and to stay on mainline I-64. It's crazy already. I just could never see any interchange at US-58, and if there was one, a 3 exit, 3 mile braided ramp system with a lot of R/W would be necessary. A C-D system would quickly overload.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 18, 2019, 04:54:17 PM
Anything involving an I-64 interchange with Virginia Beach Blvd would also have required major upheaval in the routing of VA 165 Kempsville Rd which has no interchange with I-64 or I-264 either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 18, 2019, 06:12:34 PM
Something interesting about this area, Virginia Beach Blvd on either side of the I-64 overpass is generally an 8-lane section, though through the I-64 area, it's still the original design with 4 thru-lanes & 2 local lanes. The traffic already warrants this be expanded to 8-lanes, and eventually it's going to need to happen.

The only issue is that the grass-strip dividing the thru-lanes from the local lane in either direction holds the bridge supports for the I-64 overpass.

To create a consistent 8-lane corridor, the bridges would likely need to be replaced which won't be an easy task given the volume of traffic using I-64. And it'd be expensive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 18, 2019, 06:22:29 PM
I was viewing a, document from 2034 LRTP (https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/Projects_Handout_Final_updated_3.25.13_v3.pdf) from 2013 regarding all of the transportation priorities & cost estimates at that time, and noticed an interesting project in the Unfunded Category

"MLK Freeway extension to I‐464" - $883 million

I was never aware of any concept or proposal to extend the MLK beyond I-264? Was there any previous studies done in the past on this, and how it would be routed?

There's no clear path any freeway extension could traverse that area of Portsmouth, heavily developed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 18, 2019, 07:44:53 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 18, 2019, 04:54:17 PM
Anything involving an I-64 interchange with Virginia Beach Blvd would also have required major upheaval in the routing of VA 165 Kempsville Rd which has no interchange with I-64 or I-264 either.

Indeed, I forgot to mention how close the VA-165 Kempsville Road intersection with US-58 Virginia Beach Blvd. is to where I-64 was built.  Old development around that intersection as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 18, 2019, 07:51:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2019, 07:44:53 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 18, 2019, 04:54:17 PM
Anything involving an I-64 interchange with Virginia Beach Blvd would also have required major upheaval in the routing of VA 165 Kempsville Rd which has no interchange with I-64 or I-264 either.

Indeed, I forgot to mention how close the VA-165 Kempsville Road intersection with US-58 Virginia Beach Blvd. is to where I-64 was built.  Old development around that intersection as well.
If an interchange was constructed when I-64 was constructed through the area, the whole area would've likely been bought out and a complete re-routing of the roads nearby, including Kempsville. Also, the design of the I-264 interchange would've been slightly different probably as well.

I think it's a good thing traffic wise there's not one there either way. Way too much merging and traffic coming in, no need for more troubles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 18, 2019, 09:46:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2019, 07:51:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2019, 07:44:53 PM
Indeed, I forgot to mention how close the VA-165 Kempsville Road intersection with US-58 Virginia Beach Blvd. is to where I-64 was built.  Old development around that intersection as well.
If an interchange was constructed when I-64 was constructed through the area, the whole area would've likely been bought out and a complete re-routing of the roads nearby, including Kempsville. Also, the design of the I-264 interchange would've been slightly different probably as well.
I think it's a good thing traffic wise there's not one there either way. Way too much merging and traffic coming in, no need for more troubles.

Perhaps.  But right-of-way impacts would have been especially severe for that Virginia Beach Blvd. and Kempsville Road area commercial strip and residential area, much more than at the I-64/I-264 interchange.

Slightly OT: Have you ever heard of the Witch of Kempsville?  Do you know what that refers to?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 18, 2019, 10:29:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2019, 09:46:36 PM
Slightly OT: Have you ever heard of the Witch of Kempsville?  Do you know what that refers to?
Never heard of it, but if I had to guess, it was when the reconstructed / relocated the Kempsville/Witchduck & Princess Anne intersection, and demolished everything in the area?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 18, 2019, 10:59:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 15, 2019, 07:03:52 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on May 15, 2019, 07:18:58 AM
Many recent installs in Morganton NC, made by NCDot, have been black signal units on curved mast arm supports also Hunter green.

Could you specify any specific locations? Didn't find any on Google Maps.

Enola at I-40, Enola at Sterling(NC18), Sterling at 40,  Sterling at Hospital Parkway, Enola at Fiddler's Run, and a few others.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on May 19, 2019, 03:23:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2019, 09:46:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2019, 07:51:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2019, 07:44:53 PM
Indeed, I forgot to mention how close the VA-165 Kempsville Road intersection with US-58 Virginia Beach Blvd. is to where I-64 was built.  Old development around that intersection as well.
If an interchange was constructed when I-64 was constructed through the area, the whole area would've likely been bought out and a complete re-routing of the roads nearby, including Kempsville. Also, the design of the I-264 interchange would've been slightly different probably as well.
I think it's a good thing traffic wise there's not one there either way. Way too much merging and traffic coming in, no need for more troubles.

Perhaps.  But right-of-way impacts would have been especially severe for that Virginia Beach Blvd. and Kempsville Road area commercial strip and residential area, much more than at the I-64/I-264 interchange.

Slightly OT: Have you ever heard of the Witch of Kempsville?  Do you know what that refers to?
The area has been living with no interchange at I-64 and Va. Beach Blvd. for 50 years.  No need to add one now, besides there is not any room to build an interchange.

As far as your OT: there was a woman named Grace Sherwood (1660-1740), who was known as the Witch of Pungo.  She was convicted of witchcraft several times and went to a trial in 1706.  She was found guilty and sentenced to be ducked in the water.  If she sank and did not come up, she would be innocent; if she didn't sink, she would be guilty.  However, she did float to the surface and spent 8 years in jail. 

I'm sure both Beltway and sprjus4 are familiar with the area of Va. Beach known as Pungo, which is where she lived until her death at the age of 80.  There is also a statue of her near Sentara Independence Hospital at the corner of Independence Blvd. and Witchduck Rd. (northeast corner).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 19, 2019, 03:32:15 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on May 19, 2019, 03:23:32 PM
The area has been living with no interchange at I-64 and Va. Beach Blvd. for 50 years.  No need to add one now, besides there is not any room to build an interchange.
It was mostly just a discussion on how one would have been built there IF they had decided to build one when they constructed I-64 through the area. Obviously one wouldn't be built today. The interchanges (US-13 / VA-166 and I-264) have issues already, and a lot of merging on the mainline. More merging would create a huge traffic jam. And like you indicated, no room.

Quote from: amroad17 on May 19, 2019, 03:23:32 PM
As far as your OT: there was a woman named Grace Sherwood (1660-1740), who was known as the Witch of Pungo.  She was convicted of witchcraft several times and went to a trial in 1706.  She was found guilty and sentenced to be ducked in the water.  If she sank and did not come up, she would be innocent; if she didn't sink, she would be guilty.  However, she did float to the surface and spent 8 years in jail.
Hmm. Never heard of it. Interesting.

Quote from: amroad17 on May 19, 2019, 03:23:32 PM
I'm sure both Beltway and sprjus4 are familiar with the area of Va. Beach known as Pungo, which is where she lived until her death at the age of 80.  There is also a statue of her near Sentara Independence Hospital at the corner of Independence Blvd. and Witchduck Rd. (northeast corner).
I'm familiar with Pungo, though have only been out there a few times. I just don't have much reasons to, though it's a nice area. Never seen the statue IIRC, though will have to check it out sometime.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 19, 2019, 03:35:05 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on May 19, 2019, 03:23:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 18, 2019, 09:46:36 PM
Slightly OT: Have you ever heard of the Witch of Kempsville?  Do you know what that refers to?
The area has been living with no interchange at I-64 and Va. Beach Blvd. for 50 years.  No need to add one now, besides there is not any room to build an interchange.

I hadn't really given it much thought in the past, but the question was asked, so I and others offered a few ideas about why that decision was made in the 1960s.

Quote from: amroad17 on May 19, 2019, 03:23:32 PM
As far as your OT: there was a woman named Grace Sherwood (1660-1740), who was known as the Witch of Pungo.  She was convicted of witchcraft several times and went to a trial in 1706.  She was found guilty and sentenced to be ducked in the water.  If she sank and did not come up, she would be innocent; if she didn't sink, she would be guilty.  However, she did float to the surface and spent 8 years in jail. 
I'm sure both Beltway and sprjus4 are familiar with the area of Va. Beach known as Pungo, which is where she lived until her death at the age of 80.  There is also a statue of her near Sentara Independence Hospital at the corner of Independence Blvd. and Witchduck Rd. (northeast corner).

Interesting story, thanks, but what I was thinking of was much more recent.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 19, 2019, 03:42:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 19, 2019, 03:35:05 PM
Interesting story, thanks, but what I was thinking of was much more recent.
What were you thinking of?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 19, 2019, 03:46:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2019, 03:42:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 19, 2019, 03:35:05 PM
Interesting story, thanks, but what I was thinking of was much more recent.
What were you thinking of?

It is an exercise to gauge and test knowledge about what posters know about Virginia Beach.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on May 19, 2019, 03:51:40 PM
I wasn't in any way "dissing" any opinions brought forth.  They are all interesting.  It's just, like Beltway, I had never given it much thought.  Living in the area for 22 years, it was something that was accepted.  Even in the 1970's, I realized there could never be an interchange at that location.  If I needed to get to that area from the Western Branch area of Chesapeake (back when tolls for the tunnels were 25 cents), I would either exit off Military Hwy or Newtown Rd. to reach Va. Beach Blvd.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on May 19, 2019, 04:03:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 19, 2019, 03:46:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2019, 03:42:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 19, 2019, 03:35:05 PM
Interesting story, thanks, but what I was thinking of was much more recent.
What were you thinking of?

It is an exercise to gauge and test knowledge about what posters know about Virginia Beach.
One joke about Virginia Beach was that Meyera Orberndorf was considered Mayor for Life.  As it was, she was mayor for almost 21 years.  RIP Meyera.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 19, 2019, 04:08:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 19, 2019, 03:46:54 PM
It is an exercise to gauge and test knowledge about what posters know about Virginia Beach.
I'm not the most familiar about Virginia Beach, more so Chesapeake, where I'm at.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 19, 2019, 04:09:27 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on May 19, 2019, 04:03:08 PM
One joke about Virginia Beach was that Meyera Orberndorf was considered Mayor for Life.  As it was, she was mayor for almost 21 years.  RIP Meyera.
Seems like the City Council here in Chesapeake  :banghead:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 19, 2019, 08:33:18 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on May 19, 2019, 03:51:40 PM
I wasn't in any way "dissing" any opinions brought forth.  They are all interesting.  It's just, like Beltway, I had never given it much thought.  Living in the area for 22 years, it was something that was accepted.  Even in the 1970's, I realized there could never be an interchange at that location.  If I needed to get to that area from the Western Branch area of Chesapeake (back when tolls for the tunnels were 25 cents), I would either exit off Military Hwy or Newtown Rd. to reach Va. Beach Blvd.

I didn't take it as being criticism, just questions for thought.  Some places there are major thoroughfares that don't connect to a freeway due to the proximity to other interchanges.

US-29 Lee Highway over I-495 Capital Beltway and VA-617 Backlick Road under I-495 come to mind.  No connections to the general purpose lanes of I-495.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 19, 2019, 09:18:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 19, 2019, 08:33:18 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on May 19, 2019, 03:51:40 PM
I wasn't in any way "dissing" any opinions brought forth.  They are all interesting.  It's just, like Beltway, I had never given it much thought.  Living in the area for 22 years, it was something that was accepted.  Even in the 1970's, I realized there could never be an interchange at that location.  If I needed to get to that area from the Western Branch area of Chesapeake (back when tolls for the tunnels were 25 cents), I would either exit off Military Hwy or Newtown Rd. to reach Va. Beach Blvd.

I didn't take it as being criticism, just questions for thought.  Some places there are major thoroughfares that don't connect to a freeway due to the proximity to other interchanges.

US-29 Lee Highway over I-495 Capital Beltway and VA-617 Backlick Road under I-495 come to mind.  No connections to the general purpose lanes of I-495.
Some other examples in Hampton Roads include I-64 over Shell Road near the US-17 George Washington Hwy interchange, Providence Rd (no official route number, though the overpass marker on the bridge over I-64 indicates "Rt 409"?) over I-64 near the Indian River Rd interchange, and Hampton Roads Pkwy over I-664 in between the VA-164 Western Freeway & VA-135 College Dr interchanges. Probably other ones too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 20, 2019, 08:40:50 AM
^ Providence Rd was VA 409 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va401-420.htm#va409) in the '80s and '90s.  Decommed in 2001.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 09:49:42 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 20, 2019, 08:40:50 AM
^ Providence Rd was VA 409 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va401-420.htm#va409) in the '80s and '90s.  Decommed in 2001.
You'd think by now the signage would be fixed.

Thanks for the info as always.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 20, 2019, 01:12:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 09:49:42 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 20, 2019, 08:40:50 AM
^ Providence Rd was VA 409 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va401-420.htm#va409) in the '80s and '90s.  Decommed in 2001.
You'd think by now the signage would be fixed.

Thanks for the info as always.

You'd think that, but unfortunately no. There are SR's signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8437326,-76.4336071,3a,76.2y,354.37h,96.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szhoaf55m5BF0aM4Qn3iIFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) from I-664 in Chesapeake that haven't actually existed for decades, with some older signs being replaced with new ones that still have the old SR numbers on them (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7975157,-76.4279584,3a,75y,334.61h,100.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXAkD6L99LZ3w0nOTyuuPsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). I doubt the Hampton Roads district actually cares.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 04:35:32 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 20, 2019, 01:12:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 09:49:42 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 20, 2019, 08:40:50 AM
^ Providence Rd was VA 409 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va401-420.htm#va409) in the '80s and '90s.  Decommed in 2001.
You'd think by now the signage would be fixed.

Thanks for the info as always.

You'd think that, but unfortunately no. There are SR's signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8437326,-76.4336071,3a,76.2y,354.37h,96.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szhoaf55m5BF0aM4Qn3iIFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) from I-664 in Chesapeake that haven't actually existed for decades, with some older signs being replaced with new ones that still have the old SR numbers on them (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7975157,-76.4279584,3a,75y,334.61h,100.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXAkD6L99LZ3w0nOTyuuPsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). I doubt the Hampton Roads district actually cares.
All of the signage on I-664 has been replaced in the last few years just about. Guess they've just copied directly the old signage as opposed to actually updating it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on May 20, 2019, 08:08:20 PM
I noticed here a few days ago rumble strips was put down on the center line on VA-41 between Twin Springs Elementary School near Mount Hermon and at least as far as the Dollar General next to Whitmell School Road.

That's one way to discourage passing, I suppose...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 20, 2019, 08:57:47 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 20, 2019, 08:08:20 PM
That's one way to discourage passing, I suppose...

I think the primary purpose is to alarm drivers, who might be drowsy or inattentive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 09:01:32 PM
I'm positive I've been on roads that had rumble strips where there was a double yellow line and no rumble strip where there was a passing zone, though I can't recall what road(s) had that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 20, 2019, 09:07:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 09:01:32 PM
I'm positive I've been on roads that had rumble strips where there was a double yellow line and no rumble strip where there was a passing zone, though I can't recall what road(s) had that.

Was it maybe a Super-2?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 09:12:21 PM
Quote from: plain on May 20, 2019, 09:07:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 09:01:32 PM
I'm positive I've been on roads that had rumble strips where there was a double yellow line and no rumble strip where there was a passing zone, though I can't recall what road(s) had that.

Was it maybe a Super-2?

As I said, I just don't remember.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 09:19:23 PM
I think it's personally best to have rumble strips regardless of passing zone or not. It alerts you if you veer over, and when you go to perform a pass in a passing zone, the rumble strips fully alert you when you cross over and when you go back over. Just because there's broken lines doesn't mean rumble strips should disappear.

That's my opinion anyways. Then again, most of my rural 2-lane road driving has taken place in Texas (where rumble strips exist constantly, 13 - 14 foot lanes, 10 foot paved shoulders, higher speed limits, etc) rather than Virginia, so maybe I'm just to it there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on May 20, 2019, 11:38:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 09:19:23 PM
I think it's personally best to have rumble strips regardless of passing zone or not. It alerts you if you veer over, and when you go to perform a pass in a passing zone, the rumble strips fully alert you when you cross over and when you go back over. Just because there's broken lines doesn't mean rumble strips should disappear.

That's my opinion anyways. Then again, most of my rural 2-lane road driving has taken place in Texas (where rumble strips exist constantly, 13 - 14 foot lanes, 10 foot paved shoulders, higher speed limits, etc) rather than Virginia, so maybe I'm just to it there.

The lack of paved shoulders on the undivided state highways is definitely a "thing"  here in VA. They are much more common in MD and NJ.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 11:50:51 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 20, 2019, 11:38:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 09:19:23 PM
I think it's personally best to have rumble strips regardless of passing zone or not. It alerts you if you veer over, and when you go to perform a pass in a passing zone, the rumble strips fully alert you when you cross over and when you go back over. Just because there's broken lines doesn't mean rumble strips should disappear.

That's my opinion anyways. Then again, most of my rural 2-lane road driving has taken place in Texas (where rumble strips exist constantly, 13 - 14 foot lanes, 10 foot paved shoulders, higher speed limits, etc) rather than Virginia, so maybe I'm just to it there.

The lack of paved shoulders on the undivided state highways is definitely a "thing"  here in VA. They are much more common in MD and NJ.
I see that now looking on Google Maps. I've not done much driving up northeast, so I'm not too accustomed to the roads up that way. I would assume the speeds are still 55 MPH though, even with the higher road design, just because of it's geographical location.

Down in Texas, which naturally has higher speeds because of it's location, have 70 - 75 MPH on most two-lane. I even know a few that are designed like Virginia roads (12 foot lanes, 4 foot paved shoulder) that are posted at 70 MPH. Then again, they're also much straighter.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on May 20, 2019, 11:59:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 11:50:51 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 20, 2019, 11:38:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 09:19:23 PM
I think it's personally best to have rumble strips regardless of passing zone or not. It alerts you if you veer over, and when you go to perform a pass in a passing zone, the rumble strips fully alert you when you cross over and when you go back over. Just because there's broken lines doesn't mean rumble strips should disappear.

That's my opinion anyways. Then again, most of my rural 2-lane road driving has taken place in Texas (where rumble strips exist constantly, 13 - 14 foot lanes, 10 foot paved shoulders, higher speed limits, etc) rather than Virginia, so maybe I'm just to it there.

The lack of paved shoulders on the undivided state highways is definitely a "thing"  here in VA. They are much more common in MD and NJ.
I see that now looking on Google Maps. I've not done much driving up northeast, so I'm not too accustomed to the roads up that way. I would assume the speeds are still 55 MPH though, even with the higher road design, just because of it's geographical location.

Down in Texas, which naturally has higher speeds because of it's location, have 70 - 75 MPH on most two-lane. I even know a few that are designed like Virginia roads (12 foot lanes, 4 foot paved shoulder) that are posted at 70 MPH. Then again, they're also much straighter.

Yes, in fact in NJ it's usually 50 (not that many actually follow the limit). In NV 70 is also common on the rural 2 laners, even some with limited shoulders. Most there are also very straight except thru the mtns.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 21, 2019, 06:37:51 AM
2018 VDOT Traffic Data (http://virginiadot.org/info/resources/Traffic_2018/AADT_PrimaryInterstate_2018.pdf) is out...

Didn't see any new route designations...however it shows updated data for VA 337 ALT in Portsmouth on the Harbor Drive segment that was obliterated and is now the footprint of VA 164 ML King Freeway (which itself does not have traffic data).  I may e-mail VDOT about that...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on May 21, 2019, 09:22:15 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 09:01:32 PM
I'm positive I've been on roads that had rumble strips where there was a double yellow line and no rumble strip where there was a passing zone, though I can't recall what road(s) had that.

The rumble strips here are also in the passing zones. It's just one long, non-stop line of them. From what I could see in the parking lot, it actually continues even further northbound on VA-41 past the Dollar General I mentioned. I've never driven further past that DG, so I don't know exactly how far it goes. I wouldn't be surprised if it went all the way to Callands. I drive VA-41 almost everyday since I live on a side road off of it in the Dry Fork area, so that's how I know it was done very recently. They blacked out the yellow lines, rumble stripped them, and repainted the lines.

EDIT: There's small gaps at intersections with side roads, but that's all.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 20, 2019, 08:57:47 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 20, 2019, 08:08:20 PM
That's one way to discourage passing, I suppose...

I think the primary purpose is to alarm drivers, who might be drowsy or inattentive.

Probably, but the strips aren't good for tires if you're gaining speed while attempting to pass. That's why I think it will discourage passing, even if it's not the intention. That said, I hardly ever pass on VA-41, so it doesn't really affect me much.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2019, 09:19:23 PM
I think it's personally best to have rumble strips regardless of passing zone or not. It alerts you if you veer over, and when you go to perform a pass in a passing zone, the rumble strips fully alert you when you cross over and when you go back over. Just because there's broken lines doesn't mean rumble strips should disappear.

I disagree for the reason I gave jakeroot. I think there should be gaps in the passing zones.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 21, 2019, 09:42:23 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 21, 2019, 06:37:51 AM
2018 VDOT Traffic Data (http://virginiadot.org/info/resources/Traffic_2018/AADT_PrimaryInterstate_2018.pdf) is out...

Didn't see any new route designations...however it shows updated data for VA 337 ALT in Portsmouth on the Harbor Drive segment that was obliterated and is now the footprint of VA 164 ML King Freeway (which itself does not have traffic data).  I may e-mail VDOT about that...

Yeah, it seems a little odd to have traffic data for a road that doesn't exist...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 21, 2019, 02:13:14 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 21, 2019, 09:22:15 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 20, 2019, 08:57:47 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 20, 2019, 08:08:20 PM
That's one way to discourage passing, I suppose...

I think the primary purpose is to alarm drivers, who might be drowsy or inattentive.

Probably, but the strips aren't good for tires if you're gaining speed while attempting to pass. That's why I think it will discourage passing, even if it's not the intention. That said, I hardly ever pass on VA-41, so it doesn't really affect me much.

I don't disagree. I'm sure there are plenty of drivers who may associate rumble strips with "no passing" zones.

In WA, we use raised rib markings very often, and those feel like rumble strips when you drive over them. I'm guessing this sort of liberal usage of bumpy pavement markings is why you still see rumble strips in passing zones (http://bit.ly/2VT7n2d) here, and perhaps why the various transport agencies in WA aren't necessarily afraid to use rumble strips even where passing is permitted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 21, 2019, 05:00:48 PM
Quote
ARLINGTON, Va. — At its May meeting, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) took action on the renaming of U.S. Route 1 and Virginia Route 110 within the County of Arlington from "Jefferson Davis Highway"  to "Richmond Highway,"  as requested by the county. In a letter of support by Governor Ralph Northam for the renaming, read aloud at the meeting by Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine, Governor Northam said of the road's current name, "While it is necessary for us to honestly discuss and interpret Virginia's history, I feel strongly that commemorating the president of the Confederacy through the name of a major thoroughfare is not appropriate."  He continued, "[w]ith this change, the name of Route 1 will be Richmond Highway from Fairfax County to the Potomac River."
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/ctb-renames-jefferson-davis-highway-in-arlington-county--names-amherst-county-bridge-after-fallen-trooper--approves-round-3-sm5-15-2019.asp

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 21, 2019, 05:07:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2019, 05:00:48 PM
Quote
ARLINGTON, Va. — At its May meeting, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) took action on the renaming of U.S. Route 1 and Virginia Route 110 within the County of Arlington from "Jefferson Davis Highway"  to "Richmond Highway,"  as requested by the county. In a letter of support by Governor Ralph Northam for the renaming, read aloud at the meeting by Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine, Governor Northam said of the road's current name, "While it is necessary for us to honestly discuss and interpret Virginia's history, I feel strongly that commemorating the president of the Confederacy through the name of a major thoroughfare is not appropriate."  He continued, "[w]ith this change, the name of Route 1 will be Richmond Highway from Fairfax County to the Potomac River."
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/ctb-renames-jefferson-davis-highway-in-arlington-county--names-amherst-county-bridge-after-fallen-trooper--approves-round-3-sm5-15-2019.asp

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do that to other sections of US-1 too. Will be interesting to see if Lee Highway(US-29) and Lee-Jackson Highway(US-50) are next.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 21, 2019, 05:10:21 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 21, 2019, 05:07:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 21, 2019, 05:00:48 PM
Quote
ARLINGTON, Va. — At its May meeting, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) took action on the renaming of U.S. Route 1 and Virginia Route 110 within the County of Arlington from "Jefferson Davis Highway"  to "Richmond Highway,"  as requested by the county. In a letter of support by Governor Ralph Northam for the renaming, read aloud at the meeting by Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine, Governor Northam said of the road's current name, "While it is necessary for us to honestly discuss and interpret Virginia's history, I feel strongly that commemorating the president of the Confederacy through the name of a major thoroughfare is not appropriate."  He continued, "[w]ith this change, the name of Route 1 will be Richmond Highway from Fairfax County to the Potomac River."
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/ctb-renames-jefferson-davis-highway-in-arlington-county--names-amherst-county-bridge-after-fallen-trooper--approves-round-3-sm5-15-2019.asp

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do that to other sections of US-1 too. Will be interesting to see if Lee Highway(US-29) and Lee-Jackson Highway(US-50) are next.
Oh god, don't remind them of that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 21, 2019, 06:36:51 PM
He's wrong in that Route 1 won't be a continuous "Richmond Highway"  from Fairfax County to the river. In Old Town it's Patrick Street and Henry Street, and just north of Crystal City it merges onto Shirley Highway to the river.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on May 21, 2019, 06:57:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 21, 2019, 06:36:51 PM
He's wrong in that Route 1 won't be a continuous "Richmond Highway"  from Fairfax County to the river. In Old Town it's Patrick Street and Henry Street, and just north of Crystal City it merges onto Shirley Highway to the river.

It will be a continuous Richmond Highway from the north end of route 110 in Rosslyn, to Patrick and Henry streets in Alexandria. The CTB included route 110 in its name change approval (but its Jeff Davis Hwy, signage was still there this weekend), as well as the part of US 1 in Arlington that isn't part of the Shirley Hwy.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 21, 2019, 05:07:10 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do that to other sections of US-1 too. Will be interesting to see if Lee Highway(US-29) and Lee-Jackson Highway(US-50) are next.

Doesn't that depend on the affected county requesting a name change? Maybe some of the more urban counties where the Jeff Davis Hwy. remains will be motivated enough to make that request (such as Prince William County), especially if one side or the other thinks there's political advantage to making a fuss about it ahead of this year's elections for the state legislature and some county offices. But others won't care enough.

Less likely for highways with other names with less obvious Confederate associations. True, people moving to Northern Virginia catch on that the Lee-Jackson Highway isn't named for Spike Lee and Jesse Jackson :) Still, not as "in your face" as with Jefferson Davis.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 21, 2019, 07:05:38 PM
https://www.nbc12.com/2019/05/20/next-year-virginias-m-bridge-nowhere-will-finally-connect-road/  Finally this bridge will connect to something.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 01:01:22 AM
Not trying to start anything, but just wondering - what was the issue with the comment I made?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 22, 2019, 02:41:36 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 01:01:22 AM
Not trying to start anything, but just wondering - what was the issue with the comment I made?

Probably not enough context, so it was deemed in violation of this forum guideline: Posting graphic/inappropriate pictures or news that other members find offensive

But, I'm not a mod, so you'll have to message them directly for more info.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on May 22, 2019, 07:21:52 AM
QuoteSome see it as a prime example of the politicization and mismanagement of transportation funding that led to the development of SmartScale, the state's new point-based scoring system for road projects. Others see the slow pace of work as just another example of Richmond neglecting the needs of Appalachia.
What? The hangup with the bridge opening was the portion to be built by Kentucky. The connection to VA 80 is already built and is ready to be used as soon as the KY portion opens.

Anyway, it's good to see Corridor Q progressing, even if it is moving at a glacial pace.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 22, 2019, 09:18:31 AM
Quote from: oscar on May 21, 2019, 06:57:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 21, 2019, 06:36:51 PM
He's wrong in that Route 1 won't be a continuous "Richmond Highway"  from Fairfax County to the river. In Old Town it's Patrick Street and Henry Street, and just north of Crystal City it merges onto Shirley Highway to the river.

It will be a continuous Richmond Highway from the north end of route 110 in Rosslyn, to Patrick and Henry streets in Alexandria. The CTB included route 110 in its name change approval (but its Jeff Davis Hwy, signage was still there this weekend), as well as the part of US 1 in Arlington that isn't part of the Shirley Hwy.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 21, 2019, 05:07:10 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do that to other sections of US-1 too. Will be interesting to see if Lee Highway(US-29) and Lee-Jackson Highway(US-50) are next.

Doesn't that depend on the affected county requesting a name change? Maybe some of the more urban counties where the Jeff Davis Hwy. remains will be motivated enough to make that request (such as Prince William County), especially if one side or the other thinks there's political advantage to making a fuss about it ahead of this year's elections for the state legislature and some county offices. But others won't care enough.

Less likely for highways with other names with less obvious Confederate associations. True, people moving to Northern Virginia catch on that the Lee-Jackson Highway isn't named for Spike Lee and Jesse Jackson :) Still, not as "in your face" as with Jefferson Davis.

I think of the counties that still have US 1 designated as Jefferson Davis Highway, Prince William would likely be the only other one to make such a change and even then it'd be a long shot. I certainly don't see Chesterfield or even the City of Richmond changing theirs, and Caroline, Spotsylvania, Fredericksburg, and Stafford aren't likely to do so either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 05:00:17 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 22, 2019, 09:18:31 AM
Quote from: oscar on May 21, 2019, 06:57:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 21, 2019, 06:36:51 PM
He's wrong in that Route 1 won't be a continuous "Richmond Highway"  from Fairfax County to the river. In Old Town it's Patrick Street and Henry Street, and just north of Crystal City it merges onto Shirley Highway to the river.

It will be a continuous Richmond Highway from the north end of route 110 in Rosslyn, to Patrick and Henry streets in Alexandria. The CTB included route 110 in its name change approval (but its Jeff Davis Hwy, signage was still there this weekend), as well as the part of US 1 in Arlington that isn't part of the Shirley Hwy.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 21, 2019, 05:07:10 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do that to other sections of US-1 too. Will be interesting to see if Lee Highway(US-29) and Lee-Jackson Highway(US-50) are next.

Doesn't that depend on the affected county requesting a name change? Maybe some of the more urban counties where the Jeff Davis Hwy. remains will be motivated enough to make that request (such as Prince William County), especially if one side or the other thinks there's political advantage to making a fuss about it ahead of this year's elections for the state legislature and some county offices. But others won't care enough.

Less likely for highways with other names with less obvious Confederate associations. True, people moving to Northern Virginia catch on that the Lee-Jackson Highway isn't named for Spike Lee and Jesse Jackson :) Still, not as "in your face" as with Jefferson Davis.

I think of the counties that still have US 1 designated as Jefferson Davis Highway, Prince William would likely be the only other one to make such a change and even then it'd be a long shot. I certainly don't see Chesterfield or even the City of Richmond changing theirs, and Caroline, Spotsylvania, Fredericksburg, and Stafford aren't likely to do so either.
The fact Richmond renamed J.E.B. Stuart Elementary School to Barack Obama Elementary School... then won't even acknowledge on the school's history page that it was ever called something different than Obama Elementary... I would easily see them doing the same to US-1.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 05:05:38 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 22, 2019, 07:21:52 AM
QuoteSome see it as a prime example of the politicization and mismanagement of transportation funding that led to the development of SmartScale, the state's new point-based scoring system for road projects. Others see the slow pace of work as just another example of Richmond neglecting the needs of Appalachia.
What? The hangup with the bridge opening was the portion to be built by Kentucky. The connection to VA 80 is already built and is ready to be used as soon as the KY portion opens.
Most likely referring to the US-460 expressway being extended into Virginia. Right now, it'll cross the bridge, then instantly dump onto VA-80 through a two-lane connector road. People want to see the US-460 expressway continue into Virginia 8 or so miles all the way back to the 4-lane US-460, not just 2,000 feet then back to two-lanes. Virginia is lacking funding for that segment, unless things have changed since the latest Google imagery.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on May 22, 2019, 05:11:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 05:00:17 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 22, 2019, 09:18:31 AM
Quote from: oscar on May 21, 2019, 06:57:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 21, 2019, 06:36:51 PM
He's wrong in that Route 1 won't be a continuous "Richmond Highway"  from Fairfax County to the river. In Old Town it's Patrick Street and Henry Street, and just north of Crystal City it merges onto Shirley Highway to the river.

It will be a continuous Richmond Highway from the north end of route 110 in Rosslyn, to Patrick and Henry streets in Alexandria. The CTB included route 110 in its name change approval (but its Jeff Davis Hwy, signage was still there this weekend), as well as the part of US 1 in Arlington that isn't part of the Shirley Hwy.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 21, 2019, 05:07:10 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do that to other sections of US-1 too. Will be interesting to see if Lee Highway(US-29) and Lee-Jackson Highway(US-50) are next.

Doesn't that depend on the affected county requesting a name change? Maybe some of the more urban counties where the Jeff Davis Hwy. remains will be motivated enough to make that request (such as Prince William County), especially if one side or the other thinks there's political advantage to making a fuss about it ahead of this year's elections for the state legislature and some county offices. But others won't care enough.

Less likely for highways with other names with less obvious Confederate associations. True, people moving to Northern Virginia catch on that the Lee-Jackson Highway isn't named for Spike Lee and Jesse Jackson :) Still, not as "in your face" as with Jefferson Davis.

I think of the counties that still have US 1 designated as Jefferson Davis Highway, Prince William would likely be the only other one to make such a change and even then it'd be a long shot. I certainly don't see Chesterfield or even the City of Richmond changing theirs, and Caroline, Spotsylvania, Fredericksburg, and Stafford aren't likely to do so either.
The fact Richmond renamed J.E.B. Stuart Elementary School to Barack Obama Elementary School... then won't even acknowledge on the school's history page that it was ever called something different than Obama Elementary... I would easily see them doing the same to US-1.
It wouldn't even be that complicated for them (relatively speaking, compared to the other localities)...just extend the Cowardin Avenue name down to Walmsley Boulevard.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 09:13:24 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 05:05:38 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 22, 2019, 07:21:52 AM
The hangup with the bridge opening was the portion to be built by Kentucky. The connection to VA 80 is already built and is ready to be used as soon as the KY portion opens.
Most likely referring to the US-460 expressway being extended into Virginia. Right now, it'll cross the bridge, then instantly dump onto VA-80 through a two-lane connector road. People want to see the US-460 expressway continue into Virginia 8 or so miles all the way back to the 4-lane US-460, not just 2,000 feet then back to two-lanes. Virginia is lacking funding for that segment, unless things have changed since the latest Google imagery.

VDOT built that so that the last few miles in KY would have something to connect into to make it usable.

Instead we have a high and expensive bridge sitting there 4 years because the KY section was delayed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 22, 2019, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 09:13:24 PM
Instead we have a high and expensive bridge sitting there 4 years because the KY section was delayed.

Perhaps, but they waited and did it right. Now it makes Virginia look cheap.

Even if there's a million reasons why they couldn't build a proper corridor beyond the bridge, it looks cheap to drivers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 09:50:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 22, 2019, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 09:13:24 PM
Instead we have a high and expensive bridge sitting there 4 years because the KY section was delayed.
Perhaps, but they waited and did it right. Now it makes Virginia look cheap.

No, it makes Kentucky look incompetent.  Highways should be built in segments of independent utility.  Virginia funded the segment so that Kentucky could open that last few miles in their state and not have it sit there going nowhere.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 22, 2019, 09:30:48 PM
Even if there's a million reasons why they couldn't build a proper corridor beyond the bridge, it looks cheap to drivers.

It looks pretty stupid to drivers to see an award-winning bridge sitting there with no traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 22, 2019, 09:54:02 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 22, 2019, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 09:13:24 PM
Instead we have a high and expensive bridge sitting there 4 years because the KY section was delayed.

Perhaps, but they waited and did it right. Now it makes Virginia look cheap.

Even if there's a million reasons why they couldn't build a proper corridor beyond the bridge, it looks cheap to drivers.

The segment in Virginia beyond the new bridge is currently under construction. Drive SR 609 between Breaks and US 460 and you'll see a massive construction project at the top of the mountain.

I'm told that Kentucky may not be opening its section as soon as planned after all. And I'm also told that some of the funding for US 460 in Kentucky was shifted to the Mountain Parkway widening, since ARC funds are no longer earmarked for ARC corridors.

There's also a four-lane bridge on an unused portion of the new US 460 on the Kentucky side. We saw it during our 2013 Pikeville meet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 11:14:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 09:50:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 22, 2019, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 09:13:24 PM
Instead we have a high and expensive bridge sitting there 4 years because the KY section was delayed.
Perhaps, but they waited and did it right. Now it makes Virginia look cheap.

No, it makes Kentucky look incompetent.  Highways should be built in segments of independent utility.  Virginia funded the segment so that Kentucky could open that last few miles in their state and not have it sit there going nowhere.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 22, 2019, 09:30:48 PM
Even if there's a million reasons why they couldn't build a proper corridor beyond the bridge, it looks cheap to drivers.

It looks pretty stupid to drivers to see an award-winning bridge sitting there with no traffic.
To the average Joe, once the Kentucky portion opens, they'll be going on nice four-lane highway, cross a nice high-rise bridge, then dump onto a two-lane narrow road in Virginia. Once this corridor opens, Virginia will seem like the cheap one until they complete their portion back to US-460.

Reminds me of when North Carolina widened & relocated US-17 as a limited-access highway up to the border at Chesapeake, then dumped into a two-lane non-limited-access narrow road. It took Virginia almost four decades to finally complete their portion. It took three+ decades for them to realize hey, we can't widen the road on the swamp, let's relocate it instead!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on May 22, 2019, 11:48:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 01:01:22 AM
Not trying to start anything, but just wondering - what was the issue with the comment I made?
Political and not relevant to roads.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 11:55:39 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 22, 2019, 11:48:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 01:01:22 AM
Not trying to start anything, but just wondering - what was the issue with the comment I made?
Political and not relevant to roads.
Sorry. I just felt the need as I found it ironic that Governor Northam calls the name "Jefferson Davis Highway" inappropriate. Something just doesn't add up in my head about that...

But I digress.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 11:56:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 11:14:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 09:50:05 PM
It looks pretty stupid to drivers to see an award-winning bridge sitting there with no traffic.
To the average Joe, once the Kentucky portion opens, they'll be going on nice four-lane highway, cross a nice high-rise bridge, then dump onto a two-lane narrow road in Virginia. Once this corridor opens, Virginia will seem like the cheap one until they complete their portion back to US-460.

To the average Joe, a section usable in Virginia will have been unusable for 6 years before the Kentucky section opens, and users of VA-80 and KY-80 will have immediate benefits.

The plan is to have the US-460 Connector complete in 2023 and the US-121/US-460 segment complete in 2024.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 11:14:25 PM
Reminds me of when North Carolina widened & relocated US-17 as a limited-access highway up to the border at Chesapeake, then dumped into a two-lane non-limited-access narrow road. It took Virginia almost four decades to finally complete their portion. It took three+ decades for them to realize hey, we can't widen the road on the swamp, let's relocate it instead!

2005 - 1985 = 20 years, not 40.  I daresay that the NEPA and ACOE and EPA requirements for the section in Chesapeake was several times more complicated than in Camden County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 11:59:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 11:55:39 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 22, 2019, 11:48:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2019, 01:01:22 AM
Not trying to start anything, but just wondering - what was the issue with the comment I made?
Political and not relevant to roads.
Sorry. I just felt the need as I found it ironic that Governor Northam calls the name "Jefferson Davis Highway" inappropriate. Something just doesn't add up in my head about that...
But I digress.

I find it irritating that people who don't live in Virginia are interfering with discussions of matters here that are directly related to highways.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 12:01:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 09:50:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 22, 2019, 09:30:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 09:13:24 PM
Instead we have a high and expensive bridge sitting there 4 years because the KY section was delayed.
Perhaps, but they waited and did it right. Now it makes Virginia look cheap.

No, it makes Kentucky look incompetent.  Highways should be built in segments of independent utility.  Virginia funded the segment so that Kentucky could open that last few miles in their state and not have it sit there going nowhere.

It made Kentucky look incompetent. Now, as sprjus4 alludes to above, Virginia will look incompetent for having spent millions on a bridge, and then sat around doing nothing while Kentucky worked on a proper freeway. Unless Route 460's Phase II is finished before Kentucky opens their section, Virginia will look stupid having about half a mile of freeway before a tight 90-degree turn back onto two-lane roads.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2019, 09:54:02 PM
The segment in Virginia beyond the new bridge is currently under construction. Drive SR 609 between Breaks and US 460 and you'll see a massive construction project at the top of the mountain.

Will this section connect to Route 460's dead-end at Route 693? And open before the Kentucky section opens?

Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 11:56:31 PM
To the average Joe, a section usable in Virginia will have been unusable for 6 years before the Kentucky section opens, and users of VA-80 and KY-80 will have immediate benefits.
The plan is to have the US-460 Connector complete in 2023 and the US-121/US-460 segment complete in 2024.

Are these referring to Virginia projects? And if so, will they be complete before Kentucky's section of freeway? I'm sort of rehashing my response to HB above.

Even if the section in Virginia opened, there would have been no local roads to which Kentucky could connect that bridge. Route 80 appears to be the faster route anyway, until the entire freeway is finished.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 12:07:26 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 12:01:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 11:56:31 PM
To the average Joe, a section usable in Virginia will have been unusable for 6 years before the Kentucky section opens, and users of VA-80 and KY-80 will have immediate benefits.
The plan is to have the US-460 Connector complete in 2023 and the US-121/US-460 segment complete in 2024.
Are these referring to Virginia projects? And if so, will they be complete before Kentucky's section of freeway? I'm sort of rehashing my response to HB above.

Yes to the first, and probably no to the second.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 12:01:51 AM
Even if the section in Virginia opened, there would have been no local roads to which Kentucky could connect that bridge. Route 80 appears to be the faster route anyway, until the entire freeway is finished.

Like I said, the KY section in conjunction with the new bridge provides a major improvement to the KY/VA 80 corridor, not something to handwave.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 23, 2019, 12:07:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 11:56:31 PM
2005 - 1985 = 20 years, not 40.
I had originally thought it was the 70s not 80s, but after checking my route openings map, it does appear it was 1984 the relocated segments opened, so it would've been around that time.

Still, it was in planning since at least the early 70s. I recall an EIS from the early 70s regarding the widening & relocation of the roadway. It was originally studied as a freeway with interchanges & access roads, though obviously was never constructed that way, but rather as a limited-access at-grade highway. As development increases though down that way, and the presence of NC I-87, that ultimate build-out will finally be constructed in the next 10-20 years. But that's besides the point, I'm not going to turn this into a 10 page argument why or why not it should be done.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 12:01:51 AM
It made Kentucky look incompetent. Now, as sprjus4 alludes to above, Virginia will look incompetent for having spent millions on a bridge, and then sat around doing nothing while Kentucky worked on a proper freeway. Unless Route 460's Phase II is finished before Kentucky opens their section, Virginia will look stupid having about half a mile of freeway before a tight 90-degree turn back onto two-lane roads.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2019, 09:54:02 PM
The segment in Virginia beyond the new bridge is currently under construction. Drive SR 609 between Breaks and US 460 and you'll see a massive construction project at the top of the mountain.

Will this section connect to Route 460's dead-end at Route 693? And open before the Kentucky section opens?

Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 11:56:31 PM
To the average Joe, a section usable in Virginia will have been unusable for 6 years before the Kentucky section opens, and users of VA-80 and KY-80 will have immediate benefits.
The plan is to have the US-460 Connector complete in 2023 and the US-121/US-460 segment complete in 2024.

Are these referring to Virginia projects? And if so, will they be complete before Kentucky's section of freeway? I'm sort of rehashing my response to HB above.

Even if the section in Virginia opened, there would have been no local roads to which Kentucky could connect that bridge. Route 80 appears to be the faster route anyway, until the entire freeway is finished.
*limited-access highway. It's not being constructed as a full freeway with interchanges & overpasses, but rather a limited-access highway with at-grade intersections at minor cross streets, and interchanges at major cross streets. That's how the corridors are designed. West Virginia has a lot of good examples of roads like this. They function just as well as freeways though, having freeway cross-sections (I.E. 10 foot shoulders, 12 foot lanes, divided medians, gentle curves, etc)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 12:15:26 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2019, 12:07:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 11:56:31 PM
2005 - 1985 = 20 years, not 40.
I had originally thought it was the 70s not 80s, but after checking my route openings map, it does appear it was 1984 the relocated segments opened, so it would've been around that time.
Still, it was in planning since at least the early 70s. I recall an EIS from the early 70s regarding the widening & relocation of the roadway.

It is not a good example of arbitrary delays to a highway project.  There were about as serious a level of environmental obstacles that project could have and still get built, and it took years to find a solution that satisfied the resource agencies.

Plus the actual construction was not very expensive, so funding was not the issue.  Excerpt from my website article --

The contract bid amount was well below the engineering estimate for the project, and that provided a benefit to VDOT and the taxpayers.  As of the December 2002 bid opening, the VDOT Six-Year Program entry for that project was $76.566 million programmed for Construction.  There were 8 bids distributed between $41,039,684.75 (Barnhill) and $46,929,719.80.  For 11.6 miles of mostly new-location four-lane highway at a cost of $41.96 million, that works out to an average per mile cost of $3.62 million.  The project has two bridges, twin bridges over wetlands, each 984 feet long.  Sometimes the state of the national economy is such that contractors are hungry for work and will bid much lower on a project than ordinarily.  That was a very good deal for that amount of highway construction, and the quality of work is very good.  The 2006 Six-Year Program entry for this project shows expenditures of $3.46 million for Preliminary Engineering, and $12.338 million for Right-of-Way acquisition.  Total costs for the project amount to $57.758 million.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 12:17:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 12:07:26 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 12:01:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2019, 11:56:31 PM
To the average Joe, a section usable in Virginia will have been unusable for 6 years before the Kentucky section opens, and users of VA-80 and KY-80 will have immediate benefits.
The plan is to have the US-460 Connector complete in 2023 and the US-121/US-460 segment complete in 2024.
Are these referring to Virginia projects? And if so, will they be complete before Kentucky's section of freeway? I'm sort of rehashing my response to HB above.

Yes to the first, and probably no to the second.
...
Like I said, the KY section in conjunction with the new bridge provides a major improvement to the KY/VA 80 corridor, not something to handwave.

But isn't VA hand-waving the bridge by taking forever to build a proper *limited access highway (thanks sprjus4) up the bridge? It's going to look awful strange to drivers, cruising along Route 460 in Kentucky, when they cross into Virginia and immediately get pooped out onto some B-road. Unless Virginia finishes their section first (in which case, Kentucky will definitely appear incompetent).

To make it clear, I'm happy to see that the bridge was built. But I feel it was almost built sooner than it needed to be, since neither state had the funds to build a proper road to connect to it straight-away. You didn't really explain what Kentucky should have connected to the new bridge. I don't see any local roads on the KY side of Grassy Creek.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 12:20:33 AM
I see now, on historic imagery, that the Kentucky side has had some sort of pavement leading up to the bridge for at least four years now. I will concede at least one thing: Kentucky should have finished that section of highway by now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 23, 2019, 12:22:49 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 12:15:26 AM
Plus the actual construction was not very expensive, so funding was not the issue.
My thing is why did it take them 20+ years (like I mentioned, the NC section was in planning in the 70s) to come up with a new location alignment? And it seems there clearly wasn't much effort to even start the project till the very late 90s and into the 2000s.

It always makes me wonder - why was this built for so cheap and taxpayer funded in a short period of time, and the VA-168 relocation in the same general area & timeframe took decades, and ended up being tolled and costing way more? Why didn't they construct VA-168 as a 10 mile relocation as a limited-access, at-grade highway with the same design specs as US-17 was? It probably would've been way cheaper, and no tolls necessary.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 23, 2019, 12:24:34 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 12:20:33 AM
I see now, on historic imagery, that the Kentucky side has had some sort of pavement leading up to the bridge for at least four years now. I will concede at least one thing: Kentucky should have finished that section of highway by now.
Say hello to I-69 around Union City, TN. Been sitting there for over a decade, graded, bridges completed, everything, and it's finally going to open in 3 years.

That's far worse, and frankly more sad, seeing as that was on flat grade thru fields, not through mountains.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 12:33:58 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2019, 12:22:49 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 12:15:26 AM
Plus the actual construction was not very expensive, so funding was not the issue.
My thing is why did it take them 20+ years (like I mentioned, the NC section was in planning in the 70s) to come up with a new location alignment? And it seems there clearly wasn't much effort to even start the project till the very late 90s and into the 2000s.

Oh good grief, I wrote a website article about this project.  There were various new alignments proposed during those 20 years, various mitigation strategies, the fact that it is so close to the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, negotiations that led to changes in the proposed alignment, and one of the final breakthroughs that got approval from all the resource agencies was the donation of 758 acres of wetlands (640 acres is one square mile for reference) to become a permanent undeveloped refuge.

Frankly many people wondered whether it could ever get built.

The Chesapeake Expressway had a tiny fraction of those issues to deal with.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 23, 2019, 12:37:10 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 12:33:58 AM
The Chesapeake Expressway had a tiny fraction of those issues to deal with.
It always makes me wonder - why was this built for so cheap and taxpayer funded in a short period of time, and the VA-168 relocation in the same general area & timeframe took decades, and ended up being tolled and costing way more? Why didn't they construct VA-168 as a 10 mile relocation as a limited-access, at-grade highway with the same design specs as US-17 was? It probably would've been way cheaper, and no tolls necessary.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 12:44:54 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2019, 12:37:10 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 12:33:58 AM
The Chesapeake Expressway had a tiny fraction of those issues to deal with.
It always makes me wonder - why was this built for so cheap and taxpayer funded in a short period of time,

I thought you said it took forever to get built.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2019, 12:37:10 AM
and the VA-168 relocation in the same general area & timeframe took decades,

Both were completed within 3 years of each other.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2019, 12:37:10 AM
and ended up being tolled and costing way more? Why didn't they construct VA-168 as a 10 mile relocation as a limited-access, at-grade highway with the same design specs as US-17 was? It probably would've been way cheaper, and no tolls necessary.

What did I say about unusually low bids and why? 

The traffic volumes on VA-168 particularly on weekends would overwhelm an at-grade highway in mid- and northern Chesapeake.

The City of Chesapeake took control of that project and built it the way that they wanted, including using tolls.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 23, 2019, 12:46:27 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 12:17:43 AM
But isn't VA hand-waving the bridge by taking forever to build a proper *limited access highway (thanks sprjus4) up the bridge? It's going to look awful strange to drivers, cruising along Route 460 in Kentucky, when they cross into Virginia and immediately get pooped out onto some B-road. Unless Virginia finishes their section first (in which case, Kentucky will definitely appear incompetent).
That's the point I'm trying to get at. When you cross over the border, and see a "Welcome to Virginia, Virginia is for Lovers" sign, you get some love by being transitioned from a high-speed 4-lane expressway onto a narrow, slow-speed two-lane windy mountain road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 12:55:05 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2019, 12:46:27 AM
That's the point I'm trying to get at. When you cross over the border, and see a "Welcome to Virginia, Virginia is for Lovers" sign, you get some love by being transitioned from a high-speed 4-lane expressway onto a narrow, slow-speed two-lane windy mountain road.

It will provide a major improvement in the VA/KY 80 route, a traffic usable and beneficial connection.

So Kentucky leaves the bridge unusable for 6 years, then they complete their new highway, and then Virginia completes theirs in 2023 for US-460 Connector and 2024 for US-460/US-121.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on May 23, 2019, 04:39:38 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 09:01:32 PM
I'm positive I've been on roads that had rumble strips where there was a double yellow line and no rumble strip where there was a passing zone, though I can't recall what road(s) had that.
The AA Hwy in Kentucky has the rumble strips along the center line as well as on the shoulder.  An attempt to keep drivers from straying in the other lane while falling asleep driving some of the portions of that road.  :D  Yes, some places along the 111 mile route (Wilder to Grayson) are "boring".  :sleep:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on May 23, 2019, 04:57:16 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2019, 09:18:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 19, 2019, 08:33:18 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on May 19, 2019, 03:51:40 PM
I wasn't in any way "dissing" any opinions brought forth.  They are all interesting.  It's just, like Beltway, I had never given it much thought.  Living in the area for 22 years, it was something that was accepted.  Even in the 1970's, I realized there could never be an interchange at that location.  If I needed to get to that area from the Western Branch area of Chesapeake (back when tolls for the tunnels were 25 cents), I would either exit off Military Hwy or Newtown Rd. to reach Va. Beach Blvd.

I didn't take it as being criticism, just questions for thought.  Some places there are major thoroughfares that don't connect to a freeway due to the proximity to other interchanges.

US-29 Lee Highway over I-495 Capital Beltway and VA-617 Backlick Road under I-495 come to mind.  No connections to the general purpose lanes of I-495.
Some other examples in Hampton Roads include I-64 over Shell Road near the US-17 George Washington Hwy interchange, Providence Rd (no official route number, though the overpass marker on the bridge over I-64 indicates "Rt 409"?) over I-64 near the Indian River Rd interchange, and Hampton Roads Pkwy over I-664 in between the VA-164 Western Freeway & VA-135 College Dr interchanges. Probably other ones too.
Just remember when I-64 was completed from Bowers Hill to I-264 in Norfolk--1967-69.  Back then there was no need for an interchange at Providence Road.  It was a sleepy two lane road.  An interchange at Shell Road would be too close to the US 17 interchange in Deep Creek.  Hampton Roads Parkway was completed after I-664 opened.  In 1992-93, it was simply a road to nowhere (a forest maybe, but not what is there now--Good Lord, there's a golf course back there now?).   Back then the road ended where Harbor View Blvd is now.  Still, the overpass is very near the on/off ramps from/to VA 164 and US 17.  Wouldn't want to tear down that Japanese Steakhouse/Sushi restaurant, would we?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 23, 2019, 07:08:35 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on May 23, 2019, 04:39:38 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2019, 09:01:32 PM
I'm positive I've been on roads that had rumble strips where there was a double yellow line and no rumble strip where there was a passing zone, though I can't recall what road(s) had that.
The AA Hwy in Kentucky has the rumble strips along the center line as well as on the shoulder.  An attempt to keep drivers from straying in the other lane while falling asleep driving some of the portions of that road.  :D  Yes, some places along the 111 mile route (Wilder to Grayson) are "boring".  :sleep:

Having rumble strips on the center striping isn't that unusual. I believe (not positive) US-15 in Maryland has them between Point of Rocks and US-340. I know someone whose father and brother were killed in a head-on crash on that road involving a wrong-way driver. I don't remember whether the segment has any passing zones, though. I just don't go that way all that often.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 12:10:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 12:55:05 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2019, 12:46:27 AM
That's the point I'm trying to get at. When you cross over the border, and see a "Welcome to Virginia, Virginia is for Lovers" sign, you get some love by being transitioned from a high-speed 4-lane expressway onto a narrow, slow-speed two-lane windy mountain road.

It will provide a major improvement in the VA/KY 80 route, a traffic usable and beneficial connection.

So Kentucky leaves the bridge unusable for 6 years, then they complete their new highway, and then Virginia completes theirs in 2023 for US-460 Connector and 2024 for US-460/US-121.

Virginia provided a connection to Route 80 on their side quite early on, but the quality is shit compared to what Kentucky took forever to build. Virginia will be the butt of jokes straight away, until they open Phase II.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 12:10:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 12:55:05 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2019, 12:46:27 AM
That's the point I'm trying to get at. When you cross over the border, and see a "Welcome to Virginia, Virginia is for Lovers" sign, you get some love by being transitioned from a high-speed 4-lane expressway onto a narrow, slow-speed two-lane windy mountain road.
It will provide a major improvement in the VA/KY 80 route, a traffic usable and beneficial connection.
So Kentucky leaves the bridge unusable for 6 years, then they complete their new highway, and then Virginia completes theirs in 2023 for US-460 Connector and 2024 for US-460/US-121.
Virginia provided a connection to Route 80 on their side quite early on, but the quality is shit compared to what Kentucky took forever to build. Virginia will be the butt of jokes straight away, until they open Phase II.

It will provide a major improvement in the VA/KY 80 route, a traffic usable and beneficial connection.

That is not "shit", that is an improvement to a major 2-lane primary highway.

You need to clean that material off of your glasses.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 02:12:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 01:50:37 PM
It will provide a major improvement in the VA/KY 80 route, a traffic usable and beneficial connection.

That is not "shit", that is an improvement to a major 2-lane primary highway

I'm not trying to imply that it's not an improvement to the overall corridor, but, until Virginia finishes their highway, it will look very awkward to have a 90-degree turn, immediately after crossing into the state.

On paper, the corridor has been improved. But behind the driver's seat, it's a very awkward maneuver. in fact, it's so awkward, that it might even be dangerous.

Has it been considered how fast drivers will be approaching that 90-degree turn onto Route 693? Will they expect such an awkward maneuver, until the freeway is finished?

It reminds me a lot of that old Kansas Turnpike picture...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fericgartner.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fks_turnpike.jpg&hash=d1fc23b3331829b0736ddba3b137b3165646cd01)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 02:45:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 02:12:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2019, 01:50:37 PM
It will provide a major improvement in the VA/KY 80 route, a traffic usable and beneficial connection.
That is not "shit", that is an improvement to a major 2-lane primary highway
I'm not trying to imply that it's not an improvement to the overall corridor, but, until Virginia finishes their highway, it will look very awkward to have a 90-degree turn, immediately after crossing into the state.

No more than hundreds of other temporary Interstate and freeway termini over the last 75 years.  That is the nature of highway corridor construction, due to costs and industry capacity, they are built in segments, and the temporary termini are usually a compromise of some sort.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 02:12:22 PM
On paper, the corridor has been improved. But behind the driver's seat, it's a very awkward maneuver. in fact, it's so awkward, that it might even be dangerous.
Has it been considered how fast drivers will be approaching that 90-degree turn onto Route 693? Will they expect such an awkward maneuver, until the freeway is finished?

I have looked at aerial views, and one of the highway jobs I had in the past was designing signing layouts for construction and post-construction projects.  Start warning signing 2 miles before the end, close the left lane using barricades about 1/2 mile from the end, then have a series of warning signs lowering the speeds to 35 or 25 or whatever is needed, then sign the curve at the intersection.

Conceptually similar to the hundreds mentioned before.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 02:12:22 PM
It reminds me a lot of that old Kansas Turnpike picture...

Not at all.  The last several miles looks like it has no traffic, and has not yet had any. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 23, 2019, 08:04:56 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2019, 02:12:22 PM

I'm not trying to imply that it's not an improvement to the overall corridor, but, until Virginia finishes their highway, it will look very awkward to have a 90-degree turn, immediately after crossing into the state.

On paper, the corridor has been improved. But behind the driver's seat, it's a very awkward maneuver. in fact, it's so awkward, that it might even be dangerous.

Has it been considered how fast drivers will be approaching that 90-degree turn onto Route 693? Will they expect such an awkward maneuver, until the freeway is finished?




It can't be any worse that the temporary east end of Corridor H expressway outside Wardensville WV...8% grade into a 20 mph S curve:
https://goo.gl/maps/VpBDsnPGfbM7atjw8

Or the temporary end of King Coal Hwy east of Williamson with a 5% grade down to a stop sign (also in a posted fog area)
https://goo.gl/maps/ZGZT2AtP3F7XdfmGA

Temporary in this sense may mean decades...

Also, coming into Virginia on the future US 460 after crossing the bridge you will be going uphill approaching SR 693, which I'm guessing will become part of VA 80 when it is opened on the Kentucky side...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on May 24, 2019, 09:03:09 AM
A public meeting is coming up in my neck of the woods to discuss a proposed US-311 connector road.

https://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2019/route-311-public-hearing-scheduled5-21-2019.asp (https://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2019/route-311-public-hearing-scheduled5-21-2019.asp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 24, 2019, 01:11:20 PM
Too much to try to quote and respond to, so I'll try to recap...

All of future US 460 is either completed (US 23 to KY 195, and just past KY 80 to the state line) or under construction (KY 195 to KY 80) except for the bridge over KY 80, which hasn't even gone to bid yet.

There was talk of paving one of the ramps from KY 80 to the new road, opening it to two-way traffic, and thus opening the new four-lane from KY 80 north of Elkhorn City to VA 80 at Breaks, but Kentucky engineers nixed that idea. The fear was that if traffic started using what will be an exit ramp to enter the four-lane, the potential for wrecks would be increased after everything is fully complete. So access on the Kentucky side is going to be delays for some time.

Kentucky most likely will not sign the new route as US 460 until some connection is made to US 460 in Virginia. The currently opened segment is signed KY 3174. Even if it's completed to KY 80 near Elkhorn City, it will probably be signed as a state route. US 460 traffic will continue to run on the existing route, which is concurrent with KY 80 from Shelbiana (US 23/119) to Belcher. From there, US 460 follows a more recent routing that was built when Fishtrap Lake inundated the old route to KY 1499 at Mouthcard, then along the river and on into Virginia. There will be no through US 460 traffic from Kentucky into Virginia using the four-lane that will come to an abrupt stop anywhere.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 24, 2019, 01:24:12 PM
If you passed by a van stopped by cops on the shoulder of I-81 near Staunton, VA, would you assume speeding?  Maybe going over 80?

This is why you shouldn't assume every stop is for reckless driving...

https://www.nj.com/news/2019/05/nj-man-busted-in-virginia-with-more-than-1500-cartons-of-contraband-cigarettes-worth-200k-cops-say.html

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 24, 2019, 04:04:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 24, 2019, 01:24:12 PM
If you passed by a van stopped by cops on the shoulder of I-81 near Staunton, VA, would you assume speeding?  Maybe going over 80?
This is why you shouldn't assume every stop is for reckless driving...
https://www.nj.com/news/2019/05/nj-man-busted-in-virginia-with-more-than-1500-cartons-of-contraband-cigarettes-worth-200k-cops-say.html

At least it wasn't 1,555 cartons of reefers! 

Some folks would be incensed at the idea that he would be stopped for that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 24, 2019, 04:24:01 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 24, 2019, 01:11:20 PM
Kentucky most likely will not sign the new route as US 460 until some connection is made to US 460 in Virginia. The currently opened segment is signed KY 3174. Even if it's completed to KY 80 near Elkhorn City, it will probably be signed as a state route. US 460 traffic will continue to run on the existing route, which is concurrent with KY 80 from Shelbiana (US 23/119) to Belcher. From there, US 460 follows a more recent routing that was built when Fishtrap Lake inundated the old route to KY 1499 at Mouthcard, then along the river and on into Virginia. There will be no through US 460 traffic from Kentucky into Virginia using the four-lane that will come to an abrupt stop anywhere.

Maybe I should have mentioned that, but it went without saying that US-460 wouldn't be routed that way until the 10 miles of VA US-460 Connector and US-460/US-121 expressway are open to traffic, which is projected for 2023 and 2024 respectively.

In a broader sense, the completed highway will carry low volumes of traffic.  The current US-460 border crossing carries about 3,000 AADT and 5% large truck percentage.  Costs about $500 million in KY and $300 million in VA between Pikesville and Grundy.

The section will chiefly benefit motorists located within about 50 miles of the border crossing, and I don't think that the corridor is positioned to divert traffic from any Interstate highways.  But it will be nice to get it finished, will have been almost 60 years from when it was first authorized.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 24, 2019, 04:38:22 PM
It will certainly make it easier to access Breaks Interstate Park from the Kentucky side. The new connector road to VA 80 comes out very close to the main entrance to the park.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 24, 2019, 04:52:54 PM
Thanks for the update, HB.

I'm going to hold off commenting on US-460 any further until someone can point me to either some photos of the construction, or maybe some visuals (if VDOT or KYTC threw any together) of either the final product, or some stage prior.

I typically rely on satellite imagery for quick rundowns on construction. This is acceptable in the PNW, as our satellite imagery is updated every year, but I understand that isn't the case everywhere.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 24, 2019, 05:22:41 PM
Google Maps Satellite View is way behind, no construction shown in Virginia other than the 3 miles of coal reclamation project (heavy grading) about midway on US-460/US-121.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 24, 2019, 05:39:07 PM
To those who love to claim Emporia isn't a speed trap, and it's all baloney...

You can read the article if you have time, it's a long but interesting read, and there certainly is character and more to Emporia than just the speed traps, but here's the excerpts relating to the speed trapping aspect, for those who claim is fake. Even locals agree.

Emporia - is there more to it than its reputation as a speed trap?
(https://pilotonline.com/life/travel/article_8ad9a020-78db-11e9-ba5d-732217f80060.html)
QuoteEmporia is best known for two things: race cars and speeding tickets.
QuoteBut for pretty much everyone else, Emporia is one place in Virginia you never want to drive fast.

Located at U.S. 58 and I-95, Emporia is widely considered the most notorious speed trap in Virginia. Despite being our state's second least-populous independent city, its reputation has traveled with drivers from as far away as Las Vegas and rural South Carolina. Perhaps even around the world, if you take the word of some residents who've traveled abroad.

But there's also a good chance those drivers don't know much more about Emporia than the address of its courthouse.

"It's terrible. Go anywhere and mention you're from Emporia and they know about the tickets,"  said Don White, second-generation owner of White's Shoes just off U.S. 58.

As summer travel season heats up, The Virginian-Pilot's features team ventured into the city to get the answer to I-95/U.S. 58 travelers' burning question: Is there more to Emporia than its reputation as a speed trap?
QuoteWhat to expect in traffic court, should you land there

In "traffic court"  the Hon. H. Lee Townsend III keeps things moving at a brisk pace.

He's a general district judge in Virginia's 6th Judicial District, and the people coming before him were representing themselves.

They almost all came with speeding tickets.

A name was called and a man stood before the judge.

Townsend said: "Tell me about your speed."  After the man described what happened, the judge said "Make it defective equipment"  and told him what the fine would be, adding the important word "no points."

Because that's the point. A man from Richmond who had just been through the process explained it as he sat on a bench in front of the Main Street court house. He is a lawyer, working in civil law, who got a speeding ticket on Interstate 95. By coming before the judge, rather than paying the ticket through the mail, the transgressors can get a moving violation, like speeding, turned into a non-moving violation, "defective equipment,"  and avoid having points added to their driving record. Too many points, and your auto insurance rates go up, plus your license could be suspended or revoked.

That's why most of the 30 holders of the unlucky tickets had come to court for the 11 a.m. Thursday session.

Townsend was courteous, offering advice here and there to people about their insurance or the process, and joking occasionally. Most cases were dispensed in less than a minute.

One man worked as a civilian for the Navy. Before court, his girlfriend had said they got a ticket in town as they drove from Wake Forest, N.C., to Norfolk.

"I told him to watch his speed,"  she said, "But he didn't listen."  It was his second ticket. "Make it defective"  was the ruling, with a $114 fine, no points.

One woman said afterward that she had driven five hours to get to court from Florence, S.C. She also had gotten a ticket for speeding on Interstate 95. "I'm never going to come to Emporia again. Not even Virginia!"
QuoteThursdays are showtime at Logan's Diner, a block south on Main Street from the courthouse. Breakfast ends at 10:30 a.m. sharp, and then it's time to set the stage.

Thursday is traffic day. And traffic day, said Rosie at the counter, is hectic.
Quote"I get a lot of business on traffic court day,"  Allen said.

"Not traffic day,"  said Page, gently. "Court day."

Page is known by everyone at the diner, but his main law office is in Suffolk. Still, his firm keeps an office a few doors down and he does a lot of business here on Thursdays. He said Emporia's reputation for zealous enforcement is a bit overstated.

"It's really not that much different here than anywhere else. It just gets publicized more,"  Page said. "This is a place where a lot of out-of-state drivers come through. So because of that, you know, people assume that since that's the main interaction they have here Emporia, that's what Emporia is all about. But Emporia is about, obviously, much more than that."

Three seats down, Christian Quackenbush disagreed.

He was fresh off a two-hour drive from Yorktown and a $150 fine. He was cited for going 13 miles over the limit, but got his charge reduced to defective equipment.

Quackenbush figured the police didn't care that he was speeding: He's just an ATM.

"It's not about what actually happened,"  Quackenbush said. "It's just about, "˜Give us some money and get out of here.' "

As for Page, he said the judges in Emporia are more lenient than most – and he'd happily transport a couple of them out to Suffolk if he could.

"If (people) come out here they'll find good people. Good food. Good, you know, country atmosphere."

I will admit, it's a nice plus that the judges are willing to change tickets from moving violations to non-moving violations to avoid points being added to your record, but nonetheless, they're still collecting money from all those tickets. If they cared about you speeding, they wouldn't wave every moving violation and make it non-moving. It's literally about the money, that's all. When I was pulled 6 years ago, I wasn't given that benefit sadly, though it didn't hurt my record significantly nor insurance rates.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 24, 2019, 08:46:42 PM
It's been awhile since I have been up that way, so I have no recent photos of the construction in either state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 24, 2019, 10:23:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 24, 2019, 05:39:07 PM
To those who love to claim Emporia isn't a speed trap, and it's all baloney...

Basically, that it what it is.  Why don't these internet warriors ever admit to going 15+ over the limit?  Well, that would quash the idea that they were being "trapped".  Funny how the article doesn't mention the name of the PDs that issued the tickets; there are 4 possible given the city and the two counties (CL just east of town) and the state.  The courts are a -state- function, they do not answer to municipal governments, why do they allegedly keep letting this happen in one place but not all over the place, all they have to do is throw the tickets out en masse.

You still haven't answered these questions --

How come speeders like Sprjus4 always claim to getting stopped for going a few miles over the limit but never admit getting stopped for 15 or 20 or more over?

How many times have you been "pulled" by cops for 15+ over and what were the speeds?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 24, 2019, 10:52:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 24, 2019, 10:23:49 PM
How come speeders like Sprjus4 always claim to getting stopped for going a few miles over the limit but never admit getting stopped for 15 or 20 or more over?

How many times have you been "pulled" by cops for 15+ over and what were the speeds?
Just gonna keep asking aren't you? I rarely go 15 or 20 over, though I've gotten pulled doing 76 mph in a 60 mph before on I-664. If I'm on an arterial roadway entering in a town, I'm generally very cautious about slowing way down from whatever the rural speed is (55 - 75 mph) down to the town speed limit (25 - 45 mph), so I've never had any instances where I'm flying 65 mph into town on a road that just dropped to 35 mph. If I see the speed is dropping significantly, I'll let off the gas, and if I see the speed limit sign and am not slowed enough, I'll brake until my speed is right around the posted speed. This is frequent, especially rural driving in Texas where speeds quickly can go from 75 mph down to 35 mph in a 1/4 to 1/2 mile stretch when approaching a town. I also will never speed through a town, as that's the most likely place you'll find a police trap, and honestly, I treat rural 60 mph US-58 near Greensville County and Emporia like driving through a town, I will refuse to push beyond 60 mph, though I'll easily get up to 65 mph east of there, maybe 70 mph if everybody else is doing that, though usually no faster than that. A lot of police presence on that stretch, I still don't understand why you can't see that. Hundreds, likely thousands of drivers have known about Emporia's bad reputation for speed trapping for decades, and many have been caught in it themselves.

But I suppose those hundreds, likely thousands of drivers are all just internet-warriors going 15+ over the speed limit and it's all baloney. You said it, so.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 24, 2019, 11:10:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 24, 2019, 10:52:09 PM
I treat rural 60 mph US-58 near Greensville County and Emporia like driving through a town, I will refuse to push beyond 60 mph, though I'll easily get up to 65 mph east of there, maybe 70 mph if everybody else is doing that, though usually no faster than that. A lot of police presence on that stretch, I still don't understand why you can't see that. Hundreds, likely thousands of drivers have known about Emporia's bad reputation for speed trapping for decades, and many have been caught in it themselves.

For "decades", huh?  That claim reeks of baloney, given that personnel turnover occurs every year as people retire and new people enter (state city and county PDs, elected officials at the local and state level, judges).  No way that a non-imaginary system would stay in place for "decades".

I would estimate that out of the last 100 trips thru there (US-58, I-95) I have seen police presence (as in stopped on a shoulder) about 10 times, and usually just one car, and most of the times on I-95 during the Meherrin River bridges replacement.  Remember, many people in this hobby drive roads for the fun of it, so don't come back with this "you don't need to use US-58 there because you live in Richmond".

The two RPD sergeants that I mentioned have professional knowledge and opinion about Emporia.  While there is some police presence there (many places have none and speeders like that) there is nothing excessive and they disagree with the idea that people are being "trapped" as in being stopped for a few miles over the limit.  At 15+ over they are "speeding".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 24, 2019, 11:24:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 24, 2019, 11:10:57 PM
For "decades", huh?  That claim reeks of baloney, given that personnel turnover occurs every year as people retire and new people enter (state city and county PDs, elected officials at the local and state level, judges).  No way that a non-imaginary system would stay in place for "decades".
I've seen online discussions, forums, etc. that have mentioned Emporia as a "police trap" dating back to the early 2000s. I can certainly say in the decade I've been here, I've seen police on US-58 near Emporia & Greensville County since Day 1. Quite literally, the first time visiting Hampton Roads and taking US-58 for the first time coming off I-95, I was given a nice warm Virginia welcome with 3 police units on US-58 going up and over a hill running radar. Thankfully, I was not speeding, though if I was, I would've certainly been pulled.

Look, we both have a difference of opinion on Emporia, and other locations such as Hopewell, and our experiences have shown different results, with mine seeing more police presence (a lot more), and yours clearly showing a lot less. Can we just agree to disagree on this issue? And quite frankly, the umpteen other issues we have differing opinions on such as I-87, HO/T lanes, etc?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 25, 2019, 01:13:10 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 24, 2019, 11:24:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 24, 2019, 11:10:57 PM
For "decades", huh?  That claim reeks of baloney, given that personnel turnover occurs every year as people retire and new people enter (state city and county PDs, elected officials at the local and state level, judges).  No way that a non-imaginary system would stay in place for "decades".
I've seen online discussions, forums, etc. that have mentioned Emporia as a "police trap" dating back to the early 2000s. I can certainly say in the decade I've been here, I've seen police on US-58 near Emporia & Greensville County since Day 1. Quite literally, the first time visiting Hampton Roads and taking US-58 for the first time coming off I-95, I was given a nice warm Virginia welcome with 3 police units on US-58 going up and over a hill running radar. Thankfully, I was not speeding, though if I was, I would've certainly been pulled.

I recently saw one Emporia PD car on US-58 doing what looked like speed enforcement, and he was still in that area when I came back thru there about 30 minutes later.  It had been at least 10 times thru there since last time I saw a PD car doing what looked like speed enforcement on US-58 (and that is going at least 5 miles on either side of I-95).

Now some people would be outraged by any one occurrence of city PD doing speed enforcement on a high-speed bypass, like what stake do they have in that?  Well the bypass does go thru city limits, and small city though it is, it is the regional 'hub' for emergency services, so in the case of crashes it would draw on their police, fire, EMS, hospital and wrecker services.  So I can see the logic in them having some city PD presence to at least discourage people from blowing thru there at 90+ mph.  Hopewell is in a very similar situation with I-295 in the city, they are -it-, and not Petersburg or Colonial Heights as they are not close to I-295 and they have segments of I-95 and I-85.

During the I-95 Meherrin River bridges project it was common to see one PD car in the project area, and given the restrictions of the maintenance of traffic there, I am in favor of having that kind of presence.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 24, 2019, 11:24:09 PM
Look, we both have a difference of opinion on Emporia, and other locations such as Hopewell, and our experiences have shown different results, with mine seeing more police presence (a lot more), and yours clearly showing a lot less. Can we just agree to disagree on this issue? And quite frankly, the umpteen other issues we have differing opinions on such as VI-87, HO/T lanes, etc?

Not when you in effect are accusing a cross-section of public employees and elected officials of running 'decades' of money-generating corruption, and when you said that "by policy" they arrest for as low as a couple miles over the limit.  "Speeding" as defined by PDs (inside info I know) is defined in a practical sense as 15+ mph over the limit if there are no other driving issues, and at that speed you are not being "trapped".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 25, 2019, 01:46:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 25, 2019, 01:13:10 AM
I recently saw one Emporia PD car on US-58 doing what looked like speed enforcement, and he was still in that area when I came back thru there about 30 minutes later.  It had been at least 10 times thru there since last time I saw a PD car doing what looked like speed enforcement on US-58 (and that is going at least 5 miles on either side of I-95).

Now some people would be outraged by any one occurrence of city PD doing speed enforcement on a high-speed bypass, like what stake do they have in that?  Well the bypass does go thru city limits, and small city though it is, it is the regional 'hub' for emergency services, so in the case of crashes it would draw on their police, fire, EMS, hospital and wrecker services.  So I can see the logic in them having some city PD presence to at least discourage people from blowing thru there at 90+ mph.  [/quote]
I can agree with what you're saying, but my issue is there's times where it's not simply that. Last November, I was driving through at about 58 mph (seeing the police reports on Waze, I naturally slowed to 2 mph under the speed limit to stay in the safe zone) heading westbound, and a car went past me in the left lane at I'd say about 64 - 69 mph, and when entering the bypass, we were greeted at the top of the hill by three police units in the median, one sitting in his car positioned to take off, one standing with LIDAR aimed at traffic (where I was coming from) up the hill, and another idle unit. As soon as we went up the hill, he waved at his buddy in the other unit, he took off, nearly running me off the road, then went over the overpass, and pulled the guy over going about 64 - 69 mph. You could argue there could've been other reasons than speeding, but this was in the course of about 4 seconds, LIDAR locked in, and waving at his buddy to go initiate a traffic stop.

I've seen this operation a few times, though not often. But usually there's at least 1 or 2 cars on the shoulder. But nonetheless, this still doesn't change the fact that Emporia has a reputation among many I-95 and Virginia travelers due to the fact there's been -a lot- of tickets issued in this city for speeding, and it's usually not just 15+ mph as you continuously claim, from what I've heard. But I suppose they're all lying.

Quote from: Beltway on May 25, 2019, 01:13:10 AM
Hopewell is in a very similar situation with I-295 in the city, they are -it-, and not Petersburg or Colonial Heights as they are not close to I-295 and they have segments of I-95 and I-85.
I'd have to disagree. Interstate 295 barely slices the edge of the city limits, and there's no real safety issues with that stretch of highways. It was a well designed interstate highway with gentle curves, full left and right shoulders, 6-lanes, 70 mph, etc.

This was an interesting excerpt from Hopewell's Wikipedia page.
QuoteHopewell has come to the attention of AAA because some of its members have complained that Hopewell is a speed trap for its practice of citing drivers for speeding along a 1.7 mile stretch of Interstate 295, nicknamed the "Million Dollar Mile" by disgruntled drivers. AAA, claimed in a press release that Hopewell employs 11 sheriff's deputies working in 14-hour shifts to patrol less than two miles of the highway that lie within the city limits of Hopewell. However, this statistic has been denied by the sheriff of Hopewell, who was baffled as to where that information was generated as he said the deputies working on I-295 only work eight-hour shifts. This practice, which it has been claimed, annually generated $1.8 million in revenue from speeding tickets, of which 75% were issued to out of state drivers, triggered a court clash between the Commonwealth's Attorney and the city prosecutor, and elicited an official ruling from the Attorney General of Virginia. Sheriff Luther Sodat said that the almost two-mile stretch of highway "is a safety issue for Hopewell." Virginia's urban interstates have a fatality rate about one-third the Statewide rate for all roads combined.
They claim I-295 is a "safety issue", and that it's an "urban interstate" which makes it more dangerous. That's a lie. It's a rural interstate highway with a 70 mph speed limit, and has a very safe design, and low crash rate. Also, they've generated almost $2 million annually on speeding tickets, and 75% to out of state drivers. That's absurd. That's a speed trap, and it's mostly targeted at out-of-state. I'd have differing thoughts if all those tickets were 85+ mph, though I'll say in my experience driving through there, most traffic is around 76 - 82 mph, and I've seen people pulled for those speeds. If that's indeed the case, it's a speed trap. You can't dispute that, unless of course all their tickets are 85+ mph, which I find unlikely.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on May 25, 2019, 06:52:35 AM
The state tried to put an end to speed traps...

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/virginia-general-assembly-puts-brakes-on-speed-traps/article_b00eca7a-beb6-11e4-8e86-8fb7c5717c20.html (https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/virginia-general-assembly-puts-brakes-on-speed-traps/article_b00eca7a-beb6-11e4-8e86-8fb7c5717c20.html)

...but then Hopewell threw a hissy fit and the spineless General Assembly later caved and repealed that budget amendment.

https://www.progress-index.com/news/20161001/another-chance-for-hopewells-million-dollar-mile (https://www.progress-index.com/news/20161001/another-chance-for-hopewells-million-dollar-mile)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on May 25, 2019, 09:11:41 AM
All I'll say on the subject is this: if you know a place is a speed trap and you speed though there anyway, that's on you.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 25, 2019, 10:34:44 AM
Quote from: Takumi on May 25, 2019, 09:11:41 AM
All I'll say on the subject is this: if you know a place is a speed trap and you speed though there anyway, that's on you.

Exactly. There's a stretch of Route 29 in Madison County that's long been known for strict enforcement (approximate map link here; the blue area indicating the directions shows roughly where the enforcement occurs (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/38.3445651,-78.2873852/38.3241419,-78.3059568/@38.324987,-78.3061085,15.5z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0)); the speed limit is now 60 on most of this and when I was in college it was 55. Everyone knew about it–after you pass Madison High School coming south, don't accelerate until you're past the Bavarian Chef. The southbound road through here is nice and flat and enticing, which is no doubt why the cops set up there. Yet despite everyone knowing about it, I know multiple people who arrived back in Charlottesville saying they got pulled over for going 70+ through there, and invariably everyone who heard about it had the same reaction–"Why in the world would you speed there?" It's not too hard to guess times when you're more likely to see the enforcement, too–football game days, college move-in or move-out weekend, etc., that is, days when there are likely to be that many more people on the road.

(Edited to add: We don't usually take Route 29 to or from Charlottesville because it's out of the way for us, but when we do go that way, I still make sure I'm going about 2 mph under the limit through there. We don't always see a cop and my wife likes to give me crap that everyone else is passing me, but who cares? What harm does it do to go below the speed limit for about two miles?)

As far as I know, Virginia doesn't have anything rising quite to the level of New Rome, Ohio (https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15134952/town-without-pity/), a town that no longer exists as an independent municipality. The Car and Driver article I linked is far from the sole source for reports about the shenanigans in that town. Hopewell and Emporia are often cited as having "speedtraps," but New Rome went far beyond a simple "speedtrap."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on May 25, 2019, 11:12:01 AM
Waverly is close to just being a town supported by speed traps.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 25, 2019, 11:13:31 AM
It sounds like the US 58 corridor is similar to the US 301 corridor further south.  Lawtley, Starke (which soon will have a freeway bypass of it), and once the City of Waldo.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 25, 2019, 11:13:47 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 25, 2019, 01:46:25 AM
median, one sitting in his car positioned to take off, one standing with LIDAR aimed at traffic (where I was coming from) up the hill, and another idle unit. As soon as we went up the hill, he waved at his buddy in the other unit, he took off, nearly running me off the road, then went over the overpass, and pulled the guy over going about 64 - 69 mph. You could argue there could've been other reasons than speeding, but this was in the course of about 4 seconds, LIDAR locked in, and waving at his buddy to go initiate a traffic stop.

B O G U S

In over 50 years and a million miles of driving, I can't think of one instance where I was in a position to "test" to see if cops were stopping people for a "few miles over the limit".  I also can't think of one instance where I saw an officer that "nearly caused an accident" when pulling out to stop someone.  Do you have a J-school degree?

It has been rare when I have seen any police car pass me and then make an apparent stop of a vehicle, maybe a dozen times over those years, and in no case was I close enough to gauge the speed of the vehicle.

Quote from: LM117 on May 25, 2019, 06:52:35 AM
The state tried to put an end to speed traps...

You don't need legislation to do that.  The courts are a -state- function.  If a court system sees a "speed trap" it is as simple as throwing those tickets out of court, as they would if they were getting large numbers for "a few miles over".  Courts don't have time to waste on nonsense cases, they have far more serious cases to handle.

Speeders like to speed, and make excuses about their habit.  Like people who take pot and get all doped up. 
And then post on the Internet about it, and regale others with stories about it.
 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 25, 2019, 11:21:04 AM
This discussion is like the old Midwest with that troll mechanic or when NE2 bouts it out with one of the other users on here who disagrees with him.

If it were not entertaining I would say this needs to be locked. :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 25, 2019, 11:29:00 AM
I can think of one time when a cop passed me (I was going maybe 5 mph over) and then put on his lights and pulled over a guy ahead of me who was going a good deal faster than I was; this occurred southbound in the then-HOV lanes on I-95 passing the rest area north of Dumfries. Good chance the other guy was going 80+ if I had been going around 70, which would certainly explain the cop's choice of target.

I can also think of a time when I noticed an unmarked cop car behind me at a red light somewhere down in the Hampton Roads area, probably on the old Route 168 as this occurred in May 1993 coming back from Nags Head. I saw him and was slow off the line; my friend Scott was driving the car in front of me and started to accelerate hard but backed off when he saw I was slow. Guy in the other lane did a jackrabbit start and sped off, at which point the cop went after him and pulled him over. Scott later said, "I had no idea that cop was there, but I said to myself if [1995hoo] is going slowly there must be a cop."

In both cases, common sense ruled the day and I think both cops did the reasonable thing. In the 1993 situation, surely it was clear to the cop that this 1982 Accord with a UVA plate frame and multiple UVA decals in the rear window was probably a college student, which in popular perception would've made me the likely target, but showing common sense often helps.



Quote from: roadman65 on May 25, 2019, 11:21:04 AM
This discussion is like the old Midwest with that troll mechanic or when NE2 bouts it out with one of the other users on here who disagrees with him.

If it were not entertaining I would say this needs to be locked. :-D

You know, it seems to me that "Is Hopewell or Emporia a speedtrap"  and "Is Hopewell or Emporia widely perceived as a speedtrap"  are two very different questions that can quite legitimately have two different answers (regardless, on the second question, of whether one feels the perception is justified). It's sort of like playing Family Feud–the goal on that show isn't to get the "right"  answer, it's to get what the survey respondents thought was the right answer.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on May 25, 2019, 11:25:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 25, 2019, 11:29:00 AM
I can think of one time when a cop passed me (I was going maybe 5 mph over) and then put on his lights and pulled over a guy ahead of me who was going a good deal faster than I was; this occurred southbound in the then-HOV lanes on I-95 passing the rest area north of Dumfries. Good chance the other guy was going 80+ if I had been going around 70, which would certainly explain the cop’s choice of target.
That happened to me once in college. I was going about 70 in a 55, and a cop turned his lights on behind me. I assumed it was for me, so I pulled over. He kept going. Ahead there was someone else that another officer had pulled over, and I assume called for assistance.

Quote
I can also think of a time when I noticed an unmarked cop car behind me at a red light somewhere down in the Hampton Roads area, probably on the old Route 168 as this occurred in May 1993 coming back from Nags Head. I saw him and was slow off the line; my friend Scott was driving the car in front of me and started to accelerate hard but backed off when he saw I was slow. Guy in the other lane did a jackrabbit start and sped off, at which point the cop went after him and pulled him over. Scott later said, “I had no idea that cop was there, but I said to myself if [1995hoo] is going slowly there must be a cop.”
Yeah, this is how I got my ticket back in November. I took off a bit overzealously from a red light not realizing there was a state trooper next to me. Wasn’t even unmarked. I deserved it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 25, 2019, 11:41:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 25, 2019, 01:46:25 AM

This was an interesting excerpt from Hopewell's Wikipedia page.
QuoteHopewell has come to the attention of AAA because some of its members have complained that Hopewell is a speed trap for its practice of citing drivers for speeding along a 1.7 mile stretch of Interstate 295, nicknamed the "Million Dollar Mile" by disgruntled drivers. AAA, claimed in a press release that Hopewell employs 11 sheriff's deputies working in 14-hour shifts to patrol less than two miles of the highway that lie within the city limits of Hopewell. However, this statistic has been denied by the sheriff of Hopewell, who was baffled as to where that information was generated as he said the deputies working on I-295 only work eight-hour shifts. This practice, which it has been claimed, annually generated $1.8 million in revenue from speeding tickets, of which 75% were issued to out of state drivers, triggered a court clash between the Commonwealth's Attorney and the city prosecutor, and elicited an official ruling from the Attorney General of Virginia. Sheriff Luther Sodat said that the almost two-mile stretch of highway "is a safety issue for Hopewell." Virginia's urban interstates have a fatality rate about one-third the Statewide rate for all roads combined.


AAA? Despite their mapping service being so kind as to mark areas of strict enforcement on Triptiks years ago, they've never been exactly known as an advocate for motorists and against speed enforcement. (I'll leave it to SP Cook to compare AAA vs. NMA here.) So if AAA is complaining about a speedtrap, must be something to it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 26, 2019, 07:40:30 AM
Quote from: hbelkinsthey've never been exactly known as an advocate for motorists and against speed enforcement

Clearly you're not familiar with AAA Mid-Atlantic.  Their spokesman has been quite vocal over the years about DC-area roads, enforcement, and cameras.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 26, 2019, 09:45:47 AM
I believe I read somewhere that AAA also paid for the billboards along US-301 in Florida warning of speedtrap towns ahead. (With that said, I recall AAA opposed the repeal of the NMSL in 1995.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 26, 2019, 02:46:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 25, 2019, 11:41:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 25, 2019, 01:46:25 AM
This was an interesting excerpt from Hopewell's Wikipedia page.
QuoteHopewell has come to the attention of AAA because some of its members have complained that Hopewell is a speed trap for its practice of citing drivers for speeding along a 1.7 mile stretch of Interstate 295, nicknamed the "Million Dollar Mile" by disgruntled drivers. AAA, claimed in a press release that Hopewell employs 11 sheriff's deputies working in 14-hour shifts to patrol less than two miles of the highway that lie within the city limits of Hopewell. However, this statistic has been denied by the sheriff of Hopewell, who was baffled as to where that information was generated as he said the deputies working on I-295 only work eight-hour shifts. This practice, which it has been claimed, annually generated $1.8 million in revenue from speeding tickets, of which 75% were issued to out of state drivers, triggered a court clash between the Commonwealth's Attorney and the city prosecutor, and elicited an official ruling from the Attorney General of Virginia. Sheriff Luther Sodat said that the almost two-mile stretch of highway "is a safety issue for Hopewell." Virginia's urban interstates have a fatality rate about one-third the Statewide rate for all roads combined.
AAA? Despite their mapping service being so kind as to mark areas of strict enforcement on Triptiks years ago, they've never been exactly known as an advocate for motorists and against speed enforcement. (I'll leave it to SP Cook to compare AAA vs. NMA here.) So if AAA is complaining about a speedtrap, must be something to it.

Another explanation, perhaps the NMA edited that Wikipedia page to create that excerpt.  :hmmm:

A few years ago someone here posted a link to a "speed trap" site thread about Hopewell, and I recognized the screen names of 3 posters there who also post on this site... about "speed traps".   :-(
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 26, 2019, 03:49:17 PM
^^^
The AAA reference was from the cited article (note that Wikipedia has a "references" section at the bottom of every page):

https://web.archive.org/web/20150704015007/http://www.hopewellnews.com/article_7357.shtml#.VYsC4vlVhBc#.VYsC4vlVhBc

Quote from: Hopewell News, 3 Mar 2015
In a recent press release, dated February 27, from AAA Mid-Atlantic, it is stated that "conferees"  working on the General Assembly's budget received over 17,000 emails from AAA members and activists "urging them to support an amendment that would reduce the financial incentive for these types of programs. AAA believes policing should be used for programs focused on public safety, and has long opposed the use of police for revenue-raising operations."  
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 27, 2019, 11:22:09 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 25, 2019, 11:13:31 AM
It sounds like the US 58 corridor is similar to the US 301 corridor further south.  Lawtley, Starke (which soon will have a freeway bypass of it), and once the City of Waldo.

Per the locals, the small towns don't have police departments anymore. We have been traveling that way to get to the Tampa area for the past four years and haven't seen much in the way of a police presence other than an occasional Florida state trooper. It is still advisable to slow down for the small towns though, mainly due to side streets and traffic lights. As to the Starke bypass, it has been (and still is) a great make-work project for the area. About the only major change has been to the completion dates on the project signs. Perhaps the backhoe, dump truck, and two guys with a wheelbarrow will finally get things done so it will open this fall.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on May 27, 2019, 01:23:27 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 27, 2019, 11:22:09 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 25, 2019, 11:13:31 AM
It sounds like the US 58 corridor is similar to the US 301 corridor further south.  Lawtley, Starke (which soon will have a freeway bypass of it), and once the City of Waldo.
Per the locals, the small towns don't have police departments anymore. We have been traveling that way to get to the Tampa area for the past four years and haven't seen much in the way of a police presence other than an occasional Florida state trooper. It is still advisable to slow down for the small towns though, mainly due to side streets and traffic lights. As to the Starke bypass, it has been (and still is) a great make-work project for the area. About the only major change has been to the completion dates on the project signs. Perhaps the backhoe, dump truck, and two guys with a wheelbarrow will finally get things done so it will open this fall.

They have an armored vehicle with a gun turret shield on top and a SWAT team to man it --

http://www.cityofstarke.org/police-department.php

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenetgrouponline.com%2FSITES%2FCity-Starke%2Fmedia%2Fimage%2F20140307_084438.jpg&hash=50060a56dfd246b1dca45c694f5def5c179ff42f)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 06:47:06 PM
I-64 widening phase 2 is complete, that is between one mile west of the eastern VA-199 interchange and one mile west of the VA-105 interchange, portions in Newport News and James City County.  Along with phase 1 this makes 12 miles of recently completed 6-lane widening. 

Very nice result with fully rehabbed pre-existing pavement and bridges.

Phase 3 is under construction with clearing and grubbing underway and heavy grading in some places.  This will extend the widening to one mile west of the western VA-199 interchange, 21 miles and about $700 million for all three projects.  Big improvement.

Here are a few photos I took today --
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcapital-beltway.com%2FI-64-Widening-Phase-2-1.JPG&hash=ca7aff3d9619780e3bf3aec2d55c466e6f2cdbf7)
.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcapital-beltway.com%2FI-64-Widening-Phase-2-3.JPG&hash=384bda2b3d7985537daba1e432cd3b00a9e9cccb)
.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcapital-beltway.com%2FI-64-Widening-Phase-2-2.JPG&hash=32ee1aa362a78e4bf66130966c0566d651277edb)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 04, 2019, 10:41:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 06:47:06 PM
I-64 widening phase 2 is complete, that is between one mile west of the eastern VA-199 interchange and one mile west of the VA-105 interchange, portions in Newport News and James City County.  Along with phase 1 this makes 12 miles of recently completed 6-lane widening. 

Very nice result with fully rehabbed pre-existing pavement and bridges.

Phase 3 is under construction with clearing and grubbing underway and heavy grading in some places.  This will extend the widening to one mile west of the western VA-199 interchange, 21 miles and about $700 million for all three projects.  Big improvement.

Here are a few photos I took today --
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcapital-beltway.com%2FI-64-Widening-Phase-2-1.JPG&hash=ca7aff3d9619780e3bf3aec2d55c466e6f2cdbf7)
.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcapital-beltway.com%2FI-64-Widening-Phase-2-3.JPG&hash=384bda2b3d7985537daba1e432cd3b00a9e9cccb)
.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcapital-beltway.com%2FI-64-Widening-Phase-2-2.JPG&hash=32ee1aa362a78e4bf66130966c0566d651277edb)

Yes this has been open for close to a month now (though they had a temporary lane closure 2 weeks ago EB, probably was something last minute). This 2nd phase has also helped the parallel 2-lane US 60 a lot too... though it still has its own issues, at least there's no more long distance traffic exiting at Busch Gardens. Huge improvement indeed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 04, 2019, 11:15:45 PM
Quote from: plain on June 04, 2019, 10:41:34 PM
Yes this has been open for close to a month now (though they had a temporary lane closure 2 weeks ago EB, probably was something last minute). This 2nd phase has also helped the parallel 2-lane US 60 a lot too... though it still has its own issues, at least there's no more long distance traffic exiting at Busch Gardens. Huge improvement indeed.
Actually, it's been open for about two months now. The third land in each direction opened on April 10th, though landscaping and additional final touches weren't completed until the end of May. The speed limit was raised back to 65 mph also once the third lane opened in early April. As of now though, the entire project is fully completed.

Definitely a well done project, and Phase 3 is well underway and should be completed by 2021. Hopefully they can get Phase 4 funded soon, which would extend the 6-laning another 8 miles west beyond Phase 3. The current cost estimate is approximately $300 million per HRTPO.

Phase 4 would be the last of HRTAC & HRTPO's work on I-64. Everything west of there is out of the Hampton Roads district. Hopefully Richmond's district also can acquire more funding to extend 6-lanes past the current project near I-295 as well. Overall, my hopes are that I-64 is completely 6-lanes between I-295 and Hampton Roads by 2030, and if funding keeps rolling in, this may indeed happen. It's long overdue, but better late than never.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 11:41:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 04, 2019, 11:15:45 PM
Definitely a well done project, and [I-64] Phase 3 is well underway and should be completed by 2021. Hopefully they can get Phase 4 funded soon, which would extend the 6-laning another 8 miles west beyond Phase 3. The current cost estimate is approximately $300 million per HRTPO.

Phase 3 goes further than I had thought.  I was thinking it would end near Waller Mill Park at VA-645 where the 1968-completed section met the final 1979-completed section; before the older section was overlaid with asphalt the difference was apparent because it had concrete pavement and that last built section was always asphalt.  But as I said it ends a mile west of VA-199 at MP 233, the construction is well underway.

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 04, 2019, 11:15:45 PM
Overall, my hopes are that I-64 is completely 6-lanes between I-295 and Hampton Roads by 2030, and if funding keeps rolling in, this may indeed happen.

With a good dose of funding it could be complete by 2025.

The segment between VA-249 Bottoms Bridge and VA-199 east of Williamsburg should be fully built out at 6 lanes, not needing 8 lanes anytime in the foreseeable future, based on traffic volumes.

Between I-295 and VA-249 Bottoms Bridge, and between VA-199 east of Williamsburg and VA-143 Jefferson Avenue, are "congestion relief" projects that were ultimately planned for 8 lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 06:42:23 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 11:41:40 PM
Phase 3 goes further than I had thought.  I was thinking it would end near Waller Mill Park at VA-645 where the 1968-completed section met the final 1979-completed section; before the older section was overlaid with asphalt the difference was apparent because it had concrete pavement and that last built section was always asphalt.  But as I said it ends a mile west of VA-199 at MP 233, the construction is well underway.
That's correct. A "Segment 4" project was one of the projects that is to be evaluated for the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan that would extend the current 6-lane widening from 1 mile west of VA-199 to the James City / New Kent County line, approximately 3 miles west of Exit 227 (VA-30) around MP 225-224. About 8-9 miles of widening. $300 million.

If that was completed, that would leave only a 19-mile gap between the current 6-lane widening between Exit 200 and 205, and this proposed "Segment 4" widening.

Richmond district submitted a project to SmartScale for FY-2020 (https://smartportal.virginiahb2.org/#/public/applications/2020/hb2/view/F15-0000004186-R01) to extend the current 6-lane widening (between Exit 200 and Exit 205) about 6 miles east to Exit 211 (VA-609) for approximately $100,107,000. The project would involve adding an additional lane in each direction to the inside. The project would not be started until 2028 and completed in 2031. And either way, it was not selected for funding, so that's out.

If that was completed, that would reduce that 19-mile gap down to 12-miles. But it's going to be a fight trying to fund this once outside of the Hampton Roads district. But that tax hike that's starting in 2020 that is to bring $28 million annually to the I-64 corridor could accelerate the entire 19-mile gap widening using bonds, and repaying those bonds with that $28 million annually (no tolling). I think that's the proposed solution for the I-81 corridor, to repay bonds for the $2 billion project with $151 million annually from the tax increase, as opposed to the tolling option that faced heavy opposition.

Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 11:41:40 PM
With a good dose of funding it could be complete by 2025.
Considering each project takes around 4-5 years to complete starting from preliminary engineering all the way to project completion, that entire 28-mile gap would need to be fully funded by next year in order to get be completed fully by 2025. Possible, but I just don't see it happening that quickly, given the cost (approx. $1 billion) unless they were to use bonds to fund the project as I proposed above, and repay it over many years.

Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 11:41:40 PM
Between I-295 and VA-249 Bottoms Bridge, and between VA-199 east of Williamsburg and VA-143 Jefferson Avenue, are "congestion relief" projects that were ultimately planned for 8 lanes.
Correct, and that is under HRTPO's radar. Projects being evaluated for the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan included a "I-64 Peninsula Widening to 8 lanes - Segment 1" for between Jefferson Ave to Exit 247 Yorktown Rd. That's just 5 miles short of the VA-199 goal you mentioned. The cost estimate on that 8-mile stretch of 6 to 8 lane widening is approximately $500 million.

I think the Segment 4 widening to 6-lanes out to the James City County / New Kent County Line for $300 million should be a higher priority before we dig into the 8-lane widening for $500 million. The recently completed 6-laning between Jefferson Ave and VA-199 has high traffic volumes, though can easily handle the volumes across 6-lanes for at least 10 more years. I've seen no issues going up that way, and it's certainly way less congested compared to when it was only 4-lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 07:26:53 AM
If anyone is interested, here's an interactive map I've created documenting all of the expansion projects happening on I-64, along with future projects. All of the project segments on the map include completion dates, cost estimates, and funding sources.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gsg8GvAOELfLuDyI8YPMMI11emhYT_98&usp=sharing
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 07:33:16 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 06:42:23 AM
Correct, and that is under HRTPO's radar. Projects being evaluated for the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan included a "I-64 Peninsula Widening to 8 lanes - Segment 1" for between Jefferson Ave to Exit 247 Yorktown Rd. That's just 5 miles short of the VA-199 goal you mentioned. The cost estimate on that 8-mile stretch of 6 to 8 lane widening is approximately $500 million.

Inflation factored out to what year?  That seems rather high, and I wonder what interchange improvements are included, such as rebuilding the ramp at Yorktown Road to exit from the right. 

They are constrained on the east side by parkland and military land, which is all but impossible to get right-of-way from.

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 06:42:23 AM
I think the Segment 4 widening to 6-lanes out to the James City County / New Kent County Line for $300 million should be a higher priority before we dig into the 8-lane widening for $500 million. The recently completed 6-laning between Jefferson Ave and VA-199 has high traffic volumes, though can easily handle the volumes across 6-lanes for at least 10 more years. I've seen no issues going up that way, and it's certainly way less congested compared to when it was only 4-lanes.

95,000 AADT in 2018 between VA-143 and VA-105, which is in 8-lane warrants.

That would be HOV (or HOT) widening between VA-143 and VA-199.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 07:45:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 07:33:16 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 06:42:23 AM
Correct, and that is under HRTPO's radar. Projects being evaluated for the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan included a "I-64 Peninsula Widening to 8 lanes - Segment 1" for between Jefferson Ave to Exit 247 Yorktown Rd. That's just 5 miles short of the VA-199 goal you mentioned. The cost estimate on that 8-mile stretch of 6 to 8 lane widening is approximately $500 million.

Inflation factored out to what year?  That seems rather high, and I wonder what interchange improvements are included, such as rebuilding the ramp at Yorktown Road to exit from the right. 

They are constrained on the east side by parkland and military land, which is all but impossible to get right-of-way from.
The left exit is the Williamsburg VA-143 exit farther north. The $500 million project only covers up to Yorktown Rd, and all those exits are to the right.

I don't know what year it's inflated too, though it's most likely not in 2019 dollars.

Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 07:33:16 AM
95,000 AADT in 2018 between VA-143 and VA-105, which is in 8-lane warrants.

That would be HOV (or HOT) widening between VA-143 and VA-199.
It warrants 8-lanes on paper, and I agree, but from personal experience living here and driving up I-64 frequently, the 4-lane segment between Williamsburg and Richmond is far more of a priority than 8-lanes down here. At least the newly completed 6-laning does not have recurring congestion unlike the 4-lane rural segments west of there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 08:04:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 07:45:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 07:33:16 AM
95,000 AADT in 2018 between VA-143 and VA-105, which is in 8-lane warrants.
That would be HOV (or HOT) widening between VA-143 and VA-199.
It warrants 8-lanes on paper, and I agree, but from personal experience living here and driving up I-64 frequently, the 4-lane segment between Williamsburg and Richmond is far more of a priority than 8-lanes down here.

I didn't suggest that it didn't.

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 07:45:15 AM
At least the newly completed 6-laning does not have recurring congestion unlike the 4-lane rural segments west of there.

It wouldn't only a few months after completion from when it was restricted to 4 lanes.  Given latent demand it won't take long.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 04:24:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 08:04:24 AM
It wouldn't only a few months after completion from when it was restricted to 4 lanes.  Given latent demand it won't take long.
Segment 1 between Jefferson Ave (VA-143) and 1 mile east of Yorktown Rd has been completed for almost 2 years now, and I've never seen congestion occur there since 6-lanes was completed back in late 2017. I've been up it on peak weekends, rush hour, etc. and nothing. It's packed, but it operates smoothly and traffic usually maintains 65 - 75 mph.

Now, I'm not suggesting it should never be widened to 8-lanes. I'm just saying it shouldn't be a priority until I-64 is fully 6-lanes between Richmond and Hampton Roads, hopefully by 2030. At that point, they can extend the HOV lane up that way to VA-199. North of there, it should operate smoothly as a 6-lane freeway for decades to come.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 04:30:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 04:24:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 08:04:24 AM
It wouldn't only a few months after completion from when it was restricted to 4 lanes.  Given latent demand it won't take long.
Segment 1 between Jefferson Ave (VA-143) and 1 mile east of Yorktown Rd has been completed for almost 2 years now, and I've never seen congestion occur there since 6-lanes was completed back in late 2017. I've been up it on peak weekends, rush hour, etc. and nothing. It's packed, but it operates smoothly and traffic usually maintains 65 - 75 mph.

A much shorter section than we have now with 13 miles completed including beyond the VA-199 bypass south interchange.  Need to look at it a year or two from today.

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 04:24:44 PM
Now, I'm not suggesting it should never be widened to 8-lanes. I'm just saying it shouldn't be a priority until I-64 is fully 6-lanes between Richmond and Hampton Roads, hopefully by 2030. At that point, they can extend the HOV lane up that way to VA-199. North of there, it should operate smoothly as a 6-lane freeway for decades to come.

And again I am not trying to argue that the 8-laning project has a higher priority than that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 04:32:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 06:47:06 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcapital-beltway.com%2FI-64-Widening-Phase-2-1.JPG&hash=ca7aff3d9619780e3bf3aec2d55c466e6f2cdbf7)
In this image, it appears you're heading eastbound. What do the reduce speed ahead signs indicate just beyond the Exit 242 signage? Isn't that just leaving a work zone, and the speed limit is actually increasing from 55 mph to 65 mph?

Or does it say "reduce speed 65 mph" in preparation for when that segment is 70 mph once again? Because before Segment 3 started, the speed limit did increase to 70 mph just beyond VA-199.

I've traveled that segment a few times since it was completed, and have never noticed that. The image is a bit blurry to see it though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 09:14:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 04:32:56 PM
In this image, it appears you're heading eastbound. What do the reduce speed ahead signs indicate just beyond the Exit 242 signage? Isn't that just leaving a work zone, and the speed limit is actually increasing from 55 mph to 65 mph?
Or does it say "reduce speed 65 mph" in preparation for when that segment is 70 mph once again? Because before Segment 3 started, the speed limit did increase to 70 mph just beyond VA-199.
I've traveled that segment a few times since it was completed, and have never noticed that. The image is a bit blurry to see it though.

Pretty sure they used that yellow diamond sign to diagrammatically indicate "65 ahead".  It is partially blocked by that panel truck.

In this case an increase in speed limit, after leaving the Phase 3 construction zone which is 55 mph, to the completed Phase 2 which is 65 mph. 

That yellow diamond sign will be temporary as it will not be needed after Phase 3 is completed, at least assuming the same permanent speed limit on both.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 09:20:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 09:14:46 PM
That yellow diamond sign will be temporary as it will not be needed after Phase 3 is completed, at least assuming the same permanent speed limit on both.
Prior to any of the widenings, the speed limit was 70 mph west of Exit 242, and 65 mph east of Exit 242. The 65 mph has been maintained with the completion of Phase 2, and I would assume once Phase 3 is completed, it will be defaulted back to 70 mph as it was originally posted.

So that signage would still be needed, as that's the location the speed previously dropped from 70 mph to 65 mph, and I assume would continue to once the widenings are completed.

Heading westbound, just beyond VA-199, before the widening began. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2648592,-76.6511273,3a,37.5y,341.92h,80.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTRZcKyruY1acd8iXtLwbRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 09:23:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 09:14:46 PM
Pretty sure they used that yellow diamond sign to diagrammatically indicate "65 ahead".  It is partially blocked by that panel truck.
I don't think I've ever seen one of those yellow diamond speed signs indicating an -increase- in speed. Usually it's a warning a lower speed is ahead. Likely will be permanent once the speed is raised back to 70 mph west of VA-199, as that's where it will decrease to 65 mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 09:27:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 09:20:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 09:14:46 PM
That yellow diamond sign will be temporary as it will not be needed after Phase 3 is completed, at least assuming the same permanent speed limit on both.
Prior to any of the widenings, the speed limit was 70 mph west of Exit 242, and 65 mph east of Exit 242. The 65 mph has been maintained with the completion of Phase 2, and I would assume once Phase 3 is completed, it will be defaulted back to 70 mph as it was originally posted.
So that signage would still be needed, as that's the location the speed previously dropped from 70 mph to 65 mph, and I assume would continue to once the widenings are completed.

In that case the sign is in the right place to be the permanent sign, indicating a drop from 70 to 65.

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 09:23:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 09:14:46 PM
Pretty sure they used that yellow diamond sign to diagrammatically indicate "65 ahead".  It is partially blocked by that panel truck.
I don't think I've ever seen one of those yellow diamond speed signs indicating an -increase- in speed. Usually it's a warning a lower speed is ahead. Likely will be permanent once the speed is raised back to 70 mph west of VA-199, as that's where it will decrease to 65 mph.

I haven't either but it will serve a good purpose during construction as well as after construction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 09:31:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 05, 2019, 09:27:27 PM
In that case the sign is in the right place to be the permanent sign, indicating a drop from 70 to 65.
That's correct.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 05, 2019, 09:59:37 PM
Just noticed this on another forum (they were actually taking a picture of the apartment building under construction). Looks like that VA 147 cutout on Cary St is still hanging on for dear life, for now..

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190606/3410572fc5c35606508934e369533593.jpg)

SM-S820L

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 07, 2019, 08:54:20 AM
Quote from: plain on June 05, 2019, 09:59:37 PM
Just noticed this on another forum (they were actually taking a picture of the apartment building under construction). Looks like that VA 147 cutout on Cary St is still hanging on for dear life, for now..

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190606/3410572fc5c35606508934e369533593.jpg)

SM-S820L



That's the very last eastbound VA 147 cutout in existence, so hopefully it hangs on. The city's been actively removing and (for the most part) replacing cutouts during the past couple of years so I've been worried about that one.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on June 07, 2019, 10:42:38 AM
I think the only other cutouts left in the city at all are the set on VA 147 westbound at VA 161.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2019, 02:52:32 PM
In my April 2019 trip to NYC, I had to stop and get gas in Doswell. Gas is more expensive than most of the state due to the close proximity of Kings Dominion.

But what I didn't find out about until I examined it on Google Maps today, was that there is a stub of the proposed eastbound lane west of I-95, and a widened bridge over the CSX RF&P Subdivision for the proposed westbound lanes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8446977,-77.4558819,177m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8446977,-77.4558819,177m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)

Seems pretty obvious how traffic was supposed to move had this been built.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 12, 2019, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2019, 02:52:32 PM
In my April 2019 trip to NYC, I had to stop and get gas in Doswell. Gas is more expensive than most of the state due to the close proximity of Kings Dominion.

But what I didn't find out about until I examined it on Google Maps today, was that there is a stub of the proposed eastbound lane west of I-95, and a widened bridge over the CSX RF&P Subdivision for the proposed westbound lanes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8446977,-77.4558819,177m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8446977,-77.4558819,177m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)

Seems pretty obvious how traffic was supposed to move had this been built.

Yeah that was designed that way in case growth occurred in that area (which it still hasn't and probably won't for a long time). Actually there is more growth at the next exit to the north (Exit 104). A rather nice sized subdivision exists at that exit to the east. Ironically, Exit 104 is also the location of some of the cheapest gas in VA... all you had to do is travel 6 more miles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 12, 2019, 09:19:06 PM
Quote from: plain on June 12, 2019, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2019, 02:52:32 PM
In my April 2019 trip to NYC, I had to stop and get gas in Doswell. Gas is more expensive than most of the state due to the close proximity of Kings Dominion.

But what I didn't find out about until I examined it on Google Maps today, was that there is a stub of the proposed eastbound lane west of I-95, and a widened bridge over the CSX RF&P Subdivision for the proposed westbound lanes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8446977,-77.4558819,177m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8446977,-77.4558819,177m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)

Seems pretty obvious how traffic was supposed to move had this been built.

Yeah that was designed that way in case growth occurred in that area (which it still hasn't and probably won't for a long time). Actually there is more growth at the next exit to the north (Exit 104). A rather nice sized subdivision exists at that exit to the east. Ironically, Exit 104 is also the location of some of the cheapest gas in VA... all you had to do is travel 6 more miles.
Exit 3 (US-460) off of I-295 south of Petersburg is also a good place to get cheap gas. A nice detour as well heading back to Hampton Roads especially during peak hours when I-64 and I-664 are a mess. Too bad they didn't build that toll road - I'd be on it every trip north no questions asked. Might even have taken it to link with I-85 South over US-58. Only 19 additional miles, and if you consider 70 mph (didn't they talk about 75 mph at one point?) interstate speeds all the way, I'd prefer that over US-58. And avoids that little Emporia thing. But it's moot today because only a 35 - 55 mph non-divided highway exists thanks to corruption in Richmond.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on June 14, 2019, 01:52:34 PM
US-29 in Danville is finally back to normal.

(Behind paywall)

https://www.godanriver.com/news/local/repair-work-on-danville-expressway-complete/article_d876330d-9bbf-54e6-a01d-332880720087.html (https://www.godanriver.com/news/local/repair-work-on-danville-expressway-complete/article_d876330d-9bbf-54e6-a01d-332880720087.html)

QuoteAfter a six-month emergency repair to a part of the Danville Expressway, the busy roadway is back to normal.

The Virginia Department of Transportation has opened all lanes of U.S. 29 near Barkers Branch and lifted all travel restrictions, according to the city.

An 84-inch underground pipe failed late last year causing VDOT to shut down the northbound lanes. A detour was in place at first, then crews rerouted northbound traffic to a southbound traffic lane.

In May, the northbound lanes reopened, but southbound traffic was still restricted to one lane to allow for repairs to the southbound bridge, the city reported.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ftballfan on June 15, 2019, 03:40:10 PM
I'm in Winchester for the weekend and I've seen a few cutout shields:(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1757722,-78.1656387,3a,75y,239.33h,78.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.42956%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1757722,-78.1656387,3a,75y,239.33h,78.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.42956%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en))
(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1829064,-78.1535521,3a,15.4y,28.63h,90.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DyRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.24339%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1829064,-78.1535521,3a,15.4y,28.63h,90.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DyRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.24339%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en))
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 15, 2019, 03:46:26 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 15, 2019, 03:40:10 PM
I'm in Winchester for the weekend and I've seen a few cutout shields:(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1757722,-78.1656387,3a,75y,239.33h,78.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.42956%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1757722,-78.1656387,3a,75y,239.33h,78.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.42956%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en))
(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1829064,-78.1535521,3a,15.4y,28.63h,90.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DyRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.24339%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1829064,-78.1535521,3a,15.4y,28.63h,90.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DyRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.24339%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en))

There's a full set on the trifecta of US routes just before you get to I-81, but I didn't know about those on the side streets.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ftballfan on June 16, 2019, 10:53:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 15, 2019, 03:46:26 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 15, 2019, 03:40:10 PM
I'm in Winchester for the weekend and I've seen a few cutout shields:(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1757722,-78.1656387,3a,75y,239.33h,78.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.42956%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1757722,-78.1656387,3a,75y,239.33h,78.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.42956%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en))
(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1829064,-78.1535521,3a,15.4y,28.63h,90.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DyRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.24339%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1829064,-78.1535521,3a,15.4y,28.63h,90.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DyRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.24339%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en))

There's a full set on the trifecta of US routes just before you get to I-81, but I didn't know about those on the side streets.
Speaking of the Winchester area, it appears that US-522 between the WV line and SR-37 was upgraded to divided highway on the cheap as I was able to tell that one side (usually the southbound side) has much steeper climbs and drops as well as more driveways
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 16, 2019, 11:03:37 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 16, 2019, 10:53:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 15, 2019, 03:46:26 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 15, 2019, 03:40:10 PM
I'm in Winchester for the weekend and I've seen a few cutout shields:(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1757722,-78.1656387,3a,75y,239.33h,78.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.42956%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1757722,-78.1656387,3a,75y,239.33h,78.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.42956%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en))
(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1829064,-78.1535521,3a,15.4y,28.63h,90.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DyRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.24339%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1829064,-78.1535521,3a,15.4y,28.63h,90.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DyRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.24339%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en))

There's a full set on the trifecta of US routes just before you get to I-81, but I didn't know about those on the side streets.
Speaking of the Winchester area, it appears that US-522 between the WV line and SR-37 was upgraded to divided highway on the cheap as I was able to tell that one side (usually the southbound side) has much steeper climbs and drops as well as more driveways
That's how thousands of miles of Virginia's arterial highway system (system of 4-lane divided highways across the state) were upgraded through the 60s, 70s, and 80s. The original road was left in place, and a new parallel roadway built next to it. Newer upgrades after that have seemed to reconstruct both lanes though - like a lot of US-58 across Southern Virginia for example. Those new stretches have 12 foot lanes, gentle grades, and a lot of time some sort of paved shoulder (5-10 ft) and good sight visibility. And quite frankly, the highways IMO that could easily handle 65 mph - but that's another topic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ftballfan on June 16, 2019, 11:14:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 16, 2019, 11:03:37 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 16, 2019, 10:53:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 15, 2019, 03:46:26 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 15, 2019, 03:40:10 PM
I'm in Winchester for the weekend and I've seen a few cutout shields:(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1757722,-78.1656387,3a,75y,239.33h,78.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.42956%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1757722,-78.1656387,3a,75y,239.33h,78.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.42956%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en))
(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1829064,-78.1535521,3a,15.4y,28.63h,90.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DyRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.24339%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1829064,-78.1535521,3a,15.4y,28.63h,90.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DyRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.24339%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en))

There's a full set on the trifecta of US routes just before you get to I-81, but I didn't know about those on the side streets.
Speaking of the Winchester area, it appears that US-522 between the WV line and SR-37 was upgraded to divided highway on the cheap as I was able to tell that one side (usually the southbound side) has much steeper climbs and drops as well as more driveways
That's how thousands of miles of Virginia's arterial highway system (system of 4-lane divided highways across the state) were upgraded through the 60s, 70s, and 80s. The original road was left in place, and a new parallel roadway built next to it. Newer upgrades after that have seemed to reconstruct both lanes though - like a lot of US-58 across Southern Virginia for example. Those new stretches have 12 foot lanes, gentle grades, and a lot of time some sort of paved shoulder (5-10 ft) and good sight visibility. And quite frankly, the highways IMO that could easily handle 65 mph - but that's another topic.
It's a good thing US-522 in the Winchester area isn't higher than 55. If the speed limit were 65, cars would probably try to run 70-75 on the substandard southbound roadway. I also noticed the group of crosses on SB 522 just south of the bell tower (and the start of the divided highway). There also may or may not have been an airtime hill near the group of crosses
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 17, 2019, 06:07:59 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 16, 2019, 11:14:08 PM
It's a good thing US-522 in the Winchester area isn't higher than 55. If the speed limit were 65, cars would probably try to run 70-75 on the substandard southbound roadway. I also noticed the group of crosses on SB 522 just south of the bell tower (and the start of the divided highway). There also may or may not have been an airtime hill near the group of crosses
Could be 60 mph. A lot of other highways in Virginia of similar design hold 60 mph speed limits. Here's one example on US-58 between Martinsville and Danville. (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.650578,-79.6904683,3a,75y,294.54h,86.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMSBfMNQZutRd-13DIalpbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) Very hilly, 10 foot lanes, narrow shoulders, blind crossings, etc.

But I agree on highways like that, no higher than 60 mph. Just too dangerous.

Newer completed stretches of highway, like this section of US-58 between Franklin and Emporia (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7059928,-77.2047005,3a,75y,257.12h,82.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svacO9DfokBIkGCUddXcTvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) could easily be 65 mph. Gentle curves, flat, 12 foot lanes, paved shoulders, good sight distance, etc.

Then there's stretches of highway like US-17 in Chesapeake (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6489634,-76.3560767,3a,75y,216.47h,80.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMwnWMsOROJ-x2jc96UhzLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1), that have a cross-section of a rural interstate, limited-access right of way, though due to a few at-grade intersections, is posted at 55 mph. It has not been raised to Virginia's maximum allowable 60 mph on non-freeways due to it being located in the City of Chesapeake, and the maximum speed limit permitted on city-maintained roadways is 55 mph. Funny though, as you cross into North Carolina, you're greeted by "Speed Limit 60" signs. Just about everybody already runs 65-70 mph anyways either way, and quite frankly could easily handle 65 mph if Virginia law permitted that, ditto to NC's portion. In North Carolina, it's limited-access throughout as well. As soon as you get on the Elizabeth City bypass, the cross-section is the same, but because grade separations exist instead of intersections, the speed limit jumps to as high as 70 mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on June 17, 2019, 09:34:33 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 16, 2019, 11:14:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 16, 2019, 11:03:37 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 16, 2019, 10:53:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 15, 2019, 03:46:26 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 15, 2019, 03:40:10 PM
I'm in Winchester for the weekend and I've seen a few cutout shields:(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1757722,-78.1656387,3a,75y,239.33h,78.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.42956%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1757722,-78.1656387,3a,75y,239.33h,78.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_bCcqxQhhJpONtFmzAwEUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.42956%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en))
(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1829064,-78.1535521,3a,15.4y,28.63h,90.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DyRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.24339%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1829064,-78.1535521,3a,15.4y,28.63h,90.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DyRIJOKsSqytBl6gVZ7N0Eg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D84.24339%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en))

There's a full set on the trifecta of US routes just before you get to I-81, but I didn't know about those on the side streets.
Speaking of the Winchester area, it appears that US-522 between the WV line and SR-37 was upgraded to divided highway on the cheap as I was able to tell that one side (usually the southbound side) has much steeper climbs and drops as well as more driveways
That's how thousands of miles of Virginia's arterial highway system (system of 4-lane divided highways across the state) were upgraded through the 60s, 70s, and 80s. The original road was left in place, and a new parallel roadway built next to it. Newer upgrades after that have seemed to reconstruct both lanes though - like a lot of US-58 across Southern Virginia for example. Those new stretches have 12 foot lanes, gentle grades, and a lot of time some sort of paved shoulder (5-10 ft) and good sight visibility. And quite frankly, the highways IMO that could easily handle 65 mph - but that's another topic.
It's a good thing US-522 in the Winchester area isn't higher than 55. If the speed limit were 65, cars would probably try to run 70-75 on the substandard southbound roadway. I also noticed the group of crosses on SB 522 just south of the bell tower (and the start of the divided highway). There also may or may not have been an airtime hill near the group of crosses

I loved driving on that roadway, but can definitely see trouble with some of those hills if one were going too fast.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 17, 2019, 09:42:26 PM
Let's compromise - Speed Limit 57.5 mph :bigass:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 19, 2019, 11:01:40 PM
CTB APPROVES FY 2020-2025 SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, ADOPTS SAFETY PERFORMANCE TARGETS, AND INVESTS IN RAIL INDUSTRIAL ACCESS PROJECT
https://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/ctb-approves-fy-2020-2025-six-year-improvement-program-adopts-safety-performance-targets-and-invests-in-rail-industrial-access6-19-2019.asp

Excerpts:

At its June meeting, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 budgets for the Commonwealth Transportation Fund, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), as well as the FY 2020-2025 Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP), which allocated a record $22.9 billion to highway, rail, and public transportation projects over the next six fiscal years beginning July 1, 2019.

. . . . . . . . . .

VDOT's annual budget for FY 2020 is $6.4 billion, representing a 17% increase from the FY 2019 budget.  The increase is primarily driven by the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission's contribution to the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Expansion Project.
The annual budget is based on the most recent official state revenue forecast from December 2018 and estimated federal funding.
The breakdown:
$402.4 million — Debt service
$2.2 billion — Road maintenance and operations (includes city and county street payments)
$589.3 million — Support to other agencies, tolls, administration and other programs
$2.7 billion — Construction
$485.1 million — Funding dedicated to Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads regions for local and regional transportation projects
$6.4 billion — Total VDOT annual budget

. . . . . . . . . .

A $12.6 million contract was awarded to A&J Development and Excavation Inc. of Mt. Crawford, to replace a bridge built in 1965 which carries Route 11 over Interstate 81 in Rockingham County, part of VDOT's Staunton District.  The new bridge will be constructed about 60 feet south of the existing structure.  Additional work will include installing signals at the intersection with the I-81 north exit and entrance ramps to improve traffic flow.  Completion is expected in spring 2021.

A $9.1 million contract was awarded to Corman Kokosing Construction Company of Annapolis Junction, Md., to rehabilitate a bridge carrying Interstate 195 south over Route 76 (Powhite Parkway) in the City of Richmond.  Construction on this Richmond District project will be completed in stages to consistently allow two lanes of moving traffic to minimize disruption to motorists.  Completion is expected in late winter 2021.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 20, 2019, 01:33:55 AM
Another thing about VA 161. I found this in the history section of the Wikipedia article;

Quote"The route began at U.S. Routes 1 and 301 at Terminal Avenue, a location known as "Stop 9" on the Richmond-Petersburg Interurban Electric Railway. A large neon sign and arrow at the intersection of Terminal Avenue and Jefferson Davis Highway on the southwest corner urged northbound motorists to consider the bypass. The sign survived into the 1970s. {{Citation needed|date=February 2007}}"


That citation tag may have been there since 2007, but I want to see some info on the "Stop 9" sign now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 26, 2019, 09:49:13 PM
Nice improvement, I have driven thru the ramps several times.

(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/fredericksburg.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/5c/45cd3636-c749-5f50-abfa-49705e5c6132/5d13bbc7c071c.image.jpg?resize=750%2C422)

VDOT finishes upgrade of Thornburg interchange on Interstate 95
THE FREE LANCE—STAR  6-26-2019

The Interstate 95 Thornburg exit upgrades include a new overpass, turn lanes at ramps and sidewalks.

The revamped Interstate 95 interchange in Thornburg is fully open for traffic, more than two months ahead of schedule, the Virginia Department of Transportation announced Wednesday morning.

Work on the $22.4 million project, which includes a redesigned and widened overpass, started in September 2017.

"By replacing a bridge that was original to the interstate system, we have removed a piece of infrastructure
that was structurally deficient and replaced it with an overpass that reflects the region's needs and will serve future generations,"  VDOT Fredericksburg District Administrator said Marcie Parker said in a news release.

The overpass was expanded from two to four lanes and turn lanes were added at the I—95 ramps. Sidewalks also were added to the bridge and a portion of Mudd Tavern Road.

The interchange also has a new layout, "an off-set diamond design ... selected to minimize the right-of-way required for the road and ramp improvements,"  local VDOT spokeswoman Kelly Hannon said in the release.


https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/vdot-finishes-upgrade-of-thornburg-interchange-on-interstate/article_c17dc803-0408-5870-aedb-6365e92a07d3.html

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/Exit_118_Design_Overview.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on June 26, 2019, 10:43:36 PM
Is the use of Fredericksburg as a control city relatively new?  I noticed most places between DC and Richmond just use those two, but a few spots do use Fredericksburg, like at 123.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 26, 2019, 11:21:43 PM
Quote from: famartin on June 26, 2019, 10:43:36 PM
Is the use of Fredericksburg as a control city relatively new?  I noticed most places between DC and Richmond just use those two, but a few spots do use Fredericksburg, like at 123.

I hadn't really noticed that, but one thing that I have noticed is the new name for US-1 Exit 126, formerly Massaponax and now Spotsylvania.  Not sure exactly when it was changed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 27, 2019, 06:28:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 26, 2019, 11:21:43 PM
Quote from: famartin on June 26, 2019, 10:43:36 PM
Is the use of Fredericksburg as a control city relatively new?  I noticed most places between DC and Richmond just use those two, but a few spots do use Fredericksburg, like at 123.

I hadn't really noticed that, but one thing that I have noticed is the new name for US-1 Exit 126, formerly Massaponax and now Spotsylvania.  Not sure exactly when it was changed.

The change to Spotsylvania was in the neighborhood of 15 years ago.

Fredericksburg has been a control city on parts of I-95 north of Fredericksburg at least 24 years.  For sure at the Quantico MCB exit, the Triangle exit and the Stafford CH exit
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 27, 2019, 06:56:58 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2019, 06:28:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 26, 2019, 11:21:43 PM
I have noticed is the new name for US-1 Exit 126, formerly Massaponax and now Spotsylvania.  Not sure exactly when it was changed.
The change to Spotsylvania was in the neighborhood of 15 years ago.

So about the time that the segment of the Spotsylvania Parkway was opened between US-1 and VA-208, providing a fairly direct connection between the interchange and Spotsylvania C.H.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 27, 2019, 07:48:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 27, 2019, 06:56:58 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2019, 06:28:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 26, 2019, 11:21:43 PM
I have noticed is the new name for US-1 Exit 126, formerly Massaponax and now Spotsylvania.  Not sure exactly when it was changed.
The change to Spotsylvania was in the neighborhood of 15 years ago.

So about the time that the segment of the Spotsylvania Parkway was opened between US-1 and VA-208, providing a fairly direct connection between the interchange and Spotsylvania C.H.



Not Spotsylvania Pkwy, but rather SR 711 Southpoint Parkway much closer to I-95, which is signed from US 1 to get to Spotsylvania - https://goo.gl/maps/EXyDHd1Fy6UjSkPW8.  This opened in 2004.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 27, 2019, 09:56:48 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2019, 07:48:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 27, 2019, 06:56:58 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2019, 06:28:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 26, 2019, 11:21:43 PM
I have noticed is the new name for US-1 Exit 126, formerly Massaponax and now Spotsylvania.  Not sure exactly when it was changed.
The change to Spotsylvania was in the neighborhood of 15 years ago.

So about the time that the segment of the Spotsylvania Parkway was opened between US-1 and VA-208, providing a fairly direct connection between the interchange and Spotsylvania C.H.



Not Spotsylvania Pkwy, but rather SR 711 Southpoint Parkway much closer to I-95, which is signed from US 1 to get to Spotsylvania - https://goo.gl/maps/EXyDHd1Fy6UjSkPW8.  This opened in 2004.
Both roads opened around the same time, and both provide a direct connection. It was probably because two modern connections were now open, and could be signed off of I-95.

A connection existed before, and still shows as being "1 minute faster"  on Google, but it was narrow 2-lane roads that was probably inadequate to be signed by I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 27, 2019, 10:08:02 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 27, 2019, 09:56:48 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2019, 07:48:06 AM
Not Spotsylvania Pkwy, but rather SR 711 Southpoint Parkway much closer to I-95, which is signed from US 1 to get to Spotsylvania - https://goo.gl/maps/EXyDHd1Fy6UjSkPW8.  This opened in 2004.
Both roads opened around the same time, and both provide a direct connection. It was probably because two modern connections were now open, and could be signed off of I-95.
A connection existed before, and still shows as being "1 minute faster"  on Google, but it was narrow 2-lane roads that was probably inadequate to be signed by I-95.

Yes the point being that the interchange connected poorly with Spotsylvania C.H. before then, and now connects well enough to use Spotsylvania as the exit name / control city (town).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 27, 2019, 09:32:18 PM
I have been seeing this bridge under construction on I-64.
A new connector highway about halfway between VA-105 and Denbigh Boulevard.

Atkinson Boulevard: Warwick Boulevard to Jefferson Avenue
https://apps.nnva.gov/ps/Project.aspx

Project Description
Atkinson Blvd four lane divided roadway with bridge over CSX and I-64, City administered project.  New roadway between Warwick Boulevard and Jefferson Avenue, north of Denbigh Boulevard and south of Fort Eustis Boulevard.

Awarded:  25-Sep-2017
Completion:  30-Nov-2020
Contract Amount: $51,992,198.41
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 27, 2019, 10:23:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 27, 2019, 09:32:18 PM
I have been seeing this bridge under construction on I-64.
A new connector highway about halfway between VA-105 and Denbigh Boulevard.

Atkinson Boulevard: Warwick Boulevard to Jefferson Avenue
https://apps.nnva.gov/ps/Project.aspx

Project Description
Atkinson Blvd four lane divided roadway with bridge over CSX and I-64, City administered project.  New roadway between Warwick Boulevard and Jefferson Avenue, north of Denbigh Boulevard and south of Fort Eustis Boulevard.

Awarded:  25-Sep-2017
Completion:  30-Nov-2020
Contract Amount: $51,992,198.41
Correct. They had been talking about that road for years, and I was glad to finally see it getting underway last year. It's a needed connection that should alleviate congestion on other routes such as Warwick and Jefferson, and also will cut down on people's commutes between the two roads.

The project is a city project, though is being coordinated with VDOT as it's constructing a new bridge over the interstate.

Part of the roadway already existed as a 2-lane local street on the Warwick side for Mary Passage Middle School and the Newport News Compost & Drop Off, though the existing stretch is being expanded to 4-lanes, then 1 mile of new roadway is being constructed over to Jefferson, including a 4-lane 2,000 ft bridge over CSX, wetlands in between, and I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 27, 2019, 10:30:35 PM
The project to replace the Denbigh Boulevard bridge over I-64 is also now under construction.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/denbighblvdbridge.asp

This project will replace the structurally-deficient Denbigh Boulevard Bridge over Interstate 64 and CSX Railway between Warwick Boulevard and Jefferson Avenue in Newport News with a new bridge that meets current geometric and design standards.

The project includes demolition of the existing bridge, and construction a new bridge with four 12-foot lanes, a 16-foot raised median and two 8.5-foot sidewalks, as well as new roadway approaches and stormwater management facilities.

The demolition and construction will be done in two stages to maintain one lane of traffic in each direction on Denbigh Boulevard throughout construction.  In the first stage, traffic will be shifted to one lane in each direction on the existing bridge, while demolition work and construction of the new bridge, roadway, retaining wall and stormwater pond are underway.  In the second stage, traffic will be shifted to the newly constructed portion of the bridge, allowing crews to complete the remaining demolition and construction work.

The $23 million construction contract was awarded to Corman Kokosing Construction Company of Annapolis Junction, MD on January 16, 2019.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 27, 2019, 10:36:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 27, 2019, 10:30:35 PM
The project to replace the Denbigh Boulevard bridge over I-64 is also now under construction.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/denbighblvdbridge.asp

This project will replace the structurally-deficient Denbigh Boulevard Bridge over Interstate 64 and CSX Railway between Warwick Boulevard and Jefferson Avenue in Newport News with a new bridge that meets current geometric and design standards.

The project includes demolition of the existing bridge, and construction a new bridge with four 12-foot lanes, a 16-foot raised median and two 8.5-foot sidewalks, as well as new roadway approaches and stormwater management facilities.

The $23 million construction contract was awarded to Corman Kokosing Construction Company of Annapolis Junction, MD on January 16, 2019.

I would hope that bridge, and the Atkinson Blvd bridge are being designed to accommodate an ultimate 8-lane roadway on I-64. The Atkinson Blvd area on I-64 has room for ultimate 8-lane, and hopefully the bridge piers are in the center of the median, not two sets directly in front of the left shoulders, because if they choose that design, there would be no room to widen into the median compared to if they center the piers.

The current Denbigh Blvd bridge area on I-64 does not have any room to build 8-lanes through there, so hopefully the replacement will give room to the outside for widening in the future.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 27, 2019, 11:04:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 27, 2019, 10:36:51 PM
I would hope that bridge, and the Atkinson Blvd bridge are being designed to accommodate an ultimate 8-lane roadway on I-64. The Atkinson Blvd area on I-64 has room for ultimate 8-lane, and hopefully the bridge piers are in the center of the median, not two sets directly in front of the left shoulders, because if they choose that design, there would be no room to widen into the median compared to if they center the piers.
The current Denbigh Blvd bridge area on I-64 does not have any room to build 8-lanes through there, so hopefully the replacement will give room to the outside for widening in the future.

Yes, the project map shows the bridge and the piers are far enough apart that there will be space for 8 lanes.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Denbigh_Boulevard/Denbigh_Boulevard_Bridge_Replacement_Project_Brochure.pdf

I drove down the service road and looked under the bridge, and tried to figure why not make the bridge shorter, eliminate the western three spans that don't cross any road or railroad or water.  Maybe because open embankments would be too close to the service roads and houses, and a fill with retaining walls might cost the same or more than a bridge.  I would have to ask the project engineers.

Railroads usually require more vertical clearance than for a highway.  Modern railroad clearances might raise the bridge higher than the one built in the 1960s, and that may be why the bridge is that long, the top of the vertical curve on the bridge may be west of the railroad, so it takes some distance to bring the highway back to ground level.

Addition from project brochure:
The proposed bridge will be built at an elevation that will accommodate the required vertical clearances over the CSX railroad and the future widening of I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 27, 2019, 11:16:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 27, 2019, 11:04:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 27, 2019, 10:36:51 PM
I would hope that bridge, and the Atkinson Blvd bridge are being designed to accommodate an ultimate 8-lane roadway on I-64. The Atkinson Blvd area on I-64 has room for ultimate 8-lane, and hopefully the bridge piers are in the center of the median, not two sets directly in front of the left shoulders, because if they choose that design, there would be no room to widen into the median compared to if they center the piers.
The current Denbigh Blvd bridge area on I-64 does not have any room to build 8-lanes through there, so hopefully the replacement will give room to the outside for widening in the future.

Yes, the project map shows the bridge and the piers are far enough apart that there will be space for 8 lanes.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Denbigh_Boulevard/Denbigh_Boulevard_Bridge_Replacement_Project_Brochure.pdf

I drove down the service road and looked under the bridge, and tried to figure why not make the bridge shorter, eliminate the western three spans that don't cross any road or railroad or water.  Maybe because open embankments would be too close to the service roads and houses, and a fill with retaining walls might cost the same or more than a bridge.  I would have to ask the project engineers.

Railroads usually require more vertical clearance than for a highway.  Modern railroad clearances might raise the bridge higher than the one built in the 1960s, and that may be why the bridge is that long, the top of the vertical curve on the bridge may be west of the railroad, so it takes some distance to bring the highway back to ground level.
My guess would be poor soil. Similar issues existed when they expanded 2-lane Dominion Blvd into a freeway. That's the reason that there's very little sloping but rather mostly retaining wall. That area had poor soils for traditional construction with required more advanced and complicated designs to make it work.

They probably determined constructing a bridge structure over the area then trying to either fill it with retaining wall or creating a regular slope would be easier and more cost efficient. Plus the original bridge follows the same design, so they probably just wanted to stick with the existing design than to re-evaluate the area environmentally for changes in design.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 27, 2019, 11:22:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 27, 2019, 11:16:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 27, 2019, 11:04:30 PM
Railroads usually require more vertical clearance than for a highway.  Modern railroad clearances might raise the bridge higher than the one built in the 1960s, and that may be why the bridge is that long, the top of the vertical curve on the bridge may be west of the railroad, so it takes some distance to bring the highway back to ground level.
My guess would be poor soil. Similar issues existed when they expanded 2-lane Dominion Blvd into a freeway. That's the reason that there's very little sloping but rather mostly retaining wall. That area had poor soils for traditional construction with required more advanced and complicated designs to make it work.
They probably determined constructing a bridge structure over the area then trying to either fill it with retaining wall or creating a regular slope would be easier and more cost efficient. Plus the original bridge follows the same design, so they probably just wanted to stick with the existing design than to re-evaluate the area environmentally for changes in design.

Dominion Blvd. is down near the water table and much of it is 10 feet or less above sea level.  Lots of organics in the soil there and that makes it inadequate for supporting a highway.  Need to either undercut 5 feet depth or more and replace with good soil (with higher bearing ratios) or build a bridge over it.

That soil under the Denbigh Blvd. bridge looks good and is doesn't look wet, but looks from the surface doesn't resolve what is underneath.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 27, 2019, 11:33:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 27, 2019, 11:22:40 PM
Dominion Blvd. is down near the water table and much of it is 10 feet or less above sea level.  Lots of organics in the soil there and that makes it inadequate for supporting a highway.  Need to either undercut 5 feet depth or more and replace with good soil (with higher bearing ratios) or build a bridge over it.
That's the reason they used retaining wall mainly, and also probably is the reason the southbound Veterans Bridge is longer than the northbound one. It's a flat grade for some distance before it actually rises, so it's likely just traversing over poor soil that was not able to be filled on the southbound lanes, though was able to for the northbound ones.

Nonetheless, they got past the obstacle of poor soils and they did a good job building a great highway and bridge, a huge improvement over the previous 2-lane road. What surprises me more is that they did not shrink the footprint similar to how they did on the Expressway, it maintains a 46 foot median and full cross section through the entire area, and one can easily maintain 60 mph. The roadways shift here and there, and that's a result of trying to maintain the old roads footprint, but the shifts are gradual enough that high-speed can be maintained.

Yet they shifted the footprint south of Scenic Pkwy from the original planned 46 feet to 35 feet, though that was to stay in existing right of way rather than to purchase more. Quite frankly, I would have preferred they bought the additional right of way to maintain the wide median, but from a cost standpoint and the fact the city was doing this on a tight budget, I understand why they didn't. The money used on that stretch was originally programmed to widen a narrow non-limited-access 2-lane urban arterial that carries 20,000 AADT, Mt Pleasant Rd, to 4-lanes, but was shifted to instead widen a rural limited-access 2-lane road with 10,000 AADT to 4-lanes. I'm supportive of both projects, but priority wise, the money should have stayed with Mt. Pleasant Rd, and this project later. Today Mt Pleasant Rd continues to be a daily bottleneck and is getting a small bandaid by the city by being expanded to 3-lanes with a center turn lane beginning next year. And now the costs for an overall 4-lane have doubled from $20 million to $50 million, and remains unfunded. And that was only Phase 1 for 1 mile. Phase 2 would go another 2.5 miles to Centerville Tpke, and those costs are over $50 million too. If only they stuck with Plan A...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 28, 2019, 12:19:02 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 27, 2019, 11:33:28 PM
That's the reason they used retaining wall mainly, and also probably is the reason the southbound Veterans Bridge is longer than the northbound one. It's a flat grade for some distance before it actually rises, so it's likely just traversing over poor soil that was not able to be filled on the southbound lanes, though was able to for the northbound ones.

About 720 feet shorter, and I had figured that was because they utilized the causeway for the original 2-lane highway.  The rest is bridged because the roadway quickly rises much higher than the original highway.  The parallel bridge didn't have that to take advantage of so that bridge is longer.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 30, 2019, 05:38:53 PM
Something I had been looking at for some time now... rest area locations on Virginia's interstates.

There's areas where rest areas are 20-30 miles from each other, and others generally 50-70 miles apart. It's usually a rule of thumb to have rest areas about 50-70 miles apart from each, or about an hour of driving time, and the location of most Virginia rest areas follow this. However, I noticed in some instances, rest areas are 100+ miles apart. A few notable areas are I-95 south where it's 107 miles between the Ladysmith Safety Rest Area southbound and the North Carolina Welcome Center, I-81 north where it's 103 miles between the Ironto Safety Rest northbound and the Mount Sydney Safety Rest Area northbound, and I-64 east and west where it's 97 miles between the New Kent Safety Rest Area and the Currituck Welcome Center on NC-168.

Has VDOT ever looked at constructing new rest areas to bridge the gap between these long distances? Some locations that could work are I-95 Southbound at Carson, in the same general area there's a northbound rest area, I-81 Northbound at Fairfield, in the same general area there's a southbound rest area, and I-64 in both directions in the Newport News / Yorktown area, north of Jefferson Ave and the 8-lane section of I-64. Another location could be on VA-168 northbound in Chesapeake, north of the toll plaza though still on the toll road, a location for a Virginia Welcome Center, though that stretch of freeway is owned and operated by the City of Chesapeake, and would be constructed by them, not VDOT. The toll road has AADT around 10,000, though spikes up to 30,000 - 40,000 daily traffic (mostly consisting of long-distance tourist traffic) during peak weekends, ditto to I-64 in Newport News regarding the long-distance traffic.

Just curious, and hopefully this fits in the Virginia thread.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on June 30, 2019, 09:06:33 PM
Most states are closing rest areas to save on costs.  This is due to more services at interchanges.  When the Interstate system first opened, most interchanges were barren of any services--most services were in a nearby town or city.  The interchanges looked like I-69 does between Evansville and Bloomington now.

There is no reason to build more rest areas along our Interstate highways and state freeways.  50-70 miles seem to be the norm now, with a few exceptions. 
-   127 miles on I-75 southbound between Georgetown, KY and the Tennessee Welcome Center
-   113 miles on I-75 southbound between the Tennessee Welcome Center and the Athens, TN rest area (likewise, 115 miles on I-75 northbound between Athens and the Kentucky Welcome Center)
-   103 miles on I-74 east/west between the Lizton rest area and the Batesville rest area (even though Indianapolis is between the two)

Some states (Ohio, Indiana, and even Virginia) are using former rest areas as truck parking areas.  Just install a few street lights, have a paved area to park, and have a few porta-potties, without having to man the area for anywhere from 12-24 hours, and you have a truck parking area!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 30, 2019, 09:57:25 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 30, 2019, 09:06:33 PM
Some states (Ohio, Indiana, and even Virginia) are using former rest areas as truck parking areas.  Just install a few street lights, have a paved area to park, and have a few porta-potties, without having to man the area for anywhere from 12-24 hours, and you have a truck parking area!
Oh, South Carolina is big on that. But the fact that a lot of those services at the interchanges are for customers only, makes a good case for keeping the ones that they have.  So I agree with not building more along I-95 in Virginia. I could go along with the 50-70 mile rule, but in the case of the New England Thruway I still think a service area at the former toll plaza in New Rochelle is a good idea even so close to the Connecticut State Line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 10:25:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 30, 2019, 05:38:53 PM
Something I had been looking at for some time now... rest area locations on Virginia's interstates.
There's areas where rest areas are 20-30 miles from each other, and others generally 50-70 miles apart. It's usually a rule of thumb to have rest areas about 50-70 miles apart from each, or about an hour of driving time, and the location of most Virginia rest areas follow this.

The original plan in this state was to have Interstate highway safety rest areas about 25 to 30 miles apart excepting major metro areas.

You can see this on I-85 and I-95 SB north of Richmond and in a few other areas.

Construction costs and sewage treatment needs intervened and later safety rest areas were built on about 50 to 60 mile spacing excepting major metro areas.

Major metro areas pretty near anywhere in the U.S. don't have safety rest areas on metropolitan Interstate highways, because of the land needed and the commercial establishments nearby.  So, none on I-64 east of Williamsburg, none in the Richmond-Petersburg metro as of ~1960 limits, none in the D.C. metro as of ~1960 limits.

The Davis Travel Center off I-95 Exit 31 is the de facto SB I-95 safety rest area for that area and has large restrooms and a convenience store that is open to the public 24/7.

Fairfield NB I-81/I-64 MP 199 is the one obvious 'hole' in the Virginia Interstate system, and building a safety rest area there would plug a hole on both Interstate highways.

I have actually wondered if building 2 or 3 safety rest areas along I-495 Capital Beltway could be accomplished, as it would make things a lot easier for travelers.  But I for example know that at Exit 13 Ritchie-Marlboro Road there are 24/7 convenience stores right near the interchange and they have public rest rooms in addition to the food and rest offerings, and this is on the I-95 corridor.

Maryland has its own issues with no safety rest areas on I-270 or on I-70 between Frederick and Baltimore, and that makes for triple digit mile spacing or near to that for trips like VA I-95/I-495/I-270/I-70, and I-70/I-695/I-95 North.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 30, 2019, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 10:25:33 PM
The Davis Travel Center off I-95 Exit 31 is the de facto SB I-95 safety rest area for that area and has large restrooms and a convenience store that is open to the public 24/7.
I've always wondered, when US-301 was upgraded to I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg in the late 70s and early 80s, why was a safety rest area only constructed northbound on this stretch? It's always seemed off to me that none was constructed for southbound traffic. Or if they wanted just one rest area, they could have placed it off an interchange, so both directions could exit then access it.

Though as you said, present-day it's not much of an issue due to the travel center existing, but obviously when I-95 was just built, it was more of an issue when that did not exist, and only northbound had a rest area, meanwhile southbound had to travel another 35 miles to the North Carolina Welcome Center just south of the state line, or any businesses that may have existed off US-58 if any at the time.

Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 10:25:33 PM
You can see this on I-85 and I-95 SB north of Richmond and in a few other areas.
I've always thought for a 68 mile interstate highway, 3 rest areas is a bit much... It's not a bad thing, just an overbuild. I wouldn't be surprised if the Alberta Safety Rest Area gets closed if a tight budget calls for it in the future. There's still only about 50 miles at that point between the North Carolina / Virginia Welcome Center and the Dinwiddie Safety Rest Area.


Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 10:25:33 PM
Major metro areas pretty near anywhere in the U.S. don't have safety rest areas on metropolitan Interstate highways, because of the land needed and the commercial establishments nearby.  So, none on I-64 east of Williamsburg, none in the Richmond-Petersburg metro as of ~1960 limits, none in the D.C. metro as of ~1960 limits.
I-66 has a rest area at Manassas, though probably still rural when it was constructed. As for Hampton Roads, I would still say a rest area on VA-168 north of the toll plaza could work as that area is rural, though again, that's for Chesapeake to do if ever, not VDOT. Toll revenue on the Expressway could be used to fund and maintain such facility. The Currituck Welcome Center south of the state line could be a reason not to build such a facility however, though I will say that welcome center seems to act more for southbound traffic rather than northbound, though it is easily accessible from both directions.

One example of something similar is I-26 where there as a Tennessee Welcome Center accessible from both directions on the Tennessee side, and another North Carolina Welcome Center southbound. Also I-10 has a Welcome Center for both directions on the Mississippi side, and another westbound Louisiana Welcome Center in the other state.

A rest area on I-64 in the Yorktown / North Newport News would be ideal, the freeway is still generally a rural 6-lane 65 mph facility with a wide grassy median, and exits distanced 3-5 miles apart, though does have a lot of neighboring suburban development and military facilities on the east side that makes it hard to find any ideal space for a safety rest area.

Any money towards the I-64 corridor should be put towards 6-lanes all the way to Richmond though, not wasted on some safety rest area facilities. The traffic on I-64 has gotten horrible, and just keeps getting worse. Constant recurring congestion in the rural areas, and when it does pick up speed, people like to do 60 - 67 mph in both lanes and not allow traffic wanting to do 75 - 80 mph to pass. And on a good day, when you do finally get up to 75 - 80 mph, you get caught behind a few cars in both lanes doing 60 - 67 mph again when there's a clear gap in front of them. When it opens up to 6-lanes though south of Williamsburg, it flows a lot smoother, lots of room to pass, and even on busy days, it's packed but maintains speed and no recurring congestion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 30, 2019, 11:46:53 PM
The Manassas one was definitely way out in the sticks back then. So was Dulles Airport, for that matter! Leesburg was pretty much considered a day trip destination, or perhaps somewhere you might consider going on a Sunday drive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 11:48:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 30, 2019, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 10:25:33 PM
The Davis Travel Center off I-95 Exit 31 is the de facto SB I-95 safety rest area for that area and has large restrooms and a convenience store that is open to the public 24/7.
I've always wondered, when US-301 was upgraded to I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg in the late 70s and early 80s, why was a safety rest area only constructed northbound on this stretch? It's always seemed off to me that none was constructed for southbound traffic. Or if they wanted just one rest area, they could have placed it off an interchange, so both directions could exit then access it.

I don't think that Virginia has any that don't connect directly to the highway.  If it was near the one at Carson, there is old US-301, wetlands, and the nearness of the CSXT railroad mainline on the west side of the highway (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Carson,+VA+23830/@37.0158131,-77.3909017,1459m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b1b9ee9c9cc393:0xf6c02b9479894b0a!8m2!3d37.0350746!4d-77.3965696) that would complicate things.

The NB rest area was graded, drained and paved in the 1977-1980 project for I-95, but the buildings and other finishings were in built in 1992 if I recall.

The most feasible area for such a SB rest area would have been down near the VA-602 area near Davis Travel Center, which in the 1970s was David Truck Stop (or some name similar) but it too was open 24/7 and had public rest rooms that were ok.

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 30, 2019, 10:40:11 PM
I've always thought for a 68 mile interstate [I-85] highway, 3 rest areas is a bit much... It's not a bad thing, just an overbuild. I wouldn't be surprised if the Alberta Safety Rest Area gets closed if a tight budget calls for it in the future. There's still only about 50 miles at that point between the North Carolina / Virginia Welcome Center and the Dinwiddie Safety Rest Area.

I like things the way they are on I-85, modest sized rest areas that seem to have plenty of capacity spread over them to where they do not need major expansion.  Keep them open!

The I-85 NB Welcome Center was completely rebuilt about 2002 and that is good.

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 30, 2019, 10:40:11 PM
As for Hampton Roads, I would still say a rest area on VA-168 north of the toll plaza could work as that area is rural, though again, that's for Chesapeake to do if ever, not VDOT. Toll revenue on the Expressway could be used to fund and maintain such facility. The Currituck Welcome Center south of the state line could be a reason not to build such a facility however, though I will say that welcome center seems to act more for southbound traffic rather than northbound, though it is easily accessible from both directions.

Plus a major service station.  It is not an Interstate highway, but like with US-13 at the Maryland border, a rest area entering Virginia might be well worth it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 12:30:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 11:48:27 PM
I don't think that Virginia has any that don't connect directly to the highway.
Doesn't mean they couldn't have done it. It's been done countless times in many other states, and works. Nothing beats driving off the highway directly into the rest area via a slip ramp, though sometimes you have to exit at a surface street, and turn into the rest area.

EDIT - US-29 Northbound in Danville, VA (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5730483,-79.3664439,898m/data=!3m1!1e3)] has a Welcome Center off an exit, accessible from both directions. I don't think it's an official VDOT maintained rest area, though it's still a rest area and has signage from the highway indicating "Visitor Information Center - Restrooms / Vending - Next Exit". Similarly, though not in Virginia, North Carolina has a US-29 Piedmont Triad Welcome Center (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5219755,-79.4746013,898m/data=!3m1!1e3) just south of the state line, again, accessed from both directions off the exit.

Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 11:48:27 PM
If it was near the one at Carson, there is old US-301, wetlands, and the nearness of the CSXT railroad mainline on the west side of the highway (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Carson,+VA+23830/@37.0158131,-77.3909017,1459m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b1b9ee9c9cc393:0xf6c02b9479894b0a!8m2!3d37.0350746!4d-77.3965696) that would complicate things.

The NB rest area was graded, drained and paved in the 1977-1980 project for I-95, but the buildings and other finishings were in built in 1992 if I recall.

The most feasible area for such a SB rest area would have been down near the VA-602 area near Davis Travel Center, which in the 1970s was David Truck Stop (or some name similar) but it too was open 24/7 and had public rest rooms that were ok.
I was thinking this location (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Carson,+VA+23830/@36.9996118,-77.3928758,1785m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b1b9ee9c9cc393:0xf6c02b9479894b0a!8m2!3d37.0350746!4d-77.3965696) south of the VA-667 overpass could work as well, in the same general area as the northbound rest area. US-301 would need to be relocated behind the rest area, though it could work.

Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 11:48:27 PM
I like things the way they are on I-85, modest sized rest areas that seem to have plenty of capacity spread over them to where they do not need major expansion.  Keep them open!
I like the setup too, however I'm just pointing out if VDOT ever had a tight maintenance budget and needed to close some rest areas, one of them would be a good candidate. However, if they are having no issues with maintaining them, I'm fully supportive of leaving them as well.

Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 11:48:27 PM
The I-85 NB Welcome Center was completely rebuilt about 2002 and that is good.
IIRC, the I-85 Welcome Center has the same design used on the rebuild of the I-64 New Kent Safety Rest Areas in 2008 east of Richmond.

Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 11:48:27 PM
Plus a major service station.  It is not an Interstate highway, but like with US-13 at the Maryland border, a rest area entering Virginia might be well worth it.
Not an interstate highway, though an interstate-standard freeway that serves long-distance interstate traffic during peak times. North Carolina has numerous non-interstate rest areas, many on non-interstate freeways, and many others on arterial roadways from the main highway. A nearby example is the US-17 Dismal Swamp Welcome Center south of the Virginia border, accessible from both directions. It's a nice place to stop when heading down US-17, roughly 30 minutes from I-64 / I-464.

Could even be used to deter drivers from avoiding the tolls if adequate signage is posted before the VA-168 / VA-168 Business split off. Distract drivers that a rest area is ahead and not thinking about turning off.

I like the idea too, but the hard part would be convincing the city to actually build one. I'd assume a rest area would cost $5 - $15 million to construct, and again would be funded from toll revenue.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 12:59:33 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 12:30:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 11:48:27 PM
If it was near the one at Carson, there is old US-301, wetlands, and the nearness of the CSXT railroad mainline on the west side of the highway (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Carson,+VA+23830/@37.0158131,-77.3909017,1459m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b1b9ee9c9cc393:0xf6c02b9479894b0a!8m2!3d37.0350746!4d-77.3965696) that would complicate things.  The NB rest area was graded, drained and paved in the 1977-1980 project for I-95, but the buildings and other finishings were in built in 1992 if I recall.  The most feasible area for such a SB rest area would have been down near the VA-602 area near Davis Travel Center, which in the 1970s was David Truck Stop (or some name similar) but it too was open 24/7 and had public rest rooms that were ok.
I was thinking this location (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Carson,+VA+23830/@36.9996118,-77.3928758,1785m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b1b9ee9c9cc393:0xf6c02b9479894b0a!8m2!3d37.0350746!4d-77.3965696) south of the VA-667 overpass could work as well, in the same general area as the northbound rest area. US-301 would need to be relocated behind the rest area, though it could work.

The safety rest area concept was developed when most new rural Interstate highways had basically no services along the way to stop at.  Commercial services were developed over a period of decades and many such highways are well served today.  Nevertheless nearly every safety rest area still provides a valuable role.

That said, the Davis Travel Center provides all and more than what a safety rest area can provide.  It is well signed from the highway, is a few hundred yards from the highway, is well lit and safe.  I don't think that building a new safety rest area is going to be justified financially considering the facilities that are already there nearby.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2019, 11:46:53 PM
The Manassas one was definitely way out in the sticks back then. So was Dulles Airport, for that matter! Leesburg was pretty much considered a day trip destination, or perhaps somewhere you might consider going on a Sunday drive.

Cities like Manassas and Leesburg and Woodbridge were considered "satellite cities" of the D.C. area back in the 1960s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 09:47:16 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 10:25:33 PMI have actually wondered if building 2 or 3 safety rest areas along I-495 Capital Beltway could be accomplished, as it would make things a lot easier for travelers.

Where, how, and most importantly, why?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on July 01, 2019, 10:08:10 AM
New laws taking effect today.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/06/new-virginia-laws-start-monday/ (https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/06/new-virginia-laws-start-monday/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 10:18:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2019, 11:46:53 PM
The Manassas one was definitely way out in the sticks back then. So was Dulles Airport, for that matter! Leesburg was pretty much considered a day trip destination, or perhaps somewhere you might consider going on a Sunday drive.

Cities like Manassas and Leesburg and Woodbridge were considered "satellite cities" of the D.C. area back in the 1960s.

I don't really ever get out to those places, but certainly Woodbridge and Manassas are simply bedroom communities at this point. Leesburg is a little closer to farm country, but certainly all development on the east side of it has to be geared towards DC commuters. No VRE in Leesburg (although the W&OD used to run out that way).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kevinb1994 on July 01, 2019, 11:01:05 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 10:18:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2019, 11:46:53 PM
The Manassas one was definitely way out in the sticks back then. So was Dulles Airport, for that matter! Leesburg was pretty much considered a day trip destination, or perhaps somewhere you might consider going on a Sunday drive.

Cities like Manassas and Leesburg and Woodbridge were considered "satellite cities" of the D.C. area back in the 1960s.

I don't really ever get out to those places, but certainly Woodbridge and Manassas are simply bedroom communities at this point. Leesburg is a little closer to farm country, but certainly all development on the east side of it has to be geared towards DC commuters. No VRE in Leesburg (although the W&OD used to run out that way).
The Silver Line will run close enough to the Burg, though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 11:22:49 AM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on July 01, 2019, 11:01:05 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 10:18:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2019, 11:46:53 PM
The Manassas one was definitely way out in the sticks back then. So was Dulles Airport, for that matter! Leesburg was pretty much considered a day trip destination, or perhaps somewhere you might consider going on a Sunday drive.

Cities like Manassas and Leesburg and Woodbridge were considered "satellite cities" of the D.C. area back in the 1960s.

I don't really ever get out to those places, but certainly Woodbridge and Manassas are simply bedroom communities at this point. Leesburg is a little closer to farm country, but certainly all development on the east side of it has to be geared towards DC commuters. No VRE in Leesburg (although the W&OD used to run out that way).
The Silver Line will run close enough to the Burg, though.

If you consider 15 minutes in non-rush hour conditions (per google maps) "close" then sure.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kevinb1994 on July 01, 2019, 11:32:55 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 11:22:49 AM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on July 01, 2019, 11:01:05 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 10:18:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2019, 11:46:53 PM
The Manassas one was definitely way out in the sticks back then. So was Dulles Airport, for that matter! Leesburg was pretty much considered a day trip destination, or perhaps somewhere you might consider going on a Sunday drive.

Cities like Manassas and Leesburg and Woodbridge were considered "satellite cities" of the D.C. area back in the 1960s.

I don't really ever get out to those places, but certainly Woodbridge and Manassas are simply bedroom communities at this point. Leesburg is a little closer to farm country, but certainly all development on the east side of it has to be geared towards DC commuters. No VRE in Leesburg (although the W&OD used to run out that way).
The Silver Line will run close enough to the Burg, though.

If you consider 15 minutes in non-rush hour conditions (per google maps) "close" then sure.
At least it may save you money on car insurance...;)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 09:47:16 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 10:25:33 PMI have actually wondered if building 2 or 3 safety rest areas along I-495 Capital Beltway could be accomplished, as it would make things a lot easier for travelers.
Where, how, and most importantly, why?

The first two are more addressed to when the highway was built and soon afterward, when things were cheaper to build and there was more open land available.

Why -- there isn't a need for places to stop and rest and use public restrooms when traveling thru the area?

It has only been the last few years that those convenience stores have been built near Exit 13 Ritchie-Marlboro Road, and the vast majority of long distance travelers on I-95 would have no clue that they are available.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on July 01, 2019, 12:21:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 30, 2019, 05:38:53 PM
Something I had been looking at for some time now... rest area locations on Virginia's interstates.

There's areas where rest areas are 20-30 miles from each other, and others generally 50-70 miles apart. It's usually a rule of thumb to have rest areas about 50-70 miles apart from each, or about an hour of driving time, and the location of most Virginia rest areas follow this. However, I noticed in some instances, rest areas are 100+ miles apart. A few notable areas are . . . I-81 north where it's 103 miles between the Ironto Safety Rest northbound and the Mount Sydney Safety Rest Area northbound

Has VDOT ever looked at constructing new rest areas to bridge the gap between these long distances? . . . I-81 Northbound at Fairfield, in the same general area there's a southbound rest area

The Roanoke Times had a article about the lack of a northbound rest area a few years ago (but its archive sucks, which makes finding the story difficult). I seem to remember that the ability to build a rest stop in that section of I-81 was stymied by a lack of available land and a lack of funds. It isn't really a pressing problem since there are a number of exits with lots of services, including the ever-growing White's Truck Stop at Raphine.

Another longish gap is on I-77. There is the rest area/welcome center at the North Carolina state line, but the next rest area isn't until one gets to the one at Rocky Gap around MP60. Going south, there is the adjacent rest area/welcome center with the next available rest area at the North Carolina rest area/welcome center. While not a major gap for I-77, it is a big gap for those who get on I-77 from I-81. The closest rest area on I-81 going south is at Radford at MP109 and going north, it's the cars-only rest area at MP61 at Rural Retreat. Granted, Wytheville is in the middle to provide lots of services, but for a quick bathroom break one must have iron kidneys. There were plans for north and south rest areas just south of Fort Chiswell (junction with I-81) but other than grading nothing else has been done there.

On the other side of the coin, North Carolina closed six rest areas on I-77 north of Charlotte in favor of one in-the-median rest area in Iredale County. From various trips, it doesn't look like truck parking capacity was increased from what was available in the closed rest areas.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 12:38:21 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on July 01, 2019, 12:21:13 PM
Another longish gap is on I-77. There is the rest area/welcome center at the North Carolina state line, but the next rest area isn't until one gets to the one at Rocky Gap around MP60. Going south, there is the adjacent rest area/welcome center with the next available rest area at the North Carolina rest area/welcome center. While not a major gap for I-77, it is a big gap for those who get on I-77 from I-81. The closest rest area on I-81 going south is at Radford at MP109 and going north, it's the cars-only rest area at MP61 at Rural Retreat. Granted, Wytheville is in the middle to provide lots of services, but for a quick bathroom break one must have iron kidneys. There were plans for north and south rest areas just south of Fort Chiswell (junction with I-81) but other than grading nothing else has been done there.

These two rest areas were graded and drained when I-77 was built in the late 1970s, and they are visible on Google Maps Satellite View.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I77_Map_NC_I81_XL.jpg
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I77_VA_Aerial_Photos.html

They would have provided service on the I-77 route as well as between southerly I-77 and both directions of I-81.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 01:09:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 12:38:21 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on July 01, 2019, 12:21:13 PM
Another longish gap is on I-77. There is the rest area/welcome center at the North Carolina state line, but the next rest area isn't until one gets to the one at Rocky Gap around MP60. Going south, there is the adjacent rest area/welcome center with the next available rest area at the North Carolina rest area/welcome center. While not a major gap for I-77, it is a big gap for those who get on I-77 from I-81. The closest rest area on I-81 going south is at Radford at MP109 and going north, it's the cars-only rest area at MP61 at Rural Retreat. Granted, Wytheville is in the middle to provide lots of services, but for a quick bathroom break one must have iron kidneys. There were plans for north and south rest areas just south of Fort Chiswell (junction with I-81) but other than grading nothing else has been done there.

These two rest areas were graded and drained when I-77 was built in the late 1970s, and they are visible on Google Maps Satellite View.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I77_Map_NC_I81_XL.jpg
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I77_VA_Aerial_Photos.html

They would have provided service on the I-77 route as well as between southerly I-77 and both directions of I-81.
So that's what those stubs are... that had been bugging me for a while now.

Thanks for the info.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 01:25:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 01:09:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 12:38:21 PM
These two rest areas were graded and drained when I-77 was built in the late 1970s, and they are visible on Google Maps Satellite View.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I77_Map_NC_I81_XL.jpg
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I77_VA_Aerial_Photos.html
They would have provided service on the I-77 route as well as between southerly I-77 and both directions of I-81.
So that's what those stubs are... that had been bugging me for a while now.
Thanks for the info.

There are others built in the late Interstate era that were graded and drained but not completed, probably for the reasons I posted earlier about costs and sewage treatment issues.
-- I-64 MP 33 EB & WB east of Clifton Forge, paved and EB used for truck parking only with no buildings, WB unopened
-- I-64 MP 145 EB & WB east of Ferncliff, paved and with no buildings, unopened
-- I-66 MP 3 EB west of Front Royal, paved and used for truck parking only with no buildings
-- I-66 MP 16 WB east of Markham, paved and with no buildings, unopened
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 09:47:16 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2019, 10:25:33 PMI have actually wondered if building 2 or 3 safety rest areas along I-495 Capital Beltway could be accomplished, as it would make things a lot easier for travelers.
Where, how, and most importantly, why?

The first two are more addressed to when the highway was built and soon afterward, when things were cheaper to build and there was more open land available.

Why -- there isn't a need for places to stop and rest and use public restrooms when traveling thru the area?

It has only been the last few years that those convenience stores have been built near Exit 13 Ritchie-Marlboro Road, and the vast majority of long distance travelers on I-95 would have no clue that they are available.

Even back in the day, that probably would have been a fantastic waste of prime land. Now it seems utterly unconscionable.
And to the "why" - seems pretty silly considering the amount of full-service facilities along the Beltway. Don't need a government parking lot when industry gets it done.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 01:41:47 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 12:10:04 PM
The first two are more addressed to when the highway was built and soon afterward, when things were cheaper to build and there was more open land available.
Why -- there isn't a need for places to stop and rest and use public restrooms when traveling thru the area?
It has only been the last few years that those convenience stores have been built near Exit 13 Ritchie-Marlboro Road, and the vast majority of long distance travelers on I-95 would have no clue that they are available.
Even back in the day, that probably would have been a fantastic waste of prime land. Now it seems utterly unconscionable.
And to the "why" - seems pretty silly considering the amount of full-service facilities along the Beltway. Don't need a government parking lot when industry gets it done.

"Back in the day" much of the land along the Beltway (and I am referring to both states) was rural, hard as that is to believe today.

What places would you stop at if you needed restroom facilities and/or fuel?  Many exits you would go off in a wild goose chase and drive for miles without finding anything, particularly at night.  If you don't have local familiarity then forget it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 01:41:47 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 12:10:04 PM
The first two are more addressed to when the highway was built and soon afterward, when things were cheaper to build and there was more open land available.
Why -- there isn't a need for places to stop and rest and use public restrooms when traveling thru the area?
It has only been the last few years that those convenience stores have been built near Exit 13 Ritchie-Marlboro Road, and the vast majority of long distance travelers on I-95 would have no clue that they are available.
Even back in the day, that probably would have been a fantastic waste of prime land. Now it seems utterly unconscionable.
And to the "why" - seems pretty silly considering the amount of full-service facilities along the Beltway. Don't need a government parking lot when industry gets it done.

"Back in the day" much of the land along the Beltway (and I am referring to both states) was rural, hard as that is to believe today.

What places would you stop at if you needed restroom facilities and/or fuel?  Many exits you would go off in a wild goose chase and drive for miles without finding anything, particularly at night.  If you don't have local familiarity then forget it.
Agreed, and I'd say the same with Hampton Roads. There's no real truck stops, Loves, Pilot, etc. until you reach west of the New Kent Safety Rest Area. From the Currituck Welcome Center, that's about 100 miles.

Ironically, if you're heading west on US-58 on the other hand, though Outer Banks traffic isn't, there's a Pilot in Suffolk, and a Loves in Franklin. You'd think I-64 would have gotten such truck stops before US-58, but I guess not. It's a much heavier corridor.

If not a rest area, it'd be nice to have a truck stop of some sort built off I-664 where there's still developable land. If it's positioned north of VA-164, you could also capture VIG and PMT truck traffic. Another location for a truck stop could also be off the southern VA-199 / I-64 interchange in Williamsburg, on the west side of I-64 there's developable land. Ditto with Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland on I-495.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 03:00:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 01:41:47 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 12:10:04 PM
The first two are more addressed to when the highway was built and soon afterward, when things were cheaper to build and there was more open land available.
Why -- there isn't a need for places to stop and rest and use public restrooms when traveling thru the area?
It has only been the last few years that those convenience stores have been built near Exit 13 Ritchie-Marlboro Road, and the vast majority of long distance travelers on I-95 would have no clue that they are available.
Even back in the day, that probably would have been a fantastic waste of prime land. Now it seems utterly unconscionable.
And to the "why" - seems pretty silly considering the amount of full-service facilities along the Beltway. Don't need a government parking lot when industry gets it done.

"Back in the day" much of the land along the Beltway (and I am referring to both states) was rural, hard as that is to believe today.

What places would you stop at if you needed restroom facilities and/or fuel?  Many exits you would go off in a wild goose chase and drive for miles without finding anything, particularly at night.  If you don't have local familiarity then forget it.

I'll give you Georgetown Pike. The rest?  :-D :-D Northern VA ain't the sticks the rest of VA...there's stuff off every exit. Why rest stops anyways? Those things are dumpy.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 03:34:17 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 03:00:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 01:41:47 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 01:36:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 12:10:04 PM
The first two are more addressed to when the highway was built and soon afterward, when things were cheaper to build and there was more open land available.
Why -- there isn't a need for places to stop and rest and use public restrooms when traveling thru the area?
It has only been the last few years that those convenience stores have been built near Exit 13 Ritchie-Marlboro Road, and the vast majority of long distance travelers on I-95 would have no clue that they are available.
Even back in the day, that probably would have been a fantastic waste of prime land. Now it seems utterly unconscionable.
And to the "why" - seems pretty silly considering the amount of full-service facilities along the Beltway. Don't need a government parking lot when industry gets it done.

"Back in the day" much of the land along the Beltway (and I am referring to both states) was rural, hard as that is to believe today.

What places would you stop at if you needed restroom facilities and/or fuel?  Many exits you would go off in a wild goose chase and drive for miles without finding anything, particularly at night.  If you don't have local familiarity then forget it.

I'll give you Georgetown Pike. The rest?  :-D :-D Northern VA ain't the sticks the rest of VA...there's stuff off every exit. Why rest stops anyways? Those things are dumpy.
Yes, but there's not one simple truck stop or large rest area that has full bathroom facilities with capacity for a large amount of people, large parking lot, etc.

Just a lot of small gas stations, fast food places, etc.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 05:53:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 03:34:17 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 03:00:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 01:41:47 PM
What places would you stop at if you needed restroom facilities and/or fuel?  Many exits you would go off in a wild goose chase and drive for miles without finding anything, particularly at night.  If you don't have local familiarity then forget it.
I'll give you Georgetown Pike. The rest?  Northern VA ain't the sticks the rest of VA...there's stuff off every exit. Why rest stops anyways? Those things are dumpy.
Yes, but there's not one simple truck stop or large rest area that has full bathroom facilities with capacity for a large amount of people, large parking lot, etc.  Just a lot of small gas stations, fast food places, etc.

VA-193 Georgetown Pike?  There are no commercial services within at least 2 miles on either side of I-495.

The other Beltway interchanges, for the most part, do not have easy access to services.  Even if within a mile or so, you have to run the gauntlet of all kinds of traffic lights and traffic congestion to get there.

Not just picking on I-495, as much the same situation exists with the I-695 Baltimore Beltway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 01, 2019, 06:49:26 PM
Regarding rest areas, given trucker time/rest requirements and the general lack of truck parking in many states and metropolitan areas, I'd argue that preservation of existing rest areas should continue in order to provide such truck parking.

It's not just "commercial services" that drives the need for such facilities.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 06:55:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 01, 2019, 06:49:26 PM
Regarding rest areas, given trucker time/rest requirements and the general lack of truck parking in many states and metropolitan areas, I'd argue that preservation of existing rest areas should continue in order to provide such truck parking.
It's not just "commercial services" that drives the need for such facilities.

Agree fully, as over the years FHWA has published studies highlighting the lack of sufficient truck parking facilities all over the country.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on July 01, 2019, 10:16:26 PM
Hampton Roads has always had a dearth of truck stops.  The only two, other than the two mentioned above, are Big Charlie's on Northampton Blvd (US 13) in Virginia Beach and Frank's just to the west of Bowers Hill.

If Virginia had the monetary resources, they should improve and enlarge their truck weigh stations--have them look like the ones in Dale City and Stephens City with quite a few available parking spots.  Also, allow truckers to drive over the scales at 30-35 mph vs the 10-15 mph they do now.

When I drove, I always found Virginia's weigh stations to be "primitive", in that they look like they were built in the 1960's & 1970's (which they were), they are small, and you drove over the scales at such a slow speed.  Many other states have the ability to weigh a truck going 30-45 mph as well as having large lots available for truck parking.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 10:24:52 PM
Why should taxpayers subsidize the trucking industry even more? Let them pay market rates for hotel rooms for their drivers, or at least parking lot rental rates...

Besides, truck stops/rest areas are a rural thing. I don't know why this is even up for discussion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 01, 2019, 10:28:35 PM
It's "up for discussion" because Federal rules and law require truckers rest after so many hours, and there is a well-documented lack of truck parking in urban areas (and actually a number of East Coast states in general).  "Market rates for hotel rooms" won't work either...how many hotels do you know of that offer that quantity of truck parking?

Do you honestly think businesses, nearby residents, or the city would welcome trucks to try and park en-masse at the hotels in Carlyle or along Eisenhower Ave?  Even the hotels along Richmond Hwy would be hard-pressed to have enough parking for more than one or two trucks.  And Alexandria and Southeast Fairfax are not alone in this problem...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 10:31:33 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 01, 2019, 10:24:52 PM
Why should taxpayers subsidize the trucking industry even more? Let them pay market rates for hotel rooms for their drivers, or at least parking lot rental rates...

Besides, truck stops / rest areas are a rural thing. I don't know why this is even up for discussion.
It seems you're ignorant of the trucking industry if you are pushing claims like this. Truck stops / rest areas have been found countless times in urban areas. Should an urban area that stretches 100 miles long have no truck stop / rest area?

If an urban area has through traffic, there's bound to be a truck stop / rest area to accommodate that traffic. Just because it's an urban area doesn't mean there's no through traffic. Northern Virginia / Southern Maryland, and Hampton Roads have through traffic, and need at least one truck stop / rest area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 10:32:39 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 01, 2019, 10:16:26 PM
When I drove, I always found Virginia's weigh stations to be "primitive", in that they look like they were built in the 1960's & 1970's (which they were), they are small, and you drove over the scales at such a slow speed.  Many other states have the ability to weigh a truck going 30-45 mph as well as having large lots available for truck parking.

How long ago was that?  As of 2011, Virginia had 12 WIM (weigh-in-motion) sites, with more planned.  See page 3 --
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/12-r4.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 01, 2019, 10:41:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 26, 2019, 09:49:13 PM
Nice improvement, I have driven thru the ramps several times.

(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/fredericksburg.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/5c/45cd3636-c749-5f50-abfa-49705e5c6132/5d13bbc7c071c.image.jpg?resize=750%2C422)

VDOT finishes upgrade of Thornburg interchange on Interstate 95
THE FREE LANCE—STAR  6-26-2019

The Interstate 95 Thornburg exit upgrades include a new overpass, turn lanes at ramps and sidewalks.

The revamped Interstate 95 interchange in Thornburg is fully open for traffic, more than two months ahead of schedule, the Virginia Department of Transportation announced Wednesday morning.

Work on the $22.4 million project, which includes a redesigned and widened overpass, started in September 2017.

"By replacing a bridge that was original to the interstate system, we have removed a piece of infrastructure
that was structurally deficient and replaced it with an overpass that reflects the region's needs and will serve future generations,"  VDOT Fredericksburg District Administrator said Marcie Parker said in a news release.

The overpass was expanded from two to four lanes and turn lanes were added at the I—95 ramps. Sidewalks also were added to the bridge and a portion of Mudd Tavern Road.

The interchange also has a new layout, "an off-set diamond design ... selected to minimize the right-of-way required for the road and ramp improvements,"  local VDOT spokeswoman Kelly Hannon said in the release.


https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/vdot-finishes-upgrade-of-thornburg-interchange-on-interstate/article_c17dc803-0408-5870-aedb-6365e92a07d3.html

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/Exit_118_Design_Overview.pdf

This is what I miss out on for dodging I-95 north of VA 207.

Let's see if I've got this right though;
The feds forced NCDOT to convert Exit 87 on I-95 in Four Oaks into a full diamond interchange before the turn of the millennium, but it's perfectly alright for VDOT to convert one of the off-ramps of a diamond interchange into an RIRO ramp, with the potential for a west-to-north only connecting on-ramp?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on July 01, 2019, 11:08:04 PM
Regarding truck parking areas in urban areas, they have also been useful in helping the industry and cities work together on time restrictions to manage freight traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 11:30:44 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 01, 2019, 10:41:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 26, 2019, 09:49:13 PM
VDOT finishes upgrade of Thornburg interchange on Interstate 95
THE FREE LANCE—STAR  6-26-2019
Let's see if I've got this right though;
The feds forced NCDOT to convert Exit 87 on I-95 in Four Oaks into a full diamond interchange before the turn of the millennium, but it's perfectly alright for VDOT to convert one of the off-ramps of a diamond interchange into an RIRO ramp, with the potential for a west-to-north only connecting on-ramp?

It is not a RIRO ramp, it is the conversion to a loop ramp on the one quadrant that needs it, traffic from the Thornburg/US-1 area to I-95 North.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on July 01, 2019, 11:41:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 10:32:39 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 01, 2019, 10:16:26 PM
When I drove, I always found Virginia's weigh stations to be "primitive", in that they look like they were built in the 1960's & 1970's (which they were), they are small, and you drove over the scales at such a slow speed.  Many other states have the ability to weigh a truck going 30-45 mph as well as having large lots available for truck parking.

How long ago was that?  As of 2011, Virginia had 12 WIM (weigh-in-motion) sites, with more planned.  See page 3 --
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/12-r4.pdf
It was before 2011--I believe it was 2007 when I last drove over the scales at a Virginia weigh station (I-77 in Bland County). 

What I was referring to were the weigh stations themselves.  On the report, I see that the Stephens City, Dumfries, and Troutville weigh stations have WIM.  These are ones that have the DMV overseeing them.  All the other weigh stations have trucks going 10-15 mph over the scales. 

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 11:48:57 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 01, 2019, 11:41:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 10:32:39 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 01, 2019, 10:16:26 PM
When I drove, I always found Virginia's weigh stations to be "primitive", in that they look like they were built in the 1960's & 1970's (which they were), they are small, and you drove over the scales at such a slow speed.  Many other states have the ability to weigh a truck going 30-45 mph as well as having large lots available for truck parking.
How long ago was that?  As of 2011, Virginia had 12 WIM (weigh-in-motion) sites, with more planned.  See page 3 --
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/12-r4.pdf
It was before 2011--I believe it was 2007 when I last drove over the scales at a Virginia weigh station (I-77 in Bland County). 
What I was referring to were the weigh stations themselves.  On the report, I see that the Stephens City, Dumfries, and Troutville weigh stations have WIM.  These are ones that have the DMV overseeing them.  All the other weigh stations have trucks going 10-15 mph over the scales. 

15 mph is not "in motion"?   Originally a truck would be completely stopped for a minute or more.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 11:55:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 11:30:44 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 01, 2019, 10:41:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 26, 2019, 09:49:13 PM
VDOT finishes upgrade of Thornburg interchange on Interstate 95
THE FREE LANCE—STAR  6-26-2019
Let's see if I've got this right though;
The feds forced NCDOT to convert Exit 87 on I-95 in Four Oaks into a full diamond interchange before the turn of the millennium, but it's perfectly alright for VDOT to convert one of the off-ramps of a diamond interchange into an RIRO ramp, with the potential for a west-to-north only connecting on-ramp?

It is not a RIRO ramp, it is the conversion to a loop ramp on the one quadrant that needs it, traffic from the Thornburg/US-1 area to I-95 North.
It's a RIRO. Once traffic is on the side road, it's no longer apart of the ramp. The small channelized movement from Thornburg to the I-95 ramp area is not apart of the interstate ramp, though it helps move traffic to it.

The part highlighted in red are the actual interstate ramps, which are in a RIRO configuration.

(https://i.ibb.co/yYSR3rw/I95-Thornburg-RIRO.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on July 02, 2019, 12:08:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 11:48:57 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 01, 2019, 11:41:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 10:32:39 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on July 01, 2019, 10:16:26 PM
When I drove, I always found Virginia's weigh stations to be "primitive", in that they look like they were built in the 1960's & 1970's (which they were), they are small, and you drove over the scales at such a slow speed.  Many other states have the ability to weigh a truck going 30-45 mph as well as having large lots available for truck parking.
How long ago was that?  As of 2011, Virginia had 12 WIM (weigh-in-motion) sites, with more planned.  See page 3 --
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/12-r4.pdf
It was before 2011--I believe it was 2007 when I last drove over the scales at a Virginia weigh station (I-77 in Bland County). 
What I was referring to were the weigh stations themselves.  On the report, I see that the Stephens City, Dumfries, and Troutville weigh stations have WIM.  These are ones that have the DMV overseeing them.  All the other weigh stations have trucks going 10-15 mph over the scales. 

15 mph is not "in motion"?   Originally a truck would be completely stopped for a minute or more.
Yes, 15 mph is "in motion".  And I remember the places in which trucks had to completely stop before being sent on their way (US 13/58/460 just east of the VA 337 intersection in Suffolk comes to mind).  I am comparing these weigh stations to those in Florida, Georgia, and the ones near Durham, NC and Charlotte, NC where a truck can go 45 mph over the scale, if they do not have the opportunity to bypass the scales.

Even Kentucky, which built larger weigh stations with "truck haven" parking, still has a 15-20 mph limit for their scales.

After pondering this subject for a few minutes and remembering when I drove through Virginia, I believe truckers do have to stop, for usually no more than five to ten seconds, at the scales in Bland, Sandston, and the Dismal Swamp (Suffolk).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 12:30:58 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 11:55:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 11:30:44 PM
It is not a RIRO ramp, it is the conversion to a loop ramp on the one quadrant that needs it, traffic from the Thornburg/US-1 area to I-95 North.
It's a RIRO. Once traffic is on the side road, it's no longer apart of the ramp. The small channelized movement from Thornburg to the I-95 ramp area is not apart of the interstate ramp, though it helps move traffic to it.
The part highlighted in red are the actual interstate ramps, which are in a RIRO configuration.

No it is not.  The entire loop is a freeway ramp.  It has its own lane from the exit point on VA-606 and it is limited access all the way through.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 12:30:58 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 01, 2019, 11:55:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 01, 2019, 11:30:44 PM
It is not a RIRO ramp, it is the conversion to a loop ramp on the one quadrant that needs it, traffic from the Thornburg/US-1 area to I-95 North.
It's a RIRO. Once traffic is on the side road, it's no longer apart of the ramp. The small channelized movement from Thornburg to the I-95 ramp area is not apart of the interstate ramp, though it helps move traffic to it.
The part highlighted in red are the actual interstate ramps, which are in a RIRO configuration.

No it is not.  The entire loop is a freeway ramp.  It has its own lane from the exit point on VA-606 and it is limited access all the way through.
Once you are on the interstate ramp, you should not be able to exit it. You can do such in this case. And the off-ramp from I-95 northbound is most certainly RIRO. You have to stop at a side road then turn left to access the main road.

And that side road is not limited-access. There's two driveway access points on it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 12:50:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 12:30:58 AM
The entire loop is a freeway ramp.  It has its own lane from the exit point on VA-606 and it is limited access all the way through.
Once you are on the interstate ramp, you should not be able to exit it.

There are many cases that allow that, and no rule against that.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 12:35:22 AM
You can do such in this case. And the off-ramp from I-95 northbound is most certainly RIRO. You have to stop at a side road then turn left to access the main road.

A single ramp cannot be RIRO.  That is a signalized intersection where that finger ramp ends.  Have you used this new interchange configuration yet?

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 12:35:22 AM
And that side road is not limited-access. There's two driveway access points on it.

I was referring to the loop itself.  It is limited access.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 01:07:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 12:50:24 AM
Have you used this new interchange configuration yet?
No, I'm not just going to drive 3 hours to see one interchange. I don't have that type of time. And unless I have a stop planned at that interchange when on I-95 north, I don't plan on stopping there either.

I've seen the project design plans and the aerial picture of the final configuration. It's a RIRO onto Mallard Rd. There's a channelized turn lane from VA-606 west to Mallard Rd south that helps to supplement the movement onto the ramp, but it's not apart of the actual ramp. The interstate highway state maintained right of way begins at the ramp terminal on Mallard Rd, it does not extend beyond that. That stretch of Mallard Rd south is a local roadway, not an interstate ramp.

It's not a bad thing it's a RIRO. It's just how it is. It serves its purpose, and that channelized right turn onto Mallard Rd south helps to supplement the ramp movement.


EDIT - Another thing, the signage onto the roadway segment you claim is apart of the ramp indicates "TO I-95 North". If it was apart of the ramp, it would merely say "I-95 North". That direct "I-95 North" signage starts at the RIRO part, where the true ramp begins, as I mentioned above.
(https://i.ibb.co/4MbVpMB/TOI95-North.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 02, 2019, 06:54:10 AM
^ You guys are all misusing RIRO.  This is a standard T-intersection between the northbound ramps and Mallard Rd (F163).  If this were truly RIRO, you would not be able to make left turns off of the off-ramp or onto the on-ramp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 07:55:21 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 02, 2019, 06:54:10 AM
You guys are all misusing RIRO.  This is a standard T-intersection between the northbound ramps and Mallard Rd (F163).  If this were truly RIRO, you would not be able to make left turns off of the off-ramp or onto the on-ramp.

There is only one person that is misusing RIRO.

The heavy leftward movement here is from eastbound VA-606 Mudd Tavern Road to northbound I-95, and from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 12:46:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 07:55:21 AM
from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement.
I've been through interchanges of that type, and I can certainly say I do -not- see it as one ramp, I see it as turning onto Mallard Rd, then turning onto the ramp, all in channelized movements. If a driver was told it was a continuous ramp, a conflict point exists because they are not expecting another street, they are expecting a direct freeway ramp with no obstruction. That's why the movement is not signed as the I-95 ramp, or apart of the I-95 ramp, it's simply a channelized movement to assist getting traffic to the I-95 ramp. Once on the I-95 ramp, driver expectancy is now normal, and it's a free-flowing, unobstructed movement onto I-95 North.

The interstate state maintained right of way doesn't begin until the ramp point leaving Mallard Rd, and the signage turning onto Mallard Rd indicates "TO I-95", not simply "I-95". Mallard Rd is its own road, and as froggie mentioned, it could be more of a T-intersection ramp rather than RIRO, but the channelized movement between VA-606 and Mallard Rd is not apart of any freeway ramp. Signage proves this, interstate maintained right of way proves this, and the fact that small stretch of "interstate ramp" is a roadway (F-163 Mallard Rd) disproves that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 03:33:05 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 12:46:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 07:55:21 AM
from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement.
I've been through interchanges of that type,

No you have not.  That appears to be unique, or at least something different from anything I have encountered in over 1 million miles of driving.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 03:37:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 03:33:05 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 12:46:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 07:55:21 AM
from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement.
I've been through interchanges of that type,

No you have not.  That appears to be unique, or at least something different from anything I have encountered in over 1 million miles of driving.
Baloney.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.451872,-87.2204654,482m/data=!3m1!1e3

Been through that one many times - Pensacola, Florida at I-110 / FL-295.

Also, does almost every interchange in Texas count? Where you have to turn onto the frontage road then merge on the freeway? Is the frontage road apart of the ramp? I've never considered it to be, even when there's a free flowing turn-around underneath that dumps you right into the lane onto the ramp. Been through Texas interchanges many times throughout my life as well.

I've been caught in congestion at this one before at I-264 in Portsmouth - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8300249,-76.3064463,447m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 04:09:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 03:37:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 03:33:05 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 12:46:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 07:55:21 AM
from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement.
I've been through interchanges of that type,
No you have not.  That appears to be unique, or at least something different from anything I have encountered in over 1 million miles of driving.
Baloney.

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 03:37:07 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.451872,-87.2204654,482m/data=!3m1!1e3
Been through that one many times - Pensacola, Florida at I-110 / FL-295.

A T-intersection with a 4-lane arterial.

Interesting in how you seem to have driven practically everywhere ...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 04:09:29 PM
A T-intersection with a 4-lane arterial.
That loop to ramp movement is the exact same as Mallard Rd. No difference whatsoever.

Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 04:09:29 PM
Interesting in how you seem to have driven practically everywhere ...
I've vacationed in Pensacola before, and have family there. Your point?

Sorry I've used an intersection that you claim does not exist anywhere else but Virginia in Florida.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 04:17:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 04:09:29 PM
A T-intersection with a 4-lane arterial.
That loop to ramp movement is the exact same as Mallard Rd. No difference whatsoever.

If you had a highway engineering background you would not say that they are the "exact same".

For one thing, do you see the bike lane between the ramp lane and the arterial lanes?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 04:22:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 04:17:03 PM
If you had a highway engineering background you would not say that they are the "exact same".
Did I say I had a highway engineering background?

Does everybody on this forum have to have a highway engineering background?

Quote from: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 04:17:03 PM
For one thing, do you see the bike lane between the ramp lane and the arterial lanes?
The movement from NB FL-295 to EB FL-291 to NB I-110 is the same layout, and takes you through two channelized movements to the ramp.

The fact there's a bike lane and an additional lane makes no difference how the movement is.

(https://i.ibb.co/bN3GXSM/Same-Channelized-Movement-To-Ramp-I110-I95.png)

You're beating a dead horse trying to prove your claim it's not a RIRO or T-intersection, or the fact these interchanges are somehow different.

When you can provide a valid argument how the arterial to ramp movement is different, then I'll believe you. I'll wait...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 04:39:58 PM
The area inside the loop at VA-606 is part of the limited access right-of-way for the highway.  I would need to go out there to see if it is fenced, but that land will not be used for any public access or establishment, so that is a limited access loop.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 02, 2019, 06:27:50 PM
The Thornburg ramp isn't a RIRO for the reasons froggie noted. Compare that ramp to the ones on US-50 on Kent Island in Maryland, where there are several RIROs, including one that connects to a roundabout.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 06:32:04 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 02, 2019, 06:27:50 PM
The Thornburg ramp isn't a RIRO for the reasons froggie noted. Compare that ramp to the ones on US-50 on Kent Island in Maryland, where there are several RIROs, including one that connects to a roundabout.
I've agreed to that, but it's not a loop ramp as Scott continues to claim. It's a channelized turn onto Mallard Rd, then another channelized turn onto I-95 North.

By claiming it's a full interstate maintained loop ramp, you claim that Mallard Rd southbound does not exist in that stretch. A roadway cannot be apart of a ramp.

Fallacy argument.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 02, 2019, 06:36:27 PM
I don't have an issue with his comment because in reply #4152 he said (emphasis added) "from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement."  To me, the italicized words are the key and I read the comment as meaning, in essence, "it's not a true limited-access loop ramp, but it functions as one for a lot of people."  
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 02, 2019, 06:36:27 PM
I don't have an issue with his comment because in reply #4152 he said (emphasis added) "from the driver's standpoint there is a limited access loop ramp using one continuous lane that handles that movement."  To me, the italicized words are the key and I read the comment as meaning, in essence, "it's not a true limited-access loop ramp, but it functions as one for a lot of people."
I agree on that part somewhat, though he pushed the claim above it is truly a limited-access full loop ramp. And it depends on driver familiarity. If you're not familiar with the area, when you make the first channelized movement, you still get the sense of being on a road. However, signage directs you to the ramp, and overall makes a loop type movement from when you leave VA-606 and you enter I-95 North.

QuoteNo it is not.  The entire loop is a freeway ramp.  It has its own lane from the exit point on VA-606 and it is limited access all the way through.

The channelized movement onto Mallard Rd serves the interchange, though is not apart of the interstate maintained right of way. Yes, Mallard Rd has limited-access fencing, but it is not apart of the state-maintained interstate right of way. That stretch is apart of Mallard Rd southbound, not the ramp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 02, 2019, 07:25:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 02, 2019, 06:40:13 PM
QuoteThe entire loop is a freeway ramp.  It has its own lane from the exit point on VA-606 and it is limited access all the way through.
The channelized movement onto Mallard Rd serves the interchange, though is not apart of the interstate maintained right of way. Yes, Mallard Rd has limited-access fencing, but it is not apart of the state-maintained interstate right of way. That stretch is apart of Mallard Rd southbound, not the ramp.

Whatever part you want to argue is part of the "Interstate", the area inside of the loop will not be utilized for any commercial or public establishment, so that is a de facto part of the freeway.

You make a smooth freeway loop movement from the gore on VA-606 to where it becomes the original ramp to I-95 North.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on July 02, 2019, 11:27:55 PM
I'm seeing two slip lanes, with an auxiliary lane between them. A driver would probably see a loop, but drivers aren't making the technical choices here.

In Washington State, the "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" sign would be used at the second right turn. Because the first intersection forces all right turns to use the slip lane, anyone destined for southbound Mallard Road would need to use that first right turn, and then perform a lane change. To say that this movement, even hypothetically, involves entering the interstate on-ramp and then performing a lane change away from the on-ramp, seems daft.

My understanding is that "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs can only be used at the point of no return. The signs are an indication that you are entering a freeway, and relevant rules apply. If Virginia's "PROHIBITED" signs (the technical equivalent, I suppose) are used at the first right turn, then we could conclude that (A) both slip lanes, (B) Mallard Road, and (C) the on-ramp are part of the interstate. If it's used only at the second right turn, the interstate only starts at the second right turn (the point of no return).

For the record, (1) this is not a unique interchange type, at all, and (2) state ROW does not have any bearing on the physical movements, which were designed to facilitate loop-like movements, but not be an actual loop (as this would prevent traffic from entering NB-95 from any direction other than EB-606).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 12:36:32 PM
Good informational article regarding the final phase of I-64 widening on the Peninsula (until more get funded that is).

I-64 widening project almost another phase closer to complete, with expansion to go into 2021 (https://www.dailypress.com/news/traffic/dp-nws-evg-i-64-construction-update-20190628-story.html?fbclid=IwAR0cmaV77D_8m0R1F8BKdQ3b1XFVbKN3EfupxbcBCGzIfEzonh3jXtN7rgM)
QuoteDrivers on Interstate 64 this summer will notice a lot of construction in the Williamsburg area.

That includes commuters from Williamsburg like Tyler Reeves, who regularly drives to Hampton University where he is the director of the student success center.

"I will definitely take this as my sacrifice for living somewhere that I find real pleasant,"  Reeves said.

The Virginia Department of Transportation is in the last stages of finishing the second of a three-part, six-year project to widen I-64 to three lanes from near Jefferson Avenue in Newport News to near the James City-York County border.

The final phase of the project, which started in September 2015, is scheduled to wrap up in fall 2021, said VDOT Peninsula-area construction engineer Joseph Ludwig.

The first phase was completed in 2017 for $122 million.

Most of the work on the second segment, which runs from east of exit 247 to about a mile west of exit 242, finished before Memorial Day, said Brittany Nichols, VDOT Hampton Roads' spokeswoman for the project.

VDOT is doing final inspections on the $176 million project, checking landscaping and making sure the road is ready before it officially accepts the roadway from contractor Allan Myers, VA Inc.

Rob Roberts is a senior project manager for Shirley Contracting, the contractor for the first and third segments that has similar terms with VDOT. It is responsible for building the roadway as well as working with another contractor to finish the details of the design.

The roughly $178 million third segment is well underway, Roberts said on a tour Tuesday.

It is hot and sometimes scary work, he said.

In parts of the work zone, behind concrete jersey barriers, there can be brief breaks from the heat – when a tractor-trailer passes a few feet behind you and pushes out a wave of air.

"All of our construction right now is in the middle of the interstate,"  Robert said standing on the other side of a barrier a few feet from passing traffic.

Crews with Shirley first hardened the outside shoulder, allowing them to shift traffic away from the median where they'll add the third travel lane. Construction started in August 2018.

"We're trying not to encroach on anyone's property, so you widen the middle,"  Roberts said. "And the only way to widen the middle is to take the trees out."

That poses difficulties. There's no shade in the median, with almost all of the vegetation already mulched and timber sent to lumber mills.

Most equipment is air-conditioned, but for laborers out in the sun, they try to set up shade tents and provide water. Ice is delivered to the project team's headquarters off of exit 234 daily for coolers.

Most of what crews are working on now is moving earth, leveling where there used to be swales and knobs of vegetation.

When it's hot and sunny, there are plumes of dust. Shirley has three trucks to water down the dirt throughout the day.

The opposite poses another set of difficulties, Roberts said. If the ground is wet, as it was during much of May and June, it's hard to move.

"You curse the rain, but when it's not raining, then there's three guys who have to constantly circle the job,"  Roberts said.

There are three bridges in the third phase of the project.

Spans over the Colonial Parkway and Lakeshead Drive are slated to be expanded, while the set over Queens Creek are being replaced.

At the Colonial Parkway, Shirley and VDOT are working with the National Park Service and brick manufacturers to match the brick color and pattern of the existing bridge.

"Like, these would be called a special shape,"  Rogers said, touching the the rounded bricks that crown the guardrail on the Colonial Parkway overpass. "All this stuff is pretty much handmade."

At Queens Creek, crews have built a temporary wooden bridge through the wetlands so they can sink pilings as much as 70 or 80 feet into the ground, trying to find thick enough soil to keep them in place.

Shirley will start paving from the middle of the segment, which is the flattest. They'll use recycled concrete and asphalt for parts of the road substructure, which Ludwig said saves VDOT money.

"There's comparable products where you can bring aggregate by rail,"  Ludwig said. "But this is using local products."

VDOT sees a lot of fender benders in the project zone, Ludwig said, particularly in the summer when tourists are passing through.

Nichols expects that opening up the second segment. She's often in communication with VDOT's traffic operations center about crashes and incidents and says there was a notable decrease when the first section of three-lane roadway opened.

Reeves, who gets on I-64 at Humelsine Parkway at the western end of the second segment, said he hasn't seen a huge difference in his commute times yet.

He usually gets caught up in traffic backed up from the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel. But it has changed drivers' behaviors on his commutes, he said.

Nichols said she recommends checking online and 511Virginia.org before traveling through the area.

"It has trained some people to check Google and Waze before they hit the road, and plan more accordingly,"  Reeves said. "When I do take alternative routes, I do see more traffic taking that way."

Here are some photos of construction activities on Segment 3, courtesy of the Daily Press
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-5d1bbb58%2Fturbine%2Fdp-pictures-i-64-widening-project-20150908-085%2F1550%2F1550x872&hash=e4b7d3adef324fe136bb339bcc058be0c32dff12)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-5d1bbb5a%2Fturbine%2Fdp-pictures-i-64-widening-project-20150908-088%2F1550%2F1550x872&hash=1ae37b8160e0c54f89efdddbc6c800a312468f43)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-5d1bbb5c%2Fturbine%2Fdp-pictures-i-64-widening-project-20150908-087%2F1550%2F1550x872&hash=a0dcf32e1e2d48c1c2f850d5cd378322c3bb1465)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-5d1bbb5e%2Fturbine%2Fdp-pictures-i-64-widening-project-20150908-086%2F1550%2F1550x872&hash=2cc9ec2f2a1a805d8a5cb0e9140d25a468594feb)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 03, 2019, 01:22:52 PM
Very interesting article indeed. Hopefully, serious discussions begin soon on funding Phase 4 and that it'll be at least considered for smart scale funding the next go around. God forbid the HRBT project (not a fan of) takes all the focus and momentum away from continuing to widen I-64 up to Richmond.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 01:38:17 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 03, 2019, 01:22:52 PM
Very interesting article indeed. Hopefully, serious discussions begin soon on funding Phase 4 and that it'll be at least considered for smart scale funding the next go around. God forbid the HRBT project (not a fan of) takes all the focus and momentum away from continuing to widen I-64 up to Richmond.
Segment 4 can most likely be funded through the HRTAC, though assistance from SmartScale would also help.

Segment 1 and 3 was funded by both HRTAC and SmartScale, though Segment 2 was fully funded by HRTAC with no SmartScale assistance.

Segment 4, which would extend the widening another 8 miles up to MM 225, is estimated to cost $300 million, but it's certainly doable.

The Segment 4 project is the last in the Hampton Roads district though sadly... meaning future phases beyond that are up to VDOT and regular funding & SmartScale, and will not receive the benefit of HRTAC funds, which was the only thing that got Segments 1-3 fully funded. Without it, I-64 would still be 4-lanes north of Jefferson Ave and fighting for funding. The tax increase across the state starting in 2021 could help fund those phases though to Richmond outside the HR district.

I don't see the HRBT getting in the way because it's already fully funded. $345 million from toll revenue, $3.2 billion from HRTAC, $200 million from SmartScale, and $100 million from VDOT's State of Good Repair Bridge program - that money is used to replace the trestles over the Hampton Roads waters with one 8-lane span.

I don't like the management being used on the HRBT, though overall am supportive of expanding it. It's badly needed. I would have preferred they construct one 3-lane tunnel, create a 2+1 configuration as proposed, but in the future for a separate project, replace the 50s tunnel with another 3-lane, and have a final 3+1 configuration in each direction.

The whole idea of 2 HO/T lanes in each direction and only 2 GP lanes does not sit well in my mind, I'd rather there be more free capacity than tolled capacity IMO in the long run. Ultimately, 3+1 each way should be the goal on the HRBT, but the current project is designed for 2+2 each way ultimately, and will actually be 2+2 immediately when they open the HO/T shoulder during rush hour.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 03, 2019, 02:44:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 01:38:17 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 03, 2019, 01:22:52 PM
Very interesting article indeed. Hopefully, serious discussions begin soon on funding Phase 4 and that it'll be at least considered for smart scale funding the next go around. God forbid the HRBT project (not a fan of) takes all the focus and momentum away from continuing to widen I-64 up to Richmond.
Segment 4 can most likely be funded through the HRTAC, though assistance from SmartScale would also help.

Segment 1 and 3 was funded by both HRTAC and SmartScale, though Segment 2 was fully funded by HRTAC with no SmartScale assistance.

Segment 4, which would extend the widening another 8 miles up to MM 225, is estimated to cost $300 million, but it's certainly doable.

The Segment 4 project is the last in the Hampton Roads district though sadly... meaning future phases beyond that are up to VDOT and regular funding & SmartScale, and will not receive the benefit of HRTAC funds, which was the only thing that got Segments 1-3 fully funded. Without it, I-64 would still be 4-lanes north of Jefferson Ave and fighting for funding. The tax increase across the state starting in 2021 could help fund those phases though to Richmond outside the HR district.

I don't see the HRBT getting in the way because it's already fully funded. $345 million from toll revenue, $3.2 billion from HRTAC, $200 million from SmartScale, and $100 million from VDOT's State of Good Repair Bridge program - that money is used to replace the trestles over the Hampton Roads waters with one 8-lane span.

I don't like the management being used on the HRBT, though overall am supportive of expanding it. It's badly needed. I would have preferred they construct one 3-lane tunnel, create a 2+1 configuration as proposed, but in the future for a separate project, replace the 50s tunnel with another 3-lane, and have a final 3+1 configuration in each direction.

The whole idea of 2 HO/T lanes in each direction and only 2 GP lanes does not sit well in my mind, I'd rather there be more free capacity than tolled capacity IMO in the long run. Ultimately, 3+1 each way should be the goal on the HRBT, but the current project is designed for 2+2 each way ultimately, and will actually be 2+2 immediately when they open the HO/T shoulder during rush hour.

What do you think the time table is for phase 4? When I read in the article things like "final and last phase" it definitely makes it seem like phase 4 is a while away. 

Now that tax increase will be very interesting. I know $2.2 billion worth of immediately needed projects have already been identified for I-81 with what sounds like a similar study currently underway for I-95. Wonder not only if I-64 will get its own necessary project need study, but also how exactly those needs will be prioritized.

In regards to the HRBT, ideally IMO I-64 would have been widened to four lanes in each direction with two additional 2-lane tunnel tubes similar to the Fort Mchenry tunnel setup in Baltimore. However, I understand both the financial and practicality restraints of this, so as of now I'm willing to give the current project a chance. I also strongly agree with you on the erkness of adding HOT lanes when currently only 2 GP lanes exist. IMO there needs to be at least 3 GP lanes first. Its a mistake to do that here and its a mistake to do that on I-77 down in Charlotte.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 03:32:45 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 03, 2019, 02:44:08 PM
What do you think the time table is for phase 4? When I read in the article things like "final and last phase" it definitely makes it seem like phase 4 is a while away.

Now that tax increase will be very interesting. I know $2.2 billion worth of immediately needed projects have already been identified for I-81 with what sounds like a similar study currently underway for I-95. Wonder not only if I-64 will get its own necessary project need study, but also how exactly those needs will be prioritized.
Segment 4 is currently unfunded, so nobody knows when it will start. Whenever funding is appropriated, it will start. The use of "final and last phase" is just wrong. A Final Environmental Impact Statement has already been completed for the entire corridor between I-95 in Downtown Richmond and I-664 in Newport News. The projects between the two end points is technically "one" project, but due to funding restrictions, has to be carried out over many phases as funding comes along. The ultimate build is to have 8-lanes (3 GP + 1 HOV each way) between I-664 and southern VA-199 in Williamsburg. West of there, 6-lanes all the way to I-95 in Downtown Richmond. Segment 1-2 which expanded I-64 from 4 to 6 lanes between Jefferson Ave and southern VA-199 is going to get an 8-lane expansion in the future from the recently completed 6-lanes, currently estimated at $500 million. West of there, the widening happening now is the final configuration.

Segment 1-3 is a "mini project" within the whole project. 21 miles of 6-lane widening fully funded and carried out over 6 years (2015 - 2021). The 5 miles of widening between Exit 205 (VA-33) and Exit 200 (I-295) is another segment towards the overall 6-8 lane expansion between I-95 and I-664. The Richmond district applied to extend the 6-lane all the way to Exit 214 (VA-155) in SmartScale a couple years ago, but did not receive needed funding. Now the Richmond district has priority on I-95 rather than I-64, so that's going to be a long way off unless dedicated funding comes. Whenever that comes, that's another phase towards the overall project. Ditto with Segment 4 and any other widening projects pursued between I-95 and I-664. IMO, I-64 between I-95 and I-295 is the least priority, as the bulk of the traffic load comes from I-295 South to I-64 East, and that's where the congestion points are. Inside the beltway appears to operate smoothly as traffic counts cut in half.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 03, 2019, 02:44:08 PM
In regards to the HRBT, ideally IMO I-64 would have been widened to four lanes in each direction with two additional 2-lane tunnel tubes similar to the Fort Mchenry tunnel setup in Baltimore. However, I understand both the financial and practicality restraints of this, so as of now I'm willing to give the current project a chance. I also strongly agree with you on the erkness of adding HOT lanes when currently only 2 GP lanes exist. IMO there needs to be at least 3 GP lanes first. Its a mistake to do that here and its a mistake to do that on I-77 down in Charlotte.
The current plan is to build two 2-lane tunnels, and expand the corridor to 6-lanes. During times of congestion, the HO/T shoulder will open up bringing the corridor to 8-lanes total. Management wise, it will be 2+2 each way during congestion times, and 1+2 during non-congestion.

I don't agree with the management, but I do believe having 8-lanes overall will still relieve congestion significantly, and quite frankly that's the key.

Originally, the plan was to build one 3-lane tunnel and have 2+1 all times. They decided to add a HO/T shoulder to add even more capacity during peak hours, and I think that was a smart move despite the additional costs.

If they ever expand the I-664 corridor to 8-lanes, hopefully that will have a more traditional approach and simply be 4 GP lanes each way, and a Fort McHenry Tunnel approach with splitting the lanes 2+2+2+2.

Though I wouldn't keep hopes up, because they are currently adding one lane to the High Rise Bridge corridor + a new bridge, and that new lane is a HO/T lane. In the future, it will be expanded to 8-lanes for an overall 2+2 each way approach, as opposed to a more traditional 3+1 approach, or simply 4 GP each way.

And agreed, I-77 was a -mistake-.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 03, 2019, 03:40:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 03:32:45 PM
Originally, the plan was to build one 3-lane tunnel and have 2+1 all times. They decided to add a HO/T shoulder to add even more capacity during peak hours, and I think that was a smart move despite the additional costs.
If they ever expand the I-664 corridor to 8-lanes, hopefully that will have a more traditional approach and simply be 4 GP lanes each way, and a Fort McHenry Tunnel approach with splitting the lanes 2+2+2+2.

Fort McHenry Tunnel is the way to go, 8 lanes in 4 separate 2-lane tubes.

A 3-lane tube is wasteful unless you are certain that the complex will never need widening to 4 lanes each way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 03:51:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 03, 2019, 03:40:54 PM
A 3-lane tube is wasteful unless you are certain that the complex will never need widening to 4 lanes each way.
See my proposal above. You could build one 3-lane tube, and for the time have 2+1 each way. In the future, demolish the 50s tunnel and replace it with another 3-lane tube, then have 3+1 each way.

That 50s tunnel is substandard and aging. It's going to eventually need to be replaced, and that 3-lane tube would have eventually accommodated that in the future with another 3-lane tube in its place.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 03, 2019, 04:20:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 03:51:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 03, 2019, 03:40:54 PM
A 3-lane tube is wasteful unless you are certain that the complex will never need widening to 4 lanes each way.
See my proposal above. You could build one 3-lane tube, and for the time have 2+1 each way. In the future, demolish the 50s tunnel and replace it with another 3-lane tube, then have 3+1 each way.

That would be wasteful, look at tunnels like the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels for age.  With rehabs every 30 years or so they will last for over 100 years.

Recall how the second Midtown Tunnel cost $1.1 billion to build?

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 03:51:49 PM
That 50s tunnel is substandard and aging. It's going to eventually need to be replaced, and that 3-lane tube would have eventually accommodated that in the future with another 3-lane tube in its place.

They are going to eliminate the ceiling and install jet fans, raising the vertical clearance and eliminating the one feature that is not Interstate standard.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 03, 2019, 04:27:37 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 03:51:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 03, 2019, 03:40:54 PM
A 3-lane tube is wasteful unless you are certain that the complex will never need widening to 4 lanes each way.
See my proposal above. You could build one 3-lane tube, and for the time have 2+1 each way. In the future, demolish the 50s tunnel and replace it with another 3-lane tube, then have 3+1 each way.

That 50s tunnel is substandard and aging. It's going to eventually need to be replaced, and that 3-lane tube would have eventually accommodated that in the future with another 3-lane tube in its place.

While I would love to see the 1957 tunnel and its lower clearance eliminated as well as at least 3 GP lanes each way, there's something else to think about here.

In this scenario the HOT lanes would be in the center (2-lane) tunnel carrying 2-way traffic. Depending on how much traffic would be using this, there could be a speed limit drop (to probably 45 MPH) which I think would be frowned upon by those willing to pay a toll for express lane use.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 04:30:12 PM
Quote from: plain on July 03, 2019, 04:27:37 PM
While I would love to see the 1957 tunnel and its lower clearance eliminated as well as at least 3 GP lanes each way, there's something else to think about here.

In this scenario the HOT lanes would be in the center (2-lane) tunnel carrying 2-way traffic. Depending on how much traffic would be using this, there could be a speed limit drop (to probably 45 MPH) which I think would be frowned upon by those willing to pay a toll for express lane use.
Each lane is 12 feet wide. If you reduce it to 11 feet, you could have a small barrier or tubes dividing traffic. As seen in Northern Virginia, you can reduce lane sizes to 11 feet if it prohibits trucks on HO/T lanes according to posters on here.

Remember, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel has two-way traffic in its tubes and has a 55 mph speed limit, along with no barrier.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 03, 2019, 05:09:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 04:30:12 PM
Quote from: plain on July 03, 2019, 04:27:37 PM
While I would love to see the 1957 tunnel and its lower clearance eliminated as well as at least 3 GP lanes each way, there's something else to think about here.

In this scenario the HOT lanes would be in the center (2-lane) tunnel carrying 2-way traffic. Depending on how much traffic would be using this, there could be a speed limit drop (to probably 45 MPH) which I think would be frowned upon by those willing to pay a toll for express lane use.
Each lane is 12 feet wide. If you reduce it to 11 feet, you could have a small barrier or tubes dividing traffic. As seen in Northern Virginia, you can reduce lane sizes to 11 feet if it prohibits trucks on HO/T lanes according to posters on here.

Remember, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel has two-way traffic in its tubes and has a 55 mph speed limit, along with no barrier.

The CBBT can handle that because it doesn't carry a lot of traffic, even on its busiest days.

A center 2-way tube on the HRBT may have issues during peak periods if enough people choose to use it. It doesn't even have to be a backup here.. just enough people filling the tube to the point highway speeds could become a safety issue.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 03, 2019, 08:42:53 PM
Quote from: plain on July 03, 2019, 05:09:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 04:30:12 PM
Remember, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel has two-way traffic in its tubes and has a 55 mph speed limit, along with no barrier.
The CBBT can handle that because it doesn't carry a lot of traffic, even on its busiest days.
A center 2-way tube on the HRBT may have issues during peak periods if enough people choose to use it. It doesn't even have to be a backup here.. just enough people filling the tube to the point highway speeds could become a safety issue.

I would agree.  The idea of running 2-lane 2-way traffic on a tube in the HRBT complex would be a non-starter. 

Not to mention the costs to build two 3-lane tubes which would be fantastically expensive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 08:46:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 03, 2019, 08:42:53 PM
I would agree.  The idea of running 2-lane 2-way traffic on a tube in the HRBT complex would be a non-starter.
11 foot lanes and divide it with a 2 foot barrier.

If you can shrink the lanes to 11 foot on those HO/T lanes you love in Northern Virginia, you could easily do it here too. I'm pretty sure the original HRBT only has 11 foot lanes as well, and 12 foot lanes on the '76 tunnel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 03, 2019, 09:04:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 03, 2019, 08:46:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 03, 2019, 08:42:53 PM
I would agree.  The idea of running 2-lane 2-way traffic on a tube in the HRBT complex would be a non-starter.
11 foot lanes and divide it with a 2 foot barrier.
If you can shrink the lanes to 11 foot on those HO/T lanes you love in Northern Virginia, you could easily do it here too. I'm pretty sure the original HRBT only has 11 foot lanes as well, and 12 foot lanes on the '76 tunnel.

The Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel has two 12-foot-wide lanes each way, on separately built structures; the original, now westbound, opened on November 1, 1957; and the eastbound structure opened on June 3, 1976.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I64_VA_HRBT.html

A one-way roadway is rather different from a two-way roadway, especially in the confined space of a tunnel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 04, 2019, 11:45:01 AM
https://twitter.com/vadot/status/1146780914900439040?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 04, 2019, 03:51:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 03, 2019, 09:04:40 PM
The Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel has two 12-foot-wide lanes each way
http://hrbtexpansion.org/documents/2018-august-design-public-hearing-materials/project-limits-typical-section-hrbt-expansion-project-2018-public-hearing-display.pdf

According to VDOT, it's 11.5 ft lanes in both tunnels actually.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 09:41:36 PM
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/public-feedback-invited-on-interstate-95-corridor-improvement-study7-10-2019.asp
PUBLIC FEEDBACK INVITED ON INTERSTATE 95 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY
Excerpt:

The Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, under the leadership of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), are developing a plan to study Virginia's 179 miles of the Interstate 95 corridor between the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in Alexandria, Virginia and the North Carolina border.  The public is invited to attend a series of in-person meetings between summer and fall 2019.  An online engagement tool will be available for those interested to learn more details and provide input throughout the study's duration.

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

For more information about the study, or to view meeting materials and access the online engagement tool, visit VA95Corridor.org (http://va95corridor.org).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 10:02:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 09:41:36 PM
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/public-feedback-invited-on-interstate-95-corridor-improvement-study7-10-2019.asp
PUBLIC FEEDBACK INVITED ON INTERSTATE 95 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY
Excerpt:

The Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, under the leadership of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), are developing a plan to study Virginia's 179 miles of the Interstate 95 corridor between the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in Alexandria, Virginia and the North Carolina border.  The public is invited to attend a series of in-person meetings between summer and fall 2019.  An online engagement tool will be available for those interested to learn more details and provide input throughout the study's duration.

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

For more information about the study, or to view meeting materials and access the online engagement tool, visit VA95Corridor.org (http://va95corridor.org).
This is a start, but a more detailed analysis at the section between Woodbridge and I-295 is needed, or at least Fredericksburg to Woodbridge.

Hopefully GP widening of some sorts is included in this study - it has to be a given judging by the traffic counts and only 6 lanes.

But knowing VDOT, I wouldn't be shocked if it's just more "interchange improvements". Can't interfere with Transurban's tolling operations. They already rejected a previous widening request over this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 10:10:55 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 10:02:14 PM
This is a start, but a more detailed analysis at the section between Woodbridge and I-295 is needed, or at least Fredericksburg to Woodbridge.
Hopefully GP widening of some sorts is included in this study - it has to be a given judging by the traffic counts and only 6 lanes.
But knowing VDOT, I wouldn't be shocked if it's just more "interchange improvements". Can't interfere with Transurban's tolling operations. They already rejected a previous widening request over this.

Really?  Where was that?  What did they do?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 10:38:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 10:10:55 PM
Really?  Where was that?  What did they do?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/potomaclocal-images/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/VDOT-I-95-PWC-Widening-Project.pdf
Quote from: VDOT Northern Virginia District Administrator Letter to Prince William County DOTAs a result of this review, it has been determined that Application ID 1533, Widen I-95 from Occoquan River Bridge to Rte 234 (Exit 152), is not eligible for the following reasons: The project's estimate could not be fully evaluated given that the proposed addition of capacity to Interstate 95 would result in a compensation event for the I-95 Express Lanes, for which adequate information is not currently available.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 10:45:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 10:38:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 10:10:55 PM
Really?  Where was that?  What did they do?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/potomaclocal-images/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/VDOT-I-95-PWC-Widening-Project.pdf
Quote from: VDOT Northern Virginia District Administrator Letter to Prince William County DOTAs a result of this review, it has been determined that Application ID 1533, Widen I-95 from Occoquan River Bridge to Rte 234 (Exit 152), is not eligible for the following reasons: The project's estimate could not be fully evaluated given that the proposed addition of capacity to Interstate 95 would result in a compensation event for the I-95 Express Lanes, for which adequate information is not currently available.

That basically says nothing.  What would this compensation event be, a few thousand dollars?  A few million?  Basically they gave no cogent reason for claiming that such an event would prevent the project from moving forward.

It was mentioned elsewhere that adding a lane each way for 8 miles would cost about $400 million.  That cost for that level of improvement would be the real reason.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 10:48:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 10:45:38 PM
That cost for that level of improvement would be the real reason.
The modern day cost per mile of interstate highway widening?

I guess if that's too expensive for VDOT, I-95 is never getting 8-lanes.

$50 million per mile is to be expected.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 10:50:12 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 10:48:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 10:45:38 PM
That cost for that level of improvement would be the real reason.
The modern day cost per mile of interstate highway widening?
I guess if that's too expensive for VDOT, I-95 is never getting 8-lanes.
$50 million per mile is to be expected on modern-day widening.

That competing with everything else on the corridor. 

And it is not going to "open the pearly gates".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 10:53:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 10:50:12 PM
That competing with everything else on the corridor.
What, Transurban's privately funded HO/T lane extensions?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 10:55:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 10:53:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 10:50:12 PM
That competing with everything else on the corridor.
What, Transurban's privately funded HO/T lane extensions?

Past, present, future.  C-D roadways.  The current study's upcoming results on the whole corridor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 10:58:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 10:55:17 PM
The current study's upcoming results on the whole corridor.
And I wouldn't be surprised if they blow off widening once again and not even consider it.

Rebuilding a whole bunch of interchanges is nice. But it doesn't help traffic flow better on the mainline.

8-lanes would. And no I know 8-lanes won't make the whole corridor free-flowing at 5pm on a Friday afternoon. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It will help traffic flow certainly more than it is now.

Maybe they could even do 8-lanes, then open the shoulder to have 10 GP lanes during peak hours.

Toll lanes are going to have the least impact of traffic flow in the GP lanes. You've advocated for constructing the 4th lane each way as a toll lane. That would have little to no benefit considering the existing toll lanes that can adequately handle the traffic that is willing to pay.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 11:08:26 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 10, 2019, 10:58:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 10:55:17 PM
The current study's upcoming results on the whole corridor.
And I wouldn't be surprised if they blow off widening once again and not even consider it.
Rebuilding a whole bunch of interchanges is nice. But it doesn't help traffic flow better on the mainline.
8-lanes would.  And no I know 8-lanes won't make the whole corridor free-flowing at 5pm on a Friday afternoon. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It will help traffic flow certainly more than it is now.

I would expect the study be like those performed on I-81 and I-64, a corridor EIS/location study that looks at all the needs and makes recommendations accordingly.

That would include funding mechanisms, such as federal and state funds, taxation districts, toll revenue bonds, P3 equity, etc. and combinations thereof.

I have already suggested a 4th GP lane that has variable tolls, if that is what it takes to fund it between I-295 and VA-123.  The reversible roadway only handles one direction at a time and has never been proposed south of Massaponax.

But I am tired of hearing about this putative "compensation event" when it is apparent that no one has tallied the cost of it; it could be small or large; we don't know.

Interstate widening project needs are enormous in many states; it is not just one route, but in the case of Virginia the 325 miles of I-81, about 30 more miles of I-64, and some extremely expensive harbor crossings.  Now the I-95 corridor as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 12:17:12 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 11:08:26 PM
I would expect the study be like those performed on I-81 and I-64, a corridor EIS/location study that looks at all the needs and makes recommendations accordingly.
If the I-81 study is indication, then we can expect interchange and other spot improvements being recommended, and MAYBE an auxiliary lane or two.

The I-64 EIS was done right. It didn't BS with interchange and other spot improvements and auxiliary lanes, it got right to the point - the whole highway needs to be 6-lanes in the rural areas, 8-lanes in the urban areas.

That would include funding mechanisms, such as federal and state funds, taxation districts, toll revenue bonds, P3 equity, etc. and combinations thereof.

Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 11:08:26 PM
I have already suggested a 4th GP lane that has variable tolls
... which would be absolutely pointless given there's already toll lanes within the corridor.
And tax dollars better not fund that new lane if VDOT was dumb enough to build it to begin with.

Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 11:08:26 PM
Interstate widening project needs are enormous in many states; it is not just one route, but in the case of Virginia the 325 miles of I-81, about 30 more miles of I-64, <snip> and now the I-95 corridor as well.
51 miles of widening on I-81 is already funded, so you can cut that down to 274 miles.

I-64 Segment 4 widening is unfunded, though would likely be funded via HRTAC - considering that factor, that would reduce the gap for regular VDOT funding to 20 miles.

30 miles on I-64, 274 miles on I-81, and 70 miles on I-95 - 374 miles of widening needed throughout the state ultimately - likely around $18.7 billion using a $50 million per mile figure.

If you also consider the fact that the I-81 corridor is now in its own tax district and will likely pay the price of the future 274 miles of widening in that corridor over the next 10-20 years, that would significantly reduce the amount of regular VDOT funding needed for that - similar to how HRTAC is funding its own projects without regular VDOT funding.

That would leave only around 100 miles of interstate mileage that would need to fully compete for state funding via SmartScale and other sources, so again using that $50 million per mile figure, around $5 billion.

With the HRTAC, I-81 Tax District, the statewide tax increase coming in 2020, and existing state/federal funding in place, if VDOT plays its cards right, they could get most or all of these projects underway or even completed by 2050 IMO.

Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 11:08:26 PM
and some extremely expensive harbor crossings.
The HRBT expansion, and the future third crossing and MMMBT expansions are funded by HRTAC which collects revenue through the 2013 gas-tax increase in Hampton Roads.

VDOT only pitched in $200 million towards the $3.8 billion HRBT expansion, so trying to indicate that the entire $3.8 billion project competes with other projects statewide is moot.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 01:51:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 12:17:12 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 10, 2019, 11:08:26 PM
I have already suggested a 4th GP lane that has variable tolls
... which would be absolutely pointless given there's already toll lanes within the corridor.
And tax dollars better not fund that new lane if VDOT was dumb enough to build it to begin with.
This is the same non-answer that you have posted before.

You also gutted the context:
"I have already suggested a 4th GP lane that has variable tolls, if that is what it takes to fund it between I-295 and VA-123.  The reversible roadway only handles one direction at a time and has never been proposed south of Massaponax."

Also, the reversible roadway will probably not be extended south of the US-17 Falmouth interchange.  So that is about 38% of the segment I stated, and only handles one direction at a time.

The fact that "there's already toll lanes within the corridor" is irrelevant to the bulk of the mileage that does not have toll lanes available to the motorist, 100% in one direction and about 62% in the other direction.

You said that all the various Interstate widening projects might take until 2050 to complete; I don't know about that, but I addressed the specific needs on I-95 between I-295 and VA-123, and suggested a way to fund it sooner rather than later.

A 4th toll lane each way absolutely would be well utilized if it existed.

So the state conducts a study to find an effective mix of federal and state funds, taxation districts, toll revenue bonds, P3 equity, etc. and combinations thereof, to fund this project with appropriate tolls.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive. I encourage anyone else interested in this to either attend one of the other meetings or email the study manager. If anyone has any specific questions they would like me to ask ( assuming I go) let me know.

Regarding I-81, it was said up thread that 51 miles of widening along the corridor has been funded. Which specific segments? It was my understanding that only the section through Harrisonburg (both directions), northbound between Blacksburg and I-581, and maybe between Exit 7 and 10 near Bristol are getting an actual 3rd lane. The rest of the funded "widenings" I thought were for auxiliary lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 03:53:17 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
Regarding I-81, it was said up thread that 51 miles of widening along the corridor has been funded. Which specific segments?
MM 8.1 to MM 9.7 - 1.6 miles
MM 116.2 to MM 141.8 - 25.6 miles
MM 144.2 to MM 151.3 - 7.1 miles
MM 221.8 to MM 225.3 - 3.5 miles
MM 242.2 to MM 248.1 - 5.9 miles
MM 295.7 to MM 299.2 - 3.5 miles
MM 313.8 to MM 317.5 - 3.7 miles

So in total, 50.9 miles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 04:02:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 03:53:17 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
Regarding I-81, it was said up thread that 51 miles of widening along the corridor has been funded. Which specific segments?
MM 8.1 to MM 9.7 - 1.6 miles
MM 116.2 to MM 141.8 - 25.6 miles
MM 144.2 to MM 151.3 - 7.1 miles
MM 221.8 to MM 225.3 - 3.5 miles
MM 242.2 to MM 248.1 - 5.9 miles
MM 295.7 to MM 299.2 - 3.5 miles
MM 313.8 to MM 317.5 - 3.7 miles

So in total, 50.9 miles.

Both directions?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on July 11, 2019, 04:09:22 PM
All three directions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 04:41:17 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 04:02:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 03:53:17 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
Regarding I-81, it was said up thread that 51 miles of widening along the corridor has been funded. Which specific segments?
MM 8.1 to MM 9.7 - 1.6 miles
MM 116.2 to MM 141.8 - 25.6 miles
MM 144.2 to MM 151.3 - 7.1 miles
MM 221.8 to MM 225.3 - 3.5 miles
MM 242.2 to MM 248.1 - 5.9 miles
MM 295.7 to MM 299.2 - 3.5 miles
MM 313.8 to MM 317.5 - 3.7 miles

So in total, 50.9 miles.

Both directions?
I believe so.

There's other projects in there I did not list like "Add auxiliary lane between Exit 221 and Exit 220", etc.

I strictly listed the ones that said "Widen to three lanes", then the mile markers.

There's also additional projects that would add truck climbing lanes, though those would likely only be in one direction. I did not list those above. Here those are -

- MM 32.3 to MM 33.5
- MM 39.9 to MM 40.6
- MM 33.0 to MM 34.0
- MM 233.3 to MM 237.4
- MM 234.6 to MM 236.5

The mile markers overlapping is likely a result of one being in one direction, and one in the other.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 08:51:32 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.

I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 

The I-395 HOT lanes will open in the next year, and that will cause the HOT traffic to grow even more on I-95.

The I-495 HOT lanes extension to the GW Parkway, and to I-270, will take longer, but they are in the same time frame as the 10 miles of widening south of VA-123.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 09:50:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 08:51:32 PM
that will cause the HOT traffic to grow even more on I-95.
How? The lanes already exist. And could you provide a source for this data?

Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 08:51:32 PM
as the 10 miles of widening south of VA-123.
What?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 01:51:28 PM
A 4th toll lane each way absolutely would be well utilized if it existed.
Source?

Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 01:51:28 PM
So the state conducts a study to find an effective mix of federal and state funds, taxation districts, toll revenue bonds, P3 equity, etc. and combinations thereof, to fund this project with appropriate tolls.
They did the same study on I-64... indicated over $1 billion in needed improvements.

They studied an ETL or HO/T lane option for the third lane. It was removed from further study and the selected alternative was general purpose widening for about 51 miles.

About 30 miles is needed between VA-123 and Fredericksburg. A study on the I-95 corridor would also likely eliminate tolling from further study, and quite rightfully so. It's a waste IMO and I felt the same way about I-64's proposals. I'm glad VDOT was smart and eliminated it as common sense kicked in.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 10:10:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 09:50:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 08:51:32 PM
that will cause the HOT traffic to grow even more on I-95.
How? The lanes already exist. And could you provide a source for this data?
You need to stop your creative snipping.  I was referring to the 3-lane widening on the I-395 reversible roadway and its conversion to HOT in 2020.  Do you think it is -not- going to increase the traffic on the I-95 HOT lanes, with the Shirley Highway HOT extension into Washington?

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 01:51:28 PM
A 4th toll lane each way absolutely would be well utilized if it existed.
Source?
Common sense, a 6-lane freeway that carries over 100,000 VPD at the minimum, and it would depend on the level of the toll.

Like it I said, it needs to be -studied- and considered, and if they demonstrate the feasibility they can build it, if not feasible they can delete it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 10:20:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 10:10:14 PM
You need to stop your creative snipping.
The hypocrisy  :poke:

Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 10:10:14 PM
I was referring to the 3-lane widening on the I-395 reversible roadway and its conversion to HOT in 2020. Do you think it is -not- going to increase the traffic on the I-95 HOT lanes
I-395 is not I-95.

I-395 traffic will increase because SOV will be permitted via a toll. I-95 is already 3-lanes in the HO/T lanes and is available to SOV for a toll. I don't see how I-95 traffic will increase if it's the same people using it.

Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 10:10:14 PM
Common sense, a 6-lane freeway that carries over 100,000 VPD at the minimum
Said freeway should have 8 GP lanes before we start discussing toll lanes.

Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 10:10:14 PM
Like it I said, it needs to be -studied- and considered, and if they demonstrate the feasibility they can build it, if not feasible they can delete it.
If I-64 is any indication, it will be studied then deleted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 11:26:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 08:51:32 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.

I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 

Transurban is a private company looking to maximize its profits, VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95), and lastly if it was probably not big deal I believe VDOT would have already done something about it. Thats my logic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 11:29:01 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 11:26:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 08:51:32 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.

I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 

Transurban is a private company looking to maximize its profits, VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95), and lastly if it was probably not big deal I believe VDOT would have already done something about it. Thats my logic.
I agree. I-95 was widened to 8-lanes between VA-123 and I-495 right before Transurban came in. Now there's not really been any peep from VDOT about continuing 8-lanes south. The localities and jurisdictions want that 4th FREE lane each way, but no official talks of it happening.

By now, I-95 should naturally be 8-lanes down to Fredericksburg given the traffic counts and is long overdue to be on at least a study. But all we see are interchange improvements and other spot improvements.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 11:29:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 08:51:32 PM
The I-495 HOT lanes extension to the GW Parkway, and to I-270, will take longer, but they are in the same time frame as the 10 miles of widening south of VA-123.
^um some clarification here?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 11:30:42 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 11:26:10 PM
VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95)
It's quite sad Virginia would even make such a deal - to allow a private company to have control over something like that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 11:38:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 11:30:42 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 11:26:10 PM
VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95)
It's quite sad Virginia would even make such a deal - to allow a private company to have control over something like that.

Yes on I-95 its been nothing but an absolute disaster. Glad they learned their lesson and made the I-66 deal far better. For Maryland and their future P3 Express lane deals, this is a perfect example of what to do and what not to.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 11:45:01 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 11:38:40 PM
Yes on I-95 its been nothing but an absolute disaster.
If anything it was just a way for Virginia to let someone else deal with their problems. And it still hasn't done much.

The condition that I-95 is in is unacceptable IMO.

And it's not like VDOT or anybody really cares. You can hem and haw all day long about how its expensive, but the fact no formal EIS or location study has been conducted says it. The only reason the little corridor study is happening now is because legislators in Richmond directed the CTB to conduct such a study. It likely will not provide us with much. This is not a full EIS as it should have been 10 years ago.

NCDOT has over 100 miles of interstate highway widening projects underway or fully funded for the next 5-6 years, including 45 miles on I-95. That's progress. And you can't pull out the little "they don't have water or mountain obstacles (which is complete bogus for the record) like VA does" card because 95% of the widenings needed in Virginia is not water or mountainous. Rural stretches of I-95 that carry 60,000 AADT in North Carolina will be 8-lanes while North Virginia will continue to have urban stretches with 150,000 - 200,000 AADT that are only 6-lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:03:44 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 11:26:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 08:51:32 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.
I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 
Transurban is a private company looking to maximize its profits, VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95), and lastly if it was probably not big deal I believe VDOT would have already done something about it. Thats my logic.

Can you show me in the contract where it says that VDOT cannot "add competitive capacity to I-95"?

I am really getting tired of these kind of claims that never define exactly what would happen if VDOT added a lane each way to this segment.

It is a $400 million project for 8 miles and while it would help some it would not exactly "open the pearly gates".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:06:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 11:45:01 PM
North Carolina will be

I don't give a rip about that state, as should be obvious long ago.  I don't travel there.
If you love it so much then go live there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 12, 2019, 12:06:51 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 11:45:01 PM
NCDOT has over 100 miles of interstate highway widening projects underway or fully funded for the next 5-6 years, including 45 miles on I-95. That's progress.

A big reason for that is because NC taxes more for transportation correct? Regardless, its at least progress for Virginia that the new dedicated interstate improvements tax was passed and will hopefully speed up many of the desperately needed interstate widenings that you mentioned up thread across the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 12, 2019, 12:19:09 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:03:44 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 11:26:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 08:51:32 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.
I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 
Transurban is a private company looking to maximize its profits, VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95), and lastly if it was probably not big deal I believe VDOT would have already done something about it. Thats my logic.
I am really getting tired of these kind of claims that never define exactly what would happen if VDOT added a lane each way to this segment.

That is because NOBODY exactly knows. All I'm saying is that by continuing to do nothing, VDOT obviously thinks it'll be bad enough to where it won't be worth their time to further pursue. Since you don't believe the compensation event is a problem, what do you believe is the "real" reason for why VDOT has not considered doing any GP lane widening south of VA-123?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on July 12, 2019, 12:25:14 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:06:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 11:45:01 PM
North Carolina will be

I don't give a rip about that state, as should be obvious long ago.  I don't travel there.
If you love it so much then go live there.
You need to stop your creative snipping.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:27:48 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 12, 2019, 12:19:09 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:03:44 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 11:26:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 08:51:32 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.
I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 
Transurban is a private company looking to maximize its profits, VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95), and lastly if it was probably not big deal I believe VDOT would have already done something about it. Thats my logic.
I am really getting tired of these kind of claims that never define exactly what would happen if VDOT added a lane each way to this segment.
That is because NOBODY exactly knows. All I'm saying is that by continuing to do nothing, VDOT obviously thinks it'll be bad enough to where it won't be worth their time to further pursue. Since you don't believe the compensation event is a problem, what do you believe is the "real" reason for why VDOT has not considered doing any GP lane widening south of VA-123?

You snipped what I said:
It is a $400 million project for 8 miles and while it would help some it would not exactly "open the pearly gates".

IOW adding 1 lane to 3 for that cost and length is not necessarily a very cost effective project compared to all the other needs.

I'm not saying that a compensation event is not a problem, but I am tired of hearing about it when nobody has provided any estimate of what it would be, and I was not impressed by the letter from the NoVA District Administrator.  Nobody has officially documented that it would be so high that it would not be affordable.  Until someone does that then all I am hearing is a lot of hot air.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 12, 2019, 12:55:33 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:27:48 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 12, 2019, 12:19:09 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:03:44 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 11:26:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 08:51:32 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
I may try and attend the Lorton meeting next week to try get more details on both what types of improvements VDOT is thinking about along the corridor and more about the compensation event regarding the Woodbridge to Garrisonville segment. I agree with Beltway that the exact amount of compensation VDOT would be required to pay needs to be studied. However it is my prediction that this cost will be extremely expensive.
I really, really doubt it.  Usage is already very high in peak hours, and it takes high tolls to manage the traffic below congestion levels. 
Transurban is a private company looking to maximize its profits, VA would be violating the contract (to not add competitive capacity to I-95), and lastly if it was probably not big deal I believe VDOT would have already done something about it. Thats my logic.
I am really getting tired of these kind of claims that never define exactly what would happen if VDOT added a lane each way to this segment.
That is because NOBODY exactly knows. All I'm saying is that by continuing to do nothing, VDOT obviously thinks it'll be bad enough to where it won't be worth their time to further pursue. Since you don't believe the compensation event is a problem, what do you believe is the "real" reason for why VDOT has not considered doing any GP lane widening south of VA-123?

You snipped what I said:
It is a $400 million project for 8 miles and while it would help some it would not exactly "open the pearly gates".

IOW adding 1 lane to 3 for that cost and length is not necessarily a very cost effective project compared to all the other needs.

I'm not saying that a compensation event is not a problem, but I am tired of hearing about it when nobody has provided any estimate of what it would be, and I was not impressed by the letter from the NoVA District Administrator.  Nobody has officially documented that it would be so high that it would not be affordable.  Until someone does that then all I am hearing is a lot of hot air.

I am annoyed that at the very least, before deciding not to move forward, VDOT could've found out what the compensation event would be as a result of that specific project ( widening I-95 to Dumfries). One would think that figuring that out would not be very complicated but idk maybe extensive negotiations and more would be required.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:12:44 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:27:48 AM
IOW adding 1 lane to 3 for that cost and length is not necessarily a very cost effective project
Easy for someone who always travels in the HO/T lanes to say.

It's a high priority and a very effective project for those of us who don't want to pay $20 to bypass rush hour traffic when VDOT sits around doing nothing to improve the GP lanes excepting reaching out to Transurban asking for more HO/T lanes and extensions.

If you don't experience the GP traffic first hand and deal with it, you don't have room to say it's not an effective project. You chose to pay your way out of it, so you can't make these claims.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:27:48 AM
compared to all the other needs.
What, those privately funded HO/T lanes you advocate for and love so much?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:14:27 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 12, 2019, 12:55:33 AM
I am annoyed that at the very least, before deciding not to move forward, VDOT could've found out what the compensation event would be as a result of that specific project ( widening I-95 to Dumfries). One would think that figuring that out would not be very complicated but idk maybe extensive negotiations and more would be required.
It's because they have no real interest in pursuing GP widening. Just more HO/T lanes so they aren't actually having to do any work, and so those who want to pay their way out of congestion can fly right on through.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:19:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:06:09 AM
I don't give a rip about that state, as should be obvious long ago.
Doesn't matter if you don't like it, fact is they are doing more than Virginia is when it comes to highway expansions and freeway construction -outside of Hampton Roads which is in a special tax district-.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:06:09 AM
If you love it so much then go live there.
I'm close enough, it's only 10 minutes away. Two high-quality four-lane highways and eventually an interstate highway to connect.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on July 12, 2019, 08:47:33 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 04:41:17 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 04:02:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 03:53:17 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM
Regarding I-81, it was said up thread that 51 miles of widening along the corridor has been funded. Which specific segments?

MM 116.2 to MM 141.8 - 25.6 miles

So in total, 50.9 miles.

Both directions?
I believe so.

There's other projects in there I did not list like "Add auxiliary lane between Exit 221 and Exit 220", etc.

I strictly listed the ones that said "Widen to three lanes", then the mile markers.


This section covers the stretch between Christiansburg and Salem/Roanoke. It starts roughly where the C/D lanes for exit 118 (U.S. 11/460) end going south and ends at exit 141 (VA 419). There is a three-lane section going south, up Christiansburg Mountain, from Ironto (appox. MP 128) to exit 118 at Christiansburg. There is a desperate need for a third lane going down the mountain and from Ironto to Roanoke in both directions. This project will tie in with the already approved goofy project that will make the left entrance from I-581 going south a through lane to exit 141 and make the right lane an extended exit lane for VA 419.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 09:03:08 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:12:44 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:27:48 AM
IOW adding 1 lane to 3 for that cost and length [$400 million for 8 miles] is not necessarily a very cost effective project
Easy for someone who always travels in the HO/T lanes to say.
If you don't experience the GP traffic first hand and deal with it, you don't have room to say it's not an effective project. You chose to pay your way out of it, so you can't make these claims.

This is one of your silliest posts yet. 

How about all the times that I travel that section of I-95 and if I tried to use the HOT lanes I would be driving into oncoming traffic if the cops didn't catch me first?

How about reducing some of the pressure on the HOT lanes so that the tolls don't have to be so high to keep the HOT lanes from congesting in peak hours?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 09:08:00 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 12, 2019, 12:55:33 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:27:48 AM
I'm not saying that a compensation event is not a problem, but I am tired of hearing about it when nobody has provided any estimate of what it would be, and I was not impressed by the letter from the NoVA District Administrator.  Nobody has officially documented that it would be so high that it would not be affordable.  Until someone does that then all I am hearing is a lot of hot air.
I am annoyed that at the very least, before deciding not to move forward, VDOT could've found out what the compensation event would be as a result of that specific project ( widening I-95 to Dumfries). One would think that figuring that out would not be very complicated but idk maybe extensive negotiations and more would be required.

That is part of what I was referring to above.   There just doesn't seem to be much interest outside of some posters here about the project, when I search online I find a couple newspaper articles and that letter and that's it, not sure why there is not more interest.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 10:30:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 09:03:08 AM
How about reducing some of the pressure on the HOT lanes so that the tolls don't have to be so high to keep the HOT lanes from congesting in peak hours?
See that's the problem - you ease congestion in the HO/T lanes and have overall lower toll rates - that's good for the motorist, but don't you think Transurban is going to want compensation for the revenue lost?

That's one of the issues with having another 4th toll lane each way. It's going to fully be free flowing and taking customers out of the HO/T lanes.

At least with general purpose expansion, there's still congestion, but it's relieved across all of the travel lanes and more speed is accumulated. The people who still want a fast ride are still going to pay Transurban to ride in the HO/T lanes who will refuse at all costs to be moving below 65 mph.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 09:08:00 AM
not sure why there is not more interest.
Likely because VDOT has never been serious about adding more capacity to the general purpose lanes after Transurban came in.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 12, 2019, 10:35:55 AM
^ Your first point becomes completely moot if it's Transurban that builds the 4th lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 10:42:36 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 12, 2019, 10:35:55 AM
^ Your first point becomes completely moot if it's Transurban that builds the 4th lane.
It would also then prove my point VDOT is too lazy to deal with it themselves.

We might as well just give the entire highway to Transurban and toll all the lanes.

Seriously though, I don't have too much of an issue with the median HO/T lanes with the assumption that eventually the general purpose lanes will be widened. But now to toll more lanes when the only 3 free lanes each way are bad enough? And at that point it's pretty much locked in the fact your never going to have another 4th GP added each way if Transurban is going to toll all new capacity.

Try selling that to the average motorist that the state has no plans whatsoever to add capacity but instead to hand the dirty work of actually expanding an interstate highway with over 200,000 AADT off to private companies to add their for-profit toll lanes. There was already a lot of opposition to the HO/T lanes, and for good reason, I can't imagine the amount of opposition to this type of project.

This is the reason I-64 is having general purpose expansion. They were not dumb enough to choose HO/T / ETL as the preferred alternative and give it to a private company. Yes, it will take longer to build, but it will be better in the long-run.

The same should be with I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 11:42:51 AM
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/071819%2000A%20Full%20Agenda.pdf

This resolution will be approved on July 18th by the HRTPO.

QuoteA RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD PRIORITIZE THE NEXT COMMONWEALTH-FUNDED WIDENING OF INTERSTATE 64 TO BEGIN AT EXIT 234 IN JAMES CITY COUNTY AND ADVANCE WESTWARD TOWARD BOTTOMS BRIDGE.

WHEREAS, on April 3, 2019, the General Assembly of Virginia enacted the Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Program and Fund, which includes a provision that a portion of the revenues collected under the Program shall be used by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) for operational improvements and other enhancements to improve the safety and reliability of, and travel flow along, [other] interstate highway corridors in the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, I-64 is the only interstate that accesses the Hampton Roads Region — home to 1.7 million people, the Port of Virginia, a large number of military installations, and a thriving tourist industry; and

WHEREAS, in addition to being a critical corridor for freight movement and military mobility, I-64 is a primary emergency evacuation route as well as a major route for reaching prime tourist destinations; and

WHEREAS, in the Hampton Roads Region, three projects are widening approximately 21 miles of I-64 on the Peninsula from four to six lanes between Jefferson Avenue (Exit 255) and Route 199 (Exit 234) at a total cost of $534 million; and

WHEREAS, the I-64/Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Expansion project and the I-64 Southside Widening and High Rise Bridge project are widening an additional 18 miles of I-64 from four to six lanes, adding a new 4-lane bridge-tunnel facility and adding a new 4-lane, high-level bridge at a total cost of $4.39 billion; and

WHEREAS, upon completion of these five projects, 66 of the 75 miles of I-64 that lie within the Hampton Roads Region will have a cross section of at least six lanes; and

WHEREAS, the 9-mile segment of I-64, from Route 199 (Exit 234) to the James City County/New Kent County line will be the only segment of I-64 in the Hampton Roads Region with a cross section of less than six lanes; and

WHEREAS, in the Richmond area, one project will widen approximately 4 miles of I-64 from four to six lanes between I-295 (Exit 200) and Bottoms Bridge (Exit 205); and

WHEREAS, the widening of the 29-mile segment of I-64 from Route 199 (Exit 234) to Bottoms Bridge (Exit 205) from four to six lanes has been deemed to be a priority by the State; and

WHEREAS, the Hampton Roads Region has demonstrated its commitment to improving I-64 by funding more than 87 percent of total cost of the five Hampton Roads projects described above with regional funds allocated by the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the HRTPO hereby encourages the Commonwealth Transportation Board to keep up the momentum of the Region's I-64 improvements that have steadily been progressing up the Peninsula toward Richmond; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the HRTPO requests that the Commonwealth Transportation Board prioritize the next Commonwealth-funded widening of Interstate 64 to begin at Exit 234 in James City County and advance in phases towards Bottoms Bridge.

This Action was APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Board at its meeting on the 18th day of July, 2019.

Looks like if this goes forward we won't be seeing any HRTAC funding for these projects, or at least not fully.

In the agenda, it is indicated the next hopefully project is "Segment 4" which would extend 9 miles from one mile west Exit 234 (VA-199) to two miles west of Exit 227 (VA-30).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:24:55 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 10:30:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 09:03:08 AM
How about reducing some of the pressure on the HOT lanes so that the tolls don't have to be so high to keep the HOT lanes from congesting in peak hours?
See that's the problem - you ease congestion in the HO/T lanes and have overall lower toll rates - that's good for the motorist, but don't you think Transurban is going to want compensation for the revenue lost?
That's one of the issues with having another 4th toll lane each way. It's going to fully be free flowing and taking customers out of the HO/T lanes.

Not necessarily, when the I-95 HOT lanes are already near the congestion point in peak hours, and to where within 5 years or so they will need relief, and when the I-395 HOT lanes will have 3 lanes in 2020 and be seamless with the I-95 HOT lanes.

The reversible roadway also has the express benefit of very widely spaced access points, whereas the GP roadways are impacted by closely spaced interchanges with all the friction that they produce.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 10:30:51 AM
At least with general purpose expansion, there's still congestion, but it's relieved across all of the travel lanes and more speed is accumulated. The people who still want a fast ride are still going to pay Transurban to ride in the HO/T lanes who will refuse at all costs to be moving below 65 mph.

How much is it worth if tolls could fund and construct the 4th lane each way between I-295 and VA-123 by say 2025? 

Or would you rather wait a decade or two longer?

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 10:30:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 09:08:00 AM
not sure why there is not more interest.
Likely because VDOT has never been serious about adding more capacity to the general purpose lanes after Transurban came in.

If it is all so fired critical in the minds of many people, then why hasn't it been broadcast front and center and frequently by news media and at official meetings?

Other than the screeds posted by a few people here, there doesn't seem to be much interest.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:33:55 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 10:42:36 AM
This is the reason I-64 is having general purpose expansion.

You yourself have opined that adding a managed lane to a 3 lane roadway is much more desirable than adding one to a 2 lane roadway.  I would tend to agree because of the operational and driver choices provided by having 3 GP lanes.

I-95 is a different corridor and it already has 3 GP lanes each way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 12:41:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:24:55 PM
The reversible roadway also has the express benefit of very widely spaced access points, whereas the GP roadways are impacted by closely spaced interchanges with all the friction that they produce.
How about an "express" roadway, widely spaced access points, etc. for all long distance traffic without tolls? Then a local roadway for local traffic without tolls? It's been implemented in places before, and works very well.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:24:55 PM
How much is it worth if tolls could fund and construct the 4th lane each way between I-295 and VA-123 by say 2025?
At first, it sounds amazing. But then reality kicks in. That lane will always be tolled and there will only be three general purpose lanes. I'd rather wait and get it built right for the long run. VDOT needs to be studying how much this will cost, how it could be done properly in phases, and any compensation events required. But as far as I'm aware, no official EIS or Feasibility Study has been completed. The study now is only happening because legislators in Richmond directed CTB to do it. I don't expect much from it.

I-64 could be all six lanes right now if that third lane was tolled. But they chose the right option and are building it as a general purpose lane without tolls in phases over time. See my previous post about requesting CTB to continue funding the rest over time.

NCDOT is widening 45 miles of I-95 by adding two general purpose lanes each way. To get the whole 182 mile corridor done, this will take longer than the original toll plan which would have tolled I-95 and got it all widened in one string, but in the long run, having additional general purpose capacity WITHOUT tolls will be a lot better.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:24:55 PM
there doesn't seem to be much interest.
Really? You sure about that? People who sit in the traffic jams every day at rush hour as you fly by at 65+ mph after paying $20 in HO/T lanes want it, the localities want it and they've requested it before only to be shot down by VDOT for "compensation event required".

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:33:55 PM
You yourself have opined that adding a managed lane to a 3 lane roadway is much more desirable than adding one to a 2 lane roadway.
In urban areas. The managed lanes already exist in the urban corridor. The rural area south of Fredericksburg does not need managed lanes.

In most cases, in areas like Hampton Roads, 3 GP + 1 managed lane or 3 GP + 2 reversible managed lane works, but on a corridor like I-95 that has massive congestion issues and carries 150,000 - 200,000 AADT in the GP lanes despite the HO/T lanes existing needs an expansion that does not involved more managed lanes. If they could build another one-lane roadbed that carries HO/T traffic opposite of the current 2-lane roadway that could work.

For instance, if the 2-lane HO/T lanes are pointing northbound, the one-lane roadway could carry HO/T traffic southbound. And they would flip back and forth.

But by adding a 4th managed lane each way on the GP lanes, all that does it restrict it from ever getting another GP expansion in the future.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 12:41:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:24:55 PM
How much is it worth if tolls could fund and construct the 4th lane each way between I-295 and VA-123 by say 2025?
Or would you rather wait a decade or two longer?
At first, it sounds amazing. But then reality kicks in. That lane will always be tolled and there will only be three general purpose lanes. I'd rather wait and get it built right for the long run.
I would rather not wait a decade or two longer, and if it was explained to the public many might feel the same way.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 12:41:00 PM
NCDOT is widening 45 miles of I-95 by adding two general purpose lanes each way.
You mean will be in 2026, if it goes according to plans.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 12:41:00 PM
To get the whole 182 mile corridor done, this will take longer than the original toll plan which would have tolled I-95 and got it all widened in one string, but in the long run, having additional general purpose capacity WITHOUT tolls will be a lot better.
The original toll plan would have tolled the entire Interstate highway corridor on all lanes, something that nobody has been able to pull off yet.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 12:41:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:24:55 PM
there doesn't seem to be much interest.
Really? You sure about that?
If it is all so fired critical in the minds of many people, then why hasn't it been broadcast front and center and frequently by news media and at official meetings?

Other than the screeds and diatribes posted by a few people here, there doesn't seem to be much interest.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:12:54 PM
I would rather not wait a decade or two longer
Says the guy who is a toll road lover. Of course you don't want to wait.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:12:54 PM
and if it was explained to the public many might feel the same way.
I doubt it. There's a lot of opposition to the toll roads here in Chesapeake, and despite plenty of explanation, people still are not on board. It's just a fact - a lot of people don't care for or like tolls.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:12:54 PM
You mean will be in 2026, if it goes according to plans.
25 miles start next year, and the other 20 miles begin in 2026. More could get funded in that time frame as well, as the STIP is updated every two years.

45 miles is 45 miles more than Virginia is even studying for 8-lanes.

45 miles of I-95 in North Carolina that has 60,000 AADT will be 8-lanes while North Virginia with 200,000 AADT will only have 6-lanes.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:12:54 PM
If it is all so fired critical in the minds of many people, then why hasn't it been broadcast front and center and frequently by news media and at official meetings?

Other than the screeds and diatribes posted by a few people here, there doesn't seem to be much interest.
You need to stop your creative snipping.

People who sit in the traffic jams every day at rush hour as you fly by at 65+ mph after paying $20 in HO/T lanes want it, the localities want it and they've requested it before only to be shot down by VDOT for "compensation event required".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:38:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:12:54 PM
I would rather not wait a decade or two longer
Says the guy who is a toll road lover. Of course you don't want to wait.

I don't 'love' any kind of road, I am looking for efficient and effective ways to expand the highway system.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:12:54 PM
and if it was explained to the public many might feel the same way.
I doubt it. There's a lot of opposition to the toll roads here in Chesapeake, and despite plenty of explanation, people still are not on board. It's just a fact - a lot of people don't care for or like tolls.

Those are for entire toll roads across all lanes.

I-95 between I-295 and VA-123 would have the current 3 toll-free GP lanes and one dynamically tolled inner lane.  The toll-free GP lanes would see relief.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:12:54 PM
If it is all so fired critical in the minds of many people, then why hasn't it been broadcast front and center and frequently by news media and at official meetings?

Other than the screeds and diatribes posted by a few people here, there doesn't seem to be much interest.
You need to stop your creative snipping.

People who sit in the traffic jams every day at rush hour as you fly by at 65+ mph after paying $20 in HO/T lanes want it, the localities want it and they've requested it before only to be shot down by VDOT for "compensation event required".


If it is all so fired critical in the minds of many people, then why hasn't it been broadcast front and center and frequently by news media and at official meetings?

Other than the screeds and regurgitate posted by certain people here, there doesn't seem to be much interest.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:38:49 PM
I don't 'love' any kind of road, I am looking for efficient and effective ways to expand the highway system.
If they built your forth toll lane, you'd be in it every time. Just like the HO/T lanes. You love it.

This has turned from tolls being an OPTION for highway expansion into tolls being the ANSWER for every expansion going forward.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:38:49 PM
I-95 between I-295 and VA-123 would have the current 3 toll-free GP lanes and one dynamically tolled inner lane.
We've already built the toll lanes in the urban areas, there does not need to be anymore. Widening the rural section of I-95 by adding a toll lane is a pointless project. 8 GP lanes would adequately serve the traffic south of Fredericksburg. North of there, the FredEx of the HO/T lanes will help the people who can't stand one minute to be below 65 mph, while a 4th FREE lane would ease the congestion on the GP lanes for the thousands+ who don't want to pay $20 (or when the FredEx is done likely up to $30) for a rush hour trip every day.

And let's get this straight, if you build your forth dynamically toll lane, what's the price to ride all the way north from Richmond? $100 one-way? I can get a plane ticket from Richmond to DC for just a little more than that. You're out of your mind if that's your solution to I-95's congestion. Maybe for someone who doesn't have an issue spending hundreds of dollars in tolls because they can't stand a second being stuck below the speed limit, but most people would crowd to the 3 GP FREE lanes. If there was 4 GP lanes, it would be better throughout.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:38:49 PM
If it is all so fired critical in the minds of many people, then why hasn't it been broadcast front and center and frequently by news media and at official meetings?

Other than the screeds and regurgitate posted by certain people here, there doesn't seem to be much interest.

You're way too defensive about these toll lanes, like someone whose interests are being directly affected in a negative way by support to general purpose widening projects.  Maybe you need to step back from your computer and take a break.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:56:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:27:40 PM
45 miles of I-95 in North Carolina that has 60,000 AADT will be 8-lanes while North Virginia with 200,000 AADT will only have 6-lanes.

You keep adding content to posts after I have replied to them.

Do you have some kind of issue with the northern counties that you keep referring to them as "North Virginia"?

Frankly, building 8 lanes for 60,000 AADT could rightly be called wasteful.

Another correction to your advocacy technology, by 2025 I-95 will have 8 lanes or more between south of VA-3 and I-495, and 5 or more lanes in the direction of peak traffic.

Per another post of yours:
I just tabulated the Interstate widening projects in Virginia, and there are 20 segments and 297 miles that have been completed, and 94 miles either under construction or near construction (I-64, I-66, I-81 and I-95).

Heck, I-95 itself has seen 6 segments and 130 miles completed, some twice.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:58:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:56:03 PM
You keep adding content to posts after I have replied to them.
You're the exact same way.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:56:03 PM
Frankly, building 8 lanes for 60,000 AADT could rightly be called wasteful.
On I-95? Hell no, that is building for the future and that's being smart. Future traffic projections show the traffic will increase to 90,000 AADT by 2040.

Was I-295 wasteful for being 8-lanes? How much traffic did it have in 1980?

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:56:03 PM
Do you have some kind of issue with the northern counties that you keep referring to them as "North Virginia"?
No, do you have some kind of issue with North Carolina?

North Virginia is the official name of the region.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:56:03 PM
and 94 miles either under construction or near construction (I-64, I-66, I-81 and I-95).
HO/T lane construction does not count. I did not count the 30+ miles under construction in North Carolina in my figure. I meant GP widening paid for by tax dollars and free to use.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:56:03 PM
Heck, I-95 itself has seen 6 segments and 152 miles completed, some twice.
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:56:03 PM
and there are 20 segments and 297 miles that have been completed
You're going back in time... doesn't count.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:38:49 PM
I don't 'love' any kind of road, I am looking for efficient and effective ways to expand the highway system.
If they built your forth toll lane, you'd be in it every time. Just like the HO/T lanes. You love it.
Do you have some kind of fetish with writing "HOT" as "HO/T"?  The literature almost always writes "HOT".

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:51:51 PM
This has turned from tolls being an OPTION for highway expansion into tolls being the ANSWER for every expansion going forward.
That is called a strawman argument.  It is a consideration in a few select cases and in those should be studied.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:51:51 PM
You're way too defensive about these toll lanes, like someone whose interests are being directly affected in a negative way by support to general purpose widening projects.  Maybe you need to step back from your computer and take a break.
Based on your posting history your involvement here is obviously part of your employment, in the highway advocacy role.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 02:11:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:58:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:56:03 PM
and 94 miles either under construction or near construction (I-64, I-66, I-81 and I-95).
HO/T lane construction does not count. I did not count the 30+ miles under construction in North Carolina in my figure. I meant GP widening paid for by tax dollars and free to use.
Of course it counts, money is fungible, it is all part of the expansion of the highway system.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:58:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:56:03 PM
Heck, I-95 itself has seen 6 segments and 152 miles completed, some twice.
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:56:03 PM
and there are 20 segments and 297 miles that have been completed
You're going back in time... doesn't count.
You mean that "back in time" means that you can't drive on those widenings?

297 miles blows away NC's mileage of Interstate widenings.  91 more miles coming up.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:58:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 01:56:03 PM
Frankly, building 8 lanes for 60,000 AADT could rightly be called wasteful.
On I-95? Hell no, that is building for the future and that's being smart. Future traffic projections show the traffic will increase to 90,000 AADT by 2040.

Where do you get those figures from, for current rural volumes and for 2040 rural volumes?  Probably at least twice the real figures.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 02:21:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 02:05:39 PM
Do you have some kind of fetish with writing "HOT" as "HO/T"?  The literature almost always writes "HOT".
High Occupancy / Toll

Two different things.

High Occupancy Toll makes it sound like High Occupancy is paying a toll.

The / distinguishes that it's either High Occupancy lane or it's a Toll lane for others.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 02:05:39 PM
a consideration in a few select cases
Northern Virginia capacity improvements:

Before Transurban:
Springfield Interchange
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Replacement
I-95 8-lane widening from I-495 to VA-123

After Transurban:
I-95 HO/T lanes
I-495 HO/T lanes
I-395 HO/T lanes
I-66 HO/T lanes
I-495 HO/T lane extension
I-95 HO/T lane extension

Now you're proposing toll lanes down to Richmond.

You're obsessed with these tolls.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 02:11:34 PM
297 miles blows away NC's mileage of Interstate widenings.  91 more miles coming up.
Please. I-85 has seen at least 100 miles of expansion, ditto with I-40 and I-26, hundreds of miles of new freeway across the state, beltways around all the major cities, urban freeways, etc. with more planned and under construction. Virginia hasn't built any freeways asides from select urban routes in Richmond, Roanoke, Blacksburg, and Hampton Roads (like US-460, VA-288, VA-199, VA-164, US-220, etc) and town bypasses, and obviously the interstate highway system.

Not to mention, most of Virginia's beltways and urban routes were 90% funded by the federal government, North Carolina has been funding most of the ones there with their own money since they weren't apart of the original system. I couldn't imagine Virginia having to build beltways and urban routes with their own money. It just wouldn't happen, or they'd all be tolled.

Also, all these widenings in Virginia, a lot were funded via the federal government. Again, NCDOT didn't have that benefit for most of theirs.

Blows away Virginia's "297 miles of expansion". 100+ miles of expansion coming up, at least 100 miles of new freeways planned, plus at least 40 miles of HO/T lanes in the Charlotte area since you're counting those too.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 02:13:50 PM
Where do you get those figures from, for current rural volumes and for 2040 rural volumes?  Probably at least twice the real figures.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-ncdot-widening-proposal-i-95-robeson-cumberland.aspx
QuoteThe project would reduce congestion, lower the risk of crashes and enable the interstate to better handle anticipated traffic growth. At exit 22 in Lumberton, about 63,000 vehicles now pass through each day. By 2040, that figure is projected to exceed 95,000.

I'd rather NCDOT overbuild the project than underbuild the project and not build for the future, as seen by VDOT's I-95 Ashland - Triangle widening.

Per VDOT 1985 Traffic volumes, the Ashland - Triangle segment had between 35,000 - 60,000 AADT. That number sky rocketed since then up to 110,000 - 130,000 AADT and the widening was not built for the future.

Sadly, I have a feeling the current 6-lane expansion to I-64 between Richmond and Newport News is going to need a full 8-lanes by 2050 (if it increases from 60,000 rural to 90,000-100,000 rural like other interstates have seen over 20-30 year periods) and honestly should be built to 8 -general purpose- lanes now or have plans to expand it again like they do VA-199 to Jefferson Ave.

Was I-295 overbuilt in 1980 as 8-lanes? In 1985, it was only about 20,000 AADT. Then it increased to only 54,000 AADT by 1995 as I-295 was fully complete, and now 25 years later it's up to nearly 90,000 AADT.

Honestly, I like NCDOT's approach to just 8-lane the whole thing now so it will be set for many decades and not need further expansion. Most other pieces of I-95 in the state are only going to get 6-lanes (though currently unfunded), but they only have 30,000 - 40,000 AADT compared to the 55,000 - 63,000 AADT on the 8-lane segment. Maybe they should just 8-lane the entire thing throughout the state though and have -a lot- of room for growth and save money in the long run.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on July 12, 2019, 03:46:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 02:21:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 02:05:39 PM
Do you have some kind of fetish with writing "HOT" as "HO/T"?  The literature almost always writes "HOT".
High Occupancy / Toll

Two different things.

High Occupancy Toll makes it sound like High Occupancy is paying a toll.

The / distinguishes that it's either High Occupancy lane or it's a Toll lane for others.

Christ, this thread.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:23:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 02:21:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 02:11:34 PM
297 miles blows away NC's mileage of Interstate widenings.  91 more miles coming up.
Please. I-85 has seen at least 100 miles of expansion, ditto with I-40 and I-26, hundreds of miles of new freeway across the state, beltways around all the major cities, urban freeways, etc. with more planned and under construction. Virginia hasn't built any freeways asides from select urban routes in Richmond, Roanoke, Blacksburg, and Hampton Roads (like US-460, VA-288, VA-199, VA-164, US-220, etc) and town bypasses, and obviously the interstate highway system.

Virginia has built over 200 miles of new freeways, 15 sections, in the last 30 years, I have listed them before.  Over 150 miles connect to the Interstate system and are not isolated freeways.  Just because they don't have a red-white-and-blue trailblazer doesn't mean that they don't fulfill similar roles.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 02:21:55 PM
Not to mention, most of Virginia's beltways and urban routes were 90% funded by the federal government, North Carolina has been funding most of the ones there with their own money since they weren't apart of the original system. I couldn't imagine Virginia having to build beltways and urban routes with their own money. It just wouldn't happen, or they'd all be tolled.

As I have said before, that was poor planning and financial stewardship by N.C., to not pursue any under the original Interstate system funding mechanisms.

Virginia got 10 supplemental routes and 152 miles, they did the work to get them approved, and then built, especially impressive with I-664 which was extremely expensive for its time.  Got them all in place by 1992.  Other than I-264 tunnel all the rest is toll-free.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 02:21:55 PM
Also, all these widenings in Virginia, a lot were funded via the federal government. Again, NCDOT didn't have that benefit for most of theirs.

To quote a friend, "That's they own dumbness".

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 02:21:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 02:13:50 PM
Where do you get those figures from, for current rural volumes and for 2040 rural volumes?  Probably at least twice the real figures.
The project would reduce congestion, lower the risk of crashes and enable the interstate to better handle anticipated traffic growth. At exit 22 in Lumberton, about 63,000 vehicles now pass through each day. By 2040, that figure is projected to exceed 95,000.

*RURAL VOLUMES*.  Lumberton has a short but very busy segment.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 02:21:55 PM
I'd rather NCDOT overbuild the project than underbuild the project and not build for the future, as seen by VDOT's I-95 Ashland - Triangle widening.

It was not underbuilt for 1987.  That was 32 years ago, and the reversible extension to Dumfries was completed in 1997, Garrisonville in 2014, Falmouth in 2021, and VA-3 ~2024.

Active planning was underway in the late 1980s for a Washington Bypass extending south to Falmouth (western) and Carmel Church (eastern).  I-95 wasn't supposed to carry all the load.  Thanks to Maryland inaction none of these could have bypassed the area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 04:40:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:23:35 PM
As I have said before, that was poor planning and financial stewardship by N.C., to not pursue any under the original Interstate system funding mechanisms.

Virginia got 10 supplemental routes and 152 miles
"Poor planning"?

They got 161 miles of I-40 between I-85 and Wilmington. It was not split into different routes, but rather one.

It certainly is equally as much as Virginia, actually 9 miles more.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:23:35 PM
To quote a friend, "That's they own dumbness".
See above. I-40 got them 162 additional miles.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:23:35 PM
*RURAL VOLUMES*.  Lumberton has a short but very busy segment.
Was I-295 overbuilt in 1980 as 8-lanes? In 1985, it was only about 20,000 AADT. Then it increased to only 54,000 AADT by 1995 as I-295 was fully complete, and now 25 years later it's up to nearly 90,000 AADT.
*RURAL VOLUMES*

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:23:35 PM
Active planning was underway in the late 1980s for a Washington Bypass extending south to Falmouth (western) and Carmel Church (eastern).  I-95 wasn't supposed to carry all the load.  Thanks to Maryland inaction none of these could have bypassed the area.
Fair enough... but how did VDOT expect to fund it and how did they expect Maryland to fund it?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:56:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 04:40:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:23:35 PM
As I have said before, that was poor planning and financial stewardship by N.C., to not pursue any under the original Interstate system funding mechanisms.
Virginia got 10 supplemental routes and 152 miles
"Poor planning"?
They got 161 miles of I-40 between I-85 and Wilmington. It was not split into different routes, but rather one.

Yeah, another area of poor planning and financial stewardship.  Raleigh the state capital didn't have any Interstate highway in the original Interstate highway system.

The 69 miles of I-40 between I-85 and I-95 -should- have been in the original Interstate highway system, and the remainder -probably- should have been, Wilmington being the state's prime port city.

It's they own dumbness.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 04:40:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:23:35 PM
*RURAL VOLUMES*.  Lumberton has a short but very busy segment.
Was I-295 overbuilt in 1980 as 8-lanes? In 1985, it was only about 20,000 AADT. Then it increased to only 54,000 AADT by 1995 as I-295 was fully complete, and now 25 years later it's up to nearly 90,000 AADT.

The segment between I-95 and US-360.  Drops down to 72,000 between VA-156 and I-64.

Given that design years are normally 20 years, they could have legitimately built it with 6 lanes.

The northern loop was completed in 1981 and the eastern loop in 1992.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 04:40:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:23:35 PM
Active planning was underway in the late 1980s for a Washington Bypass extending south to Falmouth (western) and Carmel Church (eastern).  I-95 wasn't supposed to carry all the load.  Thanks to Maryland inaction none of these could have bypassed the area.
Fair enough... but how did VDOT expect to fund it and how did they expect Maryland to fund it?

It was being credibly being studied by both states in the 1980s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 05:01:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:56:53 PM
built it with 6 lanes.
It would just as bad as I-95 is if it was only 6-lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 05:07:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 05:01:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:56:53 PM
built it with 6 lanes.
It would just as bad as I-95 is if it was only 6-lanes.

I would need to see a traffic profile.  Being an outer bypass that volume is probably spread over many more hours than I-95 with its high peaks with commuter traffic mixed with regional peaks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 05:10:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 05:07:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 05:01:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:56:53 PM
built it with 6 lanes.
It would just as bad as I-95 is if it was only 6-lanes.

I would need to see a traffic profile.  Being an outer bypass that volume is probably spread over many more hours than I-95 with its high peaks with commuter traffic mixed with regional peaks.
I'm just saying that from personal experience. As someone who's driven I-295 -a lot-, I can say for the most part between I-64 and I-95, it's packed across all four lanes. If you removed a lane, it would probably congest like I-95 does.

South of I-295, it could honestly be only 4-lanes, but 6 is still good. A large amount of the traffic splits at I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 05:12:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 05:10:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 05:07:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 05:01:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:56:53 PM
built it with 6 lanes.
It would just as bad as I-95 is if it was only 6-lanes.
I would need to see a traffic profile.  Being an outer bypass that volume is probably spread over many more hours than I-95 with its high peaks with commuter traffic mixed with regional peaks.
I'm just saying that from personal experience. As someone who's driven I-295 -a lot-, I can say for the most part between I-64 and I-95, it's packed across all four lanes. If you removed a lane, it would probably congest like I-95 does.
Sometime it is busy and sometime it is not.  The 72,000 to 90,000 is still considerably lower than any part of I-95 north of I-295.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 05:53:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 04:23:35 PM
Virginia has built over 200 miles of new freeways, 15 sections, in the last 30 years, I have listed them before.  Over 150 miles connect to the Interstate system and are not isolated freeways.  Just because they don't have a red-white-and-blue trailblazer doesn't mean that they don't fulfill similar roles.
I decided to go through my North Carolina Freeway Openings (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RG1L4_lwuU-BDH-f1B3f5o9cpzdIxXPR&usp=sharing) map and add up all the mileage of freeways that opened after 1989, excluding I-40 around Winston-Salem because that received federal funding.

This list does include the newer interstates like I-540, I-485, I-295, I-140, I-87, I-73, and I-74 because while they are technically interstate highways, they were built like any other freeway in the state without special federal funding. They were just given a blue and red shield to go along with it.

From what I have on my map, North Carolina has built 671.32 miles of freeway since 1989, and 534.6 miles connect to the interstate highway system. There's at least 20 additional more miles that I did not have on my map yet that I know of the top of my head, and there's at least another 30 under construction as we speak, and another at least 80 miles planned over the next decade with I-73, I-74, I-87, I-42, I-795, NC-540, and I-840.

North Carolina has built over 3x the amount of freeways Virginia has in the last 3 decades without interstate highway funding, and majority connect to the system.

And even if you count the 152 miles of supplement routes in Virginia to make it even since NC had to play catch up on their own, North Carolina has still built 2x the amount Virginia has over the past 30 years.

At least another 100 miles was built between 1979 - 1989, though because you did not include those years in your number, I did not either.

Here's my work - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ycAHrZvtJN4qvtbgp-ijQh_b4vHbWecEgN_Jr69AxT4/edit?usp=sharing
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 10:27:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 05:53:54 PM
And even if you count the 152 miles of supplement routes in Virginia to make it even since NC had to play catch up on their own, North Carolina has still built 2x the amount Virginia has over the past 30 years.

Subtract the 161 miles of I-40 east of Hillsborough that should have been in the original Interstate highway system.

Those are nearly all rural freeways.  N.C. still has not built a major bridge or tunnel project, and I am referring to something that crosses an oceangoing ship channel and with no drawspan.

Costwise compared to the typical cost of rural freeway construction per mile at the time
HRBT @ $140M = 50 miles
I-664 crossing @ $400M = 100 miles
I-264 parallel bridge and tunnel @ $250M = 60 miles
Midtown parallel tunnel @ $1.1B = 45 miles
CBBT @ $200M in 1964 = 200 miles
         @ $190M in 1999 = 40 miles

The $750 million CBBT parallel tunnel and the $4.6 billion HRBT expansion of course are not completed so I am not including them yet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 10:44:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 10:27:51 PM
Subtract the 161 miles of I-40 east of Hillsborough that should have been in the original Interstate highway system.
I never included that in my figure. That was federally funded through the 1968 additions.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 10:27:51 PM
@ $190M in 1999 = 40 miles
10 miles of the Chesapeake Expressway in 1998 - 2001 cost $116 million

$190 million in 1999 would have maybe built 16-18 miles.

As seen by the Martinsville Southern Connector estimate released today, that would construct maybe 1.8 miles in today's dollars in Virginia.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 10:27:51 PM
Midtown parallel tunnel @ $1.1B = 45 miles
In 2016 dollars, closer to about 30 miles.

Quote from: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 10:27:51 PM
The $750 million CBBT parallel tunnel and the $4.6 billion HRBT expansion of course are not completed so I am not including them yet.
CBBT would be around 7-8 miles of rural freeway, and HRBT about 50 miles in Virginia costs.

So that gives Virginia an "additional" 508 miles. But then you have to factor in I did -not- include federally funded interstate projects in my North Carolina estimate. Only newer highways that were state funded and not apart of the original interstate plan. So you can cut off the HRBT, I-664, and I-264 parallel project. You're down to 306 additional miles. Add that to the 200 miles and you're up to 506 miles. And note that 506 mile figure DOES include the HRBT and CBBT.

You're still 165 miles short of North Carolina's non-federally-funded freeway mileage, plus at least 20-40 miles (or maybe even more) I did not count, and the 35-45 miles currently under construction and the additional at least 80 miles planned for the next decade.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on July 13, 2019, 09:32:38 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F35khgn.jpg&hash=02928fe7b31efbe27225324abb1ee9a050789822)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on July 13, 2019, 09:49:16 AM
Posts?  What posts?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on July 13, 2019, 11:14:46 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 13, 2019, 09:49:16 AM
Posts?  What posts?
So look, I'm gonna make this post once, and I hope everyone interested in this post sees it and actually reads it through. I honestly don't care what you say in response to it, just READ IT please.
Sprjus, Kozel: Without even taking sides here, obviously you both enjoy poking each other and endlessly debating. It's mostly Sprjus presenting facts, factoids, or talking points to support his arguments (I have not done my own research to say which is which), and Kozel questioning them. Sometimes the arguments get personal, and then resolve quickly. This has been a working dynamic for so long between you two guys, that I've stopped even monitoring it. I know you will each work things out between yourselves and move on.
Here's the thing: This is not your thread. If you notice, there are other people who poke in here sometimes. And they contribute. Or they try. And then they're drowned out by your endless debate. You've covered the I-81 thread and this one pretty thoroughly. Fortunately, you seem to leave the other topics alone. But unfortunately, while we don't want to inhibit free discussion of highway topics on the forum, that leaves users the latitude to monopolize it, and you have found a way to do so by being amazingly verbose for pages upon pages of discussion.
I thought through a couple of solutions. I could lock this thread and force all Virginia discussion to be topic-specific. I could root back to the beginning of this, put all of your discussion in a separate thread, and move on. But those both seem heavy-handed. So I'm going to request the following:
If you have specific topics you would like to debate each other on, please start a new thread for that. Let's leave this for general Virginia discussion.
So right now, you're talking about tolling and funding. Great. Let's start a thread on that. This isn't my board and I'm not making the move of your current posts, but I would appreciate if your discussion continued on that route. Can we give this a shot?
To the other users: Thank you so much for remaining civil and patient through this. I know it can be aggravating watching two people go back and forth for months on end, but I've found the discussion to be enlightening and informative at times.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 13, 2019, 02:19:26 PM
 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on July 13, 2019, 03:15:34 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 13, 2019, 11:14:46 AM
To the other users: Thank you so much for remaining civil and patient through this. I know it can be aggravating watching two people go back and forth for months on end, but I've found the discussion to be enlightening and informative at times.[/color]

Now I finally know why the Virginia thread has so many posts! Or, at least lately.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on July 13, 2019, 04:52:19 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2019, 02:19:26 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
What he said
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on July 13, 2019, 07:01:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 13, 2019, 11:14:46 AM
I know it can be aggravating watching two people go back and forth for months on end, but I've found the discussion to be enlightening and informative at times.

It's been reminiscent of some of Scott's sparring with John Lansford on MTR.

Now, how about Corridor Q and the Coalfields Expressway?  :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 13, 2019, 07:01:11 PM
Now, how about Corridor Q and the Coalfields Expressway?  :-D
With Virginia's budget, maybe 2100?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 13, 2019, 07:36:57 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 13, 2019, 07:01:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 13, 2019, 11:14:46 AM
I know it can be aggravating watching two people go back and forth for months on end, but I've found the discussion to be enlightening and informative at times.
It's been reminiscent of some of Scott's sparring with John Lansford on MTR.

His posts would have been killfiled like I did with Larry Gross and Randy Hersch, a long time ago.  Too bad there are no killfiles here.

In response to the moderation, I have noticed for over a year that the many other posters either don't post or only post rarely due to the sentence where he said, "they're drowned out by your endless debate," at least that seems to be a logical conclusion based on observation.  And that is a problem and is unfair to others.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 07:52:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2019, 07:36:57 PM
And that is a problem and is unfair to others.
Agreed - if you have an issue with something I say either A) don't respond or B) take it to a new thread. Might as well just dedicate a thread to this.

I've noticed a lot of the endless debating, as Alps said, begins with me posting something and then you questioning it, and then it ends up being 25 pages of non-stop back and forth.

That's just how I see it.

No one is innocent here - it's both of us that have caused this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 13, 2019, 08:00:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 07:52:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2019, 07:36:57 PM
And that is a problem and is unfair to others.
Agreed - if you have an issue with something I say either A) don't respond or B) take it to a new thread. Might as well just dedicate a thread to this.
I've noticed a lot of the endless debating, as Alps said, begins with me posting something and then you questioning it, and then it ends up being 25 pages of non-stop back and forth.
That's just how I see it.

Just as often, I post something, and you question it, and then it goes back and forth, and it rarely lasts for anything remotely near 25 pages.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 08:11:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2019, 08:00:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 07:52:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2019, 07:36:57 PM
And that is a problem and is unfair to others.
Agreed - if you have an issue with something I say either A) don't respond or B) take it to a new thread. Might as well just dedicate a thread to this.
I've noticed a lot of the endless debating, as Alps said, begins with me posting something and then you questioning it, and then it ends up being 25 pages of non-stop back and forth.
That's just how I see it.

Just as often, I post something, and you question it, and then it goes back and forth, and it rarely lasts for anything remotely near 25 pages.
...and here we go again!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 08:13:55 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 13, 2019, 11:14:46 AM
You've covered the I-81 thread and this one pretty thoroughly. Fortunately, you seem to leave the other topics alone.
Agreed, though the "I-81 in Virginia" and "Virginia" threads are nothing near as bad as the "Interstate 87 (NC-VA)" thread is, though that one has been calm for quite awhile. That thread has been covered with the same back-and-forth for 27 pages.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 13, 2019, 10:00:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 08:11:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2019, 08:00:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 07:52:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2019, 07:36:57 PM
And that is a problem and is unfair to others.
Agreed - if you have an issue with something I say either A) don't respond or B) take it to a new thread. Might as well just dedicate a thread to this.
I've noticed a lot of the endless debating, as Alps said, begins with me posting something and then you questioning it, and then it ends up being 25 pages of non-stop back and forth.
That's just how I see it.
Just as often, I post something, and you question it, and then it goes back and forth, and it rarely lasts for anything remotely near 25 pages.
...and here we go again!

No we don't. 

Look, I was serious when I commented about how it is unfair to others.  Maybe what I need to do is not reply to any of your posts for at least the next 7 days.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 10:15:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2019, 10:00:49 PM
Maybe what I need to do is not reply to any of your posts for at least the next 7 days.
Well it depends. If it's going to escalate towards an argument, I suppose hold back. But if it's relevant then it's fine.

I think both of us need to stop provoking each other and stick with the subject and leave personal opinions (which is what escalate most of these "debates") aside.

For instance, our opinions on how I-73 should be routed around Martinsville, our opinions of the HO/T lanes and tolls, our opinions of potential I-95 widening and management type, our opinions on which state is better when it comes to roads, our opinions on I-87's out-of-way routing, our opinions on funding priorities in Virginia, our opinions of US-58 vs. I-77, I-74, I-85, our opinions in driving preferences (i.e. taking freeway routing (slightly out of way) vs. arterial routing (most direct)), our opinions on speed traps, our opinions on reckless driving limits, etc.

That's the stuff that fuels the fire it seems, whenever any of that, or anything that we disagree with, gets brought up in discussion. It's ok to debate things slightly, but it does not need to carry on for pages and that's what we've let it do, and it usually does not get anywhere. If we want pages and pages, we need one thread dedicated to it, and even then it still needs to dial down some.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 14, 2019, 07:49:34 AM
Beltway and sprjus4, I thank you so much for being honest with each other here.  I had been removing posts in the Mid-Atlantic forum whenever the debate escalated into personal attacks, but I tried to leave the posts alone as long as the debates remained civilized.  -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on July 14, 2019, 01:29:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 13, 2019, 07:36:57 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 13, 2019, 07:01:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 13, 2019, 11:14:46 AM
I know it can be aggravating watching two people go back and forth for months on end, but I've found the discussion to be enlightening and informative at times.
It's been reminiscent of some of Scott's sparring with John Lansford on MTR.

His posts would have been killfiled like I did with Larry Gross and Randy Hersch, a long time ago.  Too bad there are no killfiles here.

There's a "hide" function here, but it's not really that great. You still see that the hidden poster has posted something, but it says something along the line of "You have hidden this member's posts. Click here to see this post."

The problem with Randy was that he kept coming up with new names that had to be killfiled. And of course, I'd still see his stuff if someone quoted it, even if it was from a post that I had killfiled.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 15, 2019, 10:04:49 AM
https://twitter.com/vadot/status/1150766678827053056?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 15, 2019, 11:02:13 AM
Memories of the past ...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FI95_JRB_2.jpg&hash=d17aff24c1bdca2a8743f736231191c33343cacb)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 16, 2019, 11:47:57 AM
Thankfully it looks like Loudoun is considering to further widen (4-lane) US-15 north of Leesburg. Even though at the moment there are only shoulder improvements planned north of Lucketts, I think it's inevitable that the widening will eventually go all the way to the Potomac River. Hopefully before 2030!
https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2019/07/loudoun-considers-new-route-15-widening-plans/
QuoteLoudoun County, Virginia, is considering additional widening and other improvements for U.S. Route 15, from north of Leesburg to the Maryland state line, in the hopes that better-defining plans lead to more state or federal funding.

After a review of possible changes from Montresor Road to Point of Rocks, county staff recommend that the Board of Supervisors support widening Route 15 to four lanes with a median from Montresor Road to Lucketts, and a new four-lane bypass on a to-be-determined route around Lucketts to Stumptown Road, with two lanes continuing north of Stumptown Road.

The Stumptown Road-Lucketts Roads area is projected to be a key rush-hour chokepoint for years.

North of Lucketts, there would be shoulder and other improvements, a new traffic light at Lovettsville Road, and a roundabout to line up Newvalley Church Road with Spinks Ferry Road.

Loudoun County hopes to award a contract around 2024, with completion around 2027. At least that is the basis for a $217.3 million construction cost estimate.

The county has already included about $110.7 million for the work into its long-term capital spending plans, so the county would need to identify about $106 million more in local, state or federal funding to go forward with the recommended scenario.

A funding request to the state was rejected this year, in large part because the project plans had not been fully developed.

Now there is an alternative, but for only $49 million less, choosing it would be insanity.

QuoteAn approximately $49 million cheaper alternative being offered to the board would have similar other changes but would keep Route 15 at two lanes with a new median from Montresor Road to Saint Clair Lane, and better shoulders from Saint Clair Lane to the river. The proposed bypass might also be two lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 16, 2019, 02:07:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2019, 11:02:13 AM
Memories of the past ...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FI95_JRB_2.jpg&hash=d17aff24c1bdca2a8743f736231191c33343cacb)

Yeah I remember this like it was yesterday. It was even worse at night, especially NB. There were times where they briefly closed the road altogether in order to move equipment or sections of the bridge into place. It was just long enough to create a backup all the way back to Bells Rd and sometimes further. VDOT warned of an hour delay on DMS's and they weren't kidding.


I found a pic online a couple years back of the first (1976) BGS for VA 195, I'm gonna try and dig it up.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 16, 2019, 02:29:47 PM
Quote from: plain on July 16, 2019, 02:07:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2019, 11:02:13 AM
Memories of the past ...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FI95_JRB_2.jpg&hash=d17aff24c1bdca2a8743f736231191c33343cacb)
Yeah I remember this like it was yesterday. It was even worse at night, especially NB. There were times where they briefly closed the road altogether in order to move equipment or sections of the bridge into place. It was just long enough to create a backup all the way back to Bells Rd and sometimes further. VDOT warned of an hour delay on DMS's and they weren't kidding.
I found a pic online a couple years back of the first (1976) BGS for VA 195, I'm gonna try and dig it up.
This was a fascinating project to watch.  There were a variety of vantage points where one could stand within about 150 feet of the bridge and watch the sawing, removal and replacement operations for the prefabricated sections of bridge deck, and there were a number of nights where I went there for several hours to watch the construction.  Driving through there was also a good way to pass the construction zones and to get a glimpse of the construction operations, and I did that many times also, at least after the heavy traffic periods so that I was not adding to the backup.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I95_JRB_Restoration.html

Since bridge volume was about 4,800 vehicles per hour at 7:00 PM when the closure started, motorists were advised to consider alternate routes, since 2 lanes could not handle that much traffic.  I-95 traffic backed up for a couple miles at times during the early evenings.  Volumes dropped steadily and at 10:00 PM it was down to about 3,000 vehicles per hour, and traffic usually flowed freely from then until all lanes reopened at 6:00 AM, albeit traffic moved slowly at about 40 mph.  The AADT (annual average daily traffic) on the bridge at the time of the project was over 110,000 with 9% large trucks.  Construction did not occur on weekends, holidays, or during bad weather.

During construction nights, it was necessary to stop all traffic for up to 10 minutes at a time, about twice a night, so that the large caterpillar-like vehicle with rubber treads, could carry the new bridge span sections across the highway to the bridge work site.  State troopers would stop the traffic during these times.

The official signed alternate routes included segments of I-295, VA-288, VA-76, I-195, and US-1/US-301.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 16, 2019, 03:13:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 16, 2019, 02:29:47 PM
Quote from: plain on July 16, 2019, 02:07:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2019, 11:02:13 AM
Memories of the past ...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FI95_JRB_2.jpg&hash=d17aff24c1bdca2a8743f736231191c33343cacb)
Yeah I remember this like it was yesterday. It was even worse at night, especially NB. There were times where they briefly closed the road altogether in order to move equipment or sections of the bridge into place. It was just long enough to create a backup all the way back to Bells Rd and sometimes further. VDOT warned of an hour delay on DMS's and they weren't kidding.
I found a pic online a couple years back of the first (1976) BGS for VA 195, I'm gonna try and dig it up.
This was a fascinating project to watch.  There were a variety of vantage points where one could stand within about 150 feet of the bridge and watch the sawing, removal and replacement operations for the prefabricated sections of bridge deck, and there were a number of nights where I went there for several hours to watch the construction.  Driving through there was also a good way to pass the construction zones and to get a glimpse of the construction operations, and I did that many times also, at least after the heavy traffic periods so that I was not adding to the backup.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I95_JRB_Restoration.html

Since bridge volume was about 4,800 vehicles per hour at 7:00 PM when the closure started, motorists were advised to consider alternate routes, since 2 lanes could not handle that much traffic.  I-95 traffic backed up for a couple miles at times during the early evenings.  Volumes dropped steadily and at 10:00 PM it was down to about 3,000 vehicles per hour, and traffic usually flowed freely from then until all lanes reopened at 6:00 AM, albeit traffic moved slowly at about 40 mph.  The AADT (annual average daily traffic) on the bridge at the time of the project was over 110,000 with 9% large trucks.  Construction did not occur on weekends, holidays, or during bad weather.

During construction nights, it was necessary to stop all traffic for up to 10 minutes at a time, about twice a night, so that the large caterpillar-like vehicle with rubber treads, could carry the new bridge span sections across the highway to the bridge work site.  State troopers would stop the traffic during these times.

The official signed alternate routes included segments of I-295, VA-288, VA-76, I-195, and US-1/US-301.
I've always said VDOT has some interesting techniques, in this case basically doing a variation of what they did with the Coleman Bridge.



Here's the pic I mentioned (actually there's 2).

The first pic is the original BGS (on the right in the photo). The exit number is inside the BGS, typical of the RPT at the time.

The 2nd pic is also the original, but the exit number had been covered or removed on the BGS and added on a separate tab instead. I believe this pic was taken in the early 1980's.


(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190716/ced2153c20e5098df06ecee9535636db.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190716/b88bedb60708ba042ec11ebe978a8053.jpg)

SM-S820L

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 17, 2019, 06:13:11 PM
The old sign is very NJ Turnpike-esque. Wonder if the RPT copied their sign designs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 17, 2019, 11:14:48 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 17, 2019, 06:13:11 PM
The old sign is very NJ Turnpike-esque. Wonder if the RPT copied their sign designs.

That could be the case as the NJTP was innovative in several ways... but then again how many BGS's on turnpikes actually had a separate exit tab before the 1970's?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 17, 2019, 11:16:46 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 17, 2019, 06:13:11 PM
The old sign is very NJ Turnpike-esque. Wonder if the RPT copied their sign designs.

Closer to the end of tolling on  the RPT in 1992, the signs were much more like what VDOT has installed on its other urban freeways around the Commonwealth.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on July 17, 2019, 11:49:55 PM
I remember those type signs at the VA 10 interchange in Chester (formerly Exits 6W-E), when I was coming back from Baltimore in 1990.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 18, 2019, 09:59:47 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 17, 2019, 11:16:46 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 17, 2019, 06:13:11 PM
The old sign is very NJ Turnpike-esque. Wonder if the RPT copied their sign designs.

Closer to the end of tolling on  the RPT in 1992, the signs were much more like what VDOT has installed on its other urban freeways around the Commonwealth.

Indeed, a lot of those signs are still up, with mileage-based exit numbers patched over the original RPT exit numbers (Exit 75 on I-95 northbound briefly became Exit 11 a few years ago when a storm blew off the "75" patch).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 21, 2019, 04:50:23 PM
http://www.hrbtexpansion.org/easset_upload_file19007_113901_e.pdf

Presentation regarding the I-64 HRBT expansion, also includes a new conceptual drawing for the proposed 8-lane bridge and two 2-lane tunnels, which has a rather strange alignment. In some areas, it even overlays the existing bridges. It will be interesting to see how they manage traffic throughout this whole thing. There will need to be a minimum of 4-lanes open at most times, with the exception of overnight lane closures.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 21, 2019, 08:02:01 PM
A month late, but apparently the speed limit has been raised on VA-207 from 55 mph to 60 mph for about 5 miles in two sections between I-95 and Bowling Green.

https://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2019/vdot-to-install-new-speed-limit-signs-at-two-locations-on-route-207-in-caroline-county-on-wednesday-june-196-18-2019.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 21, 2019, 09:34:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 15, 2019, 10:04:49 AM
https://twitter.com/vadot/status/1150766678827053056?s=21
It seems like this survey is less about improving I-95 and more about convincing drivers to switch to mass transit. That might be fine if your destination was the DC Metro Area, Hampton Roads, or some other metropolitan area seeking such a network, but it has nothing to do with those driving from the deep south to the northeast.

And I was ready for the chance to advocate reviving I-95 through DC.  :biggrin:


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on July 21, 2019, 10:03:57 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 21, 2019, 09:34:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 15, 2019, 10:04:49 AM
https://twitter.com/vadot/status/1150766678827053056?s=21
It seems like this survey is less about improving I-95 and more about convincing drivers to switch to mass transit. That might be fine if your destination was the DC Metro Area, Hampton Roads, or some other metropolitan area seeking such a network, but it has nothing to do with those driving from the deep south to the northeast.

And I was ready for the chance to advocate reviving I-95 through DC.  :biggrin:
In fairness, most of the congestion is likely due to daily commuters, so moving them off I-95 would help long range travelers.

As far as I-95 thru DC, that could be completed now with some new signs and transfer of the BW Parkway to MSHA.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 21, 2019, 10:38:00 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 21, 2019, 10:03:57 PM
In fairness, most of the congestion is likely due to daily commuters, so moving them off I-95 would help long range travelers.
That, along with a widening of the general purpose lanes to 4 free lanes each way would provide for a significant improvement overall.

It would be interesting if VDOT and MSHA would collaborate to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement on constructing a ~60-80 mile 6-lane lane toll road around the eastern side in the VA-207 / US-301 corridor between Ruther Glen and US-50, building a second 4-lane Harry Nice Bridge parallel to the current proposed one (to allow 6-lanes of traffic across the bridge and expansion room for 8-lanes in the future), along with replacing the Chesapeake Bay Bridges with two 4-lane bridges w/ full shoulders, widening US-50 / US-301 to 8-lanes and upgrading the remaining substandard-freeway pieces near Annapolis to interstate standards, and upgrading US-301 to interstate standards.

A very expensive overall of the VA-207 / US-301 / US-50 corridors but would provide significant relief for through traffic, the US-50 corridor, and local traffic in the DC area in conjunction to an 8-lane GP I-95 in Northern Virginia. It would be funded through a mix of toll revenue, federal, and state funding split between Maryland and Virginia for their respective portions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 22, 2019, 08:21:08 AM
Quote from: famartinAs far as I-95 thru DC, that could be completed now with some new signs and transfer of the BW Parkway to MSHA.

No it couldn't.  First, BW Pkwy lacks paved shoulders.  Second, Kenilworth Ave doesn't even meet Interstate standards of the late '50s (when the Anacostia Freeway was built), let alone modern standards.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on July 22, 2019, 08:34:43 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 22, 2019, 08:21:08 AM
Quote from: famartinAs far as I-95 thru DC, that could be completed now with some new signs and transfer of the BW Parkway to MSHA.

No it couldn't.  First, BW Pkwy lacks paved shoulders.  Second, Kenilworth Ave doesn't even meet Interstate standards of the late '50s (when the Anacostia Freeway was built), let alone modern standards.
Like that has ever stopped a road from being signed as an interstate...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MNHighwayMan on July 22, 2019, 08:40:08 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 22, 2019, 08:34:43 AM
Like that has ever stopped a road from being signed as an interstate...

I would argue that most of the time, it actually does.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on July 22, 2019, 10:43:38 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 22, 2019, 08:40:08 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 22, 2019, 08:34:43 AM
Like that has ever stopped a road from being signed as an interstate...

I would argue that most of the time, it actually does.
There are plenty of substandard roads, or roads that were substandard when first signed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 22, 2019, 10:57:47 AM
I took the survey.

While there's plenty of issues left to deal with in Northern Virginia, VDOT really needs to start focusing on Richmond. The stretch north of the James River is especially outdated (still 6 lanes like it was in 1958), the overlap with I-64 sees major congestion in both directions during mornings and afternoons, plus much of this stretch still lacks lighting.. which is ridiculous considering this is one of the most dangerous stretches of freeway in the entire state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on July 22, 2019, 12:06:36 PM
Quote from: plain on July 22, 2019, 10:57:47 AM
I took the survey.

While there's plenty of issues left to deal with in Northern Virginia, VDOT really needs to start focusing on Richmond. The stretch north of the James River is especially outdated (still 6 lanes like it was in 1958), the overlap with I-64 sees major congestion in both directions during mornings and afternoons, plus much of this stretch still lacks lighting.. which is ridiculous considering this is one of the most dangerous stretches of freeway in the entire state.

It's been a couple years since I drove thru there but that was my impression as well. That said, they may be keeping it as-is to encourage use of I-295.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 22, 2019, 12:12:16 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 22, 2019, 12:06:36 PM
Quote from: plain on July 22, 2019, 10:57:47 AM
I took the survey.

While there's plenty of issues left to deal with in Northern Virginia, VDOT really needs to start focusing on Richmond. The stretch north of the James River is especially outdated (still 6 lanes like it was in 1958), the overlap with I-64 sees major congestion in both directions during mornings and afternoons, plus much of this stretch still lacks lighting.. which is ridiculous considering this is one of the most dangerous stretches of freeway in the entire state.

It's been a couple years since I drove thru there but that was my impression as well. That said, they may be keeping it as-is to encourage use of I-295.

I-295 is very useful for long distance traffic, not so much for local commuters.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 22, 2019, 03:14:05 PM
Quote from: plain on July 22, 2019, 10:57:47 AM
While there's plenty of issues left to deal with in Northern Virginia, VDOT really needs to start focusing on Richmond. The stretch north of the James River is especially outdated (still 6 lanes like it was in 1958),

It has been freeway bypassed at least 5 ways --
I-195/VA-195 -- 1977
I-195/VA-76/VA-150 -- 1982
I-295 E-W  -- 1981
I-295 N-S  -- 1992
I-295/VA-895 -- 2002
I-295/I-64/VA-288 -- 2005

Quote from: plain on July 22, 2019, 10:57:47 AM
the overlap with I-64 sees major congestion in both directions during mornings and afternoons, plus much of this stretch still lacks lighting.. which is ridiculous considering this is one of the most dangerous stretches of freeway in the entire state.

I see the points, but I don't recall seeing accident stats of that nature.  I-95 in the city has had safety improvement projects where a raised median island was converted to flush median with concrete barrier, addition of auxiliary lanes between interchanges, lengthening of acceleration and deceleration lanes on all interchanges.

It would be nice to see it 8-laned, but that would be pretty involved especially at the historic Sixth Mt. Zion Baptist Church.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 22, 2019, 03:23:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 22, 2019, 03:14:05 PM
It has been freeway bypassed at least 5 ways --
I-195/VA-195 -- 1977
I-195/VA-76/VA-150 -- 1982
I-295 E-W  -- 1981
I-295 N-S  -- 1992
I-295/VA-895 -- 2002
I-295/I-64/VA-288 -- 2005
It's still an important local route. The bypasses have certainly helped, without them I-95 would need at least 10 lanes through Downtown, but the mainline through Richmond still has a large amount of traffic.

I could say I-64 was bypassed by I-664, I-264, VA-164, etc. so improvements on I-64 aren't a priority - Hampton Roads

I-40 was bypassed by I-540 and eventually NC-540, so improvements on I-40 aren't a priority - Raleigh

I-85 and I-77 was bypassed by I-485, so improvements on I-85 and I-77 aren't a priority - Charlotte

I-85, I-20, and I-75 was bypassed by I-285, so improvements on I-85, I-20, and I-75 aren't a priority - Atlanta
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 22, 2019, 05:37:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 22, 2019, 03:23:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 22, 2019, 03:14:05 PM
It has been freeway bypassed at least 5 ways --
I-195/VA-195 -- 1977
I-195/VA-76/VA-150 -- 1982
I-295 E-W  -- 1981
I-295 N-S  -- 1992
I-295/VA-895 -- 2002
I-295/I-64/VA-288 -- 2005
It's still an important local route. The bypasses have certainly helped, without them I-95 would need at least 10 lanes through Downtown, but the mainline through Richmond still has a large amount of traffic.

I could say I-64 was bypassed by I-664, I-264, VA-164, etc. so improvements on I-64 aren't a priority - Hampton Roads

I-40 was bypassed by I-540 and eventually NC-540, so improvements on I-40 aren't a priority - Raleigh

I-85 and I-77 was bypassed by I-485, so improvements on I-85 and I-77 aren't a priority - Charlotte

I-85, I-20, and I-75 was bypassed by I-285, so improvements on I-85, I-20, and I-75 aren't a priority - Atlanta

Are you trying to start another argument?  Remember what the moderators said a week ago?

I never said that improvements weren't a priority. 

There are studies underway now looking at major expansions for both I-64 interchanges, I-95/I-64 Downtown, and I-95/I-64/I-195 Bryan Park which would include the mainline between Boulevard and I-64.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-95-64_overlap_study.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 22, 2019, 06:24:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 22, 2019, 05:37:42 PM
Are you trying to start another argument?
No, I was just commenting on what you said. Plus, arguments aren't a bad thing necessarily. It only becomes an issue when it spreads for many pages. That's mostly an issue when both parties have strong opinions on one issue and there's a continuous effort to get the other one to see the other persons view and it never goes anywhere. I don't necessarily disagree with you here. I just interpreted your comment about Richmond having freeway bypasses as saying it's already been bypassed, so no need to improve anything.

Quote from: Beltway on July 22, 2019, 05:37:42 PM
There are studies underway now looking at major expansions for both I-64 interchanges, I-95/I-64 Downtown, and I-95/I-64/I-195 Bryan Park which would include the mainline between Boulevard and I-64.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-95-64_overlap_study.asp
It will be interesting to see the proposals for those. It could be small modifications or major reconstruction which would be complex due to the density of development adjacent to the highways.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 22, 2019, 06:27:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 22, 2019, 03:14:05 PM
I see the points, but I don't recall seeing accident stats of that nature.
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/richmond/I-95-64_Overlap_Study/Overlap_Final_Report_032713_No_Appendix.pdf

Page 3

QuoteVDOT identified the I-95/I-64 Overlap area in downtown Richmond to be one of the highest crash, heavily congested corridors in the region.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 22, 2019, 11:25:11 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 22, 2019, 10:43:38 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 22, 2019, 08:40:08 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 22, 2019, 08:34:43 AM
Like that has ever stopped a road from being signed as an interstate...

I would argue that most of the time, it actually does.
There are plenty of substandard roads, or roads that were substandard when first signed.

In the early days, sure.  FHWA has been a bit more stringent in the past 30 years.  Ever notice the preponderance of Future Interstate routes, even on roads that are freeway grade?  FHWA requires that they be substantially up to current standards, or have a design exemption with a technical or geographic reason as to why not...and cost isn't a valid reason.  And paved shoulders outside of bridges and tunnels is a hard requirement.  As noted, neither Kenilworth Ave nor the BW Pkwy come even close.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 22, 2019, 11:55:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 22, 2019, 11:25:11 PM
and cost isn't a valid reason.
Hasn't stopped NCDOT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 23, 2019, 08:41:21 AM
In some ways, it has.  For example, the completed segments of 295 around Fayetteville are signed as NC 295 instead of an Interstate in part because they built substandard shoulder widths into some of the bridges (in particular the Cape Fear River bridge).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on July 23, 2019, 10:01:37 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 23, 2019, 08:41:21 AM
In some ways, it has.  For example, the completed segments of 295 around Fayetteville are signed as NC 295 instead of an Interstate in part because they built substandard shoulder widths into some of the bridges (in particular the Cape Fear River bridge).

FHWA apparently granted waivers because according to FHWA's interstate logs, it's officially an interstate. Whether the signs have been changed yet, I don't know.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table02.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table02.cfm)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table03.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table03.cfm)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 23, 2019, 10:26:41 AM
Quote from: LM117 on July 23, 2019, 10:01:37 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 23, 2019, 08:41:21 AM
In some ways, it has.  For example, the completed segments of 295 around Fayetteville are signed as NC 295 instead of an Interstate in part because they built substandard shoulder widths into some of the bridges (in particular the Cape Fear River bridge).

FHWA apparently granted waivers because according to FHWA's interstate logs, it's officially an interstate. Whether the signs have been changed yet, I don't know.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table02.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table02.cfm)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table03.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/routefinder/table03.cfm)
Last I was there a few months back, it was still NC-295.

I think NCDOT is waiting until it reconnects back to I-95 to sign it as I-295.

The official interstate standards do state that bridges over 200 ft in length can have 4 ft shoulders. So technically, I-295 does meet interstate standards. It's a preference in most cases to carry the 10 ft shoulder over bridges, but it is not required.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 23, 2019, 12:15:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 22, 2019, 03:14:05 PM
It would be nice to see it 8-laned, but that would be pretty involved especially at the historic Sixth Mt. Zion Baptist Church.

I've thought about that as well. Since VDOT is thinking about creating a half-diamond on the NB side at US 1/301 (per their study), maybe they could do it on the SB side as well, though both cases may create a clusterfuck on Belvidere St. But at least this way the entire existing cross section by Mt. Zion Church can be utilized better for through traffic for 95 and 64 without the need for further widening. All that would need to be done here is a reconstruction of the Chamberlayne Pkwy overpass.

If not a full 8 lane 95/64 overlap then VDOT could create long auxiliary lanes between Exit 76 and Exit 78, but then again that would force I-64 traffic into the #3 lane at each end of this.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 23, 2019, 06:23:43 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 21, 2019, 09:34:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 15, 2019, 10:04:49 AM
https://twitter.com/vadot/status/1150766678827053056?s=21
It seems like this survey is less about improving I-95 and more about convincing drivers to switch to mass transit. That might be fine if your destination was the DC Metro Area, Hampton Roads, or some other metropolitan area seeking such a network, but it has nothing to do with those driving from the deep south to the northeast.

And I was ready for the chance to advocate reviving I-95 through DC.  :biggrin:




I didn't look at the survey, I just posted the tweet here because I thought it might interest someone. Frankly, I had forgotten about it until just now. The date of my post with the embedded tweet–July 15–was the day before my father's funeral Mass, so as you can imagine I've been focused on other matters for the past few weeks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NE2 on July 23, 2019, 08:10:00 PM
Hey VDOT, how about not giving Amazon free advertising?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 24, 2019, 12:28:38 AM
VDOT's about to have a whole lot more $$ to spend, thanks to Amazon

Incidentally, most of the projects in the neighborhood which will house Amazon, Crystal City (now known as "National Landing" but I say it should be called "Amazon City") are road deconstructions/lane reductions (being performed by Arlington County, not VDOT).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 12:36:26 PM
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/071819%20TPO%20Action%20Summary.pdf

QuoteWork on the I-64 Southside Widening project, including the High-Rise Bridge, was halted in June due to permitting issues. It is unclear how the shutdown will affect the schedule.

Wonder how long this will last...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 12:40:57 PM
I-64 widening east of Richmond between Exits 200 and 205 appears to almost be completed... the project schedule says it will be done by the end of the year, but judging by this traffic camera, and driving through there last week, it could be open as early as August or September.

(https://i.ibb.co/4SwwwFn/I64-Richmond-Widening-Almost-Complete.png)

It appears this widening did not add a full left shoulder unlike the other ones, only 4 ft.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 26, 2019, 06:02:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 12:40:57 PM
I-64 widening east of Richmond between Exits 200 and 205 appears to almost be completed... the project schedule says it will be done by the end of the year, but judging by this traffic camera, and driving through there last week, it could be open as early as August or September.

(https://i.ibb.co/4SwwwFn/I64-Richmond-Widening-Almost-Complete.png)

It appears this widening did not add a full left shoulder unlike the other ones, only 4 ft.

I went through yesterday evening en route to the Williamsburg area. The bridges over the Chickahominy River doesn't seem as advanced timeline-wise as the rest of the project, most likely this will determine when the whole thing opens up.

Also of note: there now appears to be APL's on the WB side approaching the I-295 interchange. I'll try to check them out tomorrow on my way back to Richmond if traffic is looking good.



Also and as an aside: US 60 between Busch Gardens and Newport News (the 2-lane section) is finally being repaved.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 26, 2019, 06:54:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 12:40:57 PM
I-64 widening east of Richmond between Exits 200 and 205 appears to almost be completed... the project schedule says it will be done by the end of the year, but judging by this traffic camera, and driving through there last week, it could be open as early as August or September.
It appears this widening did not add a full left shoulder unlike the other ones, only 4 ft.

It didn't and I don't know why; probably what I would call a "local design decision", where the designer didn't look at the big picture.  This section was one of the ones planned for 8 lanes but that is not a justification.  I was wondering when someone else would notice this.

The widening segments east of VA-199 are all getting full left shoulders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 07:02:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 26, 2019, 06:54:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 25, 2019, 12:40:57 PM
I-64 widening east of Richmond between Exits 200 and 205 appears to almost be completed... the project schedule says it will be done by the end of the year, but judging by this traffic camera, and driving through there last week, it could be open as early as August or September.
It appears this widening did not add a full left shoulder unlike the other ones, only 4 ft.

It didn't and I don't know why; probably what I would call a "local design decision", where the designer didn't look at the big picture.  This section was one of the ones planned for 8 lanes but that is not a justification.  I was wondering when someone else would notice this.

The widening segments east of VA-199 are all getting full left shoulders.
If it is indeed planned for 8-lanes, my guess would be this widening is simply acting as an "auxiliary lane" between I-295 (Exit 200) and VA-249 (Exit 205), not a thru travel lane, which in that case wouldn't need a full left shoulder. The 8-lane widening would actually add a third thru travel lane, and allow it to have 3 GP lanes + 1 auxiliary lane each way.

But then again, the I-95 northbound widening in the same district north of I-295 to 4-lanes also only got a 4 foot left shoulder... so I don't know. Maybe Richmond district doesn't have a big thing for left shoulders?

Once the full 6-lanes from Hampton Roads reaches here, there will likely need to be -another- thru travel lane added through this segment, unless they'll some how tie it into this widening, removing that auxiliary lane scenario. The ultimate goal of 3 thru travel lanes and 1 auxiliary lane each way in this segment though seems it would work the best as opposed to 3 thru travel lanes and no auxiliary lane.

Either way, full shoulder or not, once this "auxiliary lane" opens to traffic in this segment, hopefully it will relieve this heavily congested segment. I think it's safe to say this is probably one of the worst remaining 4-lane segments between I-295 and Williamsburg. I usually have no problems traveling the rural stretch (well, it's packed and needs 6-lanes, but it generally maintains 60 - 70 mph) but find myself taking US-60 a lot to avoid this particular section due to reported congestion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 07:13:42 PM
Quote from: plain on July 26, 2019, 06:02:03 PM
Also of note: there now appears to be APL's on the WB side approaching the I-295 interchange. I'll try to check them out tomorrow on my way back to Richmond if traffic is looking good.
That's correct, it is APL signage. It was posted sometime late June to replace the traditional signage that was there previously.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 26, 2019, 11:35:23 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 01, 2019, 06:49:26 PM
Regarding rest areas, given trucker time/rest requirements and the general lack of truck parking in many states and metropolitan areas, I'd argue that preservation of existing rest areas should continue in order to provide such truck parking.

It's not just "commercial services" that drives the need for such facilities.
Knowing this, do you think there should be an extra parking area for RV's separate from the truck parking area along the southbound Ladysmith I-95 rest area, just like the northbound one?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/38°01'03.0%22N+77°30'55.1%22W/@37.9824275,-77.4983525,1828m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.0175!4d-77.5153?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C3%82%C2%B001'03.0%22N+77%C3%82%C2%B030'55.1%22W/@37.9824275,-77.4983525,1828m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.0175!4d-77.5153?hl=en)


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 26, 2019, 11:55:05 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 07:02:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 26, 2019, 06:54:08 PM
Probably what I would call a "local design decision", where the designer didn't look at the big picture.  This section was one of the ones planned for 8 lanes but that is not a justification.  I was wondering when someone else would notice this.
The widening segments east of VA-199 are all getting full left shoulders.
If it is indeed planned for 8-lanes, my guess would be this widening is simply acting as an "auxiliary lane" between I-295 (Exit 200) and VA-249 (Exit 205), not a thru travel lane, which in that case wouldn't need a full left shoulder. The 8-lane widening would actually add a third thru travel lane, and allow it to have 3 GP lanes + 1 auxiliary lane each way.

I can't imagine an auxiliary lane 5 miles long.  The ultimate 8 lanes is a function of the high projected volumes east of I-295 to VA-156.  Ultimately I-64 will be widened to 6 lanes between VA-156 and I-295.

The recent widening of I-64 west of I-295 got 12-foot left shoulders.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 07:02:46 PM
But then again, the I-95 northbound widening in the same district north of I-295 to 4-lanes also only got a 4 foot left shoulder... so I don't know. Maybe Richmond district doesn't have a big thing for left shoulders?

That is only 0.7 mile of the NBL, so I wouldn't use that as any prevailing practice.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 12:02:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 26, 2019, 11:55:05 PM
I can't imagine an auxiliary lane 5 miles long.
When you actually look at the distance between the ramp gores, it's only 3 miles.

I would say it's an auxiliary lane just based on the way it's signed, the way there's two thru lanes and one lane connecting the two interchanges. If it wasn't an auxiliary lane, it would've been done the way it was done in Hampton Roads where the 3rd lane continued past the interchange and then drops off from the left. Instead, it's designed so the new lane and the existing inside lane continue as thru lanes, and the outside lanes becomes exit only.

It's an auxiliary lane setup at least now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on July 27, 2019, 12:09:23 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 12:02:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 26, 2019, 11:55:05 PM
I can't imagine an auxiliary lane 5 miles long.
When you actually look at the distance between the ramp gores, it's only 3 miles.

I would say it's an auxiliary lane just based on the way it's signed, the way there's two thru lanes and one lane connecting the two interchanges. If it wasn't an auxiliary lane, it would've been done the way it was done in Hampton Roads where the 3rd lane continued past the interchange and then drops off from the left. Instead, it's designed so the new lane and the existing inside lane continue as thru lanes, and the outside lanes becomes exit only.

It's an auxiliary lane setup at least now.
As per the AASHTO Green Book, something more than 2 miles long is a travel lane, not an auxiliary lane. This is based on interchange signing starting 2 miles prior with the first advance sign. Therefore, it's a travel lane and requires a full shoulder.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 12:13:59 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 12:02:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 26, 2019, 11:55:05 PM
I can't imagine an auxiliary lane 5 miles long.
When you actually look at the distance between the ramp gores, it's only 3 miles.
I would say it's an auxiliary lane just based on the way it's signed, the way there's two thru lanes and one lane connecting the two interchanges. If it wasn't an auxiliary lane, it would've been done the way it was done in Hampton Roads where the 3rd lane continued past the interchange and then drops off from the left. Instead, it's designed so the new lane and the existing inside lane continue as thru lanes, and the outside lanes becomes exit only.

The inside 3rd lane widening continues to just east of VA-249 at Bottoms Bridge and then ends temporarily.  When the 3rd lane is extended eastward in future projects none will be considered auxiliary.

Fixed typo as VA-249 was written as VA-149.  -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 12:46:32 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 27, 2019, 12:09:23 AM
As per the AASHTO Green Book, something more than 2 miles long is a travel lane, not an auxiliary lane. This is based on interchange signing starting 2 miles prior with the first advance sign. Therefore, it's a travel lane and requires a full shoulder.

Cases like this, I would suspect to be a "local design decision", that was not caught and overridden by the design reviewers in Central Office. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 27, 2019, 09:13:16 AM
From the above-referenced camera image, looks like it will still have a full right shoulder.

Also, unless Interstate design standards have changed since 2005, a left shoulder of 10 feet is recommended on 6+ lane Interstates, but only 4 feet is required.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 09:25:25 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 27, 2019, 09:13:16 AM
From the above-referenced camera image, looks like it will still have a full right shoulder.
Also, unless Interstate design standards have changed since 2005, a left shoulder of 10 feet is recommended on 6+ lane Interstates, but only 4 feet is required.

They probably haven't, but full left shoulders have been the normal standard since the 1970s on Interstate roadways with 3 or more lanes. 

Why have shoulder standards if they can be easily waived, especially on a median that has ample space for full left shoulders?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on July 27, 2019, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 09:25:25 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 27, 2019, 09:13:16 AM
From the above-referenced camera image, looks like it will still have a full right shoulder.
Also, unless Interstate design standards have changed since 2005, a left shoulder of 10 feet is recommended on 6+ lane Interstates, but only 4 feet is required.

They probably haven't, but full left shoulders have been the normal standard since the 1970s on Interstate roadways with 3 or more lanes. 

Why have shoulder standards if they can be easily waived, especially on a median that has ample space for full left shoulders?
While I see the advantage to left shoulders, honestly I think they sometimes encourage people to pull off there too much, which is more of a safety hazard than doing so on the right shoulder.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 11:42:25 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 27, 2019, 10:07:40 AM
While I see the advantage to left shoulders, honestly I think they sometimes encourage people to pull off there too much, which is more of a safety hazard than doing so on the right shoulder.

The whole idea is that with 3 or more lanes it is difficult or impossible in heavy traffic to cross from the left lane to the right shoulder in heavy traffic.

I once had to fix a sudden flat, replace with the spare, on the grass median for that very reason.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on July 27, 2019, 12:13:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 11:42:25 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 27, 2019, 10:07:40 AM
While I see the advantage to left shoulders, honestly I think they sometimes encourage people to pull off there too much, which is more of a safety hazard than doing so on the right shoulder.

The whole idea is that with 3 or more lanes it is difficult or impossible in heavy traffic to cross from the left lane to the right shoulder in heavy traffic.

I once had to fix a sudden flat, replace with the spare, on the grass median for that very reason.

Hence their advantage. However, I've seen people do that to text or call someone or just check maps, which really should be avoided.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 12:59:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 09:25:25 AM
They probably haven't, but full left shoulders have been the normal standard since the 1970s on Interstate roadways with 3 or more lanes.
I-464 doesn't have a full left shoulder and it was built in the late 80s. The 6-lane stretch of I-264 near the Oceanfront that was widened in the 80s doesn't have a full left shoulder either. Granted, it was still the VA-44 toll road then, but if they were strict about shoulders, they would have widened them to 10 ft upon being designated I-264.

Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 09:25:25 AM
Why have shoulder standards if they can be easily waived, especially on a median that has ample space for full left shoulders?
It's kind of the same thing with bridges. Bridges over 200 ft in length are allowed to have a reduced shoulder of 4 ft on both sides.

Again, most states will still go forward in build full shoulders either way, especially on busier highways, but it's not required.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 01:29:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 12:59:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 09:25:25 AM
They probably haven't, but full left shoulders have been the normal standard since the 1970s on Interstate roadways with 3 or more lanes.
I-464 doesn't have a full left shoulder and it was built in the late 80s. The 6-lane stretch of I-264 near the Oceanfront that was widened in the 80s doesn't have a full left shoulder either. Granted, it was still the VA-44 toll road then, but if they were strict about shoulders, they would have widened them to 10 ft upon being designated I-264.

I-464 north of US-460 was designed in the mid-1970s.  The advance bridge projects in the Poindexter Street interchange area were awarded in 1979.  The design decisions were probably earlier than that.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 12:59:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 09:25:25 AM
Why have shoulder standards if they can be easily waived, especially on a median that has ample space for full left shoulders?
It's kind of the same thing with bridges. Bridges over 200 ft in length are allowed to have a reduced shoulder of 4 ft on both sides.
Again, most states will still go forward in build full shoulders either way, especially on busier highways, but it's not required.

It's a joke to have these AASHTO standards for Interstate highways and then say they are "not required", for prevailing design concepts that have been place for over 40 years.

It is a joke for AASHTO to call a 201-foot bridge a "long bridge", when a skewed overpass can be 300 feet long.  A "long bridge" should have to be over 5,280 feet long, IME.

The I-664 viaducts were all open by 1992, and the longest is 3.2 miles long, and they have full right shoulders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on July 27, 2019, 03:24:07 PM
and this one goes to Beltway or sprjus4 or whoever can answer this question.

Why does I-64 make an ugly hook shape when it comes down to Hampton Roads? It just circles around Norfolk and goes to Suffolk. They should have made it go to Virginia Beach if possible! I-264 would have worked better for the circle. And I-64 can go to Hampton Roads.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 03:52:10 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 03:24:07 PM
and this one goes to Beltway or sprjus4 or whoever can answer this question.

Why does I-64 make an ugly hook shape when it comes down to Hampton Roads? It just circles around Norfolk and goes to Suffolk. They should have made it go to Virginia Beach if possible! I-264 would have worked better for the circle. And I-64 can go to Hampton Roads.
I don't know the exact reason, but when the original interstate system was let in 1956, only I-64, I-464, I-564, and I-264 inside of I-64 were apart of the original system, and built throughout the 60s and 70s, and I-464 in the 80s. I-264 between the east I-64 interchange and the Oceanfront, and I-664 did not exist.

I-664 was added in the 1968 addition to the interstate system, but was not completed until 1992. I-264 between the east I-64 interchange the Oceanfront was built in 1968 as a toll road, VA-44. It was not until the late 90s it went toll-free and was designated as an extension of I-264.

I-64 runs through Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, and Norfolk on the southside. It connects to US-58 on the western end which brings traffic to Suffolk. That is my only real guess as to why I-64 went that far west. When it was built throughout the 60s and early 70s, pretty much everything the two I-264 junctions was rural, and the highway had a 70 mph speed limit, so it wasn't built to exactly serve anything. Like I said, my guess was just for it to connect to US-58. I-264 acted as the more urbanized route in this corridor serving Downtown Norfolk and Portsmouth and I-64 was the southern rural bypass for traffic bound to US-58.

EDIT - I-64 also serves access to the US-17 and VA-168 corridors for traffic bound to North Carolina. VA-168 is the major corridor linking traffic to the Outer Banks. It was a two-lane road back then, but has since relocated onto 4-lane freeway / toll road that was completed in 2001. It has always been a busy route though for tourist traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 03:59:48 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 03:24:07 PM
and this one goes to Beltway or sprjus4 or whoever can answer this question.
Why does I-64 make an ugly hook shape when it comes down to Hampton Roads? It just circles around Norfolk and goes to Suffolk. They should have made it go to Virginia Beach if possible! I-264 would have worked better for the circle. And I-64 can go to Hampton Roads.

There was a 1997 renumbering study that considered that, but the existing designations were reaffirmed by the municipalities.   I-64 crosses Hampton Roads and then generally follows the pre-existing South Hampton Roads bypass of Military Highway.  It goes thru or near all the major cities, and Virginia Beach wasn't yet a city in 1956 when the route was authorized, at least it had not yet subsumed Princess Ann County, and it had far less population.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 04:08:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 03:59:48 PM
I-64 crosses Hampton Roads and then generally follows the pre-existing South Hampton Roads bypass of Military Highway.
That's also a key reason - I had forgotten about that completely.

Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 03:59:48 PM
It goes thru or near all the major cities, and Virginia Beach wasn't yet a city in 1956 when the route was authorized, at least it had not yet subsumed Princess Ann County, and it had far less population.
Chesapeake wasn't a city either until 1963. It was apart of Norfolk County when the interstate system was authorized. But like you said, the reason was likely to follow the Military Highway corridor.



Overall it seems all the interstates were designed to follow some pre-existing corridor.

I-264 follows US-58, I-64 follows US-13 / Military Highway, I-464 follows US-460 / Bainbridge Blvd, and IIRC I-564 was an upgrade of a previous road that was there.

VA-44 was also built as a toll road specifically designed to parallel and supplement US-58 east of I-64 / I-264, and it being incorporated into I-264 just continues I-264's design of paralleling US-58.

As for the newer interstates / highways, I-664 wasn't really designed to follow any particular corridor but rather be a link in the Hampton Roads Beltway (though IIRC it was original a US-17 arterial relocation proposal back in the 60s), and VA-164 was designed to parallel US-17.

The other major freeway in the area, VA-168, that was simply built as a freeway-grade relocation of the arterial VA-168 between I-64 and the North Carolina state line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 05:18:12 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 04:08:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 03:59:48 PM
It goes thru or near all the major cities, and Virginia Beach wasn't yet a city in 1956 when the route was authorized, at least it had not yet subsumed Princess Ann County, and it had far less population.
Chesapeake wasn't a city either until 1963. It was apart of Norfolk County when the interstate system was authorized. But like you said, the reason was likely to follow the Military Highway corridor.

I was referring to Portsmouth, Norfolk, Hampton and Newport News, the original 4 major cities.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 04:08:08 PM
As for the newer interstates / highways, I-664 wasn't really designed to follow any particular corridor but rather be a link in the Hampton Roads Beltway (though IIRC it was original a US-17 arterial relocation proposal back in the 60s), and VA-164 was designed to parallel US-17.

I-664 was the "third crossing" of the day, the beltway concept really had not been thought of at that point, and the US-17 relocation was only between US-17 at Churchland and Bowers Hill and predated the harbor crossing concept.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 05:27:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 05:18:12 PM
I-664 was the "third crossing" of the day, the beltway concept really had not been thought of at that point, and the US-17 relocation was only between US-17 at Churchland and Bowers Hill and predated the harbor crossing concept.
QuoteIn October 1968 the Virginia Department of Highways applied to the Federal Highway Administration for allocation of funds to complete 20.5 miles of Interstate Beltway beginning near the junction of I-64 and the Newport News Connector Road and running across Hampton Roads to a connection with I-64 near Bowers Hill. This project met the requirements of filling in breaks in the region's Interstate System.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I664_History.html

Route 664 Design Study Report, December 1978
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 27, 2019, 08:32:07 PM
I speculate it is possible the FHWA wanted I-64 to use today's I-664 when I-664's mileage was considered in 1968.

The FHWA said the full length of I-664 could get the designation only if they downgraded I-64 between I-664 Hampton and US 460 Wards Corner.  See pg. 14 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-01-1969-01.pdf.  The CTB was using the term Hamptpn Roads Beltway by this time.

Virginia elected not to do this, so I-664 initially only got approval for 9.2 miles instead of 20 (ending partway across the James River).  Some artful maneuvers by Virginia eventually got the whole of I-664 into the system by 1983.  Details about these maneuvers can be found on Scott's website - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I664_History.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 27, 2019, 08:58:59 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 27, 2019, 08:32:07 PM
I speculate it is possible the FHWA wanted I-64 to use today's I-664 when I-664's mileage was considered in 1968.

The FHWA said the full length of I-664 could get the designation only if they downgraded I-64 between I-664 Hampton and US 460 Wards Corner.  See pg. 14 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-01-1969-01.pdf.  The CTB was using the term Hamptpn Roads Beltway by this time.

Virginia elected not to do this, so I-664 initially only got approval for 9.2 miles instead of 20 (ending partway across the James River).  Some artful maneuvers by Virginia eventually got the whole of I-664 into the system by 1983.  Details about these maneuvers can be found on Scott's website - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/I664_History.html
Based on reading his article, that whole thing about downgrading I-64 was the funding. I-664 could be done for all of its 20 miles, but Virginia would have to construct half of it with their own funding not as an interstate, then designate it as an interstate highway once it was completed because it would have met interstate standards.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 28, 2019, 03:05:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 22, 2019, 06:27:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 22, 2019, 03:14:05 PM
I see the points, but I don't recall seeing accident stats of that nature.
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/richmond/I-95-64_Overlap_Study/Overlap_Final_Report_032713_No_Appendix.pdf

Page 3

QuoteVDOT identified the I-95/I-64 Overlap area in downtown Richmond to be one of the highest crash, heavily congested corridors in the region.
You know, there is land near the old Belvidere Toll Plaza that could be used for new lanes:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Former_Richmond-Petersburg_Tpk_Belvidere_toll_plaza.jpg

It won't cover the rest of the I-95/I-64 overlap, but it's good to know there's room for improvement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on July 28, 2019, 07:18:49 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 28, 2019, 03:05:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 22, 2019, 06:27:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 22, 2019, 03:14:05 PM
I see the points, but I don't recall seeing accident stats of that nature.
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/richmond/I-95-64_Overlap_Study/Overlap_Final_Report_032713_No_Appendix.pdf

Page 3

QuoteVDOT identified the I-95/I-64 Overlap area in downtown Richmond to be one of the highest crash, heavily congested corridors in the region.
You know, there is land near the old Belvidere Toll Plaza that could be used for new lanes:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Former_Richmond-Petersburg_Tpk_Belvidere_toll_plaza.jpg

It won't cover the rest of the I-95/I-64 overlap, but it's good to know there's room for improvement.

Pretty sure it's not going to be tolled again ever probably. That's some interesting stuff. If it were tolled again I'm sure more traffic would be using I-295.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 04, 2019, 06:51:27 AM
Based on the traffic cameras, it appears all 6-lanes on I-64 are now open to traffic east of I-295.

(https://i.ibb.co/DLYWZ1n/I64-Widening-Richmond-Open.png)

Don't know exactly when they opened, but they were still closed as of last week.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 04, 2019, 07:47:58 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 04, 2019, 06:51:27 AM
Based on the traffic cameras, it appears all 6-lanes on I-64 are now open to traffic east of I-295.
Don't know exactly when they opened, but they were still closed as of last week.
About Tuesday when I drove it--

About the first half of the length of the eastbound side was open to 3 lanes with the rest line-painted and looking about ready to open.

The westbound side it looks like some more paving is needed, none of third lane open.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 04, 2019, 07:56:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 04, 2019, 07:47:58 AM
About the first half of the length of the eastbound side was open to 3 lanes with the rest line-painted and looking about ready to open.
That VDOT camera is located east of the truck inspection station, about 1.5 miles west of VA-249. Was that part open Tuesday? If not, it appears it has all opened by now at least eastbound.

Quote from: Beltway on August 04, 2019, 07:47:58 AM
The westbound side it looks like some more paving is needed, none of third lane open.
I -might- be driving through that segment today westbound (if there's no traffic, if so I use US-60 or US-460) so I'll post an update on it if it's magically clear and I go through it. But I doubt it IMO.

Hopefully some part of westbound is opened up by now, would be nice to go through there for once during mid-day on a summer Sunday and not be going 20 mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 04, 2019, 08:11:56 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 01:29:35 PM
I-464 north of US-460 was designed in the mid-1970s.  The advance bridge projects in the Poindexter Street interchange area were awarded in 1979.  The design decisions were probably earlier than that.
Another example would be the I-81 / I-77 overlap that opened in 1987.

To be fair, wouldn't the sections of I-295 with full left shoulders have been designed in the 70s as well? The widening of I-95 between Ashland and Triangle that happened in the early 80s and has full left shoulders as well, wouldn't that have also been designed in the 70s?

I just find it odd how some interstate projects that opened in the 80s like I-295 and the I-95 widening have full left shoulders, whereas the I-81 / I-77 segment and I-464 segment that also opened in the 80s don't have full left shoulders.

And it seems even today they can't keep it consistent as seen by this most recent expansion of I-64 by Richmond. I agree that any highway with 3 or more lanes should have a full left shoulder when possible except when there's limitations such as narrow median, narrower bridge not deemed important to be replaced / widened, etc.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 04, 2019, 08:17:32 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 04, 2019, 07:56:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 04, 2019, 07:47:58 AM
About the first half of the length of the eastbound side was open to 3 lanes with the rest line-painted and looking about ready to open.
That VDOT camera is located east of the truck inspection station, about 1.5 miles west of VA-249. Was that part open Tuesday? If not, it appears it has all opened by now at least eastbound.

I don't remember the exact transition point.  The part that was closed looked complete with all lines painted, so it should be a matter of days.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 04, 2019, 08:21:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 04, 2019, 08:17:32 AM
I don't remember the exact transition point.  The part that was closed looked complete with all lines painted, so it should be a matter of days.
Did the bridge have all 3 lanes open at least or look complete? That's likely what's holding the remainder up. A few weeks ago most of it looked complete, but the bridges still had a bit of a work, at least eastbound.

If you don't remember though, that's fine. One thing that's frustrating is VDOT has 5 cameras through the entire project area, but only 1 is currently enabled for some reason. The rest are deactivated and cannot be viewed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 04, 2019, 08:28:02 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 04, 2019, 08:11:56 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 27, 2019, 01:29:35 PM
I-464 north of US-460 was designed in the mid-1970s.  The advance bridge projects in the Poindexter Street interchange area were awarded in 1979.  The design decisions were probably earlier than that.
Another example would be the I-81 / I-77 overlap that opened in 1987.
To be fair, wouldn't the sections of I-295 with full left shoulders have been designed in the 70s as well? The widening of I-95 between Ashland and Triangle that happened in the early 80s and has full left shoulders as well, wouldn't that have also been designed in the 70s?
I just find it odd how some interstate projects that opened in the 80s like I-295 and the I-95 widening have full left shoulders, whereas the I-81 / I-77 segment and I-464 segment that also opened in the 80s don't have full left shoulders.
You are over thinking things.  It is hard to identify an exact transition point when a standard was upgraded by construction date, as I saw on my trip last weekend out I-64 to WV, the transition to building full right shoulders was in the 1970 to 1972 range for opening date.

Even today a "local design decision" can use an older standard for some reason that seems to be an error that was not overruled by the design reviewers.  It is no excuse for not using that standard or any justification for another project getting reduced standards.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 04, 2019, 08:35:03 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 04, 2019, 08:21:52 AM
If you don't remember though, that's fine. One thing that's frustrating is VDOT has 5 cameras through the entire project area, but only 1 is currently enabled for some reason. The rest are deactivated and cannot be viewed.
Probably temporarily offline.  We would occasionally get help desk tickets in the IT Support Center, for an offline camera, and we would contact the contractor that supports the system, that goes out there to diagnose and fix the problem; it could be a camera hardware problem, it could be a electrical problem, it could be a cable problem.  It could also be a network problem, and if so someone else is contacted to diagnose and fix the problem.  I have been retired for 2 years but that is probably the same procedure today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on August 04, 2019, 07:47:16 PM
Question. What are these stub ramps for? Are they for the southeastern Suffolk Bypass? I think it would come in handy if they built that.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/I-93/@36.7003143,-76.6019043,930m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e26da2735216a3:0x1b40091b26a09b7!8m2!3d43.2893492!4d-71.5704076

https://www.google.com/maps/place/I-93/@36.7501876,-76.5317151,2093m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e26da2735216a3:0x1b40091b26a09b7!8m2!3d43.2893492!4d-71.5704076
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 04, 2019, 07:57:12 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 04, 2019, 07:47:16 PM
Question. What are these stub ramps for? Are they for the southeastern Suffolk Bypass? I think it would come in handy if they built that.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/I-93/@36.7003143,-76.6019043,930m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e26da2735216a3:0x1b40091b26a09b7!8m2!3d43.2893492!4d-71.5704076
https://www.google.com/maps/place/I-93/@36.7501876,-76.5317151,2093m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e26da2735216a3:0x1b40091b26a09b7!8m2!3d43.2893492!4d-71.5704076
Southeast Suffolk Bypass, planned back in the 1970s when that eastern interchange and US-58 bypass was built.  Would have been part of full loop around Old Suffolk.

The western interchange doesn't have stub ramps per se, but it apparently is configured for a future extension.

Very unlikely that it will ever be built, due to direct impacts to the Dismal Swamp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 04, 2019, 08:12:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 04, 2019, 08:35:03 AM
[I-64 widening, I-295 to VA-249 Bottoms Bridge]

Eastbound all 3 lanes are open and the final asphalt surface course is in place.  The temporary configuration for the beginning of the third lane is a continuation of the onramp from I-295.  The temporary configuration for the end of the third lane is exiting onto VA-249.  The stub of the constructed third lane is on the left.
"Temporary configuration" meaning until the adjacent 6-lane widening project is constructed.

Quote from: Beltway on August 04, 2019, 08:35:03 AM
Westbound 2 lanes are open.  The bridge looks complete.  Considerably milling and paving is still needed on the existing lanes, and part is complete.  The whole roadway will need a final surface course of asphalt.  Sometimes a roadway with the intermediate course is painted and opened, with the final surface course of asphalt to be applied later (as in soon like a few weeks).  I don't know which is the plan, but the eastbound roadway was fully completed with the final surface course of asphalt before opening all lanes, so that might be the plan as well westbound.
I drove thru today.

There have been some openings westbound, even though final milling and paving is still underway and will probably take a week or more.

The westbound middle lane and the left lane are open on the entire project, and the right lane is now open on the second half of the project, and closed on the first half with includes the Chickahominy River bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 14, 2019, 03:56:50 PM
Hurricane Camille made a mess of Virginia 50 years ago this coming weekend. The Daily Progress has a bunch if pictures, including some road photos. US-29 near Lovingston hasn't changed all that much!

https://www.dailyprogress.com/news/photos-flooding-from-remnants-of-hurricane-camille-in-august/collection_62d242ff-9a5e-5ba0-bbe8-545db356ce21.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 14, 2019, 10:19:23 PM
Quote
NORFOLK -- The new flyover ramp from Interstate 64 west to Interstate 264 east will open to traffic the night of Wednesday, Aug. 14, increasing capacity and enhancing safety along the highly traveled interchange.

The completion of the bridge marks a major milestone in the first phase of the I-64/264 Interchange Improvements project, which is scheduled for completion this fall. "Opening this new ramp is a crucial step in improving one of the busiest interchanges in Hampton Roads," said Chris Hall, Hampton Roads district engineer. "Most importantly, we're making travel safer for the more than 100,000 people who live, work and drive here everyday."

The ramp will add capacity at the interchange and remove a conflict point by elevating traffic from the I-64 west ramp over the I-264 east collector-distributor road and placing motorists directly onto mainline I-264 east.

This new traffic pattern, which motorists should anticipate during the Thursday morning commute, will eliminate the jockeying that occurs between drivers leaving I-264 for Newtown Road and those merging onto I-264 from I-64 west.

https://www.virginiadot.org/VDOT/Travel/Travel_Alerts/Hampton_Roads/asset_upload_file56_55256.pdf

Was supposed to open tonight, however it was once again delayed due to "an inspection that revealed items that need to be completed prior to the ramp opening to traffic."

Updated release -

QuoteNORFOLK -- The new flyover ramp from Interstate 64 west to Interstate 264 east will not open to traffic tonight, as originally scheduled, after a pre-opening inspection revealed items that need to be completed prior to the ramp opening.

VDOT initially believed the outstanding items could be completed in time for the flyover ramp to open, but after further review, additional time is needed.

"Ultimately, delivering a quality product is one of VDOT's top priorities," said Chris Hall, VDOT Hampton Roads district engineer. "We would rather delay the opening of the new ramp to correct these issues while the road is not under traffic."

VDOT will announce a new opening date once repairs are complete.

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/VDOT-DELAYS-OPENING-OF-NEW-RAMP-FROM-I-64W-TO-I-264E.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=5xyRMNEEfWo
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 17, 2019, 03:12:28 PM
All lanes on I-64 east of I-295 are definitely open now, and all of the cones are gone.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 17, 2019, 03:28:19 PM
Quote from: plain on August 17, 2019, 03:12:28 PM
All lanes on I-64 east of I-295 are definitely open now, and all of the cones are gone.
I just rode thru there an hour ago.  Three lanes each way are open between I-295 and VA-249 Bottoms Bridge, and all surface paving is complete.  The outer lane starts and ends at each interchange, and that will ultimately tie into a thru lane when the adjacent widening projects are built in the future.  Very nice result!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 17, 2019, 03:44:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 17, 2019, 03:28:19 PM
Quote from: plain on August 17, 2019, 03:12:28 PM
All lanes on I-64 east of I-295 are definitely open now, and all of the cones are gone.
I just rode thru there an hour ago.  Three lanes each way are open between I-295 and VA-249 Bottoms Bridge, and all surface paving is complete.  The outer lane starts and ends at each interchange, and that will ultimately tie into a thru lane when the adjacent widening projects are built in the future.  Very nice result!
Did any of the usual Saturday traffic jams exist still or did this project do the trick?

As for the remainder, hopefully we can start seeing more phases under construction by 2021 - 2022. It'd be nice to see 6-lanes between VA-249 and VA-199 completed by 2030.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 17, 2019, 04:13:05 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 17, 2019, 03:44:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 17, 2019, 03:28:19 PM
Quote from: plain on August 17, 2019, 03:12:28 PM
All lanes on I-64 east of I-295 are definitely open now, and all of the cones are gone.
I just rode thru there an hour ago.  Three lanes each way are open between I-295 and VA-249 Bottoms Bridge, and all surface paving is complete.  The outer lane starts and ends at each interchange, and that will ultimately tie into a thru lane when the adjacent widening projects are built in the future.  Very nice result!
Did any of the usual Saturday traffic jams exist still or did this project do the trick?

As for the remainder, hopefully we can start seeing more phases under construction by 2021 - 2022. It'd be nice to see 6-lanes between VA-249 and VA-199 completed by 2030.

No congestion on the 6-lane portion but earlier there was congestion east of there up to about Exit 220 on the EB side. I checked traffic just now and that congestion is now gone. We'll see how it looks tomorrow afternoon.

Also while I was checking, both Hampton Roads tunnels were screwed as well as the entire length of I-95 north of Richmond. Typical summer weekend.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 17, 2019, 08:11:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 17, 2019, 03:44:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 17, 2019, 03:28:19 PM
I just rode thru there an hour ago.  Three lanes each way are open between I-295 and VA-249 Bottoms Bridge, and all surface paving is complete.  The outer lane starts and ends at each interchange, and that will ultimately tie into a thru lane when the adjacent widening projects are built in the future.  Very nice result!
Did any of the usual Saturday traffic jams exist still or did this project do the trick?
Traffic was busy but free-flowing.  I didn't go east of VA-249 as that is where I get off to visit friends, so I can't speak about that section.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 17, 2019, 08:21:25 PM
I checked VA I-85 status on the rehabs of the concrete sections MP 40 to 69.  Ongoing projects to rebab the concrete pavement and overlay with asphalt pavement.

SBL US-460 to MP 42 was completed several years ago in one project.  The section between MP 40 and 42 was completed in the last year and now all the old concrete pavement has been overlaid with asphalt.

NBL between MP 40 and US-460 has seen various projects over the last 5 years and now there is only 5.2 miles that has not been rehabbed/resurfaced with asphalt.

The above sections were originally built with continuously reinforced concrete pavement.

NBL and SBL between US-460 and east of US-1 has a project that been completed except for a section where the final course of asphalt remains to be placed.  This section was opened in the mid-1960s and had the jointed concrete pavement and it had gotten rather bumpy before this project.

Vast improvements.  The newest part of VA I-85 is now 49 years old.

South of MP 40 the original pavement is asphalt all the way to MP 0.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 20, 2019, 06:12:05 PM
I-64 Widening Project Complete in Henrico, New Kent Counties (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2019/i-64-widening-project-complete-in-henrico-new-kent-counties8-20-2019.asp)
Quote(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.virginiadot.org%2FVDOT%2FNewsroom%2FRichmond%2F2019%2Fasset_upload_file970_146790.jpg&hash=e04fee136331ed47658b6f0028e6f231d3b26ea9)

SOUTH CHESTERFIELD — On Tuesday, August 20, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) completed the $46.4 million Interstate 64 widening project between Interstate 295 (mile marker 200) in Henrico and Bottoms Bridge (mile marker 205) in New Kent. Corman-Branch, a joint venture, of Roanoke, Va. completed the major widening project in approximately two years, ahead of schedule and under budget.

Construction began in August 2017 to widen I-64 from two to three travel lanes in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Newly completed improvements include an added 12-foot wide travel lane and a 10-foot wide shoulder in both directions in the median of the preexisting roadway, widened bridges over the Chickahominy River and improved acceleration and deceleration lanes at the truck weigh station (mile marker 203). Sound mitigation walls have also been constructed within project limits and the 55 mph work zone speed limit has been lifted.

"The completed project is intended to provide congestion relief and added safety to the I-64 corridor,"  said Scott Fisher, VDOT Richmond District Mega Projects Engineer. "An additional travel lane in each direction will accommodate current and future traffic volumes on I-64 and is expected to lessen travel times to and from Virginia Beach."

More information on VDOT's I-64 mobility improvements on and to the peninsula is available at http://i64widening.org/.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 20, 2019, 10:44:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 20, 2019, 06:12:05 PM
Construction began in August 2017 to widen I-64 from two to three travel lanes in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Newly completed improvements include an added 12-foot wide travel lane and a 10-foot wide shoulder in both directions in the median of the preexisting roadway,
The photo shows otherwise, as we have talked about before!  :-)

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 20, 2019, 06:12:05 PM
widened bridges over the Chickahominy River
Complete replacement of existing structures, appropriate for bridges that are over 50 years old.  The new bridges appear to have full 10-foot left shoulders.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 20, 2019, 06:12:05 PM
and improved acceleration and deceleration lanes at the truck weigh station (mile marker 203). Sound mitigation walls have also been constructed within project limits and the 55 mph work zone speed limit has been lifted.
I was last there 3 days ago and the speed zone had not yet been lifted.  The sound walls are a big improvement for the dozens of homes nearby (probably none there when I-64 was originally built).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 23, 2019, 10:19:08 PM
Right down the road from Colonial Baptist Church and Virginia Beach Theological Seminary.
. . . . . .

https://www.pilotonline.com/news/chesapeake/vp-nw-centerville-turnpike-bridge-20190822-xdqq6sb66rhzniscp3vjzrwsri-story.html

Chesapeake's Centerville Turnpike Bridge closing for 6 months: "It's going to be a significant traffic impact."
By Alyssa Meyers
The Virginian-Pilot 
Aug 22, 2019

The Centerville Turnpike Bridge has been doing its job carrying traffic over the Intracoastal Waterway for 64 years.

Now, the Chesapeake span is taking a day off. Or a couple hundred.

The two-lane bridge will close for six months starting Saturday while it's removed and repaired, a project that city employees and local business owners agree is a necessary inconvenience.

The surface of the bridge and the mechanism that allows it to pivot horizontally so vessels can pass have to be replaced, said Earl Sorey, assistant public works director.

"The only way to do that is to take the bridge out of service,"  Sorey said. "It's going to be a significant traffic impact, there's no doubt about that."

The repairs will ensure the bridge, which carries nearly 16,000 vehicles a day, can open and close reliably with the hope of preventing unplanned closures in the future.

The span opened about 4,700 times in 2018, which is a normal yearly average, said Jason Brown, a public works department spokesman. In the past year, traffic was impacted five times for more than two hours because of a malfunction, he said.

While the bridge is out of service for six months, detours will take drivers about 5 to 8 miles to the Va. 168 Bypass over the waterway. Sorey said the city has asked the Coast Guard for permission to suspend one Great Bridge Bridge opening in the morning and another one in the afternoon during peak traffic hours.

All other non-emergency projects that could impact traffic will be temporarily suspended, and the timing of signals on adjacent roads will be adjusted to help alleviate traffic.

Part of the project's funding comes from the Virginia Department of Transportation's State of Good Repair program, Sorey said, which means the city is obligated to complete the project within a certain time frame.

The original start date for the closure was July 28, which would have meant greater impact on summer spending for local businesses. But the city decided to delay until Aug. 24 to make sure the contractor had all the necessary materials in place before closing the bridge.

"There's really no good time of year to close a bridge like that, especially when you're looking at up to a six-month closure,"  Sorey said. "For us the bigger issue was having a funded project with a contractor in place and a plan in place."

The new August start date gives drivers less time to adjust to the detours before Chesapeake Public Schools reopen on Sept. 3, although the division does not expect the bridge closure will directly impact day-to-day operations.

"On a daily basis, virtually none of our buses use that bridge for transporting students,"  said Chesapeake Public Schools spokesman Richie Babb. "Students who live on opposite sides of the bridge stay on their side to attend school."

After the revitalization, the bridge is expected to last at least another 15 years, but by then it will need to be replaced altogether.

"The work that's going on right now is just rehab,"  Sorey said.

In addition to working closely with the Coast Guard and the contractor to mitigate traffic impacts, the city has also undertaken efforts to notify the public of the project, Brown said.

There's a tweet about the project pinned to the top of the Chesapeake Roads Twitter account, and the announcement has been posted on other social media platforms as well, Brown said.

Letters have been sent to businesses, schools, churches and residents. The community also has had the opportunity to ask questions at a public meeting in Great Bridge, and electronic signs announcing the bridge closure have been activated in the area.

"We've used every tool to ensure this information was disseminated well in advance and everyone had a chance to hear this,"  Brown said.

Centerville Turnpike will remain open to local traffic so drivers can come and go from neighborhoods closest to the bridge. But some businesses in the area still expressed concern that the closure would make their services less accessible.

The Centerville Animal Hospital, which handles veterinary emergencies, is located immediately south of the bridge. Veterinary technician Michelle Galyo said in addition to making her office harder to reach, the bridge closure also complicates traveling to other hospitals.

Galyo said she often refers clients to 24-hour emergency services or specialists on the other side of the bridge, and the closest emergency hospital is north by Greenbrier Mall.

"We've had clients who purposefully try to schedule appointments around any closures that have occurred thus far,"  she said. "We definitely have had both clients and employees who are concerned, fully recognizing that for as often as the bridge gets stuck open and how long it's been in use, it definitely needs some work done."

Ashley Bryant, the manager at Angie's Family Restaurant, also just south of the bridge, said she's worried the detour might lead to a decline in weekday lunch business.

"People are on a time limit,"  she said. "We're just hoping that our customers will drive the extra way around."

Bryant said while she wishes the closure wouldn't coincide so closely with the reopening of the public schools after summer break, she knows the project is unavoidable.

"It's crazy enough on this roadway with buses and traffic in general,"  she said. "It's going to be complete mayhem."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 23, 2019, 10:29:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 23, 2019, 10:19:08 PM
Right down the road from Colonial Baptist Church and Virginia Beach Theological Seminary.
. . . . . .

https://www.pilotonline.com/news/chesapeake/vp-nw-centerville-turnpike-bridge-20190822-xdqq6sb66rhzniscp3vjzrwsri-story.html

Chesapeake's Centerville Turnpike Bridge closing for 6 months: "It's going to be a significant traffic impact."
By Alyssa Meyers
The Virginian-Pilot 
Aug 22, 2019

The Centerville Turnpike Bridge has been doing its job carrying traffic over the Intracoastal Waterway for 64 years.

Now, the Chesapeake span is taking a day off. Or a couple hundred.

The two-lane bridge will close for six months starting Saturday while it's removed and repaired, a project that city employees and local business owners agree is a necessary inconvenience.

The surface of the bridge and the mechanism that allows it to pivot horizontally so vessels can pass have to be replaced, said Earl Sorey, assistant public works director.

"The only way to do that is to take the bridge out of service,"  Sorey said. "It's going to be a significant traffic impact, there's no doubt about that."

The repairs will ensure the bridge, which carries nearly 16,000 vehicles a day, can open and close reliably with the hope of preventing unplanned closures in the future.

The span opened about 4,700 times in 2018, which is a normal yearly average, said Jason Brown, a public works department spokesman. In the past year, traffic was impacted five times for more than two hours because of a malfunction, he said.

While the bridge is out of service for six months, detours will take drivers about 5 to 8 miles to the Va. 168 Bypass over the waterway. Sorey said the city has asked the Coast Guard for permission to suspend one Great Bridge Bridge opening in the morning and another one in the afternoon during peak traffic hours.

All other non-emergency projects that could impact traffic will be temporarily suspended, and the timing of signals on adjacent roads will be adjusted to help alleviate traffic.

Part of the project's funding comes from the Virginia Department of Transportation's State of Good Repair program, Sorey said, which means the city is obligated to complete the project within a certain time frame.

The original start date for the closure was July 28, which would have meant greater impact on summer spending for local businesses. But the city decided to delay until Aug. 24 to make sure the contractor had all the necessary materials in place before closing the bridge.

"There's really no good time of year to close a bridge like that, especially when you're looking at up to a six-month closure,"  Sorey said. "For us the bigger issue was having a funded project with a contractor in place and a plan in place."

The new August start date gives drivers less time to adjust to the detours before Chesapeake Public Schools reopen on Sept. 3, although the division does not expect the bridge closure will directly impact day-to-day operations.

"On a daily basis, virtually none of our buses use that bridge for transporting students,"  said Chesapeake Public Schools spokesman Richie Babb. "Students who live on opposite sides of the bridge stay on their side to attend school."

After the revitalization, the bridge is expected to last at least another 15 years, but by then it will need to be replaced altogether.

"The work that's going on right now is just rehab,"  Sorey said.

In addition to working closely with the Coast Guard and the contractor to mitigate traffic impacts, the city has also undertaken efforts to notify the public of the project, Brown said.

There's a tweet about the project pinned to the top of the Chesapeake Roads Twitter account, and the announcement has been posted on other social media platforms as well, Brown said.

Letters have been sent to businesses, schools, churches and residents. The community also has had the opportunity to ask questions at a public meeting in Great Bridge, and electronic signs announcing the bridge closure have been activated in the area.

"We've used every tool to ensure this information was disseminated well in advance and everyone had a chance to hear this,"  Brown said.

Centerville Turnpike will remain open to local traffic so drivers can come and go from neighborhoods closest to the bridge. But some businesses in the area still expressed concern that the closure would make their services less accessible.

The Centerville Animal Hospital, which handles veterinary emergencies, is located immediately south of the bridge. Veterinary technician Michelle Galyo said in addition to making her office harder to reach, the bridge closure also complicates traveling to other hospitals.

Galyo said she often refers clients to 24-hour emergency services or specialists on the other side of the bridge, and the closest emergency hospital is north by Greenbrier Mall.

"We've had clients who purposefully try to schedule appointments around any closures that have occurred thus far,"  she said. "We definitely have had both clients and employees who are concerned, fully recognizing that for as often as the bridge gets stuck open and how long it's been in use, it definitely needs some work done."

Ashley Bryant, the manager at Angie's Family Restaurant, also just south of the bridge, said she's worried the detour might lead to a decline in weekday lunch business.

"People are on a time limit,"  she said. "We're just hoping that our customers will drive the extra way around."

Bryant said while she wishes the closure wouldn't coincide so closely with the reopening of the public schools after summer break, she knows the project is unavoidable.

"It's crazy enough on this roadway with buses and traffic in general,"  she said. "It's going to be complete mayhem."
Live nearby... use it very frequently. The traffic around here is bad enough, especially on the Expressway, this is just going to multiply that problem. 16,000 AADT is going to be detoured onto a 4-lane highway with 75,000 AADT that already has congestion issues, and a 2-lane road with 25,000 AADT that also already has issues. Some traffic obviously won't use it, but a majority will. They've closed the bridge for a week a few times, and it was horrible on Mt Pleasant Rd, the Expressway, Battlefield Blvd, and Kempsville Rd, all parking lots for miles.

I understand why it needs to be done, but it is no doubt going to be a painful 6 months.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 23, 2019, 10:34:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 23, 2019, 10:29:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 23, 2019, 10:19:08 PM
Right down the road from Colonial Baptist Church and Virginia Beach Theological Seminary.
Live nearby... use it very frequently. The traffic around here is bad enough, especially on the Expressway, this is just going to multiply that problem. 16,000 AADT is going to be detoured onto a 4-lane highway with 75,000 AADT that already has congestion issues. Some traffic obviously won't use it, but a majority will. They've closed the bridge for a week a few times, and it was horrible on Mt Pleasant Rd, the Expressway, Battlefield Blvd, and Kempsville Rd, all parking lots for miles.
I understand why it needs to be done, but it is no doubt going to be a painful 6 months.
I get to CBC and VBTS without needing to use that bridge.  I just noticed the sign today at the bridge that says it will close for 6 months on Aug. 24th.

Wonder what they would replace it with, a high-level bridge, or a modern movable span bridge like the Bus. VA-168 bridge over the ICW?  I'm sure it would be expensive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 23, 2019, 11:20:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 23, 2019, 10:34:02 PM
Wonder what they would replace it with, a high-level bridge, or a modern movable span bridge like the Bus. VA-168 bridge over the ICW?  I'm sure it would be expensive.
Right now, they are only replacing parts on the bridge, such as the pivot which moves the bridge, along with other different components. They have to take the bridge out of service and move it to a different location in order to complete the necessary work. In 6 months, it will be put back and re-opened to traffic. The closure is only one part of the project though... the overall rehabilitation project began back in May and is to continue throughout 2020.

In the future, roughly 15-20 years, the city eventually plans to replace the bridge entirely. The new bridge would be a 4 to 6 lane fixed-span bridge with a 65 foot navigational clearance and while no detailed cost estimate exists, the city estimates roughly ~$100 million. There's currently a feasibility study underway that is set to be completed in Summer 2020 that would look at different alignments, impacts, and detailed cost estimates.

http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/government/city-departments/departments/Public-Works-Department/Active-Public-Works-Projects/active-transportation-street-projects/Centerville-Turnpike-Bridge-Replacement-Feasibility-Study.htm
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 23, 2019, 11:56:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 23, 2019, 11:20:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 23, 2019, 10:34:02 PM
Wonder what they would replace it with, a high-level bridge, or a modern movable span bridge like the Bus. VA-168 bridge over the ICW?  I'm sure it would be expensive.
Right now, they are only replacing parts on the bridge, such as the pivot which moves the bridge, along with other different components. They have to take the bridge out of service and move it to a different location in order to complete the necessary work. In 6 months, it will be put back and re-opened to traffic. The closure is only one part of the project though... the overall rehabilitation project began back in May and is to continue throughout 2020.
Presumably to take the swingspan to a work yard on land so that they can repair and maybe replace some of the steel beams.  Probably not feasible or would be much more difficult if done at the bridge.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 23, 2019, 11:20:13 PM
In the future, roughly 15-20 years, the city eventually plans to replace the bridge entirely. The new bridge would be a 4 to 6 lane fixed-span bridge with a 65 foot navigational clearance and while no detailed cost estimate exists, the city estimates roughly ~$100 million. There's currently a feasibility study underway that is set to be completed in Summer 2020 that would look at different alignments, impacts, and detailed cost estimates.
I was thinking about why not replace it with a modern movable bridge, but I see that part of the problem is the grade that road is on, there is only 4 feet of vertical navigational clearance under the bridge when it is closed, so that means even small boats cannot pass under without the bridge being opened, and for the motorists that means more frequent stoppages of traffic to open the bridge.
See page 7: https://www.charts.noaa.gov/BookletChart/12206_BookletChart.pdf

So they could build a higher movable span bridge, with say 20 or 25 feet of vertical navigational clearance under the bridge when it is closed, or build a fixed bridge with 65 feet vertical navigational clearance.  Guesstimate of at least $50 or $60 million for the first option, and still have the maintenance of a movable span and some traffic stoppages, versus the ~$100 million for the fixed bridge.  Those are general estimates, but I can see the desirability  of spending more to eliminate openings once and for all.

I suppose that Centerville Turnpike will be all 4-laned in the not too distant future.

What about the VA-165 bridge?  Another movable bridge with only 6 feet of vertical navigational clearance under the bridge when it is closed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 24, 2019, 01:03:32 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 23, 2019, 11:56:51 PM
Probably not feasible or would be much more difficult if done at the bridge.
It wouldn't be feasible. If they worked on the existing location, the bridge wouldn't be movable during construction, therefore the channel would be blocked for maritime traffic for 6 months. There's probably a variety of other factors as well that make it infeasible.

Quote from: Beltway on August 23, 2019, 11:56:51 PM
What about the VA-165 bridge?  Another movable bridge with only 6 feet of vertical navigational clearance under the bridge when it is closed.
The North Landing Bridge (VA-165) is owned by the Army Corps of Engineers, unlike the Centerville Tpke bridge which is owned by the City of Chesapeake, and they are actively studying a replacement as well.

Back in March, a detailed Draft Feasibility Study / Environmental Assessment was completed that evaluated 5 different replacement options -

1) Replacement in Place - Movable Bridge - No cost provided
2) Replacement to East of Existing - Movable Bridge - $66.2 million
3) Replacement to East of Existing - Fixed Span - $74.3 million
4) Replacement to West of Existing - Movable Bridge - $58.2 million
5) Replacement to West of Existing - Fixed Span - $76 million

The first two options were removed from further study, leaving either a fixed span to either side of the existing bridge, or a west movable bridge being the remaining options. No preferred alternative was selected between those three, but the City of Chesapeake prefers a fixed span over a movable bridge. In this instance, the cheapest option, the West Movable, compared to the most expensive, the West Fixed, is only a difference of $17.8 million, and considering the benefits of a fixed span over a movable bridge, the fixed span seems worth the extra $17.8 million in the long run.

All of the bridge replacement alternatives are two-lane bridges consisting of one 12 foot travel lane and 10 foot shoulder in each direction with a maximum 4% grade. The projected AADT by 2040 on a fixed-span bridge is 17,310, so a two-lane bridge would likely suffice.

Here's the project website, where you can view the Draft Environmental Assessment - https://www.nao.usace.army.mil/NorthLandingBridge/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 24, 2019, 10:24:57 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 24, 2019, 01:03:32 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 23, 2019, 11:56:51 PM
Probably not feasible or would be much more difficult if done at the bridge.
It wouldn't be feasible. If they worked on the existing location, the bridge wouldn't be movable during construction, therefore the channel would be blocked for maritime traffic for 6 months. There's probably a variety of other factors as well that make it infeasible.
I was thinking about leaving the swingspan open during construction, but that would be a balancing act and construction equipment would block the channel at times.

The construction yard might not be far away, maybe even on open land at the marina near the bridge.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 24, 2019, 01:03:32 AM
The North Landing Bridge (VA-165) is owned by the Army Corps of Engineers, unlike the Centerville Tpke bridge which is owned by the City of Chesapeake, and they are actively studying a replacement as well.
Back in March, a detailed Draft Feasibility Study / Environmental Assessment was completed that evaluated 5 different replacement options -
Movable span options still at least 76% of the cost of a fixed high-level bridge, not as much difference as I would have thought.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 24, 2019, 01:03:32 AM
Fixed, is only a difference of $17.8 million, and considering the benefits of a fixed span over a movable bridge, the fixed span seems worth the extra $17.8 million in the long run.
Greater right-of-way and environmental issues could be a factor in the fixed high-level bridge, given the longer length and greater footprint.  All that would have to be factored in.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on August 24, 2019, 10:18:00 PM
If a fixed span bridge is picked, would the City of Chesapeake toll this one also?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 24, 2019, 11:29:06 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 24, 2019, 10:18:00 PM
If a fixed span bridge is picked, would the City of Chesapeake toll this one also?

I doubt it.  Virginia Beach's new Lesner Bridge on US-60 over the Lynnhaven Inlet cost about $100 million and it is not tolled.  Chesapeake does have the two toll roads, but the local bridges around the region are not tolled.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on August 26, 2019, 06:13:59 PM
I saw a new sign goof in Virginia.  The US 15 shields here have been replaced.
https://goo.gl/maps/VqXcGQrxcHoTY3eN9
That's not a surprise since those shields are in bad shape in streetview.  The goof is that they were replaced with VA primary route shields instead of US route shields.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on August 26, 2019, 10:54:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 24, 2019, 11:29:06 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 24, 2019, 10:18:00 PM
If a fixed span bridge is picked, would the City of Chesapeake toll this one also?

I doubt it.  Virginia Beach's new Lesner Bridge on US-60 over the Lynnhaven Inlet cost about $100 million and it is not tolled.  Chesapeake does have the two toll roads, but the local bridges around the region are not tolled.
I really didn't think so.  It just seems that whenever a new bridge has been built in Chesapeake lately, it gets tolled.

I am just remembering the days (1989-2013) when the only tolls in the area were the old Jordan Bridge and the CBBT.  And, yes, I did deal with the tunnel tolls in the 1980's while attending Old Dominion University, living in the Western Branch area of Chesapeake.  So, it was real nice driving in the Hampton Roads area without paying a toll someplace (I never drove over the Jordan Bridge then--I had no real reason to go in that area) in the early 1990's.

If the MMMBT was constructed and completed in this decade, it would more than likely be tolled.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 26, 2019, 11:28:16 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 26, 2019, 10:54:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 24, 2019, 11:29:06 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 24, 2019, 10:18:00 PM
If a fixed span bridge is picked, would the City of Chesapeake toll this one also?
I doubt it.  Virginia Beach's new Lesner Bridge on US-60 over the Lynnhaven Inlet cost about $100 million and it is not tolled.  Chesapeake does have the two toll roads, but the local bridges around the region are not tolled.
I really didn't think so.  It just seems that whenever a new bridge has been built in Chesapeake lately, it gets tolled.

Huh?  One new bridge has been built with tolls, the high-level bridge on Dominion Boulevard.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on August 26, 2019, 11:53:19 PM
^ I know that; I am being a bit sarcastic because of the tolls. 

Although I currently live 620 miles away, I still like to keep informed with one of the areas I grew up in.  If I was still living in the area, I wouldn't like the tolls and would (could) find ways around them. 

Just my own thoughts on driving on bridges and through tunnels that used to be free.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 27, 2019, 01:40:38 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 26, 2019, 10:54:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 24, 2019, 11:29:06 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 24, 2019, 10:18:00 PM
If a fixed span bridge is picked, would the City of Chesapeake toll this one also?

I doubt it.  Virginia Beach's new Lesner Bridge on US-60 over the Lynnhaven Inlet cost about $100 million and it is not tolled.  Chesapeake does have the two toll roads, but the local bridges around the region are not tolled.
I really didn't think so.  It just seems that whenever a new bridge has been built in Chesapeake lately, it gets tolled.

I am just remembering the days (1989-2013) when the only tolls in the area were the old Jordan Bridge and the CBBT.  And, yes, I did deal with the tunnel tolls in the 1980's while attending Old Dominion University, living in the Western Branch area of Chesapeake.  So, it was real nice driving in the Hampton Roads area without paying a toll someplace (I never drove over the Jordan Bridge then--I had no real reason to go in that area) in the early 1990's.

If the MMMBT was constructed and completed in this decade, it would more than likely be tolled.
Also the Chesapeake Expressway completed in 2001 was tolled.

As for the MMMBT in this decade, there would likely be free and HO/T lanes sort of like the new HRBT being built.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 27, 2019, 01:41:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 26, 2019, 11:28:16 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 26, 2019, 10:54:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 24, 2019, 11:29:06 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 24, 2019, 10:18:00 PM
If a fixed span bridge is picked, would the City of Chesapeake toll this one also?
I doubt it.  Virginia Beach's new Lesner Bridge on US-60 over the Lynnhaven Inlet cost about $100 million and it is not tolled.  Chesapeake does have the two toll roads, but the local bridges around the region are not tolled.
I really didn't think so.  It just seems that whenever a new bridge has been built in Chesapeake lately, it gets tolled.

Huh?  One new bridge has been built with tolls, the high-level bridge on Dominion Boulevard.
Those tolls also helped fund the upgrade of 4 miles of two-lane road to a four-lane divided freeway with 3 urban interchanges.

Out of the entire $345 million project, roughly $80 million was given in state / federal funding. A new Centerville Bridge would likely be around $100 million, and could get that over time in state / federal funding.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 27, 2019, 10:03:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 27, 2019, 01:40:38 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 26, 2019, 10:54:10 PM
If the MMMBT was constructed and completed in this decade, it would more than likely be tolled.
Also the Chesapeake Expressway completed in 2001 was tolled.
As for the MMMBT in this decade, there would likely be free and HO/T lanes sort of like the new HRBT being built.
Moot point.  VDOT and the localities had the foresight to advance I-664 and get it approved and funded under the original Interstate highway system where 90% FHWA funding was available.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 27, 2019, 01:41:31 AM
A new Centerville Bridge would likely be around $100 million, and could get that over time in state / federal funding.
Arterial roads don't really lend themselves to effective tolling.  Projects like those expensive bridge replacements will simply wait until sufficient tax funds are available to replace them.  Some like the canal bridges on VA-165 and Bus. US-17 are owned by ACOE and will be funded by their federal funds.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 27, 2019, 10:03:30 PM
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/vdot-scaling-back-northbound-rappahannock-river-crossing-project/article_66f7ff71-4974-547a-beaf-398651b23b46.html
QuoteHigher costs have forced transportation officials to shrink the size of the northbound Rappahannock River Crossing project, the third leg in a trio of major Interstate 95 projects aimed at easing congestion problems.

Nearly three dozen residents came to James Monroe High School on Thursday evening to view the final plans and talk to Virginia Department of Transportation officials about the $132 million project, which will add three lanes from just north of the Fall Hill Avenue overpass to U.S. 17.

The new lanes were originally planned to start south of the State Route 3 interchange, but the length was shortened because construction costs eclipsed the budget, according to VDOT officials.

Another project downgrade that I hope does not represent a coming trend. While this is somewhat unfortunate, you can't really blame anything other then insufficient funding. Ultimately, I believe this project will still significantly reduce the terrible weekend congestion through the area. However, I am praying that the option to extend the 4th lane to the Centrepoint parkway is funded in order help alleviate that northern merge.

Here are the full project details: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/I-95_NB_RRC_Aug._22_PH/NB_RRC_Presentation_Aug2019_PH.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 27, 2019, 10:15:30 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 27, 2019, 10:03:30 PM
Another project downgrade that I hope does not represent a coming trend. While this is somewhat unfortunate, you can't really blame anything other then insufficient funding. Ultimately, I believe this project will still significantly reduce the terrible weekend congestion through the area. However, I am praying that the option to extend the 4th lane to the Centrepoint parkway is funded in order help alleviate that northern merge.
Here are the full project details: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/I-95_NB_RRC_Aug._22_PH/NB_RRC_Presentation_Aug2019_PH.pdf
The rebuilt I-95 northbound on-ramp from VA-3 will be 3 lanes until it merges with the new 3-lane northbound local roadway.

I am satisfied with that.  Provides 3 new northbound lanes between VA-3 and US-17.

Six miles I-95 widening between south of VA-3 and north of US-17 will be constructed 2018 to 2023, the C-D roadways with 3 lanes each way, which also serves as OC NWQ Corridor 5 (see below) that provides a local freeway connection between US-17 and VA-3 and Rappahannock River crossing.

This not only widens the I-95 general purpose lanes, but also builds the Outer Connector Northeast Quadrant Corridor 5 as presented in the 2001 DEIS.  The corridor out to the Lick Run area on VA-3 would have been much more effective, nevertheless this is the OC NWQ Corridor 5 that provides a local freeway connection between US-17 and VA-3, which provides a critical link for local traffic at a weak point in the Fredericksburg regional road system, as well as relief to I-95 and US-1 over the Rappahannock River.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 27, 2019, 10:39:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2019, 10:15:30 PM
The rebuilt I-95 northbound on-ramp from VA-3 will be 3 lanes until it merges with the new 3-lane northbound local roadway.

I am satisfied with that.  Provides 3 new northbound lanes between VA-3 and US-17.

Six miles I-95 widening between south of VA-3 and north of US-17 will be constructed 2018 to 2023, the C-D roadways with 3 lanes each way

Not anymore. The northbound on-ramp from VA-3 shrinks to two lanes and doesn't widen back to three until north of Fall Hill Avenue (when the I-95 off-ramp merges). Will still be able to handle the traffic IMO but it ain't three lanes. Also saying this project will widen six miles of I-95 seems like a stretch (most certainly in the northbound direction). A little over 4 miles seems to be more accurate. 

Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2019, 10:15:30 PM
This not only widens the I-95 general purpose lanes, but also builds the Outer Connector Northeast Quadrant Corridor 5 as presented in the 2001 DEIS.  The corridor out to the Lick Run area on VA-3 would have been much more effective, nevertheless this is the OC NWQ Corridor 5 that provides a local freeway connection between US-17 and VA-3, which provides a critical link for local traffic at a weak point in the Fredericksburg regional road system, as well as relief to I-95 and US-1 over the Rappahannock River.

The US-1 bridge over the Rappahannock could stand to get rebuilt or widened as well. However, it looks like the historic property on the Stafford side could make that nearly impossible.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 27, 2019, 11:44:27 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 27, 2019, 10:39:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2019, 10:15:30 PM
Six miles I-95 widening between south of VA-3 and north of US-17 will be constructed 2018 to 2023, the C-D roadways with 3 lanes each way
Not anymore. The northbound on-ramp from VA-3 shrinks to two lanes and doesn't widen back to three until north of Fall Hill Avenue (when the I-95 off-ramp merges). Will still be able to handle the traffic IMO but it ain't three lanes. Also saying this project will widen six miles of I-95 seems like a stretch (most certainly in the northbound direction). A little over 4 miles seems to be more accurate. 
OK, I now see 4 miles NB and 5 miles SB.

Still and all a NB 2 to 3 lane local freeway roadway between VA-3 and north of US-17.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 27, 2019, 10:39:00 PM
The US-1 bridge over the Rappahannock could stand to get rebuilt or widened as well. However, it looks like the historic property on the Stafford side could make that nearly impossible.
Isn't there a project in the works for a major rehab of the bridge?  That would likely involve closing 2 lanes, and will be a lot more feasible after the new I-95 roadways are complete between VA-3 and US-17, to provide traffic relief.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 27, 2019, 11:49:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 20, 2019, 10:44:46 PM
The new bridges appear to have full 10-foot left shoulders.
Drove through earlier heading eastbound, the mainline has a 4 foot left paved shoulder, though the guardrail sections and bridges have a full 10 or 12 foot left paved shoulder. The eastern end of the project shifts the left 2 lanes back to the existing lanes while the right lane exits off and a stub exists to when the future third lane east of Exit 205 is built. A very nice result.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 28, 2019, 12:07:07 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 27, 2019, 11:49:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 20, 2019, 10:44:46 PM
The new [Chickahominy River] bridges appear to have full 10-foot left shoulders.
Drove through earlier heading eastbound, the mainline has a 4 foot left paved shoulder, though the guardrail sections and bridges have a full 10 or 12 foot left paved shoulder. The eastern end of the project shifts the left 2 lanes back to the existing lanes while the right lane exits off and a stub exists to when the future third lane east of Exit 205 is built. A very nice result.
Segment III still has a ways to go, probably to the end of the 2020 construction season.

19 miles out of the 27 miles of I-64 widening is now complete.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 28, 2019, 12:27:15 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 14, 2019, 10:19:23 PM
Quote
NORFOLK -- The new flyover ramp from Interstate 64 west to Interstate 264 east will open to traffic the night of Wednesday, Aug. 14, increasing capacity and enhancing safety along the highly traveled interchange.

The completion of the bridge marks a major milestone in the first phase of the I-64/264 Interchange Improvements project, which is scheduled for completion this fall. "Opening this new ramp is a crucial step in improving one of the busiest interchanges in Hampton Roads," said Chris Hall, Hampton Roads district engineer. "Most importantly, we're making travel safer for the more than 100,000 people who live, work and drive here everyday."

The ramp will add capacity at the interchange and remove a conflict point by elevating traffic from the I-64 west ramp over the I-264 east collector-distributor road and placing motorists directly onto mainline I-264 east.

This new traffic pattern, which motorists should anticipate during the Thursday morning commute, will eliminate the jockeying that occurs between drivers leaving I-264 for Newtown Road and those merging onto I-264 from I-64 west.

https://www.virginiadot.org/VDOT/Travel/Travel_Alerts/Hampton_Roads/asset_upload_file56_55256.pdf

Was supposed to open tonight, however it was once again delayed due to "an inspection that revealed items that need to be completed prior to the ramp opening to traffic."

Updated release -

QuoteNORFOLK -- The new flyover ramp from Interstate 64 west to Interstate 264 east will not open to traffic tonight, as originally scheduled, after a pre-opening inspection revealed items that need to be completed prior to the ramp opening.

VDOT initially believed the outstanding items could be completed in time for the flyover ramp to open, but after further review, additional time is needed.

"Ultimately, delivering a quality product is one of VDOT's top priorities," said Chris Hall, VDOT Hampton Roads district engineer. "We would rather delay the opening of the new ramp to correct these issues while the road is not under traffic."

VDOT will announce a new opening date once repairs are complete.

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/VDOT-DELAYS-OPENING-OF-NEW-RAMP-FROM-I-64W-TO-I-264E.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=5xyRMNEEfWo
Still not open as of tonight, August 27, and no date yet from VDOT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 28, 2019, 06:41:42 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2019, 11:44:27 PM

Isn't there a project in the works for a major rehab of the bridge?  That would likely involve closing 2 lanes, and will be a lot more feasible after the new I-95 roadways are complete between VA-3 and US-17, to provide traffic relief.

Not in current 6-yr SYIP.  Will be a colossal PITA to replace this 1943 bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 28, 2019, 07:15:44 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 28, 2019, 06:41:42 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2019, 11:44:27 PM
Isn't there a project in the works for a major rehab of the bridge?  That would likely involve closing 2 lanes, and will be a lot more feasible after the new I-95 roadways are complete between VA-3 and US-17, to provide traffic relief.
Not in current 6-yr SYIP.  Will be a colossal PITA to replace this 1943 bridge.
The Business Route 3 Rappahannock River Bridge is in the SYIP at $20 million.

No entry for the US-1 bridge.

I see in the bridge inventory that it was built in 1943 and reconstructed in 1981.  I recall that project but I don't recall exactly what was done.  From the looks of the bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3221354,-77.4698705,3a,75y,83.77h,93.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTenQAowjNTm-kaMScPY56Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) probably substructure and roadway deck rehab and a latex concrete overlay of the bridge deck.

So while the bridge was built 76 years ago it had a major rebab 38 years ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 28, 2019, 08:44:14 AM
Whatever they did to the concrete overlay is wearing out...numerous patches have been applied over last 10 years...

https://goo.gl/maps/PrFnyn259nmZ6YPU9

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 28, 2019, 09:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 28, 2019, 08:44:14 AM
Whatever they did to the concrete overlay is wearing out...numerous patches have been applied over last 10 years...
https://goo.gl/maps/PrFnyn259nmZ6YPU9
38 years is a long time on a bridge deck that carries high volumes of traffic.

Just pointing out that it is in much better shape than its 76 year age would be without a major rehab in the past, and that explains why the bridge is still structurally adequate. 

I seem to recall that one of the major impediments has been the fact that there is not enough space to build a new bridge without closing half of the existing bridge, and that would make the Rappahannock River bottleneck even worse than it already is and for at least 2 years. 

Getting the new I-95 C-D roadways open between VA-3 and US-17 by 2023 will among other things make this project much more livable during construction, with a signed alternate route.  The bridge is about 1,650 feet long and that is short enough that the costs to replace should also be in the more livable range.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on August 28, 2019, 04:59:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 28, 2019, 09:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 28, 2019, 08:44:14 AM
Whatever they did to the concrete overlay is wearing out...numerous patches have been applied over last 10 years...
https://goo.gl/maps/PrFnyn259nmZ6YPU9
38 years is a long time on a bridge deck that carries high volumes of traffic.

Just pointing out that it is in much better shape than its 76 year age would be without a major rehab in the past, and that explains why the bridge is still structurally adequate. 

I seem to recall that one of the major impediments has been the fact that there is not enough space to build a new bridge without closing half of the existing bridge, and that would make the Rappahannock River bottleneck even worse than it already is and for at least 2 years. 

Getting the new I-95 C-D roadways open between VA-3 and US-17 by 2023 will among other things make this project much more livable during construction, with a signed alternate route.  The bridge is about 1,650 feet long and that is short enough that the costs to replace should also be in the more livable range.
Concrete consumes less fuel but it's more expensive. They also have much longer lifespan than asphalt. I would love to see every freeway built like that but i think it's doubtful.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on August 31, 2019, 09:35:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 28, 2019, 07:15:44 AM
The Business Route 3 Rappahannock River Bridge is in the SYIP at $20 million.
Speaking of ...
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/chatham-bridge-to-close-in-may-for-repairs/article_2004ba14-1e27-51eb-b5b1-cca148b92563.html
Excerpts:

Drivers will have to use a detour instead of Chatham Bridge to cross the Rappahannock River beginning in May.

The Virginia Department of Transportation will close the 78-year-old span, which carries about 16,000 vehicles a day, for 16 months so its superstructure can be rehabilitated.  It will begin advertising for a contractor in January to install new steel bridge girders and top them with a smoother concrete surface than the current one, which is deteriorating, among other improvements.

VDOT will use $23.4 million from Virginia's State of Good Repair program for the entire project, which will include improvements along the detour route that includes Dixon Street and the Blue and Gray Parkway. CES Consulting of Sterling was just hired to start on that part next month.

Work on the bridge will include widening the superstructure from 50 feet to a little more than 57 feet–an additional 3 feet and 7 inches per side, removing the narrow sidewalks and adding a nearly 10-foot-wide, shared-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists on the downstream side.


See the URL for the rest of the article, and the detour map.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 01, 2019, 07:10:49 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2019, 09:35:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 28, 2019, 07:15:44 AM
The Business Route 3 Rappahannock River Bridge is in the SYIP at $20 million.
Speaking of ...
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/chatham-bridge-to-close-in-may-for-repairs/article_2004ba14-1e27-51eb-b5b1-cca148b92563.html
Excerpts:

Drivers will have to use a detour instead of Chatham Bridge to cross the Rappahannock River beginning in May.

The Virginia Department of Transportation will close the 78-year-old span, which carries about 16,000 vehicles a day, for 16 months so its superstructure can be rehabilitated.  It will begin advertising for a contractor in January to install new steel bridge girders and top them with a smoother concrete surface than the current one, which is deteriorating, among other improvements.

VDOT will use $23.4 million from Virginia's State of Good Repair program for the entire project, which will include improvements along the detour route that includes Dixon Street and the Blue and Gray Parkway. CES Consulting of Sterling was just hired to start on that part next month.

Work on the bridge will include widening the superstructure from 50 feet to a little more than 57 feet–an additional 3 feet and 7 inches per side, removing the narrow sidewalks and adding a nearly 10-foot-wide, shared-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists on the downstream side.


See the URL for the rest of the article, and the detour map.
Hopefully it's not another screw up to local traffic like the Centerville Turnpike bridge closure here in Chesapeake, which similarly carries 16,000 AADT. It has only been one week now, and the traffic has been a nightmare around here, most notably during rush hour, especially AM. PM is more tolerable, but still can get choked up especially on the bypass. With school starting next week, it's only going to add to the problem and make it worse.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 05, 2019, 11:32:23 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on May 14, 2019, 08:08:05 PM
Quote from: plain on May 14, 2019, 07:42:27 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 06:59:21 PM
At least NC got rid of the double red left balls on protected left turns.  Though Texas picked up where the Tar Heel State left off. I see more and more red arrows in NC, but one signal in Cheraw on US 1 and SC 9 (the east end of the wrong way concurrency) copied NC's old way of heading a protected left.

Interestingly Henrico County still uses double reds for single-lane protected lefts on county roads... not those "T" signals though, these are completely vertical (NC sometimes used these completely vertical ones too though, and Baltimore still has some). Nowadays even these have red arrows instead of balls.

Baltimore County even uses one of those "double arrow" signals for dual left turn lanes.

Delaware uses the T signals with two red arrows (though both arrows never show simultaneously - one is steady and the other flashes).

Bumping this because there is now a T-signal in Virginia, and right here in Richmond no less  :spin:

I'm about to post it in the general Traffic Signal thread.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 09, 2019, 08:18:15 AM
A little heads up for those going through Eastville...

https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/eastville-tops-in-state-in-percentage-of-law-enforcement-revenues/ (https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/eastville-tops-in-state-in-percentage-of-law-enforcement-revenues/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 09, 2019, 08:48:03 AM
Never had a problem going through Eastville.  The (lack of) timing on the signal at SR 631 guarantees that most US 13 drivers don't speed.  In my experience, you're "more likely" to get pulled over near Emporia than near Eastville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 09, 2019, 04:55:29 PM
Quote from: LM117 on September 09, 2019, 08:18:15 AM
A little heads up for those going through Eastville...

https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/eastville-tops-in-state-in-percentage-of-law-enforcement-revenues/ (https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/eastville-tops-in-state-in-percentage-of-law-enforcement-revenues/)
Not surprising. Just another typical Eastern Shore speed trap town on US-13. I would have expected Emporia or Greensville County more so though, willing to bet they're a close second. I've yet to go through there without seeing at least one trap setup, either on I-95, the US-58 Bypass, or the rural stretch near the airport. I've even seen them waiting for people as the speed limit drops from 60 mph to 45 mph on the bypass as you come over that overpass waiting to nab you.

To be fair though, it's not just Emporia / Greensville County. I've seen police presence all along US-58 between Suffolk and Emporia, also outside of South Hill. Just another reason to avoid that road. US-17 to US-64 is my preferred go to lately when heading south. I've yet to see any police enforcement on that route so it's a lot easier to maintain 70 mph, there's significantly less traffic, and there's only about 45 miles of 55-60 mph zones compared to about 60 miles of it on US-58 once outside of Hampton Roads (west of Suffolk, and south of Chesapeake), and 75 miles of the route is posted 70 mph as opposed to the US-58 / I-95 combo which is only about 50 miles posted at 70 mph. Also, it's a beauty to be able to avoid the 50 mile stretch of I-95 between Rocky Mount and Emporia which during peak travel times can be a mess compared to little to no traffic on US-64. At least in my case, it avoids the worst stretch of I-64, between the I-464 and I-664 / US-58, and it avoids the congested Suffolk Bypass, which while it moves, there's just significantly more traffic, crazy drivers, etc. to deal with. I've almost had a few near misses on there caused by other drivers, especially on the few sharper curves plus the urban arterial segment east of there can be a pain due to heavy traffic, red lights, etc. Certain urban segments exist on US-17, but it's a lot more tolerable, not nearly as long, and much less traffic.

For me, US-17 to US-64 is only about 15 miles additional compared to US-58, but it's worth it IMO. There's even been times I've come from I-85 near Durham, and I've cut over via I-40 to US-64 in Raleigh and follow it up that way. That's even more mileage, but it avoids ~90 miles of US-58. I've only done the latter when I have about 10-15 extra minutes to spare, but the former I've been doing every time for the past ~6 months. I feel more comfortable doing 70 mph on that road than US-58, especially considering the amount of times I've traveled US-17 without seeing police and the amount of times I've traveled US-58 seeing police presence 100% of the time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on September 09, 2019, 05:47:00 PM
^ This plug for I-87 brought to you by sprjus4!  :thumbsup:

I'm sorry, I'm just joking with you.  Besides, I had to write something before Beltway did!  :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 09, 2019, 05:52:37 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on September 09, 2019, 05:47:00 PM
^ This plug for I-87 brought to you by sprjus4!  :thumbsup:

I'm sorry, I'm just joking with you.
It's not even about I-87. Sure, that's indeed its corridor, but I still prefer the existing highway as is over US-58, even if I-87 was not a thing.

Quote from: amroad17 on September 09, 2019, 05:47:00 PM
Besides, I had to write something before Beltway did!  :-D
If I had to guess, something about the comments regarding police enforcement, or how I-87 is a "vanity" highway despite it never being mentioned.

But I digress.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 09, 2019, 07:49:19 PM
When I read that article to my dad (he's blind), he found it amusing for two reasons:

1. Him and his folks are from Eastville.

2. He went to high school with the mayor (both graduated the same year).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 09, 2019, 08:41:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 09, 2019, 04:55:29 PM
Not surprising. Just another typical Eastern Shore speed trap town on US-13. I would have expected Emporia or Greensville County more so though, willing to bet they're a close second. I've yet to go through there without seeing at least one trap setup, either on I-95, the US-58 Bypass, or the rural stretch near the airport.
Same recycled garbage.  In all the years I -rarely- (as in less than 10%) see any enforcement there, other than I-95 during the bridge replacement project.  He hates US-58, loves the VI-87 concept.  Why not just admit that you like to go 20+ over the limit rather than attack the law?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 09, 2019, 09:15:20 PM
Quote
Same recycled garbage.
Broken record.

Quote
He hates US-58, loves the VI-87 concept.
Another broken record.

Did I ever mentioned "V" I-87 in my initial posting? You're just obsessed with attacking the concept at every "opportunity"  you get.

QuoteIt's not even about I-87. Sure, that's indeed its corridor, but I still prefer the existing highway as is over US-58, even if I-87 was not a thing.

QuoteWhy not just admit that you like to go 20+ over the limit rather than attack the law?
And yet again, another broken record!

Again, you're just putting words in my mouth to support your "arguments" . I never said I like going 20+ over the speed limit. I prefer going a comfortable and appropriate speed for the road I'm on. 70 mph on a divided highway is no where unreasonable nor reckless. The "law"  is setting an absurdly slow 55 - 60 mph artificial limit that is strictly based on functional class rather than what the road is designed for and can safely handle. My attack is based on the fact that local municipalities (I.E Emporia, Hopewell, and others) use this to their advantage and use highways with under posted speed limits to pull people over and cite as "reckless driving"  when they're maintaining a rather appropriate speed for the design of the roadway. I.E. doing 75 mph on a well designed divided highway with an absurdly slow 55 mph limit.

How come other states have divided highways of same quality, design, traffic counts, etc. posted at 70 - 75 mph and they're not "reckless" ? That's the root of my issues with these police enforcement speed trap towns. I don't have these issues in a state such as Texas where the speed limit is appropriately set and I have no reason to go above that 75 mph speed limit on a divided highway, when in Virginia it's only 55 or 60 mph and becomes a snooze fest quickly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 09, 2019, 09:23:14 PM
I've seen a lot more people pulled by cops on the Delaware segment than Virginia's.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 09, 2019, 09:52:21 PM
Quote from: plain on September 09, 2019, 09:23:14 PM
I've seen a lot more people pulled by cops on the Delaware segment than Virginia's.
US-113 or US-13?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on September 09, 2019, 09:55:54 PM
Quote from: plain on September 09, 2019, 09:23:14 PM
I've seen a lot more people pulled by cops on the Delaware segment than Virginia's.
Is it cause Delaware is not as safe as Virginia is?

And I'm guessing US-113 acts like a bypass of Salisbury (even though Salisbury already has a bypass).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on September 09, 2019, 09:58:50 PM
The towns along US 13 in Delaware are notorious speed traps, like Greenwood.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 09, 2019, 10:04:43 PM
Definitely US 13.

I've driven US 113 also (it's actually my preferred route to/from Dover northward unless DE 1 is riddled with beach traffic), but it never seemed to be the cash cow that US 13 is.

I've never viewed US 13 in DE as dangerous.. hardly any curves, just the ridiculous speed limit drops in the small towns.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 09, 2019, 11:56:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 09, 2019, 09:15:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway
Same recycled garbage.
Broken record.
Pot, kettle, black.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 09, 2019, 09:15:20 PM
Again, you're just putting words in my mouth to support your "arguments" . I never said I like going 20+ over the speed limit. I prefer going a comfortable and appropriate speed for the road I'm on. 70 mph on a divided highway is no where unreasonable nor reckless. The "law"  is setting an absurdly slow 55 - 60 mph artificial limit that is strictly based on functional class rather than what the road is designed for and can safely handle.
60 mph on US-58 and that is in line with other eastern seaboard states for a 4-lane non-limited-access highway, and Maryland doesn't even have that high of a limit.

Why are you going 81+ mph on US-58?

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 09, 2019, 09:15:20 PM
My attack is based on the fact that local municipalities (I.E Emporia, Hopewell, and others) use this to their advantage and use highways with under posted speed limits to pull people over and cite as "reckless driving"  when they're maintaining a rather appropriate speed for the design of the roadway. I.E. doing 75 mph on a well designed divided highway with an absurdly slow 55 mph limit.
What highway in that area has a 55 mph speed limit and is appropriate for 75 mph?

I don't see any that are under-posted except possibly the limited access US-58 bypasses of Franklin and Suffolk, and that would only be 5 mph, or needing a 65 mph limit, and I have pegged that in the past on the traffic engineering unit of that VDOT district not taking a "statewide practices" view, as other districts have posted 65 mph on that type of arterial bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 10, 2019, 12:08:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 09, 2019, 11:56:29 PM
Why are you going 81+ mph on US-58?
The highest I've ever hit on US-58 is in the 70 mph range.

Quote from: Beltway on September 09, 2019, 11:56:29 PM
What highway in that area has a 55 mph speed limit and is appropriate for 75 mph?
Most of the newer completed segments of US-58, such as Courtland to Emporia, South Hill to Boykins, etc. that have full 12 foot lanes, and at least 4-6 ft of paved shoulder could reasonable be posted at 70 mph, though are only 60 mph due to functional class restrictions. The other segments that aren't as well designed as those newer segments could reasonable be 65 mph in most areas.

Last I've recalled, a lot of the newly completed segments of US-58 east of Hillsville are only posted 55 mph, and could easily be 70 mph based on its design and also the fact there's little to no traffic.

Another example, a different highway but still applies, is US-17 in Southern Chesapeake. Limited-access highway, 12 foot travel lanes, 8 foot paved shoulders, rural environment, gentle curves, and it's only 55 mph. Reasonably should be posted 70 mph - a speed that would quite frankly reflect the speed of most drivers on that road. Trying to maintain 55 mph is painful on that road.

Overall, most of arterial system (4-lane divided highways) should be at least 65 mph in rural areas, and 70 mph on the better designed ones, such as the examples above. It's 55 - 60 mph on a lot of highways in this state and as soon as an interchange or overpass appears, the road design still the same, and all of a sudden the speed limit is now 65 mph, simply due to functional class.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on September 10, 2019, 12:27:00 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 09, 2019, 11:56:29 PM
Why are you going 81+ mph on US-58?
I sure as hell wouldn't drive that fast on a 60 mph stretch.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 10, 2019, 12:59:06 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 10, 2019, 12:08:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 09, 2019, 11:56:29 PM
What highway in that area has a 55 mph speed limit and is appropriate for 75 mph?
Most of the newer completed segments of US-58, such as Courtland to Emporia, South Hill to Boykins, etc. that have full 12 foot lanes, and at least 4-6 ft of paved shoulder could reasonable be posted at 70 mph, though are only 60 mph due to functional class restrictions. The other segments that aren't as well designed as those newer segments could reasonable be 65 mph in most areas.
Once again, those are not the prevailing speed limits in eastern seaboard states, which have high populations within a modest sized state. 

60 mph on non-limited-access 4-lane divided highways, 60 to 65 mph on limited-access 4-lane divided non-Interstate highways, that is average or slightly above average.

Maryland has no limits above 55 mph on non-limited-access 4-lane divided highways, and (someone correct me if I am wrong) neither does Delaware or New Jersey or Connecticut.  I don't think New York or Pennsylvania does either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on September 10, 2019, 01:17:50 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 10, 2019, 12:59:06 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 10, 2019, 12:08:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 09, 2019, 11:56:29 PM
What highway in that area has a 55 mph speed limit and is appropriate for 75 mph?
Most of the newer completed segments of US-58, such as Courtland to Emporia, South Hill to Boykins, etc. that have full 12 foot lanes, and at least 4-6 ft of paved shoulder could reasonable be posted at 70 mph, though are only 60 mph due to functional class restrictions. The other segments that aren't as well designed as those newer segments could reasonable be 65 mph in most areas.
Once again, those are not the prevailing speed limits in eastern seaboard states, which have high populations within a modest sized state. 

60 mph on non-limited-access 4-lane divided highways, 60 to 65 mph on limited-access 4-lane divided non-Interstate highways, that is average or slightly above average.

Maryland has no limits above 55 mph on non-limited-access 4-lane divided highways, and (someone correct me if I am wrong) neither does Delaware or New Jersey or Connecticut.  I don't think New York or Pennsylvania does either.

Correct to my knowledge.  Honestly I feel that thanks to "Virginia twinning" discussed elsewhere, some 60 mph divided highways are posted a little high, 50-55 might be more reasonable for the non-reconstructed lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 10, 2019, 07:29:23 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 10, 2019, 01:17:50 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 10, 2019, 12:59:06 AM
Maryland has no limits above 55 mph on non-limited-access 4-lane divided highways, and (someone correct me if I am wrong) neither does Delaware or New Jersey or Connecticut.  I don't think New York or Pennsylvania does either.
Correct to my knowledge.  Honestly I feel that thanks to "Virginia twinning" discussed elsewhere, some 60 mph divided highways are posted a little high, 50-55 might be more reasonable for the non-reconstructed lanes.

I don't know of any that are over-posted at 60 mph, the routes approved for up to 60 mph all have some sections that are still 55.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 10, 2019, 07:42:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 10, 2019, 07:29:23 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 10, 2019, 01:17:50 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 10, 2019, 12:59:06 AM
Maryland has no limits above 55 mph on non-limited-access 4-lane divided highways, and (someone correct me if I am wrong) neither does Delaware or New Jersey or Connecticut.  I don't think New York or Pennsylvania does either.
Correct to my knowledge.  Honestly I feel that thanks to "Virginia twinning" discussed elsewhere, some 60 mph divided highways are posted a little high, 50-55 might be more reasonable for the non-reconstructed lanes.

I don't know of any that are over-posted at 60 mph, the routes approved for up to 60 mph all have some sections that are still 55.
I would go to say I do agree some stretches - such as US-58 between Danville and Martinsville - that have substandard, hilly roadways are appropriately posted at 60 mph and should not be increased farther.

Having 70 mph permitted on non-limited-access may push it, but at the minimum 65 mph should be permitted where appropriate - similar to some "Eastern Seaboard"  states like Florida and Georgia, plus also Alabama and West Virginia one state inland.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 10, 2019, 08:01:39 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 10, 2019, 07:42:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 10, 2019, 07:29:23 AM
I don't know of any that are over-posted at 60 mph, the routes approved for up to 60 mph all have some sections that are still 55.
I would go to say I do agree some stretches - such as US-58 between Danville and Martinsville - that have substandard, hilly roadways are appropriately posted at 60 mph and should not be increased farther.
Having 70 mph permitted on non-limited-access may push it, but at the minimum 65 mph should be permitted where appropriate - similar to some "Eastern Seaboard"  states like Florida and Georgia, plus also Alabama and West Virginia one state inland.

The vast majority do not, Alabama is not an eastern seaboard state, and the West Virginia routes you refer to are 4-lane expressways with limited access right-of-way, i.e. no private entrances or access, the only at-grade intersections are with selected public roads, and even then the most important junctions are handled with an interchange, and I would agree with 65 mph on such a highway, and examples/candiates in Virginia would be the 6.8 mile US-460 Poole Siding Bypass (https://tinyurl.com/y6skqfjj) and the 8.0 mile US-460 Blackstone-Nottoway Bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on September 10, 2019, 09:36:24 AM
It seems that its the amount of roads that can handle the higher limits tells legislatures if a non freeway speed limit should be higher than 55. 

I agree some roads in Maryland like US 301 on the eastern shore could easily be 65, but that might be it along with US 15 north of Frederick, which leaves 2 roads that the state is not going to waste their time in pushing.

Then you have Utah (correct me if I am wrong) that only allows speed limits higher than 65 on interstates only!  According to Wiki it says that even non interstate freeways are posted at maximum 65 mph.  So that some not worth it scenario is not always the trick.  Even GA, from what I heard that GRIP corridors with 4 lane rural segments cannot be posted higher than 55 either where non GRIP 4 lane rural parts are 65 since congress repelled the national 55 thing. 

States can be funny with speed limits as even regions within a state can.  FL law allows all rural 2 lane roads to be posted at 60 mph, yet not all districts comply and still have 55 mph very rural roadways.  District 6 is one of them and I believe District 3 as well.  District 5 only allows 60 on a select few rural 2 lane roads such as State Road 50 in Sumter County west of Tarrytown and on SR 60 in Osceola County west of Yeehaw Junction.   County Roads are posted at 55 except for CR 532 in Osceola east of St. Cloud and Hardee County has one road west of Zolfo Springs that is 60 that I all know of in that regard.

Yes, generally the mid Atlantic and Northeast are ones that like to reserve mostly higher than 55 to freeways and very hard to convince the states to review the local highways for higher maximum speeds.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 10, 2019, 10:01:34 AM
QuoteMaryland has no limits above 55 mph on non-limited-access 4-lane divided highways, and (someone correct me if I am wrong) neither does Delaware or New Jersey or Connecticut.  I don't think New York or Pennsylvania does either.

Everything northeast of Virginia/Kentucky/Ohio.  Vermont takes it one step further and doesn't allow anything higher than 50 on non-limited-access (or higher than 55 on non-controlled-access).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 10, 2019, 12:35:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 10, 2019, 09:36:24 AM
States can be funny with speed limits as even regions within a state can.  FL law allows all rural 2 lane roads to be posted at 60 mph, yet not all districts comply and still have 55 mph very rural roadways.  District 6 is one of them and I believe District 3 as well.  District 5 only allows 60 on a select few rural 2 lane roads such as State Road 50 in Sumter County west of Tarrytown and on SR 60 in Osceola County west of Yeehaw Junction.   County Roads are posted at 55 except for CR 532 in Osceola east of St. Cloud and Hardee County has one road west of Zolfo Springs that is 60 that I all know of in that regard.

Back in the 1960s I recall 70 mph on US-1 south of Melbourne, 65 at night, that is 4-lane divided and non-limited-access.

US-192 got a high-quality 2-lane relocation between Melbourne and St. Cloud in the mid-1960s, and that was 65 mph.

NMSL killed that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 07:03:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 10, 2019, 12:35:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 10, 2019, 09:36:24 AM
States can be funny with speed limits as even regions within a state can.  FL law allows all rural 2 lane roads to be posted at 60 mph, yet not all districts comply and still have 55 mph very rural roadways.  District 6 is one of them and I believe District 3 as well.  District 5 only allows 60 on a select few rural 2 lane roads such as State Road 50 in Sumter County west of Tarrytown and on SR 60 in Osceola County west of Yeehaw Junction.   County Roads are posted at 55 except for CR 532 in Osceola east of St. Cloud and Hardee County has one road west of Zolfo Springs that is 60 that I all know of in that regard.

Back in the 1960s I recall 70 mph on US-1 south of Melbourne, 65 at night, that is 4-lane divided and non-limited-access.

US-192 got a high-quality 2-lane relocation between Melbourne and St. Cloud in the mid-1960s, and that was 65 mph.

NMSL killed that.
NMSL, at least in Virginia, killed 60 mph on all non-limited-access highways, 65 mph on select non-limited-access highways (which never went into effect, but was approved), 70 mph on now-urban interstates such as I-64 in Chesapeake, I-495 in Northern Virginia / Maryland, etc.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 07:21:12 PM
Recently drove through the newly completed segment of I-64 outside of Richmond, this time during the day, and took a few photos heading westbound. Note that while only a 4 ft left paved shoulder was used most of the project, the guardrailed and bridged sections use a full 10 ft paved left shoulder. The speed limit on this section is posted at 65 mph, with the limit reducing from 70 mph just east of Exit 205.

Bridges over Chickahominy River
(https://i.ibb.co/nRw3LpM/I64-Richmond-Widening-Bridges.png)

Typical mainline section
(https://i.ibb.co/NTq9g5q/I64-Richmond-Widening-Typical-Section.png)

2 mile advanced APL for I-295 (notice the newly constructed sound barrier off to the right)
(https://i.ibb.co/51cmdN0/I64-Richmond-Widening2-Mile-APL.png)

1/2 mile advanced APL for I-295 (notice the obvious transition between 4 and 10 ft left paved shoulder where the guardrail is)
(https://i.ibb.co/NVvDghn/I64-Richmond-Widening-Advanced-APL.png)

APL at I-295
(https://i.ibb.co/7YgVNpL/I64-Richmond-Widening-Split.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 11, 2019, 08:00:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 07:03:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 10, 2019, 12:35:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 10, 2019, 09:36:24 AM
States can be funny with speed limits as even regions within a state can.  FL law allows all rural 2 lane roads to be posted at 60 mph, yet not all districts comply and still have 55 mph very rural roadways.  District 6 is one of them and I believe District 3 as well.  District 5 only allows 60 on a select few rural 2 lane roads such as State Road 50 in Sumter County west of Tarrytown and on SR 60 in Osceola County west of Yeehaw Junction.   County Roads are posted at 55 except for CR 532 in Osceola east of St. Cloud and Hardee County has one road west of Zolfo Springs that is 60 that I all know of in that regard.

Back in the 1960s I recall 70 mph on US-1 south of Melbourne, 65 at night, that is 4-lane divided and non-limited-access.

US-192 got a high-quality 2-lane relocation between Melbourne and St. Cloud in the mid-1960s, and that was 65 mph.

NMSL killed that.
NMSL, at least in Virginia, killed 60 mph on all non-limited-access highways, 65 mph on select non-limited-access highways (which never went into effect, but was approved), 70 mph on now-urban interstates such as I-64 in Chesapeake, I-495 in Northern Virginia / Maryland, etc.

Was the Beltway ever posted at 70 in Virginia? Every picture I've ever seen shows nothing above 65, though I understand Maryland had at least some portion posted at 70.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 08:14:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 11, 2019, 08:00:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 07:03:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 10, 2019, 12:35:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 10, 2019, 09:36:24 AM
States can be funny with speed limits as even regions within a state can.  FL law allows all rural 2 lane roads to be posted at 60 mph, yet not all districts comply and still have 55 mph very rural roadways.  District 6 is one of them and I believe District 3 as well.  District 5 only allows 60 on a select few rural 2 lane roads such as State Road 50 in Sumter County west of Tarrytown and on SR 60 in Osceola County west of Yeehaw Junction.   County Roads are posted at 55 except for CR 532 in Osceola east of St. Cloud and Hardee County has one road west of Zolfo Springs that is 60 that I all know of in that regard.

Back in the 1960s I recall 70 mph on US-1 south of Melbourne, 65 at night, that is 4-lane divided and non-limited-access.

US-192 got a high-quality 2-lane relocation between Melbourne and St. Cloud in the mid-1960s, and that was 65 mph.

NMSL killed that.
NMSL, at least in Virginia, killed 60 mph on all non-limited-access highways, 65 mph on select non-limited-access highways (which never went into effect, but was approved), 70 mph on now-urban interstates such as I-64 in Chesapeake, I-495 in Northern Virginia / Maryland, etc.

Was the Beltway ever posted at 70 in Virginia? Every picture I've ever seen shows nothing above 65, though I understand Maryland had at least some portion posted at 70.
Not Virginia, but in Maryland

65 mph; 55 mph in Virginia, and 70 mph; 60 mph in Maryland (car; truck)

Would be curious to know how I-95 was posted, both inside the beltway and outside, in Virginia.

Per Roads to the Future...

QuoteThe vast majority of the length of the Beltway was geometrically designed for 70 mph. Both Potomac River bridges and their immediate approaches had a speed limit of 60 mph. The 21 miles of Beltway in Virginia, between within 1/2 mile of each Potomac River bridge, had a speed limit of 65 mph for cars and 55 mph for trucks. The 29 miles of Beltway in Maryland between 1/2 mile of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and MD-97 Georgia Avenue, had a speed limit of 70 mph for cars and 60 mph for trucks. Just west of MD-97, the speed limit dropped to 60 mph, and in the 2-mile serpentine section in Rock Creek Park the speed limit was 50 mph. The 8 miles of Beltway between MD-355 Wisconsin Avenue and 1/2 mile into Virginia, had a speed limit of 60 mph. The above cites of a single speed limit for a section, denotes that there was no car/truck speed limit differential on that section.

http://www.capital-beltway.com/Capital-Beltway-History.html#Speed-Limits

Realistically, it should be 60 mph minimum throughout with 65 mph posted where appropriate. For instance, the segment where the Express Lanes are posted at 65 mph, the general purpose lanes could also handle that speed limit. Much of the I-95 / I-495 overlap could also handle it, at least in Maryland.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 09:03:07 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 07:03:12 PM
NMSL, at least in Virginia, killed 60 mph on all non-limited-access highways, 65 mph on select non-limited-access highways (which never went into effect, but was approved), 70 mph on now-urban interstates such as I-64 in Chesapeake, I-495 in Northern Virginia / Maryland, etc.

NMSL killed all speed limits above 55 mph and in every state.

VA I-495 was never 70 mph, and to my recall neither was I-64 in South Hampton Roads.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 09:37:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 09:03:07 PM
and to my recall neither was I-64 in South Hampton Roads.
Not my posting, and I wouldn't be able to say as I was not around in the 70s, but per another user...

Quote from: amroad17 on February 01, 2019, 06:51:12 PM
I remember I-64 in Chesapeake posted at 70 mph in 1972-73.  Of course, it was a lot more rural then (no Greenbrier interchange, no Oak Grove Connector, no Exit 297, only 6-lane section was between I-464 and Battlefield Blvd.).

Quote from: amroad17 on February 01, 2019, 07:43:13 PM
The I-64 lanes you see now from Bowers Hill to the east end of the High Rise Bridge is what it was back then--two lanes and fairly narrow left shoulders.  Plus, until the mid 1990's, the ramps to I-264 East and to US 13/460 were single lane ramps (no I-664 until 1992).  Until the mid to late 1970's, I-264 ended at an at-grade intersection with US 13/460 (Military Highway) near where the America's Best Value motel is currently (the roads have been reconfigured since then).

I do believe the Norfolk-Va. Beach Expressway was 70 mph also.  It was just four lanes from Newtown Rd. to the end/beginning at 21st and 22nd Streets, and not quite as crowded.  It was also signed as VA 44 along with a round, green Norfolk-Va. Beach Expressway logo on a pole beside the VA 44 sign.  There were also 7 original interchanges (marked as Exit 1, Newtown Road-Exit 7, Birdneck Road).  The First Colonial interchange wasn't built until the late 1980's, I believe.

IIRC, US 17 from VA 135 to the James River Bridge, excepting the two bridges over the Nansemond River and Chuckatuck Creek, was signed at 60 mph until 1973.  Those two above bridges were built the same way as the original James River Bridge, narrow as crap!

I am certain I-64 from Jefferson Ave. in Newport News to the then temporary end west of the Camp Peary interchange was signed at 70 mph also.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 10:44:26 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 09:37:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 09:03:07 PM
and to my recall neither was I-64 in South Hampton Roads.
Not my posting, and I wouldn't be able to say as I was not around in the 70s, but per another user...

I am very skeptical, for one thing the Virginia increase from 65 to 70 was only about 12 months before the 55 NMSL was imposed nationwide.  I rather doubt they would have raised anything to 70 in South Hampton Roads, not that quickly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2019, 11:12:03 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 11, 2019, 08:00:11 PM
Was the Beltway ever posted at 70 in Virginia? Every picture I've ever seen shows nothing above 65, though I understand Maryland had at least some portion posted at 70.

I do not recall anything higher than 60 MPH on the Capital Beltway in the Commonwealth.  Back then, the  Virginia Department of Highways (VDH) loved split speed limits, and the truck limit might have been 55 MPH (but not sure if it was 55 or something else).

Most of the Capital Beltway in Prince George's County, Maryland was signed 70 MPH. I think the limits were from present-day Exit 3 (MD-210) Indian Head Highway) to someplace north of present-day Exit 22 (unsigned MD-295 Baltimore-Washington Parkway). 

In Montgomery County it varied from 60 MPH to 50 MPH (the original blacktop pavement that was in place in 1964 between a point west of present-day Exit 31 (MD-97 near where the LDS Temple now stands) to present-day Exit 41 (Clara Barton Parkway now, G. W. Parkway then) was notoriously slippery when dry and especially wet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 12:11:11 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2019, 11:12:03 PM
I do not recall anything higher than 60 MPH on the Capital Beltway in the Commonwealth.  Back then, the  Virginia Department of Highways (VDH) loved split speed limits, and the truck limit might have been 55 MPH (but not sure if it was 55 or something else).

Just before opening between I-95 and Van Dorn Street --
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI495-RFP-Orig-z.jpg&hash=d59b631416050589578468ab1538b54924b311c9)

It was 65 / 55 when I moved there in 1969.  Remained that until 55 NMSL in 1973.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 12, 2019, 12:31:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 12:11:11 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2019, 11:12:03 PM
I do not recall anything higher than 60 MPH on the Capital Beltway in the Commonwealth.  Back then, the  Virginia Department of Highways (VDH) loved split speed limits, and the truck limit might have been 55 MPH (but not sure if it was 55 or something else).

Just before opening between I-95 and Van Dorn Street --
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI495-RFP-Orig-z.jpg&hash=d59b631416050589578468ab1538b54924b311c9)

It was 65 / 55 when I moved there in 1969.  Remained that until 55 NMSL in 1973.
Are the hills and elevations exaggerated, or were they really like that? It's a lot smoother today and gentle.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 12:40:18 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 12, 2019, 12:31:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 12:11:11 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2019, 11:12:03 PM
I do not recall anything higher than 60 MPH on the Capital Beltway in the Commonwealth.  Back then, the  Virginia Department of Highways (VDH) loved split speed limits, and the truck limit might have been 55 MPH (but not sure if it was 55 or something else).

Just before opening between I-95 and Van Dorn Street --
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI495-RFP-Orig-z.jpg&hash=d59b631416050589578468ab1538b54924b311c9)
It was 65 / 55 when I moved there in 1969.  Remained that until 55 NMSL in 1973.
Are the hills and elevations exaggerated, or were they really like that? It's a lot smoother today and gentle.
Telephoto lens above.
Regular lens --
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI495-RFP-Orig.jpg&hash=8f83c438f82cb253620c1a9416297c3b79f02c4e)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on September 12, 2019, 01:42:25 AM
Looks like that photo was taken approximately here
https://goo.gl/maps/XyNUhAt2jDrzaJA56
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 06:40:58 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 12, 2019, 01:42:25 AM
Looks like that photo was taken approximately here
https://goo.gl/maps/XyNUhAt2jDrzaJA56
Somewhere near there.  Looks like they may have flattened that sag vertical curve in the Springfield Interchange Project.

The bridge at the top of the hill is over the railroads CSXT and WMATA.  Just RF&P (Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad) back when originally built.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 12, 2019, 08:47:47 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 12, 2019, 12:11:11 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 11, 2019, 11:12:03 PM
I do not recall anything higher than 60 MPH on the Capital Beltway in the Commonwealth.  Back then, the  Virginia Department of Highways (VDH) loved split speed limits, and the truck limit might have been 55 MPH (but not sure if it was 55 or something else).

Just before opening between I-95 and Van Dorn Street --
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capital-beltway.com%2FI495-RFP-Orig-z.jpg&hash=d59b631416050589578468ab1538b54924b311c9)

It was 65 / 55 when I moved there in 1969.  Remained that until 55 NMSL in 1973.

This is the old picture I recalled, especially because I live near that spot now.

We moved to Fairfax County in 1974 when I was 1 year old, so I don't remember the pre-NMSL era.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 14, 2019, 05:23:24 PM
Back in December 2017, the I-564 Intermodal Connector, also the first piece of the Third Crossing, opened in Norfolk. All of the press releases and articles discussing it mentioned it would only be open for NIT Traffic and by Fall 2018, the ramps to Gate 6 of Norfolk Naval Base and public access to Hampton Blvd would be opened.

Having not heard any information since then, I decided to drive over there to see its progress, and as of September 14, 2019, almost 2 years after it opened, the ramps to Gate 6 and Hampton Blvd are still under construction and not opened. The only movement you can do is turn around at the NIT ramp (it's designed to easily do a U-Turn before getting to the gate) or go to NIT itself.

Barriers are still up on the mainline in places and mostly only one lane with the other coned off.

There's signs on the connector referencing Hampton Blvd and Gate 6 and arrows pointing to the exit, but are all blocked by barriers and cones, and the lanes aren't even striped heading to them. There's also a VMS that says "Truck Inspection Station - CLOSED, Gate 6 - Closed". Additionally, the speed limit is still at 35 mph, as originally set when it opened in 2017.

No idea when it's projected to actually be fully completed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 15, 2019, 12:12:30 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/395-express-lanes-on-track-to-open-in-november/2019/09/14/78427262-d4a1-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html

395 Express Lanes on track to open in November
9-14-2019
Excerpts:

The commutes of thousands of Washington-area residents will change this fall when tolling begins on an eight-mile stretch of Interstate 395 in Northern Virginia, one of the busiest gateways into the nation's capital.

The reversible, high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes set to open in November will be the latest addition to the region's growing network of toll roads.

The 395 Express Lanes will replace today's high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes, which stretch from near Edsall Road in Fairfax County to the 14th Street Bridge in the District.  The lanes will be an extension of the 95 Express Lanes, which operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week and stretch 31 miles between Fairfax and Stafford counties.  The non-HOV lanes will remain and will continue to be free.

With the $480 million 395 Express Lanes project, Northern Virginia's network of HOT lanes will grow to 63 miles.  About 55 miles of express lanes have opened on interstates 495, 95 and 66 in the past seven years, and the state envisions more than 90 miles of HOT lanes in Northern Virginia by 2022.
........

Virginia authorities this year announced an agreement with Transurban to extend the 495 Express Lanes, now 14 miles, by three miles, to the American Legion Bridge.

Transurban forecasts high demand for the toll lanes.  A survey in May commissioned by the company found that nearly 7 in 10 people who use the I-395 corridor said they plan to use the express lanes at least occasionally.

See the URL for the rest.

The last paragraph, I can certainly believe that will be the case.

This is the first time I saw that the I-495 extension is under contract.  Now Maryland needs to get in gear and build its I-495 express or HOT lanes between Virginia and I-270!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 15, 2019, 07:33:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 15, 2019, 12:12:30 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/395-express-lanes-on-track-to-open-in-november/2019/09/14/78427262-d4a1-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html

395 Express Lanes on track to open in November
9-14-2019
Excerpts:

The commutes of thousands of Washington-area residents will change this fall when tolling begins on an eight-mile stretch of Interstate 395 in Northern Virginia, one of the busiest gateways into the nation's capital.

The reversible, high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes set to open in November will be the latest addition to the region's growing network of toll roads.

The 395 Express Lanes will replace today's high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes, which stretch from near Edsall Road in Fairfax County to the 14th Street Bridge in the District.  The lanes will be an extension of the 95 Express Lanes, which operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week and stretch 31 miles between Fairfax and Stafford counties.  The non-HOV lanes will remain and will continue to be free.

With the $480 million 395 Express Lanes project, Northern Virginia's network of HOT lanes will grow to 63 miles.  About 55 miles of express lanes have opened on interstates 495, 95 and 66 in the past seven years, and the state envisions more than 90 miles of HOT lanes in Northern Virginia by 2022.
........

Virginia authorities this year announced an agreement with Transurban to extend the 495 Express Lanes, now 14 miles, by three miles, to the American Legion Bridge.

Transurban forecasts high demand for the toll lanes.  A survey in May commissioned by the company found that nearly 7 in 10 people who use the I-395 corridor said they plan to use the express lanes at least occasionally.

See the URL for the rest.

The last paragraph, I can certainly believe that will be the case.

This is the first time I saw that the I-495 extension is under contract.  Now Maryland needs to get in gear and build its I-495 express or HOT lanes between Virginia and I-270!
Currently, HOV-3 is only in effect on weekends only from 6-9am and 3-6pm, and open to all traffic during all other times. Once these lanes open and are rebranded under private Transurban's "Express Lanes" , the restriction will be 24/7, which will likely result in additional traffic being dumped into the mainlines, and essentially screw anybody who used them previously free off-peak. The same thing happened here in Hampton Roads when they extended the hours from 7-9am to 4-6pm to 5-9am to 2-6pm according to a traffic analysis conducted by HRTPO, more traffic congestion in the mainlines and less HO/T lane usage than previous HOV usage during 5-7am and 2-4pm, but more HO/T lane usage than previous HOV lane usage from 7-9am and 4-6pm.

So essentially, if Transurban's I-95 and I-395 Express Lanes were only tolled 6-9am and 3-6pm on weekdays, and free to all during other times, like the original, that would likely reduce to less congestion on the mainlines and more usage of the HO/T lanes during off peak.

Traffic congestion significantly increased on the northern section of I-95 outside the beltway during off-peak hours when Transurban's Express Lanes opened, and the US-1 / VA-123 interchange area is one of the worst spots.

But since Transurban would loose money and not make as much profit, that's not even an option. Another issue with the P3 concept, changes like that aren't even considerable, unlike here in Hampton Roads where HRTPO is currently evaluating changing hours (due to the traffic analysis I posted above), and even looking at making some of the current under construction HO/T lanes into free lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 15, 2019, 09:04:58 AM
Good grief, you just can't help yourself.  A few days ago you were bemoaning the controversy and now you just start it up again.  Just because the world doesn't work the way you think it should.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 15, 2019, 09:16:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 15, 2019, 09:04:58 AM
Just because the world doesn't work the way you think it should.
It doesn't work they way you want it to either. Not everyone loves HO/T lanes and are as deeply invested as you seem to be. And the opposite is true when you oppose a highway project / concept (see below) and it still is built / implemented & supported by others. I'm going to voice my opinion when the issue comes up, just as you say - that's how forums work. You do the exact same thing. It doesn't work one way. There's no double standard. If I brought up a topic about I-87 on the I-87, North Carolina, or even Virginia board, you'd come on spewing how it's vanity.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 10:32:22 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190915/72696ae0ac823234bca01568ce0a0abb.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 15, 2019, 10:46:37 AM
As a practical matter, the soon-to-be imposed restrictions won't really affect anyone who hasn't already been affected:

*People going south of Alexandria already had to deal with the 24x7 off-peak restrictions anyways (once they hit the Turkeycock transition point).

*There's not a large market for intra-Arlington/Alexandria HOV off-peak travel anyways (I ought to know, I'd be a potential user of it). You're talking basically from DC/Pentagon to Shirlington, given the arrangements of the exits. That's such a short distance that it's really of no particular use.

EDIT: On very rare occasions, an accident in the mainline lanes off-peak *COULD* make the HOV carriageway a convenient way to get from DC/Pentagon to Shirlington, but in reality, I don't like taking the HOV carriageway if possible, because you're stuck there (whereas on the mainline you have more exit options (Glebe Rd, Shirlington, King St).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on September 15, 2019, 10:51:11 AM
 Got :popcorn: ?These two are endless entertainment.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 15, 2019, 11:15:19 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 15, 2019, 10:46:37 AM
As a practical matter, the soon-to-be imposed restrictions won't really affect anyone who hasn't already been affected:

*People going south of Alexandria already had to deal with the 24x7 off-peak restrictions anyways (once they hit the Turkeycock transition point).

*There's not a large market for intra-Arlington/Alexandria HOV off-peak travel anyways (I ought to know, I'd be a potential user of it). You're talking basically from DC/Pentagon to Shirlington, given the arrangements of the exits. That's such a short distance that it's really of no particular use.

EDIT: On very rare occasions, an accident in the mainline lanes off-peak *COULD* make the HOV carriageway a convenient way to get from DC/Pentagon to Shirlington, but in reality, I don't like taking the HOV carriageway if possible, because you're stuck there (whereas on the mainline you have more exit options (Glebe Rd, Shirlington, King St).
It would affect what's leftover, and the I-95 transition back in ~2014 also did the same thing. My comment refers to both.

I still have yet to see a good reason why the previously-free lanes should not be open to all traffic outside of peak hours besides making more $$$ for Transurban.

The I-64 reversible lanes in Hampton Roads were free to all outside of peak hours, and while the HO/T lane conversion extended the hours slightly, it's still free outside those hours to all traffic and on weekends & holidays.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 15, 2019, 10:46:37 AM
but in reality, I don't like taking the HOV carriageway if possible, because you're stuck there (whereas on the mainline you have more exit options (Glebe Rd, Shirlington, King St).
It's the same way here for the ~7 mile reversible lanes in Hampton Roads, there's only entrance / exit points at the two termini (I-264 / I-64, and I-564 / I-64). You miss the exits for Northampton Blvd, Military Hwy, Norview Ave, Chesapeake Blvd, Tidewater Dr, and Little Creek Rd. They're still very beneficial to use even without local access, and I frequently use them, even when they're tolled because it's only $0.50 - $2.00. It's generally full but moving during peak hours, and well used outside of peak hours. The speed limit is also posted at 65 mph while the general purpose lanes are only 55 mph, similar to at least I-95's lanes, I'm unsure what is regularly posted inside the beltway.

EDIT - And you still are affecting people, even if they used it south of I-95. Today outside peak hours, you could pay a toll for the I-95 portion, and then continue for free inside the beltway. Now, you have to pay more to use the portion that was previously free inside the beltway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 11:19:45 AM
I'll certainly miss the free access to the express lanes during non-rush periods. We used the express lanes regularly in the 10 PM timeframe coming back from Caps games, although during the last few years the constant road work on I-395 has led us to use I-295 more often.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 15, 2019, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 11:19:45 AM
I'll certainly miss the free access to the express lanes during non-rush periods. We used the express lanes regularly in the 10 PM timeframe coming back from Caps games, although during the last few years the constant road work on I-395 has led us to use I-295 more often.

How much time was that really saving you though? 1 or 2 minutes between 14th Street Bridge and Turkeycock?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 15, 2019, 11:28:45 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 15, 2019, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 11:19:45 AM
I'll certainly miss the free access to the express lanes during non-rush periods. We used the express lanes regularly in the 10 PM timeframe coming back from Caps games, although during the last few years the constant road work on I-395 has led us to use I-295 more often.

How much time was that really saving you though? 1 or 2 minutes between 14th Street Bridge and Turkeycock?
Kicking vehicles out of the lanes simply adds more to the general purpose lanes and provides less capacity. So while it does favors during rush hour by allowing the existing users + SOV toll traffic to use it, it actually reduces the overall capacity outside of rush hour. The same thing happened here in Hampton Roads when the hours were extended, it was even admitted in data collected by the HRTPO. I'd be curious to see a similar study conducted on Transurban's Express Lanes and the impact outside of rush hour to the general purpose lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 05:53:40 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 15, 2019, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 11:19:45 AM
I'll certainly miss the free access to the express lanes during non-rush periods. We used the express lanes regularly in the 10 PM timeframe coming back from Caps games, although during the last few years the constant road work on I-395 has led us to use I-295 more often.

How much time was that really saving you though? 1 or 2 minutes between 14th Street Bridge and Turkeycock?

It's not just time. It's also the higher speed limit. No chance of a ticket at 70 mph in the express lanes where it's 65.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 15, 2019, 10:09:41 PM
Fair point, given that you're going down to Springfield...for me going to shirlington, I'd barely even have a chance to get to speed before my exit arrives...

Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 05:53:40 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 15, 2019, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 11:19:45 AM
I'll certainly miss the free access to the express lanes during non-rush periods. We used the express lanes regularly in the 10 PM timeframe coming back from Caps games, although during the last few years the constant road work on I-395 has led us to use I-295 more often.

How much time was that really saving you though? 1 or 2 minutes between 14th Street Bridge and Turkeycock?

It's not just time. It's also the higher speed limit. No chance of a ticket at 70 mph in the express lanes where it's 65.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 15, 2019, 10:13:37 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 15, 2019, 09:16:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 15, 2019, 09:04:58 AM
Just because the world doesn't work the way you think it should.
It doesn't work they way you want it to either. Not everyone loves HO/T lanes and are as deeply invested as you seem to be.
I should be able to post an article about the soon-opening of 8 miles of Interstate widening without the same person acting like I am throwing chum on the waters, then posting with the same talking points that have been beaten to death over the last 2 years.

The decision to build a 100+ mile system of express lanes was made years ago.  As far as you having to pay to use them in the off hours, you don't have to use them.  I paid $16.60 to use the I-95 NB HOT lanes on Friday morning entering just after 8:00 am.  I like that and so do umpteen thousand other people, and I want to keep having that option.  Traffic wasn't even all that bad on the GP lanes as far as any major congestion, but they can be used for free.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 15, 2019, 10:19:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 15, 2019, 11:28:45 AM
Kicking vehicles out of the lanes simply adds more to the general purpose lanes and provides less capacity. So while it does favors during rush hour by allowing the existing users + SOV toll traffic to use it, it actually reduces the overall capacity outside of rush hour.

Nonsense.  They can still use the HOT lanes if they want and for the lower off-peak tolls so nobody is getting "kicked out".  If you are HOV-3+ you ride for free.  All lanes still have the same 2,000 to 2,200 VPL per hour.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 15, 2019, 10:26:43 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 05:53:40 PM
It's not just time. It's also the higher speed limit. No chance of a ticket at 70 mph in the express lanes where it's 65.

Much wider spacing between access points, and much easier and less stressful ride due to that express feature.  And the higher speed limits as you say.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 15, 2019, 10:32:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 15, 2019, 10:13:37 PM
I should be able to post an article about the soon-opening of 8 miles of Interstate widening without the same person acting like I am throwing chum on the waters, then posting with the same talking points that have been beaten to death over the last 2 years.
A little hypocritical much?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18354.0

Quote from: Beltway on September 15, 2019, 10:13:37 PM
I like that and so do umpteen thousand other people, and I want to keep having that option.
The exact same thing that umpteen thousand other people, and I said about the previously-free lanes outside of peak hours.

Just because thousands of people and you support HO/T lanes and 24/7 tolling, doesn't mean that there's also not that number supporting the exact opposite.

Quote from: Beltway on September 15, 2019, 10:19:51 PM
Nonsense.  They can still use the HOT lanes if they want and for the lower off-peak tolls so nobody is getting "kicked out".  If you are HOV-3+ you ride for free.  All lanes still have the same 2,000 to 2,200 VPL per hour.
If someone who previously would use the lane for free outside of peak hours when it was HOV decides they won't use it because it's tolled now, then you are effectively kicking that person out of the lanes.

This has been proven here in Hampton Roads, once they extended the hours slightly, the previously-free hours experienced less traffic in the managed lanes, and more congestion in the mainlines. HRTPO's traffic data proves this.

Quote from: Beltway on September 15, 2019, 10:26:43 PM
Much wider spacing between access points, and much easier and less stressful ride due to that express feature.  And the higher speed limits as you say.
Exactly. And currently free during off-peak and beneficial for the traveler during those times for free. Now they will be forced to pay for something that was previously free, or use the general purpose lanes which has none of those features.

When they converted the previously free HOV lanes to HO/T in Hampton Roads, they left them still free outside of peak hours, only tolled during previous-HOV hours + a couple additional hours. Still very nice to use outside peak hours for -free-.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 15, 2019, 11:53:39 PM
Nobody around here, at least that I know, complains about the HOT/HOV arrangement. I think this is all just the work of a single poster who has an ideological axe to grind.

For better or worse, the decision on the future of tolled highways in Northern VA has been determined; I don't deny that things may be different down in Hampton Roads, but frankly I really couldn't care less about that corner of the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 16, 2019, 12:06:55 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 15, 2019, 11:53:39 PM
Nobody around here, at least that I know, complains about the HOT/HOV arrangement.
It was interesting to read the comment forum submitted to VDOT when the I-495 / I-95 lanes were being implemented. Lots of opposition (and support), and I've still heard complaints about it. I have family in the area, and they oppose it. I know a few locals as well through family, and it's mixed - some don't care about the issue, some like them, and some preferred the old arrangement.

And there's people (probably a lot of them) that don't discuss it, but personally do not agree with it.

There's always going to be a mixed opinion on something as controversial as this. There's supporters, there's opposers. It's not one or the other. Just because I'm opposed to it and a few members here support it certainly does not put me in the minority.

And just as much as I may have "an axe to grind"  by opposing it "so much" , the same goes for the posters who seem to defend it at all costs when something negative is posted about it and support it 300%.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 16, 2019, 12:46:20 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 15, 2019, 10:32:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 15, 2019, 10:13:37 PM
I should be able to post an article about the soon-opening of 8 miles of Interstate widening without the same person acting like I am throwing chum on the waters, then posting with the same talking points that have been beaten to death over the last 2 years.
A little hypocritical much?
I thought we decided openly here that we were going to avoid controversy as much as possible, due to the massive amount of space that it had taken up.  I shared some e-mails with the moderator that has spoken here and said that is what I hoped to do. 

I can post thousand word posts as well as most people, and many of them.  Is that what you want or do we decide to look at the needs of the whole forum?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 16, 2019, 08:08:11 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 05:53:40 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 15, 2019, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 11:19:45 AM
I'll certainly miss the free access to the express lanes during non-rush periods. We used the express lanes regularly in the 10 PM timeframe coming back from Caps games, although during the last few years the constant road work on I-395 has led us to use I-295 more often.

How much time was that really saving you though? 1 or 2 minutes between 14th Street Bridge and Turkeycock?

It's not just time. It's also the higher speed limit. No chance of a ticket at 70 mph in the express lanes where it's 65.

Anyone actually gotten a ticket for going 70 in the 55 zone?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 16, 2019, 08:41:29 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 16, 2019, 08:08:11 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 05:53:40 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 15, 2019, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 15, 2019, 11:19:45 AM
I'll certainly miss the free access to the express lanes during non-rush periods. We used the express lanes regularly in the 10 PM timeframe coming back from Caps games, although during the last few years the constant road work on I-395 has led us to use I-295 more often.

How much time was that really saving you though? 1 or 2 minutes between 14th Street Bridge and Turkeycock?

It's not just time. It's also the higher speed limit. No chance of a ticket at 70 mph in the express lanes where it's 65.

Anyone actually gotten a ticket for going 70 in the 55 zone?

I don't know. I've seen people pulled over on I-395, but I don't know how fast they were going or whether they were doing something else. Statistically the chances of getting pulled over are quite low, and there are enough people doing 75+ that most cops are probably more likely to go after them to write a reckless ticket.




There are definitely people out there who oppose the HO/T lanes on all the roads that have them, but most of their complaints consist of uninformed screeds and sometimes utterly moronic comments like "they're unconstitutional." To put it differently–regardless of whether any of us may agree or disagree with sprjus4's or Beltway's opinions on the HO/T lanes, and regardless of whether the two of them may tend to echo the same points repeatedly, certainly their positions are more rational and better-thought-out than a lot of the crap that's been posted elsewhere over the past few years. One of the ones that I found most pathetic was some idiot posting on Dr. Gridlock's now-defunct blog who claimed the I-495 HO/T lanes "ruined the Beltway," though he never explained how or why they allegedly "ruined" the Beltway. That made no sense to me, seeing as how the Beltway has exactly the same number of general-purpose lanes it had before (plus one extra lane, on the Inner Loop from I-66 to Tysons), and the only things that no longer exist are (1) the old left-side general-purpose exit from the Inner Loop to I-66 West and (2) the ability to use the C/D roads as thru lanes on the Outer Loop at Braddock and the Inner Loop at Route 7 (in both cases because the C/D roads no longer run all the way through the interchanges due to elimination of a loop ramp to accommodate HO/T ramps).

Or there was the time an anchor on the 10:00 news on Channel 5 called the HO/T lanes a "scam" following a report about some woman who was in big trouble for unpaid toll bills. But the report they had just aired mentioned multiple times that her "defense," such as it was, focused on the argument that "I don't think I should have to pay this." Instead of calling the operation a scam, how about recognizing that she was just a dumbass? As I've said before in the HO/T lanes thread, surely receiving the initial bill in the mail with the $12.50 per trip surcharge ought to be enough to prompt most rational people to deal with the matter so the costs don't escalate. Right?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 16, 2019, 05:18:17 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 15, 2019, 11:53:39 PM
Nobody around here, at least that I know, complains about the HOT/HOV arrangement. I think this is all just the work of a single poster who has an ideological axe to grind.
For better or worse, the decision on the future of tolled highways in Northern VA has been determined; I don't deny that things may be different down in Hampton Roads, but frankly I really couldn't care less about that corner of the state.
The D.C. area has far greater traffic demand, and far higher average salaries and wages (i.e. those tolls don't look so high to many in that area), and the D.C. area has the heavy thru traffic component that H.R. is almost lacking.  A lot of those people on I-95 and I-495 are thru and occasional movements (like me on Friday and today for a trip to western NY) .  A lot of those commuters make six figure salaries which are barely above average for the D.C. area.

You really can't compare the two areas, and my support of HOV or HOT lanes in the H.R. area is tepid at best, it could go either way as far as I am concerned.

I used to ride I-95 HOV for free in the off-hours, and now usually pay to use, and frankly it hasn't occurred to me to complain about paying.  It is all part of the funding complex to support the facility and that includes paying higher tolls so that the HOV-3+ can ride for free.  The time estimate VMS signs are frequent enough to estimate if there is any GP delay before deciding whether to enter the HOT lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 16, 2019, 05:38:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 16, 2019, 05:18:17 PM
the D.C. area has the heavy thru traffic component that H.R. is almost lacking.  A lot of those people on I-95 and I-495 are thru and occasional movements.
Source? How much traffic is really thru traffic and local traffic? I'm not denying thru traffic exists, but is it a large amount? (excluding peak weekends) I.E. Would building an outer bypass really relieve congestion on the interstates in a significant way? Again, I'm not denying it should be built, but if a significant amount of the traffic is local, they're going to keep using I-95 because an outer bypass would be too far out to be beneficial. How much traffic will use the bypass in its entirety (I.E. not local traffic on US-301 using it as a small bypass)? 15,000 - 30,000 AADT? 50,000 - 80,000 AADT?

Quote from: Beltway on September 16, 2019, 05:18:17 PM
paying higher tolls so that the HOV-3+ can ride for free.
They rode free before the HO/T concept. And outside of peak hours it was free to all.

Just because you don't have issues with it doesn't mean everybody agrees with them, and those who don't shouldn't rightfully complain and express concerns.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 16, 2019, 09:14:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 16, 2019, 05:38:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 16, 2019, 05:18:17 PM
the D.C. area has the heavy thru traffic component that H.R. is almost lacking.  A lot of those people on I-95 and I-495 are thru and occasional movements.
Source? How much traffic is really thru traffic and local traffic? I'm not denying thru traffic exists, but is it a large amount? (excluding peak weekends) 
Based on the number of out-of-state license plates, a substantial amount.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 16, 2019, 05:38:51 PM
I.E. Would building an outer bypass really relieve congestion on the interstates in a significant way?
Depends on where and how many, and how "relieve" is defined.  Additional routes could provide major capacity increases and additional alternate routes.  Would not "solve" congestion but would reduce the intensity and timespan thereof.

There were the middle routes that would have crossed the Potomac near Dumfries, and there were outer routes down to Falmouth and Carmel Church.

If you want detailed traffic projection data then MSHA and VDOT would need to conduct engineering studies to define it in detail.

Besides the joint bi-state WWB Project, Maryland has done nothing to add capacity to I-95 in the trans-Washington area.  They bear a critical part of the responsibility and without their participation Virginia cannot build any logical parallel freeway to bypass/alternate to I-95 around Washington.

It is ridiculous that in 2019 there is only one freeway, I-95, south of the Capital Beltway, and that all the weight has to fall on that one highway.

Maryland needs to start pulling their weight, Virginia should not have to make I-95 into a 12- to 14-lane "super freeway" to make up for Maryland's lacks.

I will grant that Maryland isn't going to be able to suddenly build one of these routes, but they have had since the 1980s and they have done nothing and I am going to hammer them every time I see a complaint about traffic on I-95 especially in the Dumfries-Woodbridge area which all of the 4 Washington Bypass proposals in 1988 would have bypassed / alternate.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Wash_Bypass.html

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 16, 2019, 05:38:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 16, 2019, 05:18:17 PM
paying higher tolls so that the HOV-3+ can ride for free.
They rode free before the HO/T concept.
They didn't ride at all (at least not on any managed lanes) on I-95 south of VA-234, on I-495, or was there a managed lane interchange between the Beltway and Shirley Highway.

Express lanes in some states including Maryland don't have any toll exclusion for HOV.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 16, 2019, 11:20:25 PM
Why should either jurisdiction - Virginia or Maryland - be on the hook for a mega-thruway or bypass of that magnitude? There's really no compelling local interest - long-haul drivers can take extended bypasses or travel at off hours (10 PM-5 AM) to avoid slowdowns if they're really that big of an issue.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 12:05:45 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 16, 2019, 11:20:25 PM
Why should either jurisdiction - Virginia or Maryland - be on the hook for a mega-thruway or bypass of that magnitude? There's really no compelling local interest - long-haul drivers can take extended bypasses or travel at off hours (10 PM-5 AM) to avoid slowdowns if they're really that big of an issue.

For the same reason they were "on the hook" for building I-95, I-66, I-270, I-70 and I-495, back in the 20th Century.

This time it is I-97 Extended (eastern) and/or I-470 (western).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 06:54:02 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 12:05:45 AM
For the same reason they were "on the hook" for building I-95, I-66, I-270, I-70 and I-495, back in the 20th Century.
And also the same reason they built a majority of the rural interstate system.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 17, 2019, 09:05:23 AM
Quote from: sprjus4Source? How much traffic is really thru traffic and local traffic? I'm not denying thru traffic exists, but is it a large amount? (excluding peak weekends) I.E. Would building an outer bypass really relieve congestion on the interstates in a significant way? Again, I'm not denying it should be built, but if a significant amount of the traffic is local, they're going to keep using I-95 because an outer bypass would be too far out to be beneficial. How much traffic will use the bypass in its entirety (I.E. not local traffic on US-301 using it as a small bypass)? 15,000 - 30,000 AADT? 50,000 - 80,000 AADT?

Based on an analysis of traffic volumes, through traffic on the I-95 corridor is likely no higher than the 30-40K range.  While a bypass may take some of that off, there is enough latent demand in the D.C. area to completely refill any capacity you may open up with a bypass.

Scott cites a large number of out-of-state plates in the D.C. area.  But keep in mind that there are large numbers of military and governmental personnel in that region, so you already have a lot of out-of-state plates with an origin and/or destination in the region to begin with.  In my case, when I transferred in, I kept my Mississippi plates until they expired, as I was allowed to do as a military member on official orders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 17, 2019, 09:14:34 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 17, 2019, 09:05:23 AM
....

Scott cites a large number of out-of-state plates in the D.C. area.  But keep in mind that there are large numbers of military and governmental personnel in that region, so you already have a lot of out-of-state plates with an origin and/or destination in the region to begin with.  In my case, when I transferred in, I kept my Mississippi plates until they expired, as I was allowed to do as a military member on official orders.

Indeed our neighbor two doors up has New York plates on his Jeep. He's assigned to the Pentagon.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 05:33:58 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 17, 2019, 09:05:23 AM
Based on an analysis of traffic volumes, through traffic on the I-95 corridor is likely no higher than the 30-40K range.  While a bypass may take some of that off, there is enough latent demand in the D.C. area to completely refill any capacity you may open up with a bypass.
Scott cites a large number of out-of-state plates in the D.C. area.  But keep in mind that there are large numbers of military and governmental personnel in that region, so you already have a lot of out-of-state plates with an origin and/or destination in the region to begin with.  In my case, when I transferred in, I kept my Mississippi plates until they expired, as I was allowed to do as a military member on official orders.
Like I said, if you want current detailed traffic projection data, then MSHA and VDOT would need to conduct engineering studies to define it in detail.

Through traffic on the I-95 corridor in the 30-40K range is a lot.  What about the thru traffic in the 95-495-270-70-15 corridor that a western bypass would service?  That is in addition to the I-95 thru traffic (assuming a western bypass and no eastern bypass).

What about thru traffic that an I-97 Extended would service that doesn't route back to I-95 in Maryland but takes the US-50 and US-301 corridor to I-95 in Delaware?  Plus other parts of the Eastern Shore, such as my trip between Richmond and Easton, MD.

Any of those 4 bypasses (outer western, middle western, middle eastern, outer eastern) would help things by providing additional capacity and additional route options, and an alternate in case of a disaster on I-95.

Actually back in 1988 I thought that the outer routes were "overkill" as I-95 had just been widened Ashland to Triangle and I didn't see the need at that point for a bypass south of Dumfries where the middle bypasses crossed I-95 and the Potomac.

With today's traffic volumes I would see the desirability for the outer routes (to I-95 at Falmouth and Carmel Church).

Now that Maryland has sited a new 4-lane Potomac River bridge that could accommodate the eastern route, it is time for I-97 Extended as at least the first bypass to be built.

I am well aware of the environmental issues both natural and built, but a new north-south freeway bypass/alternate route is desperately needed, like I said VA I-95 should not have to become a 12- to 14-lane super-freeway because of Maryland's recalcitrance.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 06:32:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 05:33:58 PM
That is in addition to the I-95 thru traffic (assuming a western bypass and no eastern bypass).
Using a western bypass and I-70 to Baltimore to bypass I-95 would add at least 30 miles to the existing trip, which while it'd still probably be faster, less thru traffic would use it.

The same reason you stated that the ~20 mile out of way I-35 TX-130 bypass only has 5,000 AADT on its southern end, yet I-35 still has at least 200,000 AADT thru Austin and massive traffic congestion, some of the worst in Texas. And now with the toll bypass in place, development has spurred outwards and now the bypass has bottleneck areas, and they are now having to expand it to 6-lanes.

Quote from: Beltway on September 11, 2019, 10:39:01 PM
It is only an indirect bypass of I-35.

An eastern bypass is the most practical for an I-95 Bypass.

I wouldn't suspect there's a significant amount of thru traffic using the I-270 movement, some, but not as much as those making the I-95 movement.

Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 05:33:58 PM
Any of those 4 bypasses (outer western, middle western, middle eastern, outer eastern) would help things by providing additional capacity and additional route options, and an alternate in case of a disaster on I-95.
IMO, an eastern bypass should be the highest priority out of all, though for a western bypass, perhaps the best solution would be, as opposed to constructing a ~90 mile freeway all on new location, construct a bypass of the US-17 business district off I-95, then upgrade US-17 to interstate standards for 40 miles, including the US-29 overlap, to I-66. That would feed traffic from I-66 to I-81 heading westwards. For the movement to I-70 / I-68, upgrade 20 miles of US-521 to interstate standards in Virginia, and use West Virginia's proposed limited-access US-522 relocation and close public cross roads and build a few interchanges / overpasses where needed, then link to I-70.

Only about 60 miles of construction in Virginia, and already proposed 20 miles in West Virginia. That would be a true outer western bypass, and utilize existing interstates.

Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 05:33:58 PM
Actually back in 1988 I thought that the outer routes were "overkill" as I-95 had just been widened Ashland to Triangle and I didn't see the need at that point for a bypass south of Dumfries where the middle bypasses crossed I-95 and the Potomac.

With today's traffic volumes I would see the desirability for the outer routes (to I-95 at Falmouth and Carmel Church).
Agreed, any bypass for the I-95 corridor needs to generally follow VA-207 and US-301.

Maybe even follow US-301 all the way to I-295, and follow the remainder of I-295 back to I-95 south of Petersburg. Then re-designate I-295 and the new US-301 parallel highway as I-97.

That would certainly relieve the I-95 corridor congestion that still would exist between Ruther Glen and I-295.

It's either build an additional ~16 miles of freeway or widen the remainder of I-95 to 8 lanes, which the latter may be cheaper ultimately, but the former would split local traffic to DC with thru traffic bypassing DC.

Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 05:33:58 PM
Now that Maryland has sited a new 4-lane Potomac River bridge that could accommodate the eastern route, it is time for I-97 Extended as at least the first bypass to be built.
If Maryland does indeed continue with the narrow cross-section bridge with no shoulders, it'd likely be necessary to convert that new bridge into 3 lanes one direction with shoulders, and build a new three lane bridge parallel to it.

An eastern bypass should be built with at least 3 lanes each way if it's going to be designed right and serve for many decades to come. They did that right making I-295 6-8 lanes, even in areas where it's only 30,000 AADT.

Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 05:33:58 PM
VA I-95 should not have to become a 12- to 14-lane super-freeway because of Maryland's recalcitrance.
Not 12-14 lane freeway, but even if a bypass is built, it needs a minimum of 8 general purpose lanes, 4 in each direction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 07:31:25 PM
Interesting FAQ / document regarding the proposed / under construction HO/T lanes in the Hampton Roads region along I-64, which will be presented to the HRTPO on Thursday, September 19.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/091919%2005%20Regional%20Express%20Lanes%20Network.pdf

Here's an interesting tidbit, which may be one of the reasons HO/T lanes were preferred on the High Rise Bridge over the original, and more logical IMO, general purpose lane addition proposal -

Quote2. What does the Elizabeth River Crossing Agreement with VDOT say about HOT lanes and improvements to the High Rise Bridge and Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel (HRBT)?

The agreement notes that the construction of additional general purpose lanes on I-64 between I-464 and Bowers Hill, including the High Rise Bridge, is a compensation event — indicating that the addition of only HOT lanes in this segment would not trigger a compensation event.

Interesting how in the contrary, the HRBT expansion may trigger a compensation event no matter what though.

QuoteHowever, with regard to the HRBT, the agreement indicates that any capacity improvement could trigger a compensation event.

Yet again another disadvantage of having P3's over a traditional system. The flawed contract VDOT entered with ERC yet again has more issues arising.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 07:49:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 06:32:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 05:33:58 PM
That is in addition to the I-95 thru traffic (assuming a western bypass and no eastern bypass).
Using a western bypass and I-70 to Baltimore to bypass I-95 would add at least 30 miles to the existing trip, which while it'd still probably be faster, less thru traffic would use it.
Using Google maps I estimate 122 miles versus existing 103 miles, or 19 miles longer.  Many beltways add that much or more to going thru the city.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 06:32:36 PM
The same reason you stated that the ~20 mile out of way I-35 TX-130 bypass only has 5,000 AADT on its southern end, yet I-35 still has at least 200,000 AADT thru Austin and massive traffic congestion, some of the worst in Texas. And now with the toll bypass in place, development has spurred outwards and now the bypass has bottleneck areas, and they are now having to expand it to 6-lanes.
Given the 8.1 million population of the Baltimore-Washington area, the traffic issues of crossing the Potomac River, crossing Baltimore Harbor, and the fact that it is I-95, comparison to Austin is not relevant.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 06:32:36 PM
I wouldn't suspect there's a significant amount of thru traffic using the I-270 movement, some, but not as much as those making the I-95 movement.
Less but still that is a major inter-state movement between VA I-95 south of Fredericksburg, and westerly I-70, I-76, I-99.
[...]

An outer bypass along US-17 and I-81 would not capture any of the movements along Gainesville, Dulles, Leesburg, Frederick, etc.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 06:32:36 PM
Agreed, any bypass for the I-95 corridor needs to generally follow VA-207 and US-301.
Maybe even follow US-301 all the way to I-295, and follow the remainder of I-295 back to I-95 south of Petersburg. Then re-designate I-295 and the new US-301 parallel highway as I-97.
US-301 between I-295 and Bowling Green doesn't even warrant 4 lanes all the way, so I would say 'no' to that.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 06:32:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 05:33:58 PM
VA I-95 should not have to become a 12- to 14-lane super-freeway because of Maryland's recalcitrance.
Not 12-14 lane freeway, but even if a bypass is built, it needs a minimum of 8 general purpose lanes, 4 in each direction.
It would at least be a lot more livable today if Maryland had done the work to get the bypass complete.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 07:57:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 07:31:25 PM
Interesting how in the contrary, the HRBT expansion may trigger a compensation event no matter what though.
It is already under contract and it hasn't.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 07:31:25 PM
QuoteHowever, with regard to the HRBT, the agreement indicates that any capacity improvement could trigger a compensation event.
Yet again another disadvantage of having P3's over a traditional system.
The only disadvantage I see is the once again mention of "compensation events" without any mention of a cost estimate thereof.  Whether it is a little or a lot, it is useless to mention it without a financial cost estimate.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 08:30:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 07:49:22 PM
US-301 between I-295 and Bowling Green doesn't even warrant 4 lanes all the way, so I would say 'no' to that.
In its current state no, but if a freeway link existed between I-295 and Bowling Green, then further north to Maryland, then it would attract a significant amount of traffic.

It's essentially a second option over following VA-207 back to I-95, and would allow thru traffic to completely avoid I-95 and reduce congestion on that corridor.

Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 07:49:22 PM
Given the 8.1 million population of the Baltimore-Washington area
Not as much, but the entire San Antonio-Austin region is about 5 million population.

Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 07:49:22 PM
the traffic issues of crossing the Potomac River, crossing Baltimore Harbor
The river crossings were not the key issues being discussed, but rather congestion on a surface section of I-95 in Northern Virginia. The Baltimore Harbor would not be bypassed by these proposals, you'd still have to route thru.

Very similar to I-35 in fact, major surface interstate through the metro area, all bypassed by TX-130.

Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 07:49:22 PM
and the fact that it is I-95
I-35 is a major interstate highway linking Canada to Mexico, and many major metropolitan areas on its route, including Laredo, San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, and Des Monies. In Texas especially, it's also a major freight route to/from Mexico. Through the Austin metro area, it carries well over 100,000 AADT, and the segment between San Antonio and Dallas-Fort Worth carries at least 50,000 AADT, if not more, and is at least 6-lanes thruout between the two metropolitan areas. The bypass allows thru traffic and truck traffic to bypass the Austin metropolitan area en route between San Antonio / Laredo / Mexico and Dallas-Fort Worth and points north.

Your comment that I-35 is not like I-95 is irrelevant and false.




My overall point is don't expect this bypass to magically take all the traffic off of I-95 and to be carrying 60,000 - 100,000 AADT that's thru traffic between at least I-95 and US-50 - it won't. I-95 will still have major congestion issues and will still need expansion to 8-lanes, yes the traffic load will be slightly less, but it will still be a burden. The bypass would likely have 20,000 - 30,000 AADT that's truly thru traffic, again, between I-95 and US-50, with higher spots in other areas, particularly north of Waldorf, again, similar to TX-130. The southern toll road section only has ~5,000 AADT, but halfway through there's a link back to I-35 south of the "urban" area of Austin, and that has 20,000 - 30,000 AADT, so that traffic load does at least bypass part of it, and again, that's assuming all that traffic originated at I-35 north of TX-130, north of Austin. But still, Austin has major congestion issues nonetheless, even with the bypass and bypass link halfway thru.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 08:50:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 08:30:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 07:49:22 PM
US-301 between I-295 and Bowling Green doesn't even warrant 4 lanes all the way, so I would say 'no' to that.
In its current state no, but if a freeway link existed between I-295 and Bowling Green, then further north to Maryland, then it would attract a significant amount of traffic.
Too much redundancy, US-301 is too close to I-95, better to widen that segment of I-95 to 8 lanes when and if it is needed in the future.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 08:30:36 PM
The river crossings were not the key issues being discussed, but rather congestion on a surface section of I-95 in Northern Virginia. The Baltimore Harbor would not be bypassed by these proposals, you'd still have to route thru.
But the whole corridor would need to deal with those issues in order to bypass I-95, and the western bypass would not cross Baltimore Harbor but utilize I-70 and I-695 to get back to I-95.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 08:30:36 PM
Very similar to I-35 in fact, major surface interstate through the metro area, all bypassed by TX-130.
Austin doesn't have a river or harbor of any significance to cross (i.e. transportation barrier).  Metros with major rivers and harbors have much more complicated and expensive matters to deal with.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 08:30:36 PM
Your comment that I-35 is not like I-95 is irrelevant and false.
Care to tally the population along each, and the fact that I-95 has no other national Interstate to the east?

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 08:30:36 PM
My overall point is don't expect this bypass to magically take all the traffic off of I-95 and to be carrying
I never said there was any "magic" just that an additional north-south trans-Washington freeway would add major capacity and alternate routings to the area, and that all the burden wouldn't have to rest on I-95 alone south of I-495.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 17, 2019, 09:44:01 PM
I actually think that widening that 2-lane section of US 301 south of Bowling Green to 4 lanes (NOT a freeway though) sometime in the future wouldn't be a bad idea. It would certainly help those who choose to use the Nice Bridge to move along better, especially when I-95 south of VA 207 is congested... and this past summer, that was the case A LOT.

It also would be nice to have an improved US 301 on Maryland's side of the bridge, but good luck with that..
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 10:00:11 PM
Quote from: plain on September 17, 2019, 09:44:01 PM
I actually think that widening that 2-lane section of US 301 south of Bowling Green to 4 lanes (NOT a freeway though) sometime in the future wouldn't be a bad idea. It would certainly help those who choose to use the Nice Bridge to move along better, especially when I-95 south of VA 207 is congested... and this past summer, that was the case A LOT.

The 2018 traffic volumes, the last field being the AADT.

US 301, VA 2   Chamberlayne Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.87   I-295   42-640 Shady Grove Rd   23000

US 301, VA 2   Chamberlayne Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.30   42-640 Shady Grove Rd   42-643 New Ashcake Rd; Rural Point Rd   16000

US 301, VA 2   Chamberlayne Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.27   42-643 New Ashcake Rd; Rural Point Rd   42-653 Whippoorwill Rd   11000

US 301, VA 2   Hanover Courthouse Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   2.58   42-653 Whippoorwill Rd   42-651 Georgetown Rd   8300

US 301, VA 2   Hanover Courthouse Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   2.94   42-651 Georgetown Rd   SR 54 Patrick Henry Rd   8500

US 301, VA 2   Hanover Courthouse Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.64   SR 54 Patrick Henry Rd   Caroline County Line   5400

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   3.16   Hanover County Line   SR 30 Dawn Boulevard   5400

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   4.44   SR 30 Dawn Boulevard   16-647 Doggetts Fork Rd   3900

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   7.50   16-647 Doggetts Fork Rd   16-721 Near De Jarnette   3400

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   2.46   16-721 Near De Jarnette   SCL Bowling Green   6500

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   0.11   SCL Bowling Green   Bus US 301 Main St   6500

US 301   Richmond Tpke   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   0.23   Bus US 301 Main St   SR 207   6500

US 301   Richmond Tpke   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   1.03   SR 207   Bus US 301, Bus SR 207 Broaddus Ave   9900

US 301   A P Hill Blvd   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   0.98   Bus US 301, Bus SR 207 Broaddus Ave   NCL Bowling Green; 16-608 Lakewood Rd   11000
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 17, 2019, 10:16:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 10:00:11 PM
Quote from: plain on September 17, 2019, 09:44:01 PM
I actually think that widening that 2-lane section of US 301 south of Bowling Green to 4 lanes (NOT a freeway though) sometime in the future wouldn't be a bad idea. It would certainly help those who choose to use the Nice Bridge to move along better, especially when I-95 south of VA 207 is congested... and this past summer, that was the case A LOT.

The 2018 traffic volumes, the last field being the AADT.

US 301, VA 2   Chamberlayne Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.87   I-295   42-640 Shady Grove Rd   23000

US 301, VA 2   Chamberlayne Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.30   42-640 Shady Grove Rd   42-643 New Ashcake Rd; Rural Point Rd   16000

US 301, VA 2   Chamberlayne Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.27   42-643 New Ashcake Rd; Rural Point Rd   42-653 Whippoorwill Rd   11000

US 301, VA 2   Hanover Courthouse Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   2.58   42-653 Whippoorwill Rd   42-651 Georgetown Rd   8300

US 301, VA 2   Hanover Courthouse Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   2.94   42-651 Georgetown Rd   SR 54 Patrick Henry Rd   8500

US 301, VA 2   Hanover Courthouse Rd   Hanover County   042   Hanover County   1.64   SR 54 Patrick Henry Rd   Caroline County Line   5400

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   3.16   Hanover County Line   SR 30 Dawn Boulevard   5400

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   4.44   SR 30 Dawn Boulevard   16-647 Doggetts Fork Rd   3900

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   7.50   16-647 Doggetts Fork Rd   16-721 Near De Jarnette   3400

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Caroline County   016   Caroline County   2.46   16-721 Near De Jarnette   SCL Bowling Green   6500

US 301, VA 2   Richmond Tpke   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   0.11   SCL Bowling Green   Bus US 301 Main St   6500

US 301   Richmond Tpke   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   0.23   Bus US 301 Main St   SR 207   6500

US 301   Richmond Tpke   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   1.03   SR 207   Bus US 301, Bus SR 207 Broaddus Ave   9900

US 301   A P Hill Blvd   Town of Bowling Green   016   Caroline County   0.98   Bus US 301, Bus SR 207 Broaddus Ave   NCL Bowling Green; 16-608 Lakewood Rd   11000

I already know the volumes on that stretch are currently low, which is why I said future.

However there were certain weekends where there was congestion along the stretch (I've been monitoring conditions all summer).

This was merely something to think about as traffic continues to grow year after year on I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 10:24:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 08:50:47 PM
better to widen that segment of I-95 to 8 lanes when and if it is needed in the future.
It's needed now. As is the rest of I-95 between I-295 and the Occoquan River.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 08:30:36 PM
The river crossings were not the key issues being discussed, but rather congestion on a surface section of I-95 in Northern Virginia. The Baltimore Harbor would not be bypassed by these proposals, you'd still have to route thru.
But the whole corridor would need to deal with those issues in order to bypass I-95, and the western bypass would not cross Baltimore Harbor but utilize I-70 and I-695 to get back to I-95.[/quote]
In reality, all its doing is shifting traffic burden from I-95 and dumping it onto I-70 on the northern end, and choking I-695 to death around Baltimore which already has congestion issues.

Quote from: plain on September 17, 2019, 10:16:35 PM
I already know the volumes on that stretch are currently low, which is why I said future.

However there were certain weekends where there was congestion along the stretch (I've been monitoring conditions all summer).

This was merely something to think about as traffic continues to grow year after year on I-95.
I've utilized it a few times this summer, especially south of VA-3, and it's gotten pretty full. The average traffic counts may not show need, but reality says passing lanes are needed at the minimum. This could be accomplished by widening the roadway to 3 lanes, and alternating the center lane between the two directions of travel every 2-3 miles, flipping back and forth.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on September 17, 2019, 10:50:22 PM
Found these in Sterling... a rarity in VA to find black backplates on BGS's
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/2019-09-17_13_40_40_IMG_6015_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/640px-2019-09-17_13_40_40_IMG_6015_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/2019-09-17_13_29_44_IMG_6012_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/640px-2019-09-17_13_29_44_IMG_6012_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 11:17:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 10:24:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 08:50:47 PM
better to widen that segment of I-95 to 8 lanes when and if it is needed in the future.
It's needed now. As is the rest of I-95 between I-295 and the Occoquan River.
Between VA-54 and VA-207 could be adequate at 6 lanes.  Much of the rest of it would be adequate at 6 lanes if I-97 Extended was operational, and that gets back to Maryland's highway policies over the last 30 years.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 10:24:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 08:50:47 PM
But the whole corridor would need to deal with those issues in order to bypass I-95, and the western bypass would not cross Baltimore Harbor but utilize I-70 and I-695 to get back to I-95.
In reality, all its doing is shifting traffic burden from I-95 and dumping it onto I-70 on the northern end, and choking I-695 to death around Baltimore which already has congestion issues.
Actually I see that the I-70 traffic could distribute to I-695 south to I-95 thru the city as well.  Basically the Baltimore area would have a similar distribution system as today, so the I-470 western bypass would be a benefit to the Washington area, and a lesser benefit to the Baltimore area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 11:32:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 11:17:30 PM
Between VA-54 and VA-207 could be adequate at 6 lanes.
Recurring congestion is quite frequent in this segment, especially during peak travel times, and traffic counts are well over 100,000. This segment warrants 8-lanes, and has for the past at least 10 years.

As for the rest of the way to DC, you're going to need 8-lanes regardless of Maryland's Bypass. 130,000-200,000 AADT, and even if you take 20,000 - 30,000 off, you're still sitting at 100,000 - 170,000+ AADT.

6-lanes is not adequate for any segment of I-95 between the Occoquan River and I-295, bypass or not.

Quote
Actually I see that the I-70 traffic could distribute to I-695 south to I-95 thru the city as well.  Basically the Baltimore area would have a similar distribution system as today, so the I-470 western bypass would be a benefit to the Washington area, and a lesser benefit to the Baltimore area.
Any bypass does not benefit the Baltimore area. Traffic still gets dumped in either from the south or west. The advantage of the eastern bypass though is that it allows traffic the option to continue up US-301 to DE-1 to I-95. While Maryland looks at building this bypass, they also should evaluate upgrading US-301 between the US-50/US-301 split and Delaware into a limited-access 70 mph freeway, mostly be closing off remaining cross roads and building rural interchanges & overpasses. This, in conjunction with the proposed third bridge, would be the best option IMO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 11:42:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 17, 2019, 11:32:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 11:17:30 PM
Between VA-54 and VA-207 could be adequate at 6 lanes.
Recurring congestion is quite frequent in this segment, especially during peak travel times, and traffic counts are well over 100,000. This segment warrants 8-lanes, and has for the past at least 10 years.
As for the rest of the way to DC, you're going to need 8-lanes regardless of Maryland's Bypass. 130,000-200,000 AADT, and even if you take 20,000 - 30,000 off, you're still sitting at 100,000 - 170,000+ AADT.
6-lanes is not adequate for any segment of I-95 between the Occoquan River and I-295, bypass or not.
The point is that it would be a lot more tolerable, as in less intense and less in timespan, especially with summer weekend and holiday peaks.

That 20,000 to 30,000 is the thru traffic for I-95.  Need to include the other thru movements that I cited as well regional cross-Potomac traffic that could better use the bypass.

If the 19 miles between I-295 and VA-207 was the only section on single routing, the issues there would be more limited as well in the overall corridor perspective.

Without Maryland's bypass work, adding one lane each way to I-95 would be like trying to put out a house fire with a handheld fire extinguisher.  Need to call the professionals at the FD.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: odditude on September 18, 2019, 02:37:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 10:00:11 PM

The 2018 traffic volumes, the last field being the AADT.















DesignationNameMunicipality?CountyDist?FromToAADT
US 301, VA 2Chamberlayne RdHanover County042Hanover County1.3042-640 Shady Grove Rd42-643 New Ashcake Rd; Rural Point Rd16000
US 301, VA 2Chamberlayne RdHanover County042Hanover County1.2742-643 New Ashcake Rd; Rural Point Rd42-653 Whippoorwill Rd11000
US 301, VA 2Hanover Courthouse RdHanover County042Hanover County2.5842-653 Whippoorwill Rd42-651 Georgetown Rd8300
US 301, VA 2Hanover Courthouse RdHanover County042Hanover County2.9442-651 Georgetown RdSR 54 Patrick Henry Rd8500
US 301, VA 2Hanover Courthouse RdHanover County042Hanover County1.64SR 54 Patrick Henry RdCaroline County Line5400
US 301, VA 2Richmond TpkeCaroline County016Caroline County3.16Hanover County LineSR 30 Dawn Boulevard5400
US 301, VA 2Richmond TpkeCaroline County016Caroline County4.44SR 30 Dawn Boulevard16-647 Doggetts Fork Rd3900
US 301, VA 2Richmond TpkeCaroline County016Caroline County7.5016-647 Doggetts Fork Rd16-721 Near De Jarnette3400
US 301, VA 2Richmond TpkeCaroline County016Caroline County2.4616-721 Near De JarnetteSCL Bowling Green6500
US 301, VA 2Richmond TpkeTown of Bowling Green016Caroline County0.11SCL Bowling GreenBus US 301 Main St6500
US 301Richmond TpkeTown of Bowling Green016Caroline County0.23Bus US 301 Main StSR 2076500
US 301Richmond TpkeTown of Bowling Green016Caroline County1.03SR 207Bus US 301, Bus SR 207 Broaddus Ave9900
US 301A P Hill BlvdTown of Bowling Green016Caroline County0.98Bus US 301, Bus SR 207 Broaddus AveNCL Bowling Green; 16-608 Lakewood Rd11000

reformatted so i could read it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 18, 2019, 03:03:34 PM
https://twitter.com/vadotnova/status/1174384474274054147?s=21

https://mobile.twitter.com/vadotnova/status/1174384474274054147
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 03:57:51 PM
Quote from: odditude on September 18, 2019, 02:37:47 PM
reformatted so i could read it.
Ahh I was wondering how to code a table here ... thanks! 

I saved the source code.

The 042 and 016 are the internal county codes that VDOT utilizes.  The 'Dist.' is the segment length.

Is there an easy way to produce such a table or do you have to code it line by line?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 04:09:31 PM
This news release has not posted to the VDOT website yet, but I got it in e-mail today.
EIS completions and preliminary engineering completions are needed before projects are awarded.
I estimate that the awards will start in the next 6 to 12 months.

VDOT ANNOUNCES NEW INTERSTATE 81 PROGRAM DELIVERY DIRECTOR
Dave Covington, P.E., will oversee implementation of projects identified in the I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan
RICHMOND – Following the Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Plan and new dedicated funding as a result of 2019 legislation, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Chief Engineer, Bart Thrasher, P.E., announced today that Dave Covington, P.E., will lead VDOT's implementation of projects and initiatives identified in the plan. As the new Interstate 81 program delivery director, Covington will oversee corridor-long strategy and program-level consistency as projects and initiatives from the plan are developed, constructed and prioritized by the I-81 Advisory Committee.
[rest not important enough to post]
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: odditude on September 18, 2019, 04:34:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 03:57:51 PM
Quote from: odditude on September 18, 2019, 02:37:47 PM
reformatted so i could read it.
Ahh I was wondering how to code a table here ... thanks! 

I saved the source code.

The 042 and 016 are the internal county codes that VDOT utilizes.  The 'Dist.' is the segment length.

Is there an easy way to produce such a table or do you have to code it line by line?
ehh - depends on the source. in this case, there were tab characters between the values, so i replaced all tabs with the [/td][td] tag combo, and then pasted a [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
at the end of each line. add your [table][tr][td] up front and your [/td][/tr][/table] at the end, and you're good to go.

so it's manual, but it's not bad if the data's formatted sanely and you have a decent text editor (i use Notepad++). it probably took me longer to type this response!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 18, 2019, 04:41:49 PM
Following up on the tweet I linked above, it seems I-95 will be down to a single northbound lane in the vicinity of Exit 133 this weekend.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 18, 2019, 04:43:30 PM
Expect Major I-95 Northbound Delays at Fredericksburg Saturday, Sept. 21 - Sunday, Sept. 22 (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2019/expect-major-i-95-northbound-delays-at-fredericksburg-saturday-sept-21-%E2%80%93-sunday-sept-229-12-2019.asp/)
QuoteFREDERICKSBURG, Va. — Northbound travelers on Interstate 95 will encounter major travel delays in the Fredericksburg area beginning in late afternoon on Saturday, September 21 through the morning of Sunday, September 22.

Lane closures are needed for 18 consecutive hours of paving, lane striping and preparation to finish building the transition point for drivers to enter three temporary travel lanes for I-95 northbound in the median.

I-95 motorists are strongly encouraged to choose an alternate route to avoid delays, especially through travelers with destinations outside the Fredericksburg area.

What's Being Done

Construction crews need to replace the existing I-95 northbound overpass of Route 17 at Exit 133 in Stafford County over the next 12 months. Two existing Route 17 overpass bridges — northbound and southbound  — are being replaced as part of the I-95 Southbound Rappahannock River Crossing project.

To build the new overpass, all I-95 northbound traffic will be diverted to travel in temporary lanes in the median, parallel to the interstate.

The weekend work zone during Sept. 21-22 is the final step before the temporary lanes open. When lanes reopen at 10 a.m. Sunday, northbound I-95 traffic will begin traveling in the temporary lanes.

Over 18 hours, crews will put down around 2,000 tons of asphalt and 20,000 feet of lane markings, and place around 5,000 feet of concrete barriers.

What Drivers Can Expect

Beginning at 4 p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 21, I-95 northbound will be reduced to two lanes near the Rappahannock River bridge, which is located between the City of Fredericksburg and Stafford County.

I-95 northbound will be reduced to a single lane at 5 p.m. Saturday. The northbound exit ramp and entrance ramp at Exit 133, also known as a collector-distributor lane, will remain open. It will serve as a second northbound travel lane.

From 8:30 p.m. Saturday to 10 a.m. Sunday, Sept. 22, all I-95 northbound traffic will be diverted onto the collector-distributor lane.

Between 8:30 p.m. Saturday and 10 a.m. Sunday, northbound I-95 traffic can exit to Route 17, but Route 17 traffic cannot use the entrance ramps to access I-95 northbound. Detour signs for local traffic on Route 17 will be directed to use Route 1 northbound and Exit 136 (Centreport Parkway) to access I-95 northbound.

I-95 southbound will remain open in the Fredericksburg area during the Sept. 21-22 weekend work zone. Additionally, all I-95 southbound ramps at Exit 133 at Route 17 will remain open.

This work zone has been scheduled weather permitting. If the work zone is cancelled, it will be rescheduled for 4 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 28 through 10 a.m. Sunday, Sept. 29.

Weekend Work Zone

Performing this work in a single 18-hour period, during mostly overnight hours, will avoid disrupting travelers over multiple weeks of evening work.

These hours were identified using traffic analysis as the least disruptive time for work to be scheduled. Accomplishing the work over the weekend avoids delays to weekday commuter and commercial traffic.

To encourage travelers to use an alternate route, VDOT will:

Lift lane closures on Route 1 northbound in the Fredericksburg area during the work zone, and along Route 207 northbound in Caroline County and Route 301 northbound in Caroline and King George counties

Adjust signal timing on these alternate routes to meet additional demand

Use overhead message boards along the I-64, I-95, and I-295 corridors in Virginia to make motorists aware of lane closures ahead at Fredericksburg, and encourage travelers to use Exit 104 (Carmel Church) on I-95 to travel along Route 207 and Route 301

Stay Updated

Real-time updates on this work zone, lane closures and congestion will be available on 511Virginia.

Download the free mobile 511Virginia app for Apple and Android devices to stay connected, or visit www.511Virginia.org. Motorists also can reach 511Virginia by calling 511 from any phone in Virginia.

Follow VDOT Fredericksburg District on Twitter at @VaDOTFRED.

Project Background

Construction to build the $132 million I-95 Southbound Rappahannock River Crossing began in August 2018 and will be underway through May 2022.

The project seeks to reduce I-95 congestion in the Fredericksburg area by providing local traffic with additional lanes to travel between the Route 17 and Route 3 interchanges without merging into the interstate's general purpose lanes.

The Rappahannock River Crossing project will build three new general purpose lanes for I-95 southbound stretching six miles in the current median of I-95. The new lanes will begin in the vicinity of Truslow Road, just north of Exit 133 at Route 17 in Stafford. The new lanes will end 1.2 miles south of Exit 130 at Route 3 in Fredericksburg, in Spotsylvania County.

The three existing I-95 southbound lanes will be converted to carry those traveling to the Route 17 and Route 3 interchanges, as well as the Safety Rest Area and Virginia Welcome Center.

For additional information, please visit the project page on the Improve 95 website at www.Improve95.org
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 18, 2019, 04:51:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 04:09:31 PM
[rest not important enough to post]
The "success" of the Route 29 "Solutions" project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 04:58:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 18, 2019, 04:43:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 04:09:31 PM
[rest not important enough to post]
The "success" of the Route 29 "Solutions" project.
From an engineering and construction management and project delivery standpoint, very successful.

From a network standpoint, it was designed to provide a good local circulation system for local traffic across and around that segment of US-29, but with minimal benefits to the thru traffic (even as defined as anything between the US-29 bypass and Ruckersville or beyond).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 18, 2019, 04:43:30 PM
QuoteLane closures are needed for 18 consecutive hours of paving, lane striping and preparation to finish building the transition point for drivers to enter three temporary travel lanes for I-95 northbound in the median.
[...]
To build the new overpass, all I-95 northbound traffic will be diverted to travel in temporary lanes in the median, parallel to the interstate.
[...]
Over 18 hours, crews will put down around 2,000 tons of asphalt and 20,000 feet of lane markings, and place around 5,000 feet of concrete barriers.

That is the problem, a massive amount of paving work needed to complete the temporary 3-lane tie-in roadways.  That is about 150 dump truck loads of asphalt.

The WWB Project had a similar problem with the opening of the first new bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 18, 2019, 05:18:39 PM
New Ramp from I-64 West to I-264 East Opening to Traffic (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/OPENING-SOON--NEW-RAMP-FROM-I-64W-TO-I-264E.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=kT11BX_T69o)
QuoteNORFOLK -- The new flyover ramp from Interstate 64 west to Interstate 264 east will open to traffic this week, with final preparations for the traffic shift beginning at 10 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 19, and the ramp open to traffic by 5 a.m. on Friday, Sept. 20.

After multiple pre-opening inspections and the completion of outstanding work, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has determined the ramp is now ready for the more than 100,000 vehicles expected to use it each day.

"We promised a quality product, and that's what we've delivered" said VDOT Hampton Roads District Engineer Chris Hall. "This ramp will play an important role in the improved functionality of the I-64/264 interchange for many years to come."

Motorists should be prepared to utilize the new traffic pattern for their morning commute on Friday, Sept. 20. Because it can take time for motorists to become accustomed to the new traffic pattern, VDOT encourages everyone traveling through the area to use caution and pay attention to signage.

How to Utilize the New Ramp
  • Motorists traveling from I-64 west to mainline I-264 east should keep left to access the new flyover ramp, which will place traffic directly into the inside lanes of I-264 east.
  • Motorists traveling from I-64 west to Newtown Road should keep right and follow the existing traffic pattern.

What the New Ramp Accomplishes
  • The ramp will add capacity at the interchange and remove a conflict point by elevating traffic from the I-64 west ramp over the I-264 east collector-distributor road and placing motorists directly onto mainline I-264 east.
  • This new traffic pattern will eliminate the jockeying that occurs between drivers leaving I-264 for Newtown Road and those merging onto I-264 from I-64 west.

Next Steps for the Interchange Improvements Project
  • After the new ramp opens, the Phase I contractor will finish construction on mainline I-264 east, which will bring additional capacity to the interchange, and continue work on the sound wall beside I-64 east (Wall R) near Kidd Boulevard, among other items. Lane and ramp closures are possible throughout the project as construction continues, with a completion date of fall 2019.
  • Phase II of the interchange improvements project is currently under construction and includes extending the new collector-distributor roadway built in Phase I from the Newtown Road interchange to the Witchduck Road interchange, re-configuring the south side of both interchanges to eliminate the weave movement and building a flyover across I-264 to connect Greenwich Road on the south side of the interstate with Cleveland Street on the north side. That phase is scheduled for completion in fall 2021.

    (https://files.constantcontact.com/5ebe224c501/4bb24f68-f670-48d3-8210-b780841a6329.jpg)
Initially, the ramp will only be striped for one thru lane, though once Phase 2 is completed in Fall 2021, it will be re-striped to its final 2 thru lanes configuration.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 05:39:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 18, 2019, 05:18:39 PM
QuoteNORFOLK -- The new flyover ramp from Interstate 64 west to Interstate 264 east will open to traffic this week, with final preparations for the traffic shift beginning at 10 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 19, and the ramp open to traffic by 5 a.m. on Friday, Sept. 20.
Initially, the ramp will only be striped for one thru lane, though once Phase 2 is completed in Fall 2021, it will be re-striped to its final 2 thru lanes configuration.
The reason for the long bridges, is because Nosehs Creek runs right alongside and any filled earthworks would compromise the water carrying ability of the creek to drain the land upstream.  That made the project hugely more expensive and also delayed it for years.

https://naturalatlas.com/creeks/nosehs-906616
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 18, 2019, 05:51:37 PM
Similar to the US-58 Arterial Management Study that was completed for US-58 between the Suffolk Bypass and the Greensville County / Brunswick County line, another study is currently underway for US-58 between the Greensville County / Brunswick County line and the Mecklenburg / Halifax County line.

Recommendations were presented in a public hearings last week, and its mostly the usual median crossover closure, RCUT here and there, restricting access at some locations, though the one that really stood out was the proposed improvements around the I-85 interchange area in South Hill.

The study recommends converting the existing full cloverleaf interchange (reconstructed only 17 years ago from the original partial cloverleaf into a full cloverleaf and also replaced the overpass bridges) into either a diverging diamond interchange or a diamond interchange, retaining one loop ramp from US-58 West to I-85 South, with roundabouts, along with installing a roundabout on the mainline at the US-58 / VA-618 intersection east of the I-85 interchange. It would also include widening the mainline for 1/2 mile to 6-lanes between I-85 and VA-618. This is similar to the other study's proposal for converting the I-95 / US-58 interchange into a diverging diamond.

(https://i.ibb.co/Fwn1Lw6/I85-US58-South-Hill-Alternative.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/crry07d/US58-South-Hill-Roundabout.png)

Thoughts?

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/us_58_arterial_preservation_plan.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 18, 2019, 05:54:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 05:39:25 PM
That made the project hugely more expensive and also delayed it for years.
If HRTAC was never created, this project would likely still be in "planning and design".

I'm glad to finally see it opening... it was needed 20 years ago and it's desperately needed today. That ramp is a nightmere, backs up for at least a mile on I-64, well outside of peak hours, and the worst during peak hours, and the weaving movement at Newtown Rd doesn't help.

Phase 2 will help even more, but the biggest project still hasn't started yet - Phase 3.

That is currently under detailed study & design and according to the I-264 Corridor Study completed a few years back, would cost ~$600 million. That would completely revamp the rest of the I-64 / I-264 interchange including moving left exits to the right, replacing some of the flyovers, and finally creating a continuous HOV system through the interchange. It currently ends on either side of the interchange to allow traffic to exit left.

There's also the Bowers Hill Interchange and the Oak Grove Interchange within the region that need massive overhauls as well, at least $1 billion for both, if not more.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 18, 2019, 08:02:06 PM
VA 169 between 2 blocks south of US 258 near Phoebus and VA 351 Buckroe Beach has been removed from the state highway system.

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/sep/reso/10.pdf

They did not address whether either remaining segment of VA 169 would be renumbered or if VA 169 will become discontinuous.  VA 169 wasn't posted very well around the VA 351 segment anymore in recent years.  2019 GMSV shows no VA 169 postings at US 258 Phoebus anymore either.  2018 GMSV shows 1 shield in either direction on the segment removed from the highway system today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 08:50:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 18, 2019, 05:54:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 05:39:25 PM
That made the project hugely more expensive and also delayed it for years.
If HRTAC was never created, this project would likely still be in "planning and design".
HRTAC is conceptually an 'overlay' of the road use tax and sales tax revenue/funding system historically utilized by VDOT/VDH&T/VDH.

It covers a huge area well beyond the Norfolk/Hampton Roads metro area, part of those taxes come from people outside of the HRTAC area, and that includes cars and trucks registered elsewhere including military personnel that often keep their cars registered in their home state, and including sales taxes that come from the large tourism component of people from outside of the area.

I am not trying to diminish HRTAC or say that any of their funds should be utilized outside of that area, just pointing out that they are doing an overlay of the statewide system, and they are getting part of their funding from people living outside of the HRTAC area.

They are actually a state-created agency --

The Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC) is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the United States that has the responsibility for funding several major traffic projects in the Hampton Roads area.  It was created by the Virginia General Assembly in 2014.
-- Wikipedia

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 18, 2019, 05:54:02 PM
I'm glad to finally see it opening... it was needed 20 years ago and it's desperately needed today. That ramp is a nightmere, backs up for at least a mile on I-64, well outside of peak hours, and the worst during peak hours, and the weaving movement at Newtown Rd doesn't help.
Did you see what I wrote about the local topography that necessitated those long and expensive bridges on that quadrant?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 09:32:35 PM
Quote from: odditude on September 18, 2019, 04:34:34 PM
[...]
at the end, and you're good to go.
so it's manual, but it's not bad if the data's formatted sanely and you have a decent text editor (i use Notepad++). it probably took me longer to type this response!
I did a lot of software development from about 1985-2002.  Sometimes it is tedious and you just have to "crank it out" and code line by line!

The result looks good for this board, how to copy from an Excel spreadsheet and put it in table format here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 18, 2019, 09:57:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 08:50:10 PM
HRTAC is conceptually an 'overlay' of the road use tax and sales tax revenue/funding system historically utilized by VDOT/VDH&T/VDH.

It covers a huge area well beyond the Norfolk/Hampton Roads metro area, part of those taxes come from people outside of the HRTAC area, and that includes cars and trucks registered elsewhere including military personnel that often keep their cars registered in their home state, and including sales taxes that come from the large tourism component of people from outside of the area.

I am not trying to diminish HRTAC or say that any of their funds should be utilized outside of that area, just pointing out that they are doing an overlay of the statewide system, and they are getting part of their funding from people living outside of the HRTAC area.

They are actually a state-created agency --

The Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC) is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the United States that has the responsibility for funding several major traffic projects in the Hampton Roads area.  It was created by the Virginia General Assembly in 2014.
-- Wikipedia
It's an overlay, but it essentially created a tax district for the Hampton Roads region as fuel taxes increased to fund it. Without the creation of the HRTAC and the tax district, a lot of the ongoing projects such as the I-264 / I-64 Interchange, HRBT Expansion, HRB Expansion, and other proposed mega-projects in the future wouldn't be possible, or would require some sort of tolling to assist it (a lot more than the proposed revenue from HO/T lanes).

There was an attempt to create a program similar to the HRTAC back in 2008, but it failed. Had it succeed, one of its key projects would have been funding the expansion of Dominion Blvd without requiring tolls. However, since that was ruled out and the Dominion Blvd project funding & tolls got secured before the HRTAC creation in 2013, it never got bought out, though in the future it could potentially if there's ever a desire to - the money is definitely there now. It was considered for a period earlier this year on buying out the Tunnels, though they determined it was not going to be pursued at this time... also important to consider that's $2 billion as opposed to only ~$300 million for Dominion Blvd, and also it's not a P3, it's owned by the city.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 19, 2019, 12:17:01 AM
A couple things here..

US 58: Unless they're thinking about new alignments near South Hill and Emporia, I have very negative thoughts about the interchange proposals. Trucks + more traffic signals = NO.

VA 169: The only useful thing about the designation nowadays is a route number to follow from the HRBT to Buckroe. If anything they should've decommissioned the segment north of VA 351. Might as well decommission the whole thing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 19, 2019, 12:50:45 AM
Quote from: plain on September 19, 2019, 12:17:01 AM
US 58: Unless they're thinking about new alignments near South Hill and Emporia, I have very negative thoughts about the interchange proposals. Trucks + more traffic signals = NO.
I can sort of see the Emporia proposal... the current interchange is beyond substandard and has no deceleration or acceleration lanes on US-58, but rather stop signs. The I-95 portion has acceleration lanes (obviously), but it's narrow and short distance due to the exiting loop departing. Something needs to happen here eventually.

As for South Hill, that interchange was completely reconstructed back around 2002 and built out to a full cloverleaf and the overpass bridges replaced. There's adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes, and the loops have large radius. The intersection with US-58 Business could definitely be reworked, but there's no other issues other than that. I don't see a need to reconstruct it, and quite frankly I don't see the need for any of the innovative intersections west of I-85, mostly due to the extremely low traffic counts, ~5,000 AADT. Just another way to be "innovative"  I guess though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 19, 2019, 01:08:44 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 19, 2019, 12:50:45 AM
Quote from: plain on September 19, 2019, 12:17:01 AM
US 58: Unless they're thinking about new alignments near South Hill and Emporia, I have very negative thoughts about the interchange proposals. Trucks + more traffic signals = NO.
I can sort of see the Emporia proposal... the current interchange is beyond substandard and has no deceleration or acceleration lanes on US-58, but rather stop signs. The I-95 portion has acceleration lanes (obviously), but it's narrow and short distance due to the exiting loop departing. Something needs to happen here eventually.

As for South Hill, that interchange was completely reconstructed back around 2002 and built out to a full cloverleaf and the overpass bridges replaced. There's adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes, and the loops have large radius. The intersection with US-58 Business could definitely be reworked, but there's no other issues other than that. I don't see a need to reconstruct it, and quite frankly I don't see the need for any of the innovative intersections east of I-85, mostly due to the extremely low traffic counts, ~5,000 AADT. Just another way to be "innovative"  I guess though.

I agree something needs to be done at Emporia. I don't think a DDI will cut it, though. It would be totally acceptable if there's a plan to bypass that interchange (something like froggie's proposal in the US 58 Concepts thread). I just don't like the idea of any type of diamond at either interstate junction.

Something about that 5000 AADT figure east of I-85 seems a bit low.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 19, 2019, 06:46:27 AM
Quote from: plain on September 19, 2019, 01:08:44 AM
Something about that 5000 AADT figure east of I-85 seems a bit low.

In the 8,400 to 9,200 range in Brunswick County for US-58.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 19, 2019, 07:42:32 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 19, 2019, 06:46:27 AM
Quote from: plain on September 19, 2019, 01:08:44 AM
Something about that 5000 AADT figure east of I-85 seems a bit low.

In the 8,400 to 9,200 range in Brunswick County for US-58.
*west
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: odditude on September 19, 2019, 10:26:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 09:32:35 PM
Quote from: odditude on September 18, 2019, 04:34:34 PM
[...]
at the end, and you're good to go.
so it's manual, but it's not bad if the data's formatted sanely and you have a decent text editor (i use Notepad++). it probably took me longer to type this response!
I did a lot of software development from about 1985-2002.  Sometimes it is tedious and you just have to "crank it out" and code line by line!

The result looks good for this board, how to copy from an Excel spreadsheet and put it in table format here.

if you're coming from a spreadsheet and you're comfortable, just insert columns with the relevant tags before/between/after the data columns, and then have a final column that concatenates everything into a single text string with the row info. you can then just copy/paste that column and you've got your html/bbcode/wikicode/whatever table.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 19, 2019, 11:14:38 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 19, 2019, 07:42:32 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 19, 2019, 06:46:27 AM
Quote from: plain on September 19, 2019, 01:08:44 AM
Something about that 5000 AADT figure east of I-85 seems a bit low.
In the 8,400 to 9,200 range in Brunswick County for US-58.
*west
Drops to about 5,500 around Boydton. 
Just east of US 1-Big Fork is about 11,000.
The South Hill Bypass about 7,000.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on September 19, 2019, 01:50:00 PM
Quote from: plain on September 19, 2019, 01:08:44 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 19, 2019, 12:50:45 AM
Quote from: plain on September 19, 2019, 12:17:01 AM
US 58: Unless they're thinking about new alignments near South Hill and Emporia, I have very negative thoughts about the interchange proposals. Trucks + more traffic signals = NO.
I can sort of see the Emporia proposal... the current interchange is beyond substandard and has no deceleration or acceleration lanes on US-58, but rather stop signs. The I-95 portion has acceleration lanes (obviously), but it's narrow and short distance due to the exiting loop departing. Something needs to happen here eventually.

As for South Hill, that interchange was completely reconstructed back around 2002 and built out to a full cloverleaf and the overpass bridges replaced. There's adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes, and the loops have large radius. The intersection with US-58 Business could definitely be reworked, but there's no other issues other than that. I don't see a need to reconstruct it, and quite frankly I don't see the need for any of the innovative intersections east of I-85, mostly due to the extremely low traffic counts, ~5,000 AADT. Just another way to be "innovative"  I guess though.

I agree something needs to be done at Emporia. I don't think a DDI will cut it, though. It would be totally acceptable if there's a plan to bypass that interchange (something like froggie's proposal in the US 58 Concepts thread). I just don't like the idea of any type of diamond at either interstate junction.

Something about that 5000 AADT figure east of I-85 seems a bit low.

Agreed. An upgraded or preferably relocated Emporia interchange should be prioritized first.   
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on September 19, 2019, 02:04:36 PM
Interesting conflict over what seemed like a relatively straightforward project:
https://loudounnow.com/2019/09/04/battle-brews-over-possibility-of-rt-9-closure/
QuoteHillsboro leaders are pushing ahead with a new plan to get their long-planned Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Calming Project under construction after the first round of bids came in too far over budget. But the proposal is coming under fire from out-of-state commuters who could be forced to find new routes to work.

Although town leaders were set to re-advertise for construction bids last Thursday, that action was delayed to allow the exploration of an alternative that could save millions of dollars while getting the work complete within a year–and two years earlier than expected.

To accomplish those goals, the Rt. 9 work zone in the town would have to be closed entirely to through traffic for nine to 11 months, starting as early as February. That would be expected to have the greatest impact on commuters from West Virginia and Maryland, responsible for about 16,000 of the 17,000 vehicles moving through the town each day.

That option was discussed with regional public safety leaders during an Aug. 28 briefing where Hillsboro Mayor Roger Vance and other project managers sought input on challenges that would come with the plan. Rather than a dialogue on the alternatives, the meeting sparked strong objections from Clarke County leaders, who issued a statement warning that diverting Rt. 9 traffic flowing from West Virginia and Maryland on to Rt. 7 and Rt. 340, as well as local roads, would have significant impact. A statement issued by the county warned that, "As a result of the additional traffic, more people will be injured or killed on these roads,"  and that "The cost of greatly increased traffic–EMS, law enforcement, and road maintenance—will be borne by the localities in which they occur."

Vance said he was surprised by the tone of the criticism and that elements of the statement were "a clear misrepresentation of the facts."  He said the town was "working closely with VDOT on alternatives to the maintenance of traffic plan to save time, ensure product quality, save taxpayer money and ensure a safer work zone."

While this project may alleviate slowdowns through Hillsboro, it does nothing to address the slowdowns occurring at the VA-287 light and the eastbound merge onto VA-7. In my opinion, a straight shot 4-lane bypass from just west of Hillsboro to VA-7 around the Round Hill area should've been built a long time ago. However, NIMBYism in Western Loudoun prevailed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 19, 2019, 02:14:01 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on September 19, 2019, 02:04:36 PM
While this project may alleviate slowdowns through Hillsboro, it does nothing to address the slowdowns occurring at the VA-287 light and the eastbound merge onto VA-7. In my opinion, a straight shot 4-lane bypass from just west of Hillsboro to VA-7 around the Round Hill area should've been built a long time ago. However, NIMBYism in Western Loudoun prevailed.

The RE/T groups opposed the building of a VA-9 bypass and/or 4-lane highway between the VA-7 bypass and WV.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 19, 2019, 02:27:29 PM
Quote from: odditude on September 19, 2019, 10:26:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2019, 09:32:35 PM
The result looks good for this board, how to copy from an Excel spreadsheet and put it in table format here.
if you're coming from a spreadsheet and you're comfortable, just insert columns with the relevant tags before/between/after the data columns, and then have a final column that concatenates everything into a single text string with the row info. you can then just copy/paste that column and you've got your html/bbcode/wikicode/whatever table.
Working on a table of 4-lane Arterial Highways (now in the NHS) in Virginia, segment by segment.  Using Google Maps and other websites for the length data.  It is estimable by segment at least to the tenth mile and pretty near if not at the hundredth of a mile.

I will go ahead and post what I have for the US-220 segment which has had a lot of discussion.
Might need Full Screen / F11 for best formatting.

US-220 between N.C. border and I-81

ROUTE SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONCOUNTYDESIGNMILES
220 Between NC/VA border and Ridgeway BypassHenry Countynon-limited-access     3.02
220 Ridgeway BypassHenry Countyexpressway     1.35
220 Between Ridgeway Bypass and Martinsville Bypass   Henry Countynon-limited-access        2.44
220 Martinsville Bypass US-220 segmentHenry Countyfreeway   11.61
220   Martinsville Bypass to Rocky Mount BypassHenry and Franklin countiesnon-limited-access   17.89
220   Rocky Mount BypassFranklin Countyfreeway     4.97
220   Between Rocky Mount Bypass and Southwest Expwy.  Franklin and Roanoke counties  non-limited-access   18.01
220Roy Webber Highway (Southwest Expressway)  City of Roanokefreeway     3.54
220I-581 / US-220City of Roanokefreeway     6.75
TOTAL   69.58

Summary for US-220 between N.C. border and I-81

DESIGNMILES      PCT.
Non-limited-access  41.36  59.46%
Expressway    1.35    1.94%
Freeway  26.87  38.60%
TOTAL  69.58100.00%
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on September 19, 2019, 02:39:18 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on September 19, 2019, 02:04:36 PM
Interesting conflict over what seemed like a relatively straightforward project:
https://loudounnow.com/2019/09/04/battle-brews-over-possibility-of-rt-9-closure/
QuoteHillsboro leaders are pushing ahead with a new plan to get their long-planned Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Calming Project under construction after the first round of bids came in too far over budget. But the proposal is coming under fire from out-of-state commuters who could be forced to find new routes to work.

Although town leaders were set to re-advertise for construction bids last Thursday, that action was delayed to allow the exploration of an alternative that could save millions of dollars while getting the work complete within a year–and two years earlier than expected.

To accomplish those goals, the Rt. 9 work zone in the town would have to be closed entirely to through traffic for nine to 11 months, starting as early as February. That would be expected to have the greatest impact on commuters from West Virginia and Maryland, responsible for about 16,000 of the 17,000 vehicles moving through the town each day.

That option was discussed with regional public safety leaders during an Aug. 28 briefing where Hillsboro Mayor Roger Vance and other project managers sought input on challenges that would come with the plan. Rather than a dialogue on the alternatives, the meeting sparked strong objections from Clarke County leaders, who issued a statement warning that diverting Rt. 9 traffic flowing from West Virginia and Maryland on to Rt. 7 and Rt. 340, as well as local roads, would have significant impact. A statement issued by the county warned that, "As a result of the additional traffic, more people will be injured or killed on these roads,"  and that "The cost of greatly increased traffic–EMS, law enforcement, and road maintenance—will be borne by the localities in which they occur."

Vance said he was surprised by the tone of the criticism and that elements of the statement were "a clear misrepresentation of the facts."  He said the town was "working closely with VDOT on alternatives to the maintenance of traffic plan to save time, ensure product quality, save taxpayer money and ensure a safer work zone."

While this project may alleviate slowdowns through Hillsboro, it does nothing to address the slowdowns occurring at the VA-287 light and the eastbound merge onto VA-7. In my opinion, a straight shot 4-lane bypass from just west of Hillsboro to VA-7 around the Round Hill area should've been built a long time ago. However, NIMBYism in Western Loudoun prevailed.

It's a traffic calming and pedestrian safety project. Ie, it's all about slowing down traffic, not improving flow. Loudoun County is strongly against any improvement to VA 9, and they love hurting those people who have moved into Jefferson County due to the outrageous cost of living in Loudoun.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 19, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 19, 2019, 02:39:18 PM
It's a traffic calming and pedestrian safety project. Ie, it's all about slowing down traffic, not improving flow. Loudoun County is strongly against any improvement to VA 9, and they love hurting those people who have moved into Jefferson County due to the outrageous cost of living in Loudoun.
Like the "traffic calming" projects on US-50 thru Aldie, Gilberts Corner and Middleburg.

Does nothing to improve traffic, just something to satisfy the demands of the RE/T groups.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 19, 2019, 04:43:45 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on September 19, 2019, 02:04:36 PM
In my opinion, a straight shot 4-lane bypass from just west of Hillsboro to VA-7 around the Round Hill area should've been built a long time ago.
Agreed. The 20 mile stretch through West Virginia is fully 4-lane limited-access, with half of it being a full freeway design. As soon as you enter Virginia, it's 13 miles of 2-lane windy roads. Ideally a relocation of VA-9 is needed built to freeway or at the minimum limited-access standards, and the interchange tie in with VA-7 Bypass needs to be redesigned to have a free-flowing movement. Finally, VA-7 needs to be upgraded to freeway standards from VA-7 Bypass to the Leesburg Bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on September 19, 2019, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 19, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 19, 2019, 02:39:18 PM
It's a traffic calming and pedestrian safety project. Ie, it's all about slowing down traffic, not improving flow. Loudoun County is strongly against any improvement to VA 9, and they love hurting those people who have moved into Jefferson County due to the outrageous cost of living in Loudoun.
Like the "traffic calming" projects on US-50 thru Aldie, Gilberts Corner and Middleburg.

Does nothing to improve traffic, just something to satisfy the demands of the RE/T groups.

Based off of my own experiences and google maps traffic, the US-50/US-15 roundabouts in particular seem to consistently back up during peak traffic periods.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 19, 2019, 09:12:16 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on September 19, 2019, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 19, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Like the "traffic calming" projects on US-50 thru Aldie, Gilberts Corner and Middleburg.
Does nothing to improve traffic, just something to satisfy the demands of the RE/T groups.
Based off of my own experiences and google maps traffic, the US-50/US-15 roundabouts in particular seem to consistently back up during peak traffic periods.

Undoubtedly that was the intent and desire of the radical environmentalist/transit groups.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on September 20, 2019, 11:33:42 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on September 19, 2019, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 19, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 19, 2019, 02:39:18 PM
It's a traffic calming and pedestrian safety project. Ie, it's all about slowing down traffic, not improving flow. Loudoun County is strongly against any improvement to VA 9, and they love hurting those people who have moved into Jefferson County due to the outrageous cost of living in Loudoun.
Like the "traffic calming" projects on US-50 thru Aldie, Gilberts Corner and Middleburg.

Does nothing to improve traffic, just something to satisfy the demands of the RE/T groups.

Based off of my own experiences and google maps traffic, the US-50/US-15 roundabouts in particular seem to consistently back up during peak traffic periods.
How does it compare to the traffic signals that were there?  I haven't been there in peak times.  But in other times that I've been there the roundabouts handle the traffic better than the traffic signals did.  I've only traveled on US 15 through there. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 20, 2019, 12:34:43 PM
Quote from: BrianP on September 20, 2019, 11:33:42 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on September 19, 2019, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 19, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 19, 2019, 02:39:18 PM
It's a traffic calming and pedestrian safety project. Ie, it's all about slowing down traffic, not improving flow. Loudoun County is strongly against any improvement to VA 9, and they love hurting those people who have moved into Jefferson County due to the outrageous cost of living in Loudoun.
Like the "traffic calming" projects on US-50 thru Aldie, Gilberts Corner and Middleburg.

Does nothing to improve traffic, just something to satisfy the demands of the RE/T groups.

Based off of my own experiences and google maps traffic, the US-50/US-15 roundabouts in particular seem to consistently back up during peak traffic periods.
How does it compare to the traffic signals that were there?  I haven't been there in peak times.  But in other times that I've been there the roundabouts handle the traffic better than the traffic signals did.  I've only traveled on US 15 through there. 

I haven't been that way much since the roundabouts opened but used to drive US 15 to Frederick often when it was still a stoplight.  US 15's traffic rarely backed up much but US 50 was often backed up in both directions from US 15.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 20, 2019, 01:05:13 PM
When I go through that area, I'm almost always on US-50 and I've found it to be considerably faster since the roundabouts opened, though I should note I have never been through there at rush hour.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on September 20, 2019, 02:28:42 PM
Quote from: BrianP on September 20, 2019, 11:33:42 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on September 19, 2019, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 19, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 19, 2019, 02:39:18 PM
It's a traffic calming and pedestrian safety project. Ie, it's all about slowing down traffic, not improving flow. Loudoun County is strongly against any improvement to VA 9, and they love hurting those people who have moved into Jefferson County due to the outrageous cost of living in Loudoun.
Like the "traffic calming" projects on US-50 thru Aldie, Gilberts Corner and Middleburg.

Does nothing to improve traffic, just something to satisfy the demands of the RE/T groups.

Based off of my own experiences and google maps traffic, the US-50/US-15 roundabouts in particular seem to consistently back up during peak traffic periods.
How does it compare to the traffic signals that were there?  I haven't been there in peak times.  But in other times that I've been there the roundabouts handle the traffic better than the traffic signals did.  I've only traveled on US 15 through there. 

To be clear, I am not saying that the intersection has gotten worse thanks to the roundabouts. In fact, quite the contrary on most occasions. However, as both Loudoun and Prince William County's populations continue to skyrocket over the next few decades, I would not be surprised if this "rural" intersection gets quickly overwhelmed as it has already shown signs of during rush hour. I expect traffic on US-15, in particular, to increase a lot as it is one of the few good routes connecting the two counties. Tons of growth is also occurring just east of the roundabouts off of US-50 in Lenah. In the end, I'm just not sure whether or not those traffic calming(slowing) roundabouts are the permanent solution there. A further improved intersection, widenings, or even a small interchange are all possible improvements IMO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 20, 2019, 05:09:00 PM
^ A concept for that area could be to construct a ~20 mile freeway between I-66 and Leesburg. This would not only provide a multi-lane alignment for US-15, it would also be the first piece of the Washington Western Bypass constructed in Virginia. It presumably could be constructed as 4-lanes initially designed to be expanded out to 6 lanes (i.e. 22-24 ft shoulders on overpasses, 60-70 ft median designed specifically to be built into, etc.) when and if it's ever linked to I-70 to the north and I-95 to the south and there's an influx of traffic.

A freeway could follow the general path of the Western Bypass alternative selected in the 90s, however it would likely to need to modified and potentially re-routed further west to avoid impacts to newer developments and the Leesburg area that did not exist when that study was completed. It would have to be close enough to US-15 at the same time however to actually serve as a US-15 Bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 20, 2019, 09:57:55 PM
New flyover ramp to I-264 east opens, relieving longtime bottlenecks (https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/vp-nw-flyover-ramp-opens-20190920-upc6qge25nhfllju4nqmhkc2ru-story.html)
QuoteThe backups were notorious.

On any given day or time, drivers on Interstate 64 west trying to turn onto I-264 to Virginia Beach often found themselves stuck in traffic as they jockeyed with the long line of drivers trying to exit at Newtown Road.

But a new flyover span that opened Friday should help cut down on the bottlenecks.

The 1,000-foot-long ramp, which took roughly three years to build, provides a new connection from I-64 west to I-264 east.

The first drivers to use it were allowed access at 12:45 a.m. Friday. About 100,000 vehicles are expected to travel on it each day.

"Opening this new ramp is a crucial step in improving one of the busiest interchanges in Hampton Roads,"  Chris Hall, a district engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation, said in a news release.

Department staff spent much of Friday monitoring traffic flow on the new feeder and have been pleased with how it's moving, said Jordan-Ashley Walker, a VDOT spokeswoman.

"Right now, so far, so good,"  Walker said. "They've been watching it, and as far as we know, the ramp has been doing what it was designed to do."

The department, however, asks drivers to use extra caution as they become accustomed to the new route.

"It can take people some time to get used to a new traffic pattern, so we ask that they slow down, take a little extra time and be mindful of their surroundings,"  Walker said.

VDOT had hoped to open the bridge last month, but had to delay after realizing more work was needed for it to pass inspection.

The ramp was part of the first phase of a project to improve the interchanges at I-264 and I-64. The rest of the initial phase – which includes finishing up construction on I-264 where the new ramp connects to the highway and building a sound wall along I-64 – should be done later this fall.

Construction on the second phase, which started last year, includes extending a newly built road from the interchange at Newtown Road to the one at Witchduck Road, and reconfiguring the south side of both of those interchanges.

Phase one cost $158.7 million, and the price tag for the second part is $194.5 million, Walker said.

Another significant aspect involves building a flyover across I-264 to connect Greenwich Road on the south side to Cleveland Street on the north. That span will reduce congestion at Witchduck Road, Walker said.

That work is scheduled to be finished by fall 2021.

Drone footage of the interchange can be found here - https://www.pilotonline.com/c26b057e-c85d-4f86-bf00-07f24ad942ae-132.html

Tried out the ramp earlier, roughly around 6 pm, and the impact of the ramp on traffic flow was immediately visible. There was still a backup on the flyover itself + the merge onto I-264, however there was no congestion or backups on I-64 itself which in the past would previously backup for at least a mile. Also, another nice feature is no longer having to deal with the Newtown Rd interchange, and the influx of traffic attempting to exit there.

The ramp opens up to 2-lanes though drops back down to 1 as it merges with I-264 East, then that lane drops off - likely the result of the congestion. However, that choke point should be eliminated once Phase 2 is completed in 2021, where there will be two continuous lanes onto I-264 East that will traverse for at least a mile where one of them will become exit only and the other will transition into the shoulder lane - another major capacity increase over the current - albeit temporary - configuration.

Some pictures from earlier -
(https://i.ibb.co/SPkLW5z/5-CD19559-0-D7-D-45-EE-BD09-D32980-F9045-F.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/TYJCdpX/2-B2-BE85-D-485-F-4-D50-A990-DD4994-A7-C043.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/5W9LTjV/C4648595-419-B-4-FE5-B5-C5-7-AA4-C64140-F0.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/X25p1NF/578189-B2-4140-4282-AE11-2-CA9-BF471-A28.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/t884QBV/E9875-E4-F-5-A84-49-D5-B932-53-CC658-D8-F25.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 20, 2019, 10:27:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 20, 2019, 09:57:55 PM
The ramp opens up to 2-lanes though drops back down to 1 as it merges with I-264 East, then that lane drops off - likely the result of the congestion. However, that choke point should be eliminated once Phase 2 is completed in 2021, where there will be two continuous lanes onto I-264 East that will traverse for at least a mile where one of them will become exit only and the other will transition into the shoulder lane - another major capacity increase over the current - albeit temporary - configuration.
I drove thru there today at about 2:00 pm.  Nicely done.  Turned around at Witchduck Road and headed back west, and observed the similar type project that was completed about 15 years ago on the westbound side, multi-lane CD roadway and the expansion of the northwest quadrant of the I-64/I-264 interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 20, 2019, 11:22:16 PM
VDOT Set to Embark on Its Largest Project Ever (https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/vdot-set-to-embark-on-its-largest-project-ever/45937)
QuoteThe I-64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (HRBT) in southeastern Virginia is at the beginning of an expansion project to help ease congestion in the area. The project, which comes with a price tag numbering in the billions, is the Virginia Department of Transportation's largest in history.

The job is designed to provide congestion relief, increase capacity and improve safety along a 10-mile corridor in addition to supporting emergency evacuation readiness, enhancing travel time reliability and updating transportation management systems. More than 100,000 vehicles per day use the current HRBT crossing during peak travel periods.

Work includes the addition of twin two-lane bored tunnels just west of the existing tunnel and the widening of the four-lane segments of the I-64 corridor in the cities of Hampton and Norfolk. According to Paula Miller, VDOT's communications manager of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Expansion Project, the diameter of each new tunnel will be approximately 45 ft. wide, creating the second largest tunnel opening for a tunnel boring machine in North America.

Miller stated that this is only the fourth bored roadway tunnel project in the United States. She noted that the $3.8 billion project is still in the design and permitting phase. It is a design-build project expected to begin major construction in the spring of 2020. VDOT awarded a contract to Warren George Inc. for early marine geotechnical investigations and laboratory analysis of soil samples, and Warren began conducting its field work in the fall of 2017.

"Currently, the 3.5-mile area consists of double two-lane immersed-tube tunnels on artificial islands, with trestle bridges to shore," Miller said. "These tunnels opened in 1957 [current westbound lanes] and 1976 [eastbound lanes] and are approximately 7,500 ft. long."

The VDOT project is enabled with funding from the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission. A comprehensive agreement between Commonwealth of Virginia and Hampton Roads Connector Partners was signed in April 2019.

According to Miller, the majority of the construction will occur from late 2020 to 2025. Completion is expected in November 2025, but financial incentives are in place for early completion beginning in April 2025.

Construction joint venture partners are Dragados USA, Vinci Construction, Flatiron Constructors and Dodin Campenon Bernard. Design joint venture partners are HDR and Mott MacDonald. Additionally, Dragados USA is the project executive and Jim Utterback is the project director of VDOT. The application for state and federal permits is currently being prepared.

Miller stated that construction of the custom tunnel boring machine (TBM) is expected to begin this spring. It will be assembled in a 65-foot pit on the south island of the HRBT and will measure the length of a football field. The TBM will launch from the south island, bore a tunnel to the north island, turn, and then bore a parallel tunnel back to the south island. Tunnel boring is expected to begin in February 2022 (Norfolk to Hampton first, then Hampton to Norfolk parallel tube) and will be completed by April 2024.

Two lanes of traffic (current capacity) will be maintained in both directions throughout construction. This means that the TBM will do its work as travelers continue to move throughout the area. This includes regular vehicles, cargo ships and Navy vessels.

The new tunnels will be approximately 50 ft. deeper than the current tunnels and will be 8,000 ft. each in length. The twin two-lane tunnels will carry all eastbound traffic. The existing eastbound tunnel and current westbound tunnel will accommodate all westbound traffic upon project completion.

Landside widening of I-64 also will occur from Settlers Landing Road in Hampton to I-564 in Norfolk. One mile of I-64 widening is located in Hampton, and 4 miles of I-64 widening is located in Norfolk. Widening will go from four lanes to six lanes, plus a part-time drivable shoulder lane in each direction. Miller reported that one of the technical challenges of the project is the limited right-of-way for the roadway and bridges.

Throughout construction, a total of 27 bridge structures are to be replaced or rebuilt (widened).

DBE and SWaM firms will play an important role in the expansion work. The DBE goal for the project is 12 percent and the SWaM goal is 20 percent. Once the project is under way, time-lapse cameras will capture the construction progress.

Miller noted that manpower for the project will include 1,200 to 1,500 craft labor force at project peak. Besides the TBM, equipment used on the job will include a 600-ton crane to offload TBM equipment, more than 30 other cranes, over 20 barges and more than 10 tugboats.

HDR and Mott MacDonald are subcontractors for project design and permitting work. Other contractors are still under review and in the procurement process. Key stakeholders are the U.S. Navy (Naval Station Norfolk), U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, City of Norfolk, City of Hampton and various utilities.

A total of 600,000 cu. yds. of concrete will be used during construction and 200,000 cu. yds. of earth will be moved during the roadway widening portion of project. A total of 1.2 million cu. yds. of earth will be moved during the tunnel boring portion of the project. Approximately 600,000 cu. yds. of earth will be imported to expand existing islands.

"The project will create an estimated 28,000 new jobs over the life of the project and will bolster the competitiveness of the Hampton Roads region with $4.6 billion in investments," Miller stated.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 20, 2019, 11:43:55 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 20, 2019, 11:22:16 PM
QuoteMiller stated that this is only the fourth bored roadway tunnel project in the United States.
Referring to underwater tunnels only?  I believe that all or nearly all mountain tunnels are bored.

Quote
QuoteThe new tunnels will be approximately 50 ft. deeper than the current tunnels and will be 8,000 ft. each in length. The twin two-lane tunnels will carry all eastbound traffic. The existing eastbound tunnel and current westbound tunnel will accommodate all westbound traffic upon project completion.
Deeper and longer.  Why 50 feet deeper?  Any desire for a deeper shipping channel would be limited by the existing tunnels, and unless they want to replace and remove those tunnels (and that would be fantastically expensive) then they will rule the depth of the channel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 21, 2019, 12:15:05 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2019, 10:27:10 PM
observed the similar type project that was completed about 15 years ago on the westbound side, multi-lane CD roadway and the expansion of the northwest quadrant of the I-64/I-264 interchange.
That project was completed sometime in the 1980s, over 30 years ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 21, 2019, 06:05:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2019, 11:43:55 PM
Deeper and longer.  Why 50 feet deeper?  Any desire for a deeper shipping channel would be limited by the existing tunnels, and unless they want to replace and remove those tunnels (and that would be fantastically expensive) then they will rule the depth of the channel.

Needed to go deeper in order to have enough bedrock to bore through.  As you've well-documented, the existing tunnels were not bored but were sunk into place into a shallow trench dug into the water bottom.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 21, 2019, 06:18:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 21, 2019, 06:05:01 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2019, 11:43:55 PM
Deeper and longer.  Why 50 feet deeper?  Any desire for a deeper shipping channel would be limited by the existing tunnels, and unless they want to replace and remove those tunnels (and that would be fantastically expensive) then they will rule the depth of the channel.
Needed to go deeper in order to have enough bedrock to bore through.  As you've well-documented, the existing tunnels were not bored but were sunk into place into a shallow trench dug into the water bottom.
Are they planning to go thru bedrock or sandy clay soils?

Although the immersed-tube method was used to construct all ten of Hampton Roads'
existing crossings — from the original Downtown Tunnel in 1952 to the new Midtown
Tunnel in 2016 — recent technology advances have now made bored tunnels feasible in
the region's soft soils.

https://www.constructionglobal.com/infrastructure/boring-machines-called-33bn-virginia-infrastructure-project
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 21, 2019, 06:52:56 PM
Either or.  Bottom line is they need the additional depth below the water bottom for boring.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 21, 2019, 10:13:48 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 21, 2019, 06:52:56 PM
Either or.  Bottom line is they need the additional depth below the water bottom for boring.
I don't recall that being cited as an issue on the Thimble Shoal Tunnel project, but they may have different soils there.

In any event, that could be a tradeoff in the decision between immersed tube and bored tunnel methods.  Immersed tube method needs much higher amounts of excavation and such excavation involves the ground surface with its environmental impacts, while the bored tunnel method does not disrupt the ground surface.

If a bored tunnel needs to go deeper, then that would make the tunnel longer unless the approach grades were made steeper. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Vagator on September 22, 2019, 12:48:47 PM
[url]https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-toll-lanes-20190922-5mjp7xosx5ghnjtns3wq77r3iy-story.html/url]

QuoteState and regional officials are proposing a 45-mile network of toll lanes for drivers who want to avoid traffic jams on Interstate 64. It would stretch all the way from the Jefferson Avenue exit in Newport News to the end of the road at Bowers Hill in Chesapeake.

It's a major expansion of earlier proposals for HOT (or high occupancy/toll) lanes, which charge variable tolls to solo drivers while allowing those with passengers to travel free. A plan discussed earlier this year called for about 25 miles of pay lanes, beginning in Hampton instead of Newport News.

The aim is to have the system in place by 2025, with the opening of the additional Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel tubes and causeways carrying a total of four lanes.

HOT lanes are already operating on the reversible lanes in Norfolk between I-564 and I-264 and are planned for some of the new HRBT lanes and approaches.

The new approach would:

block off a lane between Jefferson Avenue and Mercury Boulevard on the Peninsula with bollards, and install electronic toll devices, creating an HOT lane on this roughly eight-mile portion of the highway;
widen the highway between Mercury Boulevard and Rip Rap Road in Hampton to create a second HOT lane next to the one that starts at Jefferson Avenue. There would be no bollards on this stretch, to allow drivers to exit at I-664 or to enter the HOT lanes from I-664. This and the extension west to Jefferson Avenue represent a major change from earlier plans and came in response to safety concerns raised by Hampton Mayor Donnie Tuck, state and regional officials said;
create what transportation officials are calling a pipe – HOT lanes separated by bollards from the rest of the highway – feeding directly into one of the two new tunnel tubes between Rip Rap and the HRBT;
convert the left-side shoulder lanes between I-564 and I-264 to handle HOT traffic at rush hour, with the eastbound HOT shoulder lane open when the existing, reversible HOT lanes are open to westbound traffic, and the westbound shoulder lane opened when the reversible lanes are handling eastbound traffic;
convert the free lanes currently reserved for cars with two or more passengers between I-264 and I-464 in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake to HOT lanes;
add an HOT lane to the stretch of I-64 between I-464 and Bowers Hill.
VDOT's analysis of future peak travel speeds if the new system is in place by 2025 show HOT lanes mostly operating at average speeds of 55 to 60 mph, except for some slowdowns from Northampton Boulevard to I-264 and from Indian River Road to Greenbrier Parkway in the evening. There would be more severe slowdowns on adjacent free lanes on those stretches, too.

Those free lanes should also generally move at 55 to 60 – even on the approaches to the HRBT – although the free lanes from I-264 to I-464 will slow to average speeds in the teens and 20s, the analyses show.

Other slowdowns on free lanes would occur in the evening traveling from J. Clyde Morris Boulevard to Victory Boulevard on the Peninsula, and around the George Washington Highway exit in Chesapeake in the morning.

VDOT expects tie-ups will continue around Bowers Hill, as traffic weaves between the connections to I-664, I-264, U.S. 460 and U.S. 58.

The generally free flows elsewhere may not continue forever – analyses by the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization shows most of the free lanes will slide back to congested conditions in 2040, if traffic grows at the expected pace.

The staff analysis also showed adding HOT lanes would not bring more drivers on to Hampton city streets in the hopes of avoiding both traffic jams and paying for the HOT lanes.

And even in 2040, the HOT lanes should continue to flow fairly easily, HRTPO staff project.

That's basically built in, since the variable tolls charged to solo drivers are designed to discourage people from opting for HOT lanes when speeds on them slow to 45 miles an hour.

Vehicles with two or more passengers would need to have a transponder that allows them to signal when they are entitled to travel free on HOT lanes.

Tuck, the Hampton mayor, said he was pleased by the new plan, which addresses his worries about safety from weaving traffic around the LaSalle Avenue exit that he thought would occur under VDOT's original suggestion to start the HOT lanes there.

And Commonwealth Transportation Board member W. Sheppard Miller III, a business owner from Norfolk, said he was pleased that the new plan would convert only small stretch of currently free lanes to HOT traffic, referring to the stretch around LaSalle, where the planned widening of the highway would allow two HOT and two free lanes where traffic now moves on three lanes.

The cost of that road widening, as well as work to ensure smooth traffic flow between I-564 and I-264, still has to be decided. Other unanswered questions include whether to charge HOT tolls to solo drivers through the HRBT and whether the trigger for free travel on HOT lanes should be two or three people to a car.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 01:25:38 PM
I was reviewing the presentations given at the HRTPO meeting on Sept. 19th, and they had some interesting analysis on this whole "HO/T network".

Three things that stood out that continue to go against this whole "HO/T network" -


My overall thoughts is that this "HO/T network" is not really going to alleviate traffic congestion issues in the Hampton Roads region, and in some areas will make it worse. The only benefit of the HO/T lane scenario over the GP lane scenario is that you have at least one lane guaranteed to be moving at free-flowing speeds. But looking at the overall operation and LOS of each roadway, it does not make an improvement, or makes it worse such as the HRBT approach and the HRB corridor. And to add to that, HO/T lanes don't seem to be a popular thing here as they are in areas such as Northern Virginia. I think these projects need to be more focused at adding much-needed general purpose capacity, and adding 1 HOV (or HO/T) lane in each direction where there's at least 3 or more GP lanes each way, rather than making HO/T the solution for every project. For instance, the segment around the I-464 / I-64 interchange has a poor LOS and obviously the HO/T lanes could divert some of this traffic. But a way to improve the LOS of all traffic could be to entirely reconstruct the substandard and poorly designed interchange and allow traffic to move faster thru it, eliminating the weaving movements which cause the biggest issues, the double lane drop between the VA-168 Bus and I-464 interchange, etc. And the biggest thing I would oppose is the proposed conversion of an existing free lane in Hampton to a HO/T lane - no existing general purpose lane should be converted simply to satisfy this "network" - and as the LOS maps show, would also make the congestion worse in this area. Lastly, I think the HRTPO needs to focus on studying the segment between Indian River Rd and I-564, which is a segment that has a number of issues, poor interchange designs for today's traffic needs, the drop to only 2 lanes heading west by I-264, etc. - as far as I'm aware, all they want to do is widen the left shoulder and add a "HO/T shoulder" to allow bi-directional travel - again, simply to satisfy this "HO/T network" and not look at the big picture.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/091919%2005%20HRTPO%20Staff%20-%20I-64%20Express%20Lanes%20Concept%202040%20Analysis.pdf

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/091919%2005%20VDOT%20Staff%20-%20HAMPTON%20ROADS%20REGIONAL%20NETWORK%20OPERATIONAL%20STUDY%20%E2%80%93%20PRELIMINARY%20RESULTS.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 01:25:38 PM
My overall thoughts is that this "HO/T network" is not really going to alleviate traffic congestion issues in the Hampton Roads region, and in some areas will make it worse. The only benefit of the HO/T lane scenario over the GP lane scenario is that you have at least one lane guaranteed to be moving at free-flowing speeds. But looking at the overall operation and LOS of each roadway, it does not make an improvement, or makes it worse such as the HRBT approach and the HRB corridor.
Since the HOT lane can be managed up to about 90% of capacity and kept free-flowing, you would only gain about 10% and only on that one lane if it became general purpose.

Or are you suggesting that they be HOV instead of HOT?  The issue there in the H.R. region is that they operate far below capacity, and that is the reason why the move to allow sub-HOV vehicles to 'buy into' the lane.

The long-term goal of HOV was to promote car-pooling and van-pooling and express transit bus service.  So there was the goal of ultimately having one HOV lane each way on I-64 between Williamsburg and Bowers Hill, and one HOV lane each way on I-264 between downtown Norfolk and the Virginia Beach oceanfront.

I consider those to be very worthwhile goals, and that eliminating all managed lane restrictions would cancel those goals.

The goal to "alleviate traffic congestion issues"  is more than just the tactical look at the LOS on a freeway at certain hours of the day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 02:01:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 01:55:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 01:25:38 PM
My overall thoughts is that this "HO/T network" is not really going to alleviate traffic congestion issues in the Hampton Roads region, and in some areas will make it worse. The only benefit of the HO/T lane scenario over the GP lane scenario is that you have at least one lane guaranteed to be moving at free-flowing speeds. But looking at the overall operation and LOS of each roadway, it does not make an improvement, or makes it worse such as the HRBT approach and the HRB corridor.
Since the HOT lane can be managed up to about 90% of capacity and kept free-flowing, you would only gain about 10% and only on that one lane if it became general purpose.

Or are you suggesting that they be HOV instead of HOT?  The issue there in the H.R. region is that they operate far below capacity, and that is the reason why the move to allow sub-HOV vehicles to 'buy into' the lane.

The long-term goal of HOV was to promote car-pooling and van-pooling and express transit bus service.  So there was the goal of ultimately having one HOV lane each way on I-64 between Williamsburg and Bowers Hill, and one HOV lane each way on I-264 between downtown Norfolk and the Virginia Beach oceanfront.

I consider those to be very worthwhile goals, and that eliminating all managed lane restrictions would cancel those goals.

The goal to "alleviate traffic congestion issues"  is more than just the tactical look at the LOS on a freeway at certain hours of the day.
Honestly, I really don't have any issues with the current HOV setup, and I wish they'd keep building out that goal. But over the past couple of years, there has been this sudden push to have HO/T lanes encompassing the entire region, and all of the long-proposed expansions, like the HRB and HRBT that are now getting underway, have been switched over the past few years from 3 GP + 1 HOV to 2 GP + 2 HO/T, essentially adding only HO/T capacity, no general purpose capacity.

I'm not fully against the HO/T lanes either, but I'm against the whole conversion to them now eliminating what would have been a GP lane addition, alongside -one- HOV lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 02:13:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 02:01:35 PM
Honestly, I really don't have any issues with the current HOV setup, and I wish they'd keep building out that goal. But over the past couple of years, there has been this sudden push to have HO/T lanes encompassing the entire region, and all of the long-proposed expansions, like the HRB and HRBT that are now getting underway, have been switched over the past few years from 3 GP + 1 HOV to 2 GP + 2 HO/T, essentially adding only HO/T capacity, no general purpose capacity.
I'm not fully against the HO/T lanes either, but I'm against the whole conversion to them now eliminating what would have been a GP lane addition, alongside -one- HOV lane.
I've expressed my skepticism before about whether any H.R. highway will actually be painted for 2 HOT lanes each way.

Again, unlike a number of other regions in the country, the H.R. HOV lanes carried traffic far below lane capacity, and thus the initiative to allow sub-HOV to purchase access.   A lot of people complained about lanes that were being underutilized.   And that was only HOV-2 to boot.

That is all that a HOT lane is, an HOV lane that allow sub-HOV to purchase access up to a limit that keeps things free-flowing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 02:31:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 02:13:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 02:01:35 PM
Honestly, I really don't have any issues with the current HOV setup, and I wish they'd keep building out that goal. But over the past couple of years, there has been this sudden push to have HO/T lanes encompassing the entire region, and all of the long-proposed expansions, like the HRB and HRBT that are now getting underway, have been switched over the past few years from 3 GP + 1 HOV to 2 GP + 2 HO/T, essentially adding only HO/T capacity, no general purpose capacity.
I'm not fully against the HO/T lanes either, but I'm against the whole conversion to them now eliminating what would have been a GP lane addition, alongside -one- HOV lane.
I've expressed my skepticism before about whether any H.R. highway will actually be painted for 2 HOT lanes each way.

Again, unlike a number of other regions in the country, the H.R. HOV lanes carried traffic far below lane capacity, and thus the initiative to allow sub-HOV to purchase access.   A lot of people complained about lanes that were being underutilized.   And that was only HOV-2 to boot.

That is all that a HOT lane is, an HOV lane that allow sub-HOV to purchase access up to a limit that keeps things free-flowing.
That's really my biggest thing - having 2 HO/T lanes each way, and only 2 general purpose lanes. Generally, it doesn't bother me having 3 GP + 1 HO/T, as that's the current setup of majority of the other facilities, just HOV instead. And I've said it before - I disagree with the currently 2 + 1 that's being built in the Phase #1 HRB project - should be 3 GP lanes from implementation, then Phase #2 can add -one- HO/T lane. A lot of highways in this area have had similar treatment - built to 3 GP lanes each way initially, then 1 HOV lane each way added later.

Another thing, and this may seem minor, but it's a nice feature - being able to freely enter & leave the HOV lane. It's currently striped as a regular lane, simply with a diamond and restricted only during peak hours and open to all traffic at other times. The HO/T implementation would put barriers up and restrict traffic to either the HO/T lane or general purpose lane and only be able to exit/enter at the major junctions. It'd be nice if they could provide egress / ingress locations in areas between, or at least egress locations. And if they're doing the HO/T lanes, they ought to build some direct connectors at the major junctions such as Bowers Hill and Oak Grove, along with the general purpose interchange expansions. The current proposal is to simply allow traffic to dump into the left lane and make their way all the way to the right fighting GP traffic to exit. If you're paying a toll, you ought to have a seamless connection bypassing the interchange backups. A connection from VA-168 / US-17 to the I-64 HO/T lanes in both directions, and vice versa, plus from the I-64 HO/T lanes (heading south/west) to I-264 East, and vice versa.

I say if they do these they ought to at least post a 65 mph speed limit on the restricted lane, similar to how the I-495 HO/T lanes are posted at 65 mph (only difference is it's 2 lanes instead of 1). From ~Indian River westward, they ought to post at 65 mph speed limit on all the lanes, and maybe even 70 mph on the HO/T lane. The design speed for the I-64 project from VA-168 Business to Bowers Hill is 70 mph, so it reasonable could work. From Indian River to VA-168 Business, it's a straight shot and most people already do at least 70 mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on September 22, 2019, 05:42:33 PM
I remain convinced that HOT are only intended to provide a free flowing option, not provide general congestion relief. That's why they are priced to keep trafffic moving at certain speeds. Even with changes to I-66 basic speed requirements, I think I saw a charge of $46 listed this past week.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 06:09:32 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 22, 2019, 05:42:33 PM
I remain convinced that HOT are only intended to provide a free flowing option, not provide general congestion relief. That's why they are priced to keep trafffic moving at certain speeds. Even with changes to I-66 basic speed requirements, I think I saw a charge of $46 listed this past week.
That's pretty much it. That's why I have the issues that I do about them coming to Hampton Roads. What were supposed to be general purpose relief projects proposed 20 years are now being implemented as HO/T projects.

Any new lanes that are added as a result of these projects will be tolled capacity, when they were originally intended to be general purpose capacity with one HOV lane once it got to 8 lanes (3 GP + 1 HOV). And what's more of an annoyance is the fact that the increased taxes we've (the Hampton Roads district upon creation of the HRTAC) been paying since 2013 are fully funding these lanes, and we should not have to pay to lanes we've already paid for. The High Rise Bridge project widening to 6-lanes is 100% funded via traditional funding, and all lanes should be free. If Phase #2 which would bring it up to 8 lanes has some toll revenue funding involved, then make one of the lanes HO/T, and 3 free, not 2 of them. The HRBT expansion has $345 million that is to be paid back by the toll revenue, so that is -somewhat- understandable, but even then it should only be 3 GP + 1 HO/T not the proposed 2 GP + 2 HO/T. Yes, the tunnel would have a weird split in this setup, but it would only be for the tunnel portion, and lane changing shouldn't be an issue as you're already restricted to the lane you're in on the existing setup. Where the HO/T lane and GP lane share a tunnel, there's adequate room for a 2 ft divider between the lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 08:27:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 06:09:32 PM
That's pretty much it. That's why I have the issues that I do about them coming to Hampton Roads. What were supposed to be general purpose relief projects proposed 20 years are now being implemented as HO/T projects.
No, they were planned as HOV projects for about 20 years, and some were implemented as such in the early 1990s (I-64 reversible and I-564).

As I said the H.R. area HOV lanes were very underused, so the HOT concept can allow sub-HOV vehicles to pay and allow the use of about 90% of the capacity of the lane and cap it at a level to keep it free flowing.

So either have very underused HOV lanes or make them GP and then they will be subject to being bogged down like the rest of the GP lanes, so no free flowing lane for car pools, van pools and express buses, thereby discouraging their use.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 09:20:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 08:27:29 PM
No, they were planned as HOV projects for about 20 years, and some were implemented as such in the early 1990s (I-64 reversible and I-564).
I-64 between I-564 and I-664, and I-64 between I-464 and I-664 were 4-lane interstate highways at the time, and remain that way today. At that time, they had planned to add one general purpose lane and one HOV lane in each direction. That would have brought it up to 8 lanes total, with 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HOV lane each way.

After this "HO/T network" concept has been implemented over the past few years, the new concept has been to make all new capacity HO/T. That means instead of having 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HOV (or HO/T) lane each way, you now only have 2 general purpose lanes and 2 HO/T lanes each way. The HO/T network concept has eliminated the third general purpose lane, instead making it a second HO/T lane.

This is evident on the current expansion projects now underway between I-664 & I-464 and I-264 & I-664, where the ultimate builds include that 2 general purpose lanes and 2 HO/T lanes each way typical section.

Overall, if they want to make the HOV lanes or previously-planned HOV lanes into HO/T, whatever, but they are now making previously-planned general purpose lanes, into HO/T as well. That's the root of my complaints.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 09:45:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 09:20:53 PM
That means instead of having 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HOV (or HO/T) lane each way, you now only have 2 general purpose lanes and 2 HO/T lanes each way.

As I have said before, I don't believe that any H.R. highway will be painted with 2 HOT lanes each way, notwithstanding any current talk about it.

BTW, I-64 was built with 6 lanes (3 each way) between I-564 and I-264 east.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 09:48:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 09:45:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 09:20:53 PM
That means instead of having 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HOV (or HO/T) lane each way, you now only have 2 general purpose lanes and 2 HO/T lanes each way.

As I have said before, I don't believe that any H.R. highway will be painted with 2 HOT lanes each way, notwithstanding any current talk about it.
What about the HRBT project? 2 HO/T lanes + 2 GP is what is being built. They're even taking the existing 3 general purpose lane segment in Hampton and converting it to 2 GP + 2 HO/T, taking away an existing general purpose lane to satisfy this network. The ultimate build for the HRB is 2 GP + 2 HO/T from documents I've seen, and the lane being built now is already one of those HO/T lanes instead of a general purpose lane. The -one- HO/T lane should be added in Phase #2, not now, if it's indeed only planned for 1 HO/T + 3 GP.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:02:40 PM
Working on a table of 4-lane Arterial Highways (now in the NHS) in Virginia, segment by segment.  Using Google Maps and other websites for the length data.  It is estimable by segment at least to the tenth mile and pretty near if not at the hundredth of a mile.

I will post the US-58 segment which has had a lot of discussion.

Better formatting may be available thru F11 / Full Screen.

US-58 between I-95 and I-664

ROUTE    SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONCOUNTYDESIGNMILES
58 Emporia Bypass City of Emporiaexpressway     2.94
58 between Emporia Bypass and Courtland Bypass Greensville and Southampton countiesnon-limited-access   22.80
58 Courtland Bypass Southampton Countyfreeway     4.03
58 between Courtland Bypass and Franklin Bypass Southampton Countynon-limited-access     1.83
58Franklin Bypass Southampton County and City of Suffolk
freeway     9.73
58between Franklin Bypass and Holland Bypass City of Suffolknon-limited-access     4.22
58Holland Bypass City of Suffolkfreeway     1.19
58between Holland Bypass and Suffolk Bypass City of Suffolknon-limited-access     8.21
58Suffolk Bypass City of Suffolkfreeway     9.02
58between Suffolk Bypass and Snowden St. Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeakeexpressway     4.22
58between Snowden St. and I-664 City of Chesapeakefreeway     1.37
TOTAL   69.56

Summary for US-58 between I-95 and I-664

DESIGNMILES      PCT.
Non-limited-access  37.06  53.28%
Expressway    7.16  10.29%
Freeway  25.34  36.43%
TOTAL  69.56100.00%
Used Bus. US-58 western intersection for west end of Franklin Bypass, and VA-272 intersection for east end of the bypass
Used landfill intersection as east end of Suffolk Bypass
Used Snowden St. (airport access) as beginning of freeway to east

In rounded figures, 47% of the length is on limited access right-of-way, and 36% of the length is freeway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:10:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 09:48:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 09:45:45 PM
As I have said before, I don't believe that any H.R. highway will be painted with 2 HOT lanes each way, notwithstanding any current talk about it.
What about the HRBT project? 2 HO/T lanes + 2 GP is what is being built. They're even taking the existing 3 general purpose lane segment in Hampton and converting it to 2 GP + 2 HO/T,
The I-64 highway in Hampton is not being widened beyond the current 6 lanes.  Maybe sometime in the future but not in this project.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 09:48:54 PM
taking away an existing general purpose lane to satisfy this network. The ultimate build for the HRB is 2 GP + 2 HO/T from documents I've seen, and the lane being built now is already one of those HO/T lanes instead of a general purpose lane. The -one- HO/T lane should be added in Phase #2, not now, if it's indeed only planned for 1 HO/T + 3 GP.
That may be a special case, as an 8-lane tunnel will be 4 separate 2-lane bores, so there may be complications with having one managed and one unmanaged lane in the same tube.

Nevertheless, those lanes are fungible, there is nothing built-in as to how they are managed in the future (GP or HOV or HOT).  Just a matter of changing the signs and pavement markings.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 10:11:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:02:40 PM
58between Suffolk Bypass and Snowden St. Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeakeexpressway     4.22

limited access right-of-way
While the segment between Suffolk and I-664 has good access control and limited connections, it still does have a few private driveways, and as far as I'm aware, no limited-access fencing actually exists.

Any upgrade project along that segment as previously proposed would require acquiring limited-access right of way along the entire corridor, and providing additional frontage roads where needed, or buying a few properties outright.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 10:19:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:10:52 PM
The I-64 highway in Hampton is not being widened beyond the current 6 lanes.  Maybe sometime in the future but not in this project.
The current project calls for converting the inside 3rd general purpose lane into a HO/T lane, and hardening the inside shoulder and making it a part-time HO/T lane during rush hour. This is the plan along the entire corridor between I-664 and I-564. During rush hour, the typical section would be 2 GP + 2 HO/T in each direction, including the segment thru Hampton.

Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:10:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 09:48:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 09:45:45 PM
As I have said before, I don't believe that any H.R. highway will be painted with 2 HOT lanes each way, notwithstanding any current talk about it.
What about the HRBT project? 2 HO/T lanes + 2 GP is what is being built. They're even taking the existing 3 general purpose lane segment in Hampton and converting it to 2 GP + 2 HO/T,
The I-64 highway in Hampton is not being widened beyond the current 6 lanes.  Maybe sometime in the future but not in this project.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 09:48:54 PM
taking away an existing general purpose lane to satisfy this network. The ultimate build for the HRB is 2 GP + 2 HO/T from documents I've seen, and the lane being built now is already one of those HO/T lanes instead of a general purpose lane. The -one- HO/T lane should be added in Phase #2, not now, if it's indeed only planned for 1 HO/T + 3 GP.
That may be a special case, as an 8-lane tunnel will be 4 separate 2-lane bores, so there may be complications with having one managed and one unmanaged lane in the same tube.
I was referring to the High Rise Bridge corridor in this case, saying how the under construction Phase #1 project should initially have 6 general purpose lanes (3 each way) striped, and no HO/T lanes. A fourth lane, designated as a HO/T lane, could be added in Phase #2, one in each direction, resulting in a total cross section of 3 GP + 1 HO/T. My opinion on how it should be anyways.

But regarding the tunnel, it could be possible. If you expanded the existing solid line that divides the lanes (no lane changes in the tunnel are permitted), you could create a ~2 ft buffer between the lanes and put the tubular barriers up. This may involve reducing the HO/T lane to 11 ft, though we've had that discussion in the past how it can work on a HO/T lane that prohibits trucks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:20:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 10:11:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:02:40 PM
58between Suffolk Bypass and Snowden St. Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeakeexpressway     4.22
limited access right-of-way
While the segment between Suffolk and I-664 has good access control and limited connections, it still does have a few private driveways, and as far as I'm aware, no limited-access fencing actually exists.
Any upgrade project along that segment as previously proposed would require acquiring limited-access right of way along the entire corridor, and providing additional frontage roads where needed, or buying a few properties outright.
I determined 5 at-grade intersections, and the railroad on the south side is a de facto limited access line, and much of the length on the north side has a service road which functions like a limited access line.

Did there use to be a traffic signal at Snowden Street?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:26:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 10:19:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:10:52 PM
The I-64 highway in Hampton is not being widened beyond the current 6 lanes.  Maybe sometime in the future but not in this project.
The current project calls for converting the inside 3rd general purpose lane into a HO/T lane, and hardening the inside shoulder and making it a part-time HO/T lane during rush hour. This is the plan along the entire corridor between I-664 and I-564. During rush hour, the typical section would be 2 GP + 2 HO/T in each direction, including the segment thru Hampton.
Nothing is going to change between I-664 and Mallory Street--
http://www.hrbtexpansion.org/learn_more/maps.asp

The "drivable shoulder" will IME be used for emergency use during incidents and a stealth future lane for when or if a shoulder is built in the future.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 10:38:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:20:39 PM
I determined 5 at-grade intersections, and the railroad on the south side is a de facto limited access line, and much of the length on the north side has a service road which functions like a limited access line.
8 private driveway connections -
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7689168,-76.4693653,3a,75y,350.32h,85.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snITUt8JqdH_YB4fmpAT-og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7722097,-76.4577379,3a,75y,157.67h,79.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9nSclmzdMYE7CKbeiWjW9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.77253,-76.4579128,3a,75y,348.85h,82.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0F6G_zjHK9uC8iNr0Z-GWQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7748245,-76.4506016,3a,75y,338.32h,83.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5z9syat0fmB_MIipM6UiYg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7761787,-76.4463161,3a,75y,340.38h,87.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSLOJuZfji6imt0cvGugktA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7761473,-76.4453472,3a,75y,170.33h,81.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sobNVBTvhOiskePE4_bKcmg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.778834,-76.4382443,3a,75y,339.04h,80.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shNOY9C3kDrz35E8wQgJAdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

Now, the segment between Snowden St and I-664 does indeed have limited-access fencing, it's quite visible east of Snowden St, but non-existent west of it.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7785868,-76.4377386,3a,37.5y,92.89h,87.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svK-d30K0hijVuF2_RwFitQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:20:39 PM
Did there use to be a traffic signal at Snowden Street?
Not as far as I've been aware of. It's a minor frontage road connection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 10:46:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:26:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 10:19:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:10:52 PM
The I-64 highway in Hampton is not being widened beyond the current 6 lanes.  Maybe sometime in the future but not in this project.
The current project calls for converting the inside 3rd general purpose lane into a HO/T lane, and hardening the inside shoulder and making it a part-time HO/T lane during rush hour. This is the plan along the entire corridor between I-664 and I-564. During rush hour, the typical section would be 2 GP + 2 HO/T in each direction, including the segment thru Hampton.
Nothing is going to change between I-664 and Mallory Street--
http://www.hrbtexpansion.org/learn_more/maps.asp

The "drivable shoulder" will IME be used for emergency use during incidents and a stealth future lane for when or if a shoulder is built in the future.
That's an outdated map. As apparent by now, they like to keep changing the plans as new ideas arise.

The latest proposal was presented at the HRTPO meeting on Thursday regarding the whole "HO/T network"..

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/091919%2005%20VDOT%20Staff%20-%20HAMPTON%20ROADS%20REGIONAL%20NETWORK%20OPERATIONAL%20STUDY%20%E2%80%93%20PRELIMINARY%20RESULTS.pdf

Pages 4 and 5.

The typical section between Mercury Blvd and LaSalle Ave is 2 GP + 1 HO/T in each direction, then LaSalle to the HRBT is 2 GP + 1 HO/T + Part-Time 1 HO/T, using a hardened left shoulder, in each direction.

It was also mentioned by Hampton's Mayor and a CTB Member in a news article posted today - https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-toll-lanes-20190922-5mjp7xosx5ghnjtns3wq77r3iy-story.html

QuoteTuck, the Hampton mayor, said he was pleased by the new plan, which addresses his worries about safety from weaving traffic around the LaSalle Avenue exit that he thought would occur under VDOT's original suggestion to start the HOT lanes there.

And Commonwealth Transportation Board member W. Sheppard Miller III, a business owner from Norfolk, said he was pleased that the new plan would convert only small stretch of currently free lanes to HOT traffic, referring to the stretch around LaSalle, where the planned widening of the highway would allow two HOT and two free lanes where traffic now moves on three lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 11:40:18 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 10:46:37 PM
The typical section between Mercury Blvd and LaSalle Ave is 2 GP + 1 HO/T in each direction, then LaSalle to the HRBT is 2 GP + 1 HO/T + Part-Time 1 HO/T, using a hardened left shoulder, in each direction.

A minimum of only 3 lanes each way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 11:56:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 11:40:18 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 10:46:37 PM
The typical section between Mercury Blvd and LaSalle Ave is 2 GP + 1 HO/T in each direction, then LaSalle to the HRBT is 2 GP + 1 HO/T + Part-Time 1 HO/T, using a hardened left shoulder, in each direction.

A minimum of only 3 lanes each way.
That section already has 3 general purpose lanes in each direction, and this would take away one of the general purpose lanes currently available to motorists for free 24/7.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 23, 2019, 09:03:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 22, 2019, 10:38:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 22, 2019, 10:20:39 PM
I determined 5 at-grade intersections, and the railroad on the south side is a de facto limited access line, and much of the length on the north side has a service road which functions like a limited access line.
8 private driveway connections -
Again, I said "de facto", which doesn't mean that it has to be a legal fact.  Only 2 of them front directly onto the highway, and the one at the convenience store could easily be eliminated by enlarging the entrance on the connecting road.

A railroad line is a transportation facility that allows no trespassing, and when it runs alongside a highway with a conjoined right-of-way you have a de facto limited access line.  In only two places the railroad allowed a road crossing that goes to a private property.

A service road with a conjoined right-of-way with a highway operates in similar fashion, no private lands front on the highway.  Therefore those roads you listed connect the highway to the service road and the service road connects to the private entrance.

This is the Dismal Swamp.  I would surmise that those private lands that you cited were connected to the highway long before NEPA of 1969, and that environmental regulations since then have prevented any other private development in the Dismal Swamp, so there won't be anymore such connections to the highway.

You can get into legal arguments about what I said, and split hairs, and I understand there are different opinions.  But given the fixed and very limited nature of access there I am going to track it as an expressway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 24, 2019, 05:48:52 PM
QuoteMr. Robert Crum, HRTPO Executive Director, stated that following discussion at the July 18, 2019 HRTPO Board meeting, HRTPO and VDOT staff worked collaboratively to provide information to assist Board members on a decision regarding the I-64 Regional Express Lanes.

Mr. Mike Kimbrel, HRTPO Deputy Executive Director, reported that HRTPO staff modeled system performance in 2040 using a baseline scenario (all new capacity at the Hampton Roads BridgeTunnel and High-Rise Bridge projects as General Purpose lanes) and a Managed Lanes Network scenario.

Preliminary results of the 2040 analysis included:
- Baseline Scenario severely congested by 2040
- Managed Lanes (HOT-2) Network provides reliable trips for:
   o High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOV-2)
   o Single-Occupancy Vehicles willing to pay toll
   o Transit Vehicles
- Managed Lanes scenario does not induce traffic diversion to local roadways in Hampton

Mr. Stephen Brich, VDOT Commissioner, reported that VDOT staff modeled system performance based on the HRBT opening year of 2025 using its proposed scenario of a managed lane network. He indicated that the entrance into the express lanes has been moved from LaSalle Avenue to Mercury Boulevard, with the potential to move it further west to Jefferson Avenue. Maps were presented to illustrate that traffic was less congested with the construction of the I-64 Regional Express Lanes. Mr. Brich suggested working with the contractor who is currently constructing the High-Rise Bridge to discuss the ability of creating a HOT part-time shoulder lane as timing is crucial. He stated VDOT plans to analyze hours of operation and tolling policy and will brief the Board at the October 17, 2019 meeting.

Chair Sheppard expressed his appreciation to the staffs of the HRTPO and VDOT for their comprehensive analyses. He requested Board members be prepared to discuss finances regarding the HOT part-time shoulder lane on the High-Rise Bridge and a tolling policy at the next meeting.

In addition to the general-purpose shoulder lane that will be implemented on I-64 between I-464 and US-17 / US-17 Business over the High Rise Bridge, VDOT is now considering converting the inside shoulder of the one HO/T lane to a part-time shoulder lane. If they did this, I-64 would have 8 lanes (2+2 each way) between I-664 and US-17 / US-17 Business, and 10 lanes (3+2 each way) between US-17 / US-17 Business and I-464 during peak hours. This would result in their ultimate long-term build of 2+2 each way to be completed -now-.

However, there's only one major issue with this - the High Rise Bridge.

The new High Rise Bridge is being built to have an ultimate typical section of four 12 foot lanes and 14 foot shoulders on either side, so you could fit 5 lanes of traffic on there when both the HO/T shoulder and general purpose shoulder are in use, however the existing High Rise Bridge, which is to be retained, can only have a maximum of 4 lanes. The current plan of 1 HO/T + 2 GP + 1 GP PTL (part-time lane) works, however it would not be possible to have 1 PTL HO/T + 1 HO/T + 2 GP + 1 PTL.

Interested to see how this plays out.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/091919%20TPO%20Action%20Summary.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 26, 2019, 08:09:41 AM
There was a public meeting yesterday in Danville to discuss possible improvements to US-58 Business (Riverside Drive).

Behind paywall:

https://www.godanriver.com/news/local/high-number-of-crashes-on-riverside-drive-prompts-possible-safety/article_31af83e2-6b00-5689-b3a5-730bb298da2d.html (https://www.godanriver.com/news/local/high-number-of-crashes-on-riverside-drive-prompts-possible-safety/article_31af83e2-6b00-5689-b3a5-730bb298da2d.html)

QuoteTraffic safety issues along Riverside Drive have Danville resident Morris Inman concerned.

"People texting and driving – it scares me to death,"  Inman, 68, said during an interview during a public meeting Wednesday evening at Bonner Middle School on possible street safety improvements along the corridor from North Main Street to Piedmont Drive.

Inman's fears are justified, according to figures from EPR, PC, an engineering firm in Charlottesville.

From 2013 to 2018, there were 740 traffic crashes resulting in five fatalities – with two of those deaths involving pedestrians – along the 3.2-mile section, said EPR project manager Jessica Dimmick.

"That's high,"  Dimmick told the Danville Register & Bee.

The Virginia Department of Transportation and EPR held a community meeting to get public input on possible safety improvements along the stretch that covers almost 3 miles.

EPR is conducting a Riverside Corridor Improvement Study considering the need for sidewalks and crosswalks, intersection and access changes, use of bus bays and ramp adjustments.

"There are issues that have been identified based on crash data,"  City Engineer Brian Dunevant said.

Dimmick was more blunt in her assessment.

"That crash rate is the primary reason for this study being done,"  she said.

The meeting was an opportunity for residents to learn about the project, identify problems and share ideas for improvements.

Danville resident Margaret Harden said she liked the convenience provided by the large number of medians along Riverside Drive. But Wednesday's meeting changed her perspective.

Dimmick said Riverside has too many medians, which correlate with a large number of crashes. There are 25 total intersections, including those with and without traffic lights, in the area from North Main Street to Piedmont Drive, she said.

"If you have them spaced too closely together, then that increases the potential for crashes,"  Dimmick said.

That was an eye-opener for Harden.

"There are a lot of medians,"  Harden said. "In a way, it's handy. I hadn't thought of it as being unsafe; it never occurred to me. I was just thinking of the convenience factor."

Dimmick presented several draft recommendations to address the problems following EPR's six-year analysis of crashes, traffic operations and access points.

Those draft recommendations include restricting turns at medians, such as putting up barriers to prevent traffic from side streets off Riverside from making left turns, Dimmick said. Instead, they would travel along Riverside to a stoplight and make a U-turn.

Sidewalks also would be a possibility.

The study also recommends possibly establishing a crosswalk in the area between Audubon Drive and Piney Forest Road, where the two fatalities occurred, Dimmick said. it could include pedestrian "hybrid beacons,"  or stop lights that remain dark until until a pedestrian pushes a button to turn the red light on.

"They stop traffic to allow pedestrians to cross the road,"  Dimmick said.

Other possible recommendations include:

-Installing a new westbound right-turn lane at Audubon Drive to address safety issues;

-Having a new full-length westbound right-turn lane at Mount Cross Road;

-Replacing the westbound right-turn ramp with a new turn lane closer to the intersection at Westover Drive;

-Prohibiting left turns from Riverside Drive at Highland Court.

The $234,000 study is sponsored by the VDOT in partnership with the city of Danville and the West Piedmont Planning District Commission. The study comes at no cost to the city and is being paid for by VDOT's Strategically Targeted Affordable Roadway Solutions program.

The program's purpose "is to develop comprehensive, innovative transportation solutions to relieve congestion bottlenecks and solve critical traffic and safety challenges throughout the commonwealth,"  according to VDOT's website.

A working group including city and VDOT officials has been providing feedback to EPR during the study, Dunevant said.

Public input from Wednesday's meeting will be considered when the draft recommendations are made final, Dimmick said.

A final report should be complete and presented to Danville City Council by the end of this year.

Any projects the city decides to pursue as a result of the study could be funded under a variety of VDOT programs, Dimmick said.

Crane reports for the Register & Bee. He can be reached at (434) 791-7987.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: csw on September 28, 2019, 06:27:19 PM
Anyone know what the construction on US 220 north of Covington is? I couldn't decide if it looked like they were 4-laning it or not. If it is 4-laning, I don't get it - there was a stretch in Bath Co. where I didn't see another vehicle for a solid 7-8 minutes. Maybe it's to serve the resort areas.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 28, 2019, 09:14:13 PM
Quote from: csw on September 28, 2019, 06:27:19 PM
Anyone know what the construction on US 220 north of Covington is? I couldn't decide if it looked like they were 4-laning it or not. If it is 4-laning, I don't get it - there was a stretch in Bath Co. where I didn't see another vehicle for a solid 7-8 minutes. Maybe it's to serve the resort areas.

Nothing on the VDOT projects webpage.  Surely it is not 4-laning.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 28, 2019, 09:20:33 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2019, 09:14:13 PM
Surely it is not 4-laning.
Asides from US-58, I haven't seen much in the way of four-laning projects across the state. Occasional segments here and there, but nothing like the 60s - 80s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 28, 2019, 09:45:07 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 28, 2019, 09:20:33 PM
Asides from US-58, I haven't seen much in the way of four-laning projects across the state. Occasional segments here and there, but nothing like the 60s - 80s.
The one major corridor I could see is VA-3 on the Northern Neck.  That was proposed for 4-laneing in the 1980s between Culpeper and White Stone.  The sections between US-29 at Culpeper and US-301 were 4-laned.  Between US-301 and White Stone several short segments were 4-laned.  The rest should be 4-laned IMO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 28, 2019, 09:50:33 PM
Quote from: csw on September 28, 2019, 06:27:19 PM
Anyone know what the construction on US 220 north of Covington is? I couldn't decide if it looked like they were 4-laning it or not. If it is 4-laning, I don't get it - there was a stretch in Bath Co. where I didn't see another vehicle for a solid 7-8 minutes. Maybe it's to serve the resort areas.

How far north of Covington?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: csw on September 28, 2019, 10:26:17 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 28, 2019, 09:50:33 PM
Quote from: csw on September 28, 2019, 06:27:19 PM
Anyone know what the construction on US 220 north of Covington is? I couldn't decide if it looked like they were 4-laning it or not. If it is 4-laning, I don't get it - there was a stretch in Bath Co. where I didn't see another vehicle for a solid 7-8 minutes. Maybe it's to serve the resort areas.

How far north of Covington?

Thinking about it again, it was actually the section between Eagle Rock and Iron Gate. So south of I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 28, 2019, 10:28:51 PM
Quote from: csw on September 28, 2019, 10:26:17 PM
Thinking about it again, it was actually the section between Eagle Rock and Iron Gate. So south of I-64.

Route 220 (Botetourt Road) Safety Improvement Project (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/route_220_botetourt_road_safety_improvement_project.asp)
Quote
The primary purpose of this project is to enhance safety along the 10-mile section of Route 220 (Botetourt Road) between Iron Gate and the James River Bridge near Eagle Rock by:

- improving vertical and horizontal alignment
- widening shoulders, lanes and center lane width
- improving intersections
- adding turn lanes
- providing additional passing opportunities
- providing centerline and edge-line rumble strips
- providing raised centerline pavement markers

This project will improve this section of Route 220 as a two-lane road and is intended to reduce the severity and number of crashes.

Benefits
This project will improve a portion of Route 220 as a two-lane road and is intended to reduce the severity and number of crashes between Iron Gate and the James River Bridge near Eagle Rock by improving alignment, widening shoulders, lanes and center lane width, improving intersections, adding turn lanes and passing opportunities and providing centerline and edge-line rumble stripsand raised centerline pavement markers.

The current roadway has one 10-11 foot travel lane and a ~1 foot paved shoulder in each direction. Once complete, the roadway will have one 12 foot travel lane and 4 foot (8 foot in certain areas) paved shoulder in each direction.

This is a type of project appropriate for a roadway that does not warrant 4-lanes, but warrants safety improvements. Though granted, a lot of the 4-lane highways across the state have narrow roadways as well, and safety improvements such as a 12 foot lane + 4 foot shoulder widening could / is needed on certain stretches. That, plus the significant number of up-and-down hills on a lot of 4-lane highways in Virginia that ideally need to be leveled.

I will say though, to truly improve Virginia's existing 4-lane system to meet modern standards, it would cost billions of dollars, so it would likely never happen, but at least a few corridors should be evaluated.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 28, 2019, 11:34:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 28, 2019, 10:28:51 PM
This is a type of project appropriate for a roadway that does not warrant 4-lanes, but warrants safety improvements.
As part of the original Arterial Highway System, it does warrant 4 lanes, and about 15 years ago there was a 4-laning project planned, including reconstructing the existing roadway, but the cost estimate rose high enough that they decided to just rebuild the existing roadway, and leave the parallel roadway for a future project.  This will be a big improvement, a modern 2-lane highway with ample passing zones.

It would really get interesting deciding how to build 4 lanes thru or around Iron Gate.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 28, 2019, 10:28:51 PM
I will say though, to truly improve Virginia's existing 4-lane system to meet modern standards, it would cost billions of dollars, so it would likely never happen, but at least a few corridors should be evaluated.
No way it would cost that much.  As part of this spreadsheet that I am building, I am identifying all the bypasses and relocations, my general estimate now is that is 28% of the about 1,850-miles of 4-lane mileage and that is built to modern standards.  About 1/3 of the remainder is generally modern, another 1/3 is what I would call 1950s standards for the original roadway, another 1/3 is what I would call 1930s standards for the original roadway and that would mean trench widening where it is less than 24 feet of roadway plus the building of full shoulders.

I haven't decided exactly what the final product will look like, but it might identify segments according to the 4 types above.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 28, 2019, 11:42:07 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2019, 11:34:16 PM
As part of the original Arterial Highway System, it does warrant 4 lanes, and about 15 years ago there was a 4-laning project planned, including reconstructing the existing roadway, but the cost estimate rose high enough that they decided to just rebuild the existing roadway, and leave the parallel roadway for a future project.  This will be a big improvement, a modern 2-lane highway with ample passing zones.
Under the original system, I could see it being 4-lanes, but with today's money situation, a modernized 2-lane roadway with passing lanes can adequately carry the 5,000 AADT for years to come.

I'd the same about US-58, a significant amount of it could realistically be a modernized 2-lane roadway with passing lanes, or a continuous 3-lane road with an alternating center passing lane.

Personally, I think the hundreds of millions invested into it has been a waste in some regard, especially in the areas with very low traffic counts. Again, a modernized 3-lane road with an alternating center passing lane could have reasonably worked, and likely a lot cheaper. I agree, ideally 4-lanes is nice, and it's what they're doing, but it wasn't necessarily needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 28, 2019, 11:57:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2019, 09:45:07 PM
The one major corridor I could see is VA-3 on the Northern Neck.  That was proposed for 4-laneing in the 1980s between Culpeper and White Stone.  The sections between US-29 at Culpeper and US-301 were 4-laned.  Between US-301 and White Stone several short segments were 4-laned.  The rest should be 4-laned IMO.
The corridor between US-301 and White Stone is 70 miles long, with about 16 miles already four-lane. That leaves 54 miles of two-lane roadway that would mostly be dualized, plus at least 5, possibly more, densely developed areas / towns that would need to be constructed on new location.

Could see it under Virginia's original arterial system, though it's questionable if it'd be a priority in today's funding world. The corridor has mostly 2,000 - 5,000 AADT in rural areas (with some areas having 2,000 AADT in the middle of the corridor, it indicates there's very little long-distance traffic), with up to 8,000 AADT near & in between a couple of the towns / developed areas. Assuming $20 million per mile, around $1.1 billion.


Some other corridors that come to mind that could've / should've been 4-laned are US-258 between Smithfield to Franklin and VA-10 between Smithfield to Suffolk.

VA-10 (between US-258 to US-58 Bypass)
- 13 miles long total
- 4-lane: 7 miles
- 2-lane: 6 miles
- AADT: 12,000 south of Smithfield on 2-lane segments

US-258 (between VA-10 to US-258 Business / US-58 Business)
- 31 miles long
- 4-lane: 2 miles
- 2-lane: 29 miles
- AADT: 3,000 - 5,000 AADT west of Smithfield on 2-lane segments; 10,000 outside Smithfield, 19,000 on Smithfield Bypass

A study was completed in ~1994 that evaluated widening US-258 between Smithfield and Franklin to 4-lanes, which mostly involved retaining the existing roadway and constructing a parallel roadway, and featured a bypass of Windsor to the north with a partial cloverleaf interchange at US-460.

I'm not aware of any study that has been conducted on VA-10 to close the "gap" between the 4-lane segments. Reasonably, the 6-mile stretch could be partially dualized, though some of it may need new location, and definitely a new location bypass of Chuckatuck.

My thoughts - US-258 to Franklin would be ideal, but like I've mentioned before, with today's funding system, probably unlikely ever to be a priority. As for VA-10, it's definitely needed, with the growing traffic between the two cities, all the development occurring in Suffolk and in southern Smithfield, and also the fact the corridor (VA-10 & US-58) acts as a "bypass" of the congested US-17 segment when linking to areas south of I-264.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 29, 2019, 12:28:45 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 28, 2019, 11:42:07 PM
I'd the same about US-58, a significant amount of it could realistically be a modernized 2-lane roadway with passing lanes, or a continuous 3-lane road with an alternating center passing lane.
Given the sheer length of US-58 across the whole southern tier, and all the cities and towns that it serves, and the amount of long-distance truck traffic, IMO all of it warrants 4 lanes, at least east of I-77 and west of I-81.

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 28, 2019, 11:42:07 PM
Some other corridors that come to mind that could've / should've been 4-laned are US-258 between Smithfield to Franklin and VA-10 between Smithfield to Suffolk.
VDH&T had a 1975-1985 Needs Study, and VA-10/VA-32 between Benns Church and the Suffolk Bypass was formally proposed for 4-lane upgrading.  As can be seen only about half of it has been 4-laned.

Other than for a couple miles south of the Smithfield Bypass, I can't see any need for more than 2 lanes on US-258.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: csw on September 29, 2019, 10:39:38 AM
Ok cool. There was a small section towards the northern end that looked like it was finished - with rumble strips, new paint, wider shoulders, etc.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 29, 2019, 02:17:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 29, 2019, 12:28:45 AM
Other than for a couple miles south of the Smithfield Bypass, I can't see any need for more than 2 lanes on US-258.
I mentioned it mostly because VDOT completed a study on the entire corridor in ~1994, including a Windsor northern bypass and some new location segment splitting off outside of Smithfield, connecting to the Fairway Drive Interchange on the Smithfield Bypass.

The entire US-258 segment of the Smithfield Bypass warrants 4-lanes - having an AADT of around 20,000. The freeway is built on a 4-lane right-of-way, and the Fairway Drive interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.970993,-76.6321514,3a,75y,277.86h,86.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAPGTabGScpXxOohNQHINKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) built in the 90s also accommodates this.

A project to dualize the bypass would require 2.5 miles of two-lane carriageway constructed on existing right-of-way with at least one 1,800 ft bridge constructed over the Cypress Creek, and potentially another 800 ft bridge constructed over wetlands just east of the Fairway Drive interchange.

It'd likely cost around $65 million, using $26 million per mile.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 29, 2019, 08:14:23 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 29, 2019, 02:17:58 PM
The entire US-258 segment of the Smithfield Bypass warrants 4-lanes - having an AADT of around 20,000. The freeway is built on a 4-lane right-of-way, and the Fairway Drive interchange built in the 90s also accommodates this.
I was thinking of the portions of US-258 that are on single routing when I made my comments.

After all, US-258 overlaps US-17 across the James River Bridge and that is already 4 lanes, along with the segments between the bridge and Smithfield Bypass.

I would agree with dualizing the US-258 portion of the Smithfield Bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 30, 2019, 05:10:02 PM
Reconfigure project at Indian River, Kempsville roads causing problems for drivers (https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/mycity/virginia-beach/reconfigure-project-at-indian-river-kempsville-roads-causing-problems-for-drivers/291-fcf118e1-12f0-4cbc-acb7-cd1139ea0fe3)
QuoteVIRGINIA BEACH, Va. – A major upgrade to an intersection in Virginia Beach is causing problems for drivers.

Public Works crews are months into a project to reconfigure the crossing of Indian River and Kempsville Roads.

Many drivers told 13News Now they hate this new intersection. They said the road is more complicated and confusing.

"I've seen people run the light and smash cars. I've seen road rage and people yelling at other people. Every day is something new,"  explained Courtney Lachance.

The City of Virginia Beach said the improvements are supposed to make the crossing of Indian River and Kempsville Roads safer and quicker for drivers, but some said it's creating the opposite!

"I think there's a lot of confusion on how it used to be and how it is now,"  Lachance explained.

City leaders sais this area is considered the busiest intersection in Virginia Beach. They said once the new traffic pattern is completed, it will help ease driver's commute. The improvements are supposed to be innovative.

Carmen Ridgway said, "It's going to make it a lot easier and it already has. Once they finish everything, the no left turn and that kind of thing, it's going to make that flow so much quicker and so much easier."

The project is expected to be completed by March. City leaders said it will take time for drivers to get used to the new configuration.
The intersection has been partially completed (the CFI portion from Kempsville to Indian River isn't completed, though the Michigan Left from Indian River to Kempsville is), and like many drivers have said, it's become more of a headache IMO than the old intersection, especially at rush hour. And traffic during right onto Kempsville Rd in either direction has to yield to traffic and gets no dedicated signal like in the past. That's caused significant backups and requires every car to go one by one, and the positioning of the lane "merge" is overall poorly done. And lastly, all of the U-Turns and future CFI on Kempsville that's not completed are all only -one- lane as opposed to the previous two - which again - cuts the capacity of that lane in half resulting in more backups. The person who designed this must've been some roadgeek having fun by combining all these innovative intersections and utilizing poor design features such as single lane and yield signs as opposed to double lane and properly timed signals. Poor, poor design overall, and the increased congestion shows it.

VDOT considered constructing an urban interchange here, with Indian River free-flowing and Kempsville Rd with the traffic signals, though instead went with this "innovative" intersection. IMO, it would have been well worth the additional $30 million for an interchange in the long-term. Traffic would flow much smoother here, and give the main corridor between I-64 and the Princess Anne section of Virginia Beach (Indian River Rd to Farrel Pkwy to Princess Anne Rd) a free-flowing movement and drastically improved traffic compared to this.

Here's an aerial view of what the completed "innovative" intersection will look like - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUViI-wPH0U
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on September 30, 2019, 08:55:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 30, 2019, 05:10:02 PM
VDOT considered constructing an urban interchange here, with Indian River free-flowing and Kempsville Rd with the traffic signals, though instead went with this "innovative" intersection. IMO, it would have been well worth the additional $30 million for an interchange in the long-term.
It might have been a lot more than that, if the Rio Road / US-29 interchange in Albemarle County is any guide.  It was built for local access reasons energized by the local RE/T groups, not for any real improvement to the US-29 corridor.

Arterial urban interchanges are largely a design of the past (NVA saw at least a dozen built 1950s-1980s), as they tend to be expensive and complex to build, and if one road is elevated they consume expensive urban right-of-way, and other than the obvious improvement to one major intersection they don't improve much else.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 01, 2019, 06:28:23 AM
I see they are also signing VA 407 through here, 19 years after it was decommissioned in Virginia Beach...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 01, 2019, 04:25:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 30, 2019, 05:10:02 PMThe intersection has been partially completed (the CFI portion from Kempsville to Indian River isn't completed, though the Michigan Left from Indian River to Kempsville is), and like many drivers have said, it's become more of a headache IMO than the old intersection, especially at rush hour. And traffic during right onto Kempsville Rd in either direction has to yield to traffic and gets no dedicated signal like in the past. That's caused significant backups and requires every car to go one by one, and the positioning of the lane "merge" is overall poorly done. And lastly, all of the U-Turns and future CFI on Kempsville that's not completed are all only -one- lane as opposed to the previous two - which again - cuts the capacity of that lane in half resulting in more backups. The person who designed this must've been some roadgeek having fun by combining all these innovative intersections and utilizing poor design features such as single lane and yield signs as opposed to double lane and properly timed signals. Poor, poor design overall, and the increased congestion shows it.

VDOT considered constructing an urban interchange here, with Indian River free-flowing and Kempsville Rd with the traffic signals, though instead went with this "innovative" intersection. IMO, it would have been well worth the additional $30 million for an interchange in the long-term. Traffic would flow much smoother here, and give the main corridor between I-64 and the Princess Anne section of Virginia Beach (Indian River Rd to Farrel Pkwy to Princess Anne Rd) a free-flowing movement and drastically improved traffic compared to this.

Agree that an interchange would have been better for the long-term.

Also agree that the single-lanes for the "left turns" are problematic.  That said, having dual-left turn lanes would have A) required more right-of-way with the related impacts (with the possible exception of southbound Kempsville to eastbound Indian River), and B) having two lanes on the U-turn ramps would have been problematic for trucks, buses, and larger vehicles.

Quote from: BeltwayIt might have been a lot more than that, if the Rio Road / US-29 interchange in Albemarle County is any guide.  It was built for local access reasons energized by the local RE/T groups, not for any real improvement to the US-29 corridor.

You keep saying this over and over, but one less traffic signal on 29 still helps through traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 01, 2019, 07:39:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 01, 2019, 04:25:51 PM
and B) having two lanes on the U-turn ramps would have been problematic for trucks, buses, and larger vehicles.
Hasn't stopped North Carolina - https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6605426,-78.8476939,114m/data=!3m1!1e3

Dual left turn U-Turns isn't unheard of, and hasn't had much in the way of issues.

And the CFI movement that's still under construction from Kempsville Rd to Indian River Rd is also only going to be single-lane, but they had no problem at Military Hwy & Northampton Blvd where they installed the same CFI design intersection, but with double lanes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8745351,-76.2106193,447m/data=!3m1!1e3

That intersection, on the other hand, has been a major improvement. It also expanded Military Hwy from 4 to 8 lanes.

Quote from: froggie on October 01, 2019, 04:25:51 PM
You keep saying this over and over, but one less traffic signal on 29 still helps through traffic.
I agree, but the money that was dumped into the "intersection improvements", construction of two urban interchanges & 3 lane widening was initially supposed to be allocated to a freeway bypass of the entire area, which what have been a much better use of such a large amount of money, and for the same cost. The benefits are also far greater with a bypass as opposed to intersection improvements. Speed limit is still 45 mph, thru and local traffic is still mixed, and there's still traffic signals. All of those would have been eliminated with a bypass, for the same cost.

The difference with this particular intersection, Indian River & Kempsville, is that A) no bypass is going to get built, so that will always be the main corridor, and B) it ties into a limited-access segment of Ferrel Pkwy just east of there, which is a partial freeway in one area, and if there was a real desire to, that entire stretch of Ferrel Pkwy could be converted into a freeway mostly within the existing right of way - but that would likely never happen.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 01, 2019, 07:59:27 PM
I-64 West (cardinal direction - east) between Exit 296 (US-17 / US-17 Business) and Exit 291 (I-464 / VA-168 / US-17) will be closed between Saturday, October 5 at 11 p.m. to Sunday, October 6 at 6 a.m. to allow crews to shift the lane markings onto new pavement in the median prior to the High Rise Bridge approach.

QuoteAs construction of the new High Rise Bridge advances, motorists can expect a traffic shift on I-64 westbound (towards Virginia Beach) near the base of the High Rise Bridge beginning the first weekend in October (pending weather or unforeseen circumstances).

Both lanes of westbound (towards Virginia Beach) traffic on I-64 between the foot of the High Rise Bridge and the Great Bridge Boulevard overpass will be shifted towards the median onto new pavement. This new road alignment and traffic pattern will allow crews to work adjacently to the roadway on the construction of the new high rise bridge.

To prepare for this upcoming traffic shift, westbound (towards Virginia Beach) traffic will be temporarily detoured beginning at 11 p.m. on Saturday, October 5 to 6 a.m. on Sunday, October 6 with assistance from Virginia State Police and Chesapeake City Police.

Motorists traveling westbound on I-64 will be detoured at Exit 296 (US-17/ George Washington Highway) and continue on the following detour:
* Left on George Washington Highway (US-17 North)
* Right on S. Military Highway (US 460)
* Cross the Gilmerton Bridge
* Exit right to 464 S
* Exit 1A to 64 W (towards Virginia Beach)
* Continue on 64 W

Additional single lane closures will be utilized during off-peak hours to complete this traffic shift.

Motorists should follow roadway detour signage and expect delays or take alternate routes. As always, motorists are encouraged to slow down and pay careful attention while driving through the construction zone.

Eastbound traffic (towards Suffolk) will not be detoured.

http://www.64highrise.org/news_and_traffic_alerts/lane_closures.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 01, 2019, 10:18:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 01, 2019, 07:39:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 01, 2019, 04:25:51 PM
You keep saying this over and over, but one less traffic signal on 29 still helps through traffic.
I agree, but the money that was dumped into the "intersection improvements", construction of two urban interchanges & 3 lane widening was initially supposed to be allocated to a freeway bypass of the entire area, which what have been a much better use of such a large amount of money, and for the same cost. The benefits are also far greater with a bypass as opposed to intersection improvements. Speed limit is still 45 mph, thru and local traffic is still mixed, and there's still traffic signals. All of those would have been eliminated with a bypass, for the same cost.
The US-29 6-lane widening project was north of the northern bypass terminal, so that project was valuable either way.

The "Route 29 Solutions" projects built in lieu of the bypass, was a very selfish scheme, much more intended to provide a good circulator system for locals, than to benefit thru traffic.  The total cost was about the same for each, about $200 million.  The completed Berkmar Drive Extension provides a north-south local collector just to the west of US-29, and the completed Hillsdale Drive Extension provides a north-south local collector just to the east of US-29.  The Rio Road interchange with US-29 provides a convenient Rio Road east-west connector between the two roads above, and overpass over US-29.

The Rio Road interchange actually eliminated one major signalized intersection and two minor signalized intersections, at least moved the signals off of the US-29 mainline.

Nevertheless, there are still 5 major multi-phase signalized intersections on the segment of US-29 that would have been bypassed, so the benefits to thru traffic (basically anything that the 8 miles of bypass would have served), of the "Route 29 Solutions" projects, was minimal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on October 02, 2019, 06:08:53 PM
Some news from my neck of the woods.

(Behind paywall)

https://www.godanriver.com/news/local/council-paves-way-for-danville-road-improvements-with-million-from/article_00b96f41-3172-5472-9af4-4c3f3114199f.html (https://www.godanriver.com/news/local/council-paves-way-for-danville-road-improvements-with-million-from/article_00b96f41-3172-5472-9af4-4c3f3114199f.html)

QuoteDanville City Council adopted four ordinances Tuesday night to appropriate nearly $2.8 million from the Virginia Department of Transportation for road improvement projects in the city.

Projects include upgrades on Wilson Street from Bridge Street to Lynn Street and improvements to the intersection at Riverside Drive and Audubon Drive.

Danville City Engineer Brian Dunevant told the Danville Register & Bee the projects had nothing to do with any damage from Tropical Storm Michael in October 2018.

"They're just routine," he said.

Other projects include reconstruction on Riverside Drive from Arnett Boulevard to Locust Lane and work on other sections in the city:

-Main Street from Chambers Street to Ridge Street;

-Memorial Drive southbound from Central Boulevard to Cahill Court;

-Central Boulevard southbound from Falwell Court to Holt Garrison Parkway;

-South Boston Road eastbound from 300 feet west of the entrance ramp from U.S. 29 southbound/Danville Expressway to the entrance ramp from U.S. 29 northbound/Danville Expressway;

-South Boston Road westbound from the beginning of the median at South Boston Road to 150 feet west from the northbound U.S. 29/Danville Expressway ramp.

-Trade Street Trail Advance to Commerce Street; and

-Arnett Boulevard sidewalks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on October 04, 2019, 01:47:44 PM
Oops.

https://wtop.com/alexandria/2019/10/alexandria-to-refund-more-than-2000-speeding-tickets-after-probe-turns-up-faulty-speedometer-tests/ (https://wtop.com/alexandria/2019/10/alexandria-to-refund-more-than-2000-speeding-tickets-after-probe-turns-up-faulty-speedometer-tests/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: odditude on October 05, 2019, 10:56:54 AM
As part of the construction work on SR 28 NB in the vicinity of SR 267, overhead signs are being replaced. The previous signs were a mix of all-Clearview (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9698806,-77.4291314,3a,75y,15.62h,91.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2xGATEekBhgZHa5Elbxrsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (including positive contrast, all-caps, and numerals), compliant Clearview (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9889963,-77.4312085,3a,75y,359.15h,103.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sadeFiVQ6U0QxRCjzijmCzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), and all-FWHA (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9749518,-77.4289581,3a,75y,359.15h,103.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMFPkIAFCs-qfRUkFoE_2sg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). The replacement signs are exclusively FWHA. Legends have remained the same, although spacing is generally better and more consistent. Numerals on shields are consistently series B for 3-digit VA routes and series D for 2dUS (that is, US 50).

One thing I find interesting is that on the replacements for the VA 606 East signs, the "Old Ox Road" text is now the same size as the "Herndon" destination text. I think this is a bad design decision - I find the replacement signs more difficult to parse at a glance. Unlike the MUTCD authors, I'm a huge fan of having street/highway names shown in this style where it's appropriate - but I think that name should be shown in a reduced size (like the old signs) to keep it visually distinct.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 05, 2019, 11:07:48 AM
Quote from: odditude on October 05, 2019, 10:56:54 AM
The replacement signs are exclusively FWHA.
That's a shock - normally VDOT is in love with Clearview. Not complaining though, the standard FHWA font is a lot nicer appearance wise. Our neighbor to the south still uses it consistently and has not made the switch.

Quote from: odditude on October 05, 2019, 10:56:54 AM
One thing I find interesting is that on the replacements for the VA 606 East signs, the "Old Ox Road" text is now the same size as the "Herndon" destination text. I think this is a bad design decision - I find the replacement signs more difficult to parse at a glance. Unlike the MUTCD authors, I'm a huge fan of having street/highway names shown in this style where it's appropriate - but I think that name should be shown in a reduced size (like the old signs) to keep it visually distinct.
Something similar happened here in Chesapeake. 3 miles of Dominion Blvd was upgraded from a 2-lane road to a 4-lane freeway with 3 urban interchanges built. At the VA-165 / Cedar Rd / Moses Grandy Trl interchange, the new signs were initially installed with "Moses Grandy Trl" in large font in proper position, along with a VA-165 shield and "Cedar Rd" in small text next to the shield. By the time the freeway was fully completed though, they decided to enlarge the "Cedar Rd" text to large font as well (due to the fact that Cedar Rd is a much busier and main thoroughfare as opposed to Moses Grandy Trl, and people complained about its signage) while retaining the location next to the shield. You can't see the small font on any Street View images, but between October 2016 and May 2018, when the sign was initially uncovered, it had the small font. You can see though where the covered over the small font and placed the larger font quite clearly.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7315615,-76.2992368,3a,37.5y,222.67h,88.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbdd_89WF-wh5amQXrIHdzA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 05, 2019, 04:38:09 PM
If you see a new VDOT-posted sign in the old typeface, it most likely indicates the contract under which that sign was posted was signed during the period when the FHWA revoked the IA. I believe VDOT standards now call for Clearview, though with stricter adherence to the FHWA's guidelines than we saw in the past.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 05, 2019, 04:50:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 05, 2019, 04:38:09 PM
I believe VDOT standards now call for Clearview
:no:

It's a shame the state is changing from a good font to a poor font. I'm just glad North Carolina hasn't switched yet. The signage quality overall looks far more decent with standard as opposed to Clearview IMO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 05, 2019, 07:49:21 PM
King George slows down process to get input on speed increase (https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/king-george-slows-down-process-to-get-input-on-speed/article_2ac8d8f6-17d7-55b7-8fed-7c63d0c48f46.html)
QuoteThe plan to raise the speed limit on sections of certain roads in King George County is going the way of a traffic circle: round and round.

First, a number of county residents asked members of the Board of Supervisors to increase the speed limit from 55 mph to 60 mph on sections of State Route 3 and U.S 301 with divided highways, non-limited access and multiple lanes. Supervisors asked their representatives in the General Assembly to change the state code, which they did last year.

The change in legislation also affected four-lane routes on U.S. 17 and State Route 207.

The Virginia Department of Transportation had to do an engineering study and analyze accident reports and traffic data for the affected areas, then present information to each locality's Board of Supervisors. VDOT representatives asked county officials to pass a resolution supporting the speed-limit increase.

Caroline County did just that, and the posted speed limit has changed along two sections of Route 207 and one stretch of U.S. 301. Speeds also went up on U.S. 17 in Gloucester County and Route 3 in Richmond County.

Stafford County voted for its speed limit to stay at 55 mph along Route 3 between Ferry Farm and the King George border and on U.S. 17 between Fauquier County and Poplar Road.

On Tuesday, VDOT officials presented their findings to the King George board, hoping to resolve the matter there. VDOT Administrator Stephen McKeever noted the majority of traffic already is traveling 60 mph and that the crash rate in the affected areas is less than district and state averages.

He also pointed out that local law enforcement and State Police supported the speed increase.

King George Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff Bueche wasn't ready to put the pedal to the metal on the plan. He wondered if residents should get a chance to have their say-so, even as Supervisor Ruby Brabo pointed out later that the county had asked for the increase because residents requested it.

Supervisor Richard Granger asked McKeever if it would affect VDOT's timetable if the King George board delayed matters to hold a public hearing.

"It's entirely up to you,"  McKeever told the supervisors.

Supervisor Cathy Binder said she had concerns about the impact on U.S. 301, because her daughter and other children board buses on the road. She's seen vehicles try to cut around buses already and is concerned about what could happen if "they're going faster before they realize they have to stop."

Bueche acknowledged that raising the legal limit to 60 mph "means we'll probably be looking at speed limits exceeding 70 mph."  He wanted those affected to have a chance to voice their opinions.

The Board of Supervisors plans a public hearing on the speed issue at its next meeting, scheduled for 7 p.m. Oct. 15 in the board room of the Revercomb Administration Center.
I think that if the state determines it's appropriate to increase the speed limit on a route like this, they should be able to do so. The local level shouldn't get to oppose it when it's already been determined 60 mph is appropriate.

I couldn't even imagine if for instance the state-wide limit was raised to 65 mph. It would take decades to properly increase all the routes with all this mess that has to happen, and half the localities wouldn't even approve of it for their own "safety" reasons despite studies indicating otherwise.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 10, 2019, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 21, 2019, 10:13:48 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 21, 2019, 06:52:56 PM
Either or.  Bottom line is they need the additional depth below the water bottom for boring.
I don't recall that being cited as an issue on the Thimble Shoal Tunnel project, but they may have different soils there.
In any event, that could be a tradeoff in the decision between immersed tube and bored tunnel methods.  Immersed tube method needs much higher amounts of excavation and such excavation involves the ground surface with its environmental impacts, while the bored tunnel method does not disrupt the ground surface.
If a bored tunnel needs to go deeper, then that would make the tunnel longer unless the approach grades were made steeper. 
Attended our ASHE (American Society of Highway Engineers) bi-monthly technical meeting today.   

One of the project managers of HRBT Expansion gave a detailed presentation about the project.  I will post the presentation PPT when it is available.

I asked 2 questions in the Q&A part.

Yorktown Layer -- the name of a geographical strata that underlies much of the H.R. area that is of ideal composition for tunnel boring.  That is why the tunnels will be 50 feet deeper, to go under the soils that are of poor composition for a bored tunnel.  The existing tunnels (for those who don't know) are of the immersed tube construction method (*) whereby a trench is dredged that is backfilled with aggregate and quality soils around the new tube.

So making the tunnels longer and deeper will result in easier construction and lower overall costs.

Widening to 4 lanes each way with peak hour part-time shoulders between Settlers Landing Road and I-664 -- he was not aware of this proposal, and it is not part of his project.

(*)  I toured the Midtown Tunnel project in 2015 and in the video presentation part of the tour one of the public relations people said they don't like the term "sunken tube" because of the image of a ship sinking (but not IMO).  That is the term that used when I created my website articles 20 years ago about the bridge-tunnels in the area, so I may have been part of what makes them stress the term "immersed".   :-/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 10, 2019, 11:16:11 PM
Finally got an update on the ongoing I-95 Corridor Improvement Study/Plan
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/vdot-unveils-potential-fixes-for-congestion-on-i/article_69e6b88f-ca85-5054-961c-9f4a0a6fe255.html
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/projects/corridor/i-95_operational_and_freeway_improvement_strategies.pdf
QuotePotential solutions to improve travel time and safety on Interstate 95 were unveiled this week during a public meeting at James Monroe High School and the best options may surprise some commuters.

The plan favors a variety of approaches, such as increased transit or ride-sharing opportunities and interchange improvements, over simply building more lanes on I—95, Virginia Department of Transportation Deputy Secretary Nick Donohue told a crowd of about 30 Wednesday evening.

The study tackles problems on the 179 miles of I—95 in the state, primarily congestion and crashes. The study's first phase pinpointed problem areas, while the current second phase is focused on potential solutions.

Donohue gave a presentation Wednesday covering I—95 traffic data and modeling gathered as part of the study, and highlighted a couple of surprises.

One traffic model studied the long-term impacts of adding lanes to a 52-mile stretch of I—95 from North Stafford to Northern Virginia. Adding one lane would cost $12.5 billion, but showed little improvement. Adding two or three lanes showed improvements, but not enough to justify the costs.

QuoteThe study also will focus on potentially improving interchanges and road infrastructure in areas around those exits. Such improvements could help when I—95 closes down and detoured traffic floods roads around interchanges.

Donohue highlighted one potential project the study could promote that would add a lane to increase southbound I—95 capacity beyond the crossing projects in an effort to help avoid choke point problems.

Another potential project–hardening I—95 shoulders to allow peak-period usage for traffic–caught the attention of some residents at the meeting. It wasn't the traffic impact of the plan that drew responses, but the limitations tied to the electronically tolled express lanes.

The state's I—95 express lanes contract with Transurban precludes the state from making improvements that would impact the toll lanes without compensating the express lanes operator.

The study's plan would use the shoulders in the opposite direction of peak express lanes usage as a way to avoid the payments.

A couple of key things here. The first is the shocking cost of $12.5 BILLION for adding one lane from North Stafford (Not even Fredricksburg) to NOVA (I assume at least to the Springfield interchange). That's got to be directly affected by the compensation event so I guess VDOT went ahead and finally figured out what it would be, or at least what Transurban would want. Secondly, I am not surprised that hardened sholders seem to be preferred alternative as that both avoids a compensation event and seems to at least somewhat satisfy the public. Interested to see what specific interchange improvements VDOT puts on the table as at least in IMO besides the Occoquan bottleneck (still more related to the lane drop than the actual interchange), its the PW Parkway one (Exit 158) causing the most delays. Finally, I am glad additional lanes are being considered at the southern end of the Rappahannock River Crossing Project as I got to speak with Deputy Secretary Donohue about my chokepoint concerns there at one of the initial study meetings. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 10, 2019, 11:34:07 PM
Quote
One traffic model studied the long-term impacts of adding lanes to a 52-mile stretch of I—95 from North Stafford to Northern Virginia. Adding one lane would cost $12.5 billion, but showed little improvement.
I call bull-ohney.  It is 17 miles between north Stafford County and Woodbridge, and no additional lane is needed north of Woodbridge.

Someone needs to have their reportage/journalistic skills upgraded.  Or else they have been fed a line of baloney by the RE/T groups.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 05:58:38 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on October 10, 2019, 11:16:11 PM
Finally got an update on the ongoing I-95 Corridor Improvement Study/Plan
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/vdot-unveils-potential-fixes-for-congestion-on-i/article_69e6b88f-ca85-5054-961c-9f4a0a6fe255.html
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/projects/corridor/i-95_operational_and_freeway_improvement_strategies.pdf
QuotePotential solutions to improve travel time and safety on Interstate 95 were unveiled this week during a public meeting at James Monroe High School and the best options may surprise some commuters.

The plan favors a variety of approaches, such as increased transit or ride-sharing opportunities and interchange improvements, over simply building more lanes on I—95, Virginia Department of Transportation Deputy Secretary Nick Donohue told a crowd of about 30 Wednesday evening.

The study tackles problems on the 179 miles of I—95 in the state, primarily congestion and crashes. The study's first phase pinpointed problem areas, while the current second phase is focused on potential solutions.

Donohue gave a presentation Wednesday covering I—95 traffic data and modeling gathered as part of the study, and highlighted a couple of surprises.

One traffic model studied the long-term impacts of adding lanes to a 52-mile stretch of I—95 from North Stafford to Northern Virginia. Adding one lane would cost $12.5 billion, but showed little improvement. Adding two or three lanes showed improvements, but not enough to justify the costs.

QuoteThe study also will focus on potentially improving interchanges and road infrastructure in areas around those exits. Such improvements could help when I—95 closes down and detoured traffic floods roads around interchanges.

Donohue highlighted one potential project the study could promote that would add a lane to increase southbound I—95 capacity beyond the crossing projects in an effort to help avoid choke point problems.

Another potential project–hardening I—95 shoulders to allow peak-period usage for traffic–caught the attention of some residents at the meeting. It wasn't the traffic impact of the plan that drew responses, but the limitations tied to the electronically tolled express lanes.

The state's I—95 express lanes contract with Transurban precludes the state from making improvements that would impact the toll lanes without compensating the express lanes operator.

The study's plan would use the shoulders in the opposite direction of peak express lanes usage as a way to avoid the payments.

A couple of key things here. The first is the shocking cost of $12.5 BILLION for adding one lane from North Stafford (Not even Fredricksburg) to NOVA (I assume at least to the Springfield interchange). That's got to be directly affected by the compensation event so I guess VDOT went ahead and finally figured out what it would be, or at least what Transurban would want. Secondly, I am not surprised that hardened sholders seem to be preferred alternative as that both avoids a compensation event and seems to at least somewhat satisfy the public. Interested to see what specific interchange improvements VDOT puts on the table as at least in IMO besides the Occoquan bottleneck (still more related to the lane drop than the actual interchange), its the PW Parkway one (Exit 158) causing the most delays. Finally, I am glad additional lanes are being considered at the southern end of the Rappahannock River Crossing Project as I got to speak with Deputy Secretary Donohue about my chokepoint concerns there at one of the initial study meetings.
$12.5 billion... what is this adjusted for inflation in 2100?

The currently under construction Rappahannock River Bridge project in Fredericksburg is constructing a new 6-lane roadway in the median plus two bridges over the Rappahannock River for $264 million, or $48 million per mile. Understandable, and quite reasonable cost.

A locality request for ~$410 million for 9 miles of 8-lane widening south of Woodbridge would have also produced a $45 million per mile figure.

Now you're telling me I'm supposed to believe that 52 miles of widening, I.E. adding a single lane each way in the median, as opposed to an entire roadway like the Fredericksburg project is doing,(which this Stafford to North Virginia claim seems off) is going to cost $12.5 billion, or $240.8 per mile?

I'm not buying this for one second, unless of course it's Transurban's pockets taking 50% of that cost for "compensation events". And if it's true that VDOT is claimining "widening is the not the best option", then this state can pound sand. The whole I-95 corridor between Richmond and DC, especially Fredericksburg northwards, is one of the heaviest congested on the east coast, let alone the country, and if the state is going to go RE/T style on this one and not get anything needed done, then I've lost a lot of respect for VDOT, and something tells me the HO/T lane and private company Transurban is having a lot of influence with these decisions.

VDOT - We Keep Virginia Moving.

B.S.

Maybe while we're at it, let's not add any lanes to I-81 or I-64, and just do interchange improvements and ITS improvements? Ooh, or a convenient system of a statewide HO/T lane network? Transurban can operate it too!

At least the majority of the state hasn't been knocked senseless.

I shouldn't be surprised though. I knew as soon as this Corridor Improvement Plan was launched that widening would not be considered. The only thing that does surprise me though is the fact they even evaluated it. This state never fails to disappoint.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 11, 2019, 10:34:05 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 05:58:38 AM
And if it's true that VDOT is claimining "widening is the not the best option", then this state can pound sand.
I already called garbage on the Fredericksburg Far Left Star article. 
I will want to see official engineering study results before I decide on what is happening with I-95.

Also attend the Richmond meeting --

Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Richmond
Richmond Marriott —
Short Pump
4240 Dominion Blvd.
Glen Allen, VA 23060
4-7 p.m.
This meeting is combined with regularly-scheduled Fall Transportation Meetings
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/public-feedback-invited-on-interstate-95-corridor-improvement-study9-27-2019.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 10:52:33 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2019, 10:34:05 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 05:58:38 AM
And if it's true that VDOT is claimining "widening is the not the best option", then this state can pound sand.
I already called garbage on the Fredericksburg Far Left Star article. 
I will want to see official engineering study results before I decide on what is happening with I-95.

Also attend the Richmond meeting --

Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Richmond
Richmond Marriott —
Short Pump
4240 Dominion Blvd.
Glen Allen, VA 23060
4-7 p.m.
This meeting is combined with regularly-scheduled Fall Transportation Meetings
http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2019/public-feedback-invited-on-interstate-95-corridor-improvement-study9-27-2019.asp
My thing is knowing VDOT, it's likely what they're recommending - no lane widening.

I really want to know where that price estimate comes from. That is absurdly high compared to the Rappahannock River crossing project and previously proposed widening.

$12.5 billion to add a lane each way is blown way out of proportion.

And they're looking at the wrong area - 52 miles needs to be from Woodbridge to at minimum Ruther Glen, and then some more down to Richmond.

A lot of that, as you've mentioned before, has been built as a stealth lane already, reducing costs significantly.

Either way, there's no way I-95 should stay at 6 general purpose lanes with the traffic load it has, especially with no bypass either. It needs to be expanded to 8-lanes like the segment north of Woodbridge was, along with the median express lanes, and maybe even that bi-directional HO/T shoulder proposed, along with that 4th GP lane each way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 11, 2019, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 10:52:33 AM
My thing is knowing VDOT, it's likely what they're recommending - no lane widening.

That would completely go against their history, as documented on the Interstate widening table that I produced.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 11, 2019, 12:05:27 PM
$12 BILLION???? Bwahahahaaaa that's 3 HRBT's!!

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191011/8ab303bb108527a6039e4433f0e76e90.jpg)

SM-S820L

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 11, 2019, 02:29:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 05:58:38 AM
And if it's true that VDOT is claimining "widening is the not the best option", then this state can pound sand.
So VDOT is now going the way of NYSDOT? God help us all! And they wonder why people are taking detours onto US 301.


Quote from: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 05:58:38 AM
VDOT - We Keep Virginia Moving.

B.S.
I think the same way when I see those signs on NYSDOT maintenance yards claiming they're the best in the world.


Quote from: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 05:58:38 AM
Maybe while we're at it, let's not add any lanes to I-81 or I-64, and just do interchange improvements and ITS improvements? Ooh, or a convenient system of a statewide HO/T lane network? Transurban can operate it too!
You know somebody gave me some advice about a sarcastic remark I made about Mario Cuomo's polices on screwing up their road network.

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 05:58:38 AM
I shouldn't be surprised though. I knew as soon as this Corridor Improvement Plan was launched that widening would not be considered. The only thing that does surprise me though is the fact they even evaluated it. This state never fails to disappoint.
I should've known when they had that online survey a while back and left out anything associated with road improvements.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 04:36:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2019, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 10:52:33 AM
My thing is knowing VDOT, it's likely what they're recommending - no lane widening.

That would completely go against their history, as documented on the Interstate widening table that I produced.
Here's the difference - the entire corridor proposed for widening has HO/T lanes. VDOT has never widened general purpose when HO/T lanes are present. In Hampton Roads for example, all of the proposed lane additions are HO/T, no general purpose. Up in Northern Virginia using that same context, they've expanded the HO/T lanes to 3 lanes, but not any addition to the general purpose.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 04:55:24 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on October 11, 2019, 02:29:52 PM
I should've known when they had that online survey a while back and left out anything associated with road improvements.
I'm 99% certain RE/T groups produced those surveys. All it was was an opinion survey on how you like HO/T lanes and public transit. Nothing actually useful.

EDIT - The current survey actually mentions / discussed GP widening, and is less RE/T focused, though still has a lot of that -
https://va95corridor.metroquest.com/

Worth taking IMO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 11, 2019, 06:43:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 04:36:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2019, 11:18:02 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 11, 2019, 10:52:33 AM
My thing is knowing VDOT, it's likely what they're recommending - no lane widening.
That would completely go against their history, as documented on the Interstate widening table that I produced.
Here's the difference - the entire corridor proposed for widening has HO/T lanes. VDOT has never widened general purpose when HO/T lanes are present. In Hampton Roads for example, all of the proposed lane additions are HO/T, no general purpose. Up in Northern Virginia using that same context, they've expanded the HO/T lanes to 3 lanes, but not any addition to the general purpose.
The problem is, that you are quoting an article that stated "52 miles" and "North Stafford to Northern Virginia."

It's a junk journalism article, and what I can't stand about them is how they are injected into a forum and then all kinds of arguments result over the misinformation in the article.

As far as GP widening where HOT lanes are present, HOT lanes are a very new concept as it has only been 2014 since there has been -one- VDOT facility that has them where there is a demonstrated need for more GP lanes.

So I suggest that we dismiss this sub-thread and await -real- data to come forth from an official source.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on October 11, 2019, 08:49:07 PM
The shoulder usage might be a good idea, especially around Woodbridge.  Sunday morning SB traffic is awful around VA 123, while the Express Lanes are open northbound.  Either that, or they need to keep the Express Lanes southbound longer (maybe to midday Sunday).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 11, 2019, 09:13:42 PM
I searched around for the VDOT study referenced in the FLS article and came up empty. But I have no problem with the 52 mile reference as 26 miles in each direction would be 52 miles of an additional lane. This is the distance from Garrisonville to Springfield.

I do believe it would be pricey because there isn't room in the median everywhere  but I also think the quoted figure is high unless multiple  interchanges have to be rebuilt.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 11, 2019, 10:00:02 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on October 11, 2019, 08:49:07 PM
The shoulder usage might be a good idea, especially around Woodbridge.  Sunday morning SB traffic is awful around VA 123, while the Express Lanes are open northbound.  Either that, or they need to keep the Express Lanes southbound longer (maybe to midday Sunday).
I never have approved of freeway shoulder usage for traffic.  I know it has been done in a few places, but if a vehicle breaks down, it's a good way for someone to have to be shoveled up.  That is the traffic engineer in me speaking out.

Quote from: Mapmikey on October 11, 2019, 09:13:42 PM
I searched around for the VDOT study referenced in the FLS article and came up empty. But I have no problem with the 52 mile reference as 26 miles in each direction would be 52 miles of an additional lane. This is the distance from Garrisonville to Springfield.
I do believe it would be pricey because there isn't room in the median everywhere  but I also think the quoted figure is high unless multiple  interchanges have to be rebuilt.
I don't recall VDOT referring to a widening project in that manner anytime.   I also don't see any widening north of VA-123 as I-95 with the 4NB-3R-4SB configuration is IMO fully built out and should not be widened further.

It is time for Maryland to step up to the plate and start planning their portion of a new north-south freeway for the region such as the I-97 Extension along the US-301 and VA-207 corridor.  Not expect VA I-95 to be made into a super-freeway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 12, 2019, 04:17:39 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 11, 2019, 10:00:02 PM
I never have approved of freeway shoulder usage for traffic.  I know it has been done in a few places, but if a vehicle breaks down, it's a good way for someone to have to be shoveled up.  That is the traffic engineer in me speaking out.
Approve it or not, VDOT is continuing forth with them. In Hampton Roads, they already exist on I-264, and are being built as apart of the High Rise Bridge project and HRBT Project. They are also evaluating doing something very similar like I-95 by converting the inner shoulder on the reversible lane segment to a part time HO/T to allow two-way operations.

VDOT is being generous about this IMO - a lot of DOTs would just go ahead and call that "part time shoulder HO/T lane"  a full time HO/T lane and completely eliminate the left shoulder, leaving no area to break down if you're in the HO/T lane - barrier on your left, those divider things on your right. I think VDOT should just go ahead and do this looking from a traffic standpoint, and from inception get the HRBT built to 8-lanes full time, but I do see the concern with safety.

This is what I'm referring to - https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2958062,-97.7588061,3a,75y,21.74h,87.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shXZlkSBi47sJKrLEmiP1kQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 Thats also how I'd like to see the HRBT & HRB projects to be built out - 3 GP + 1 HO/T, not VDOT's proposed 2 GP + 2 HO/T.

Lastly, the reason they're even being considered in North Virginia is strictly to only be open the opposite direction of Transurban's lanes. That way, there would be no compensation events required as the lanes would not compete with Transurban's. I agree, it sounds dumb, but that's one major flaw of the contract between them and Virginia signed into it. Yet another reason why P3's aren't always perfect.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 12, 2019, 01:02:38 PM
When the HOT lanes are finally extended to Fredericksburg, plus the C/D system there, plus construction at northern end of the HOT lanes is finished then it should be a big improvement to the traffic congestion. Any more added GP lanes should be from Woodbridge southward. Transurban wouldn't "lose" money simply because people are already willing to pay to use the HOT lanes where 8 GP lanes already exist anyway.

Adding some more busses would certainly help if need be.

If we did have $12.5b to throw around like that I would rather it go towards a bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 15, 2019, 07:55:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2019, 11:34:07 PM
Quote
One traffic model studied the long-term impacts of adding lanes to a 52-mile stretch of I—95 from North Stafford to Northern Virginia. Adding one lane would cost $12.5 billion, but showed little improvement.
I call bull-ohney.  It is 17 miles between north Stafford County and Woodbridge, and no additional lane is needed north of Woodbridge.

Someone needs to have their reportage/journalistic skills upgraded.  Or else they have been fed a line of baloney by the RE/T groups.

There is some information available now, though no price tag.

The 52 miles studied is actually Exit 118 to Exit 170 and it could be as much as adding 3 lanes...this would clearly require rebuilding most if not all interchanges...

Go to pdf pgs 104-131 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 15, 2019, 08:09:10 PM
Route changes coming:

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

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

It did not indicate in the presentation (pg. 6 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf) what the designation would be.  Good chance it becomes part of existing VA 318 which serves the state capitol already.  These segments will be connected to the rest of the primary system because Main St is part of US 60/VA 147.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 15, 2019, 08:29:47 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 15, 2019, 07:55:37 PM
There is some information available now, though no price tag.
The 52 miles studied is actually Exit 118 to Exit 170 and it could be as much as adding 3 lanes...this would clearly require rebuilding most if not all interchanges...
Go to pdf pgs 104-131 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf
Adding 3 lanes each way would obviously be expensive, but not $240 million per mile, as even the NJTP widening from 6 to 12 lanes a few years ago was 1/3 that per mile.

The problem with adding just one lane each way, is that it costs a lot of money, and if the 20 year projection is that you needed to add 3 lanes each way, then you spent a lot of money for a project that does not anywhere near meet the design year needs.

When I lived near Valley Forge in the 1970s, I observed the need for expansion on that segment of the NJTP between Bordentown (PA TPK) and New Brunswick.  Even around 1975 it was pretty well known that the new I-95 was not going to be built.  So I said why not widen the 6 lane section to 8 lanes, I figured that would be a real help.  Chances are they knew back then what I outlined in the previous paragraph.  Even on the toll-financed NJTP, it took 40 more years before that was widened, the only freeway between Philadelphia and New York City (at least between Bordentown and New Brunswick).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on October 15, 2019, 08:48:54 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 15, 2019, 08:09:10 PM
Route changes coming:

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

Short prison road. I've clinched it, but losing it from my Travel Mapping stats (TM doesn't map the ridiculously large number of Virginia secondary routes) subtracts only 0.99 mile from my total.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 16, 2019, 05:44:18 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 15, 2019, 07:55:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2019, 11:34:07 PM
Quote
One traffic model studied the long-term impacts of adding lanes to a 52-mile stretch of I—95 from North Stafford to Northern Virginia. Adding one lane would cost $12.5 billion, but showed little improvement.
I call bull-ohney.  It is 17 miles between north Stafford County and Woodbridge, and no additional lane is needed north of Woodbridge.

Someone needs to have their reportage/journalistic skills upgraded.  Or else they have been fed a line of baloney by the RE/T groups.

There is some information available now, though no price tag.

The 52 miles studied is actually Exit 118 to Exit 170 and it could be as much as adding 3 lanes...this would clearly require rebuilding most if not all interchanges...

Go to pdf pgs 104-131 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf
If VDOT were indeed to add 3 lanes each way, that would be a major operational improvement, but I will say, it'd probably have to be designed similar to the NJTP with two separated roadways each way.

My guess is that potentially the 3 lane widening was the $240 million per mile figure, and that could have potentially been due to creating a dual 3+3+3+3 all the way up to Woodbridge, than 4+3+3+4 up to the Springfield interchange. That type of project is certainly needed IMO, but it would be fantastically expensive from Woodbridge northward.

I say VDOT should get serious and complete a full EIS on such a project, and maybe even build a 4+3+3+4 or 3+3+3+3 on the Beltway segment tying into the existing 2+2+2+2 at the bridge, and expand that to 3+3+3+3. Then VDOT could dump off at Maryland, and it would be on them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 16, 2019, 05:53:00 AM
One thing I call B.S. on in that presentation is the fact that "travel speeds in 2018 were down 7.5% compared with 2009"  on the segment they recently widened to 8-lanes a few years back.

The majority of that corridor has actually improved. What has made "travel speeds"  go "down 7.5%"  is when VDOT added that ridiculous lane drop at Woodbridge which created a -new- choke point that backs up for miles heading southbound that never was an issue before. That has dropped the average speeds of the entire stretch, and now they try to claim the entire project has had no benefit, which is false.

Page 144 agrees with the "RE/T"  approach, that "adding general purpose lanes does not address the issue"  citing their graphs and charts which show little operational improvement, which again I call B.S. on. Funny, how widening even by adding 3 lanes each way will "not help" yet the same presentation shows the current 3 lanes each way they're adding at Fredericksburg will have up over a 50% increase of capacity and traffic flow.

I hold my statement that VDOT -is a joke- for taking this approach. Just taking the easy way out, handing the job to Transurban to "solve congestion" . VDOT has no long term plan to fix I-95 if they don't do GP widening. HO/T lanes appear to be that long term plan backed by a private investor looking for a profit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 16, 2019, 10:28:33 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 16, 2019, 05:53:00 AM


The majority of that corridor has actually improved. What has made "travel speeds"  go "down 7.5%"  is when VDOT added that ridiculous lane drop at Woodbridge which created a -new- choke point that backs up for miles heading southbound that never was an issue before. That has dropped the average speeds of the entire stretch, and now they try to claim the entire project has had no benefit, which is false.


Not a new chokepoint, per se, but a relocated one.  There were plenty of backups SB at the previous lane drop location before Exit 166.

That said, I do believe the set up at the current drop could've been done better.  I would've started the ramp from 95 SB to VA 123 before the flyover from US 1 and ran it to the right of the flyover to eliminate the weave that happens on mainline 95 with these two ramps now.

Really I thought the 4th lane should've gone to Exit 158 but I'm guessing that was going to be pretty expensive to widen 95 just south of the VA 123 interchange.

95 NB is much better north of VA 123 than before the widening.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 16, 2019, 01:18:12 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 15, 2019, 08:09:10 PM
Route changes coming:

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

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

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

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

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

I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 16, 2019, 04:38:03 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 16, 2019, 10:28:33 AM
95 NB is much better north of VA 123 than before the widening.
Agreed, but VDOT's RE/T study doesn't want you to know that - they look solely at the major chokepoint they added and say the whole thing doesn't work where in reality it works everywhere else.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 16, 2019, 08:35:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 16, 2019, 04:38:03 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 16, 2019, 10:28:33 AM
95 NB is much better north of VA 123 than before the widening.
Agreed, but VDOT's RE/T study doesn't want you to know that - they look solely at the major chokepoint they added and say the whole thing doesn't work where in reality it works everywhere else.
It is not VDOT's study, IMHO, it is something out of the Governor's office and/or the local NVA governments.  I suspect VDOT was not part of it at all, at least nobody in highway administration, and I will try to summarize my reasons for that thought.

I attended the I-95 Corridor meeting in Short Pump yesterday, and the CTB workshop today.

Very enlightening to watch these meetings in person and to interact with these two --

I talked at length to Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine and Deputy Secretary of Transportation Nick Donohue at the I-95 meeting.  Keep in mind that they are appointees of the Governor, as are the CTB members, and they are not part of VDOT.

They are sharp and intelligent people, but they were evasive when I talked about I-95 mainline widening.  She did in fact cite the $12.5 billion for adding one lane each way for 52 miles, and said there were studies that predicted very little traffic improvement 10 years after that was completed.  I cited the project between VA-234 and VA-123 for $400 million to add one lane each way, but I could not get a clear opinion out of either her or Nick or even agreement that this was a locally proposed project 3 years ago.  I asked about compensation events and could not get a definitive answer out of either of them about whether it would happen or how much it could cost.

Today's CTB meeting had an I-95 Corridor presentation by Deputy Secretary of Transportation Nick Donohue, and he talked very rapidly for at least 40 minutes (was he trying to filibuster his way thru?) and there was only a modest amount of member discussion near the end.  He showed "Peak Period Speed Results after Widening" slides (they are in the workshop agenda article on the CTB website) that showed very little change is congestion for 2030 and 2040 and for 1-lane, 2-lane and 3-lane widening scenarios.  Then he said that mainline widening is not recommended due to these 'studies' and that the answer to I-95 is increased service of rail, bus, car pool and van pool.

The charts' ("Peak Period Speed Results after Widening" ) data were provided by "local partners" according to them, so it is unknown as to who produced the "study" that they refer to, but I am pretty sure that VDOT was not part of it.  By the sound of it he was referring to local governments and perhaps anti-highway activist/obstructionist groups.

Not one word stated in the CTB meeting about compensation events, so I don't think that is the factor here.  I think that what I said before is the case, it is something out of the Governor's office and/or the local NVA governments.  The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation is another suspect.

The CTB members were like sheeple during the presentation, but they are political appointees just like the Sec-Trans and Dep-Sec-Trans.  I was hoping that some would speak up and challenge Donohue's "no widening" screed, but no dice.

The $12.5 billion figure was stated in the CTB meeting by Donohue and is the first "whopper" that is served at this table, and frankly that brings everything else into question, and makes me wonder if some of the other entrees are spiked with Ipecac.

If you want to influence the process on I-95 then I would suggest contacting the above parties, the Governor's office, local NVA governments and VDRPT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 16, 2019, 09:39:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 16, 2019, 04:38:03 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 16, 2019, 10:28:33 AM
95 NB is much better north of VA 123 than before the widening.
Agreed, but VDOT's RE/T study doesn't want you to know that - they look solely at the major chokepoint they added and say the whole thing doesn't work where in reality it works everywhere else.

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

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

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

I will be curious to see once the Silver Line is fully opened if that reduces traffic significantly on I-66, VA 7 and/or VA 267.  If so this may suggest that getting Metro extended south from DC might be a viable solution.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 16, 2019, 10:05:44 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 16, 2019, 09:39:46 PM
Checking the traffic data from 2009 and 2018, the segment between Exit 160 and Exit 163 went from 184k (including HOV) to 230k (including HOT).  The traffic data showed a zero increase in the reversible lanes at this segment, so this ~25% increase in traffic is supposedly only on the mainline.  This means that without the 4th lane the speed value would've been worse.
These 'studies' that use speed from maximum peak hour in the mainline widening forecast ignore other important factors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1042
 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on October 17, 2019, 12:00:44 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 16, 2019, 01:18:12 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 15, 2019, 08:09:10 PM
Route changes coming:

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

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

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

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

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

I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.
If what becomes part of VA 318? Just Bank, or all of the legs, or what? Will there be a bunch of Y routes? Is there a precedent for seven legged primaries?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 12:08:58 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 16, 2019, 01:18:12 PM
I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.

What was that ... extending it down VA-653 Courthouse Road to US-360 Hull Street Road?  To VA-288 at Five Points?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 17, 2019, 08:59:30 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 12:08:58 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 16, 2019, 01:18:12 PM
I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VA 319 is actually really well posted to intersect itself (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2076425,-77.4521995,3a,75y,155.83h,84.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scF0iUF7dic-TMugQF9Vl-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) a bunch of times on the Central State Hospital grounds because pretty much every street on the grounds is considered part of VA 319.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 09:40:26 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 17, 2019, 08:59:30 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 12:08:58 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 16, 2019, 01:18:12 PM
I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.
What was that ... extending it down VA-653 Courthouse Road to US-360 Hull Street Road?  To VA-288 at Five Points?
I think the proposal was to extend the designation to US 360 since that segment is in the NHS, among other reasons.
A modern 4-lane arterial highway, connects two U.S. highways, and VA-76 Powhite Parkway.

Seems like logical state traffic route candidate.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 17, 2019, 10:02:11 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 09:40:26 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 17, 2019, 08:59:30 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 12:08:58 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 16, 2019, 01:18:12 PM
I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.
What was that ... extending it down VA-653 Courthouse Road to US-360 Hull Street Road?  To VA-288 at Five Points?
I think the proposal was to extend the designation to US 360 since that segment is in the NHS, among other reasons.
A modern 4-lane arterial highway, connects two U.S. highways, and VA-76 Powhite Parkway.

Seems like logical state traffic route candidate.

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

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

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 17, 2019, 10:24:32 AM
Regarding VA-401, Lee District Supervisor Jeff McKay told me at the time that Fairfax County had opposed the extension and the proposal was therefore dropped. He's almost certain to be elected Chairman of the Board of Supervisors next month, so I doubt the county's position will change.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 05:55:48 PM
The HRTPO Express Lanes Working Committee released recommendations (https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P10%20-%20Express%20Lanes%20WC%20to%20HRTPO%20Board%20101719.pdf) for the proposed network in Hampton Roads -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




There was also another presentation given to the HRTPO which evaluates each proposed scenario and cost estimates (https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P10A%20HRTPO_HREL-Project%20Costs-FINAL.pdf) for implementation.

Currently, the proposed scenario includes the following -

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on October 17, 2019, 06:52:08 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 17, 2019, 08:59:30 AM

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

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

Of course, Kentucky has a state marked route that intersects no other state marked route. It's in Madison County. You have to drive on a county route to get to it. I have never been able to figure out why that independent segment of road is a state route. It's dead end and appears to serve only residents and farmland.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 07:30:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 05:55:48 PM
There was also another presentation given to the HRTPO which evaluates each proposed scenario and cost estimates (https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/P10A%20HRTPO_HREL-Project%20Costs-FINAL.pdf) for implementation.
Looks like the same presentation as at the CTB meeting yesterday, both given by the Commissioner of VDOT.

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

They didn't mention anything about I-564 ... does that still have HOV lanes?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 08:53:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 07:30:09 PM
Between what he said in the presentation and comments by the board members, it was apparent that there is still considerable flux in exactly how certain major features will be worked out, such as how to seamlessly connect the current HOV terminal in Hampton to the new HRBT managed lanes, and how to connect the new managed lanes to the reversible roadway terminals at Wards Corner, and how to seamlessly connect the current HOV terminal in Chesapeake to the new High Rise Bridge managed lanes.  There are various schemes that are being evaluated for all three of these connections.
One thing I wish they would evaluate is the feasibility of providing direct connectors between the HO/T lanes and intersecting freeways, most notably I-464 / VA-168 / US-17. A significant amount of traffic exits from I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) to VA-168 / US-17 South, along with VA-168 North to I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) and the substandard and inadequate cloverleaf at that junction backs up 1-2 miles daily because of weaving at the largest part of the cloverleaf as the traffic streams converge. Traffic using the HO/T lane wishing to make this movement will have to be dumped out ~1 mile prior into stopped traffic in the left lane, be forced to make their way over 2-3 lanes in stopped / slow moving traffic, just to make the movement. An incentive to draw more people to the lane would be to provide a direct connector at minimum from I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) to VA-168 / US-17 South, and maybe even between VA-168 North and I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill).

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

Quote from: Beltway on October 17, 2019, 07:30:09 PM
They didn't mention anything about I-564 ... does that still have HOV lanes?
Yes, I-564 is set up with 2 GP lanes and 1 HOV in each direction. The HRBT project I believe was going to evaluate constructing a direct connector between I-564 and the proposed HO/T lanes to/from the HRBT, similar to the counterpart connectors that take traffic from I-564 to/from the reversible lanes to I-264.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on October 18, 2019, 12:40:21 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2019, 06:52:08 PM
Of course, Kentucky has a state marked route that intersects no other state marked route. It's in Madison County. You have to drive on a county route to get to it. I have never been able to figure out why that independent segment of road is a state route. It's dead end and appears to serve only residents and farmland.
And this is which route?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on October 18, 2019, 11:26:48 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 18, 2019, 12:40:21 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2019, 06:52:08 PM
Of course, Kentucky has a state marked route that intersects no other state marked route. It's in Madison County. You have to drive on a county route to get to it. I have never been able to figure out why that independent segment of road is a state route. It's dead end and appears to serve only residents and farmland.
And this is which route?

KY 938.

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

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

https://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/State%20Primary%20Road%20System%20Lists/Madison.pdf
(Route description on page 3)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 18, 2019, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 17, 2019, 06:52:08 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 17, 2019, 08:59:30 AM

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

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

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

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

318, 324, 325, 326, 330, 335, 336, 341, 342, 345, 353, 355, 370, 371, 379, 382, 392, 394, 398
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 18, 2019, 03:43:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 17, 2019, 10:24:32 AM
Regarding VA-401, Lee District Supervisor Jeff McKay told me at the time that Fairfax County had opposed the extension and the proposal was therefore dropped. He's almost certain to be elected Chairman of the Board of Supervisors next month, so I doubt the county's position will change.

This is unfortunate, for one simple reason.  Having VA-401 follow Van Dorn Street and run all the way from VA-611 (Telegraph Road) in the south to VA-7 (King Street) [using a short section of Menokin Drive to reach King Street] would seem to create a clear route for all to use - including signing the interchange at I-95/I-495 Exit 173 as VA-401 instead of 613.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 18, 2019, 06:59:01 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 18, 2019, 03:43:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 17, 2019, 10:24:32 AM
Regarding VA-401, Lee District Supervisor Jeff McKay told me at the time that Fairfax County had opposed the extension and the proposal was therefore dropped. He's almost certain to be elected Chairman of the Board of Supervisors next month, so I doubt the county's position will change.

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

I don't understand all the details, nor do I remember everything he said, but he said something about how the county's ability to construct, or allow construction of, access to the road would be constrained if it were a primary route. I don't recall the full details and I'm not sure what new access they really have in mind anyway, other than that the Top Golf is supposed to be replaced with residential development in the next few years–but I believe the plan is to use only the existing access point for that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 19, 2019, 07:59:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 18, 2019, 06:59:01 PM
I don't understand all the details, nor do I remember everything he said, but he said something about how the county's ability to construct, or allow construction of, access to the road would be constrained if it were a primary route. I don't recall the full details and I'm not sure what new access they really have in mind anyway, other than that the Top Golf is supposed to be replaced with residential development in the next few years–but I believe the plan is to use only the existing access point for that.

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

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

I do know that county governments have more input on what improvements are made to secondary system roads than they do for the primary system.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 19, 2019, 10:28:50 PM
I will see Jeff McKay on Thursday night, but I don't think I'll ask him about it. He has more important things on his mind in the final two weeks before Election Day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 29, 2019, 08:16:32 AM
There now appears to be an APL on I-95 SB at Exit 79 (I-64 West/I-195). I'm in NC at the moment so I don't know what the front looks like..

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191029/154cf04c5c59318b971dd1be49d7246c.jpg)

SM-S820L

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 29, 2019, 01:32:05 PM
Quote from: plain on October 29, 2019, 08:16:32 AM
There now appears to be an APL on I-95 SB at Exit 79 (I-64 West/I-195). I'm in NC at the moment so I don't know what the front looks like..

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191029/154cf04c5c59318b971dd1be49d7246c.jpg)

SM-S820L



Damn, I was just in that area today but I didn't go that far north on I-95. VDOT has been working on replacing some signage along the I-95/I-64 concurrency (including finally posting US 1/301 on the northbound exit signage at Exit 76A), so I'm guessing this appeared as part of that project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on October 29, 2019, 05:34:57 PM
Quote from: plain on October 29, 2019, 08:16:32 AM
There now appears to be an APL on I-95 SB at Exit 79 (I-64 West/I-195). I'm in NC at the moment so I don't know what the front looks like..
Yes indeed.  I saw it about an hour ago.

This is southbound I-95 just before the exits to I-64 westbound and I-195 southbound.  The overhead sign structure is new, and the sign is new.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on November 01, 2019, 08:07:03 AM
VDOT is holding a public meeting in Chatham on November 14 to discuss improvements to US-29 between Lynchburg and Danville.

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

Behind paywall:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayers reports for the Register & Bee. Reach him at (434) 791-7981.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 11:53:49 AM
Quote from: LM117 on November 01, 2019, 08:07:03 AM
VDOT is holding a public meeting in Chatham on November 14 to discuss improvements to US-29 between Lynchburg and Danville.

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

Behind paywall:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US-29 is a corridor that needs a massive study for long-term freeway upgrade, but as it stands, Virginia doesn't seem to have much interests in long-distance corridors, with the exception of the 30 year old I-73 paper highway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on November 01, 2019, 12:04:18 PM
Tazewell uses a road to bring back business to the former coal town. VA 16, which crosses three mountains between Tazewell and Marion, has been tagged "Back of the Dragon" and is promoted as a great ride for sports cars and motorcycles. The attraction has helped both communities attract visitors and has sparked a revival of both downtowns.

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

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on November 01, 2019, 12:29:30 PM
Re US 29

I was surprised they mentioned two intersections on business routes.  Those would be local issues to me and shouldn't affect the corridor itself. The only thing I think is needed on that stretch is the southern half of the Lynchburg bypass.  It's been years since I've driven that highway but I doubt it's changed that much.  Once you get south of VA 24 it's a fine drive from what I remember. 

As for Tightsqueeze Road, that road has no turn lanes at US 29.  So it looks like it operates as a split phase signal for that road.  That seems like it needs intersection improvements for Tightsqueeze Road.  That may be enough for that problem.  If not RCUT would be the next option. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 01, 2019, 02:07:59 PM
What's wrong with the route? (Admittedly, it's the only section of US 29 between the state line and I-66 that I haven't been on, but it's a four-lane through route, isn't it?)

Anytime I see Lynchburg and Danville in the same place, Johnny Cash singing "The Wreck of the Old 97" goes through my mind.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 01, 2019, 02:41:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 01, 2019, 02:07:59 PM
What's wrong with the route? (Admittedly, it's the only section of US 29 between the state line and I-66 that I haven't been on, but it's a four-lane through route, isn't it?)

Anytime I see Lynchburg and Danville in the same place, Johnny Cash singing "The Wreck of the Old 97" goes through my mind.

At Tightsqueeze and especially between VA 24 and US 460 there is quite a bit of congestion.   Parts of the segment north of VA 24 remind me a little bit of US 29 through Madison Heights before it was bypassed.

I am much less familiar with US 29 south of Gretna so I can't speak to the US 29 area just north of the Danville bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on November 01, 2019, 02:47:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 01, 2019, 02:07:59 PM
What's wrong with the route? (Admittedly, it's the only section of US 29 between the state line and I-66 that I haven't been on, but it's a four-lane through route, isn't it?)

Anytime I see Lynchburg and Danville in the same place, Johnny Cash singing "The Wreck of the Old 97" goes through my mind.
Speaking of the part from Charlottesville to NC, it's a good route from what I remember.  The part just south of US 460 is just the worst part because of the amount of traffic signals.  Four signals are in a short stretch.  It's not terrible.  It's just glaring compared to the rest of that highway where you will find few traffic signals thanks to the town bypasses.

The part north of Charlottesville to I-66 isn't so lucky.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 01, 2019, 05:06:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 11:53:49 AM
US-29 is a corridor that needs a massive study for long-term freeway upgrade, but as it stands, Virginia doesn't seem to have much interests
As said before, a fatal hole was shot in that concept in 2013, by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the governor at that time, Terry McAuliffe when he dishonestly torpedoed the under-contract US-29 western bypass extension, a vital segment of any such freeway corridor, and channeled the money to build the "Route 29 Solutions" which is little more than a local circulator system that does very little for the thru traffic.

Unless they bypass that county entirely, something that I see having no engineering feasibility and economic feasibility, you can forget it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 05:38:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 01, 2019, 05:06:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 11:53:49 AM
US-29 is a corridor that needs a massive study for long-term freeway upgrade, but as it stands, Virginia doesn't seem to have much interests
As said before, a fatal hole was shot in that concept in 2013, by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the governor at that time, Terry McAuliffe when he dishonestly torpedoed the under-contract US-29 western bypass extension, a vital segment of any such freeway corridor, and channeled the money to build the "Route 29 Solutions" which is little more than a local circulator system that does very little for the thru traffic.

Unless they bypass that county entirely, something that I see having no engineering feasibility and economic feasibility, you can forget it.
US-29 between the north end of the Danville Bypass to US-460 at Lynchburg at minimum.

The long-term vision for the US-29 corridor that was studied years back had the segment between the north end of the Danville Bypass and US-460 as a freeway, utilizing the existing bypasses and building bypass connectors in between, then extending the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass southward.

A northern extension of I-785 from Danville to link Lynchburg to the interstate system & southwards to Danville, Greensboro, I-73, I-40, I-85, and North Carolina overall would be a logical addition to the freeway / interstate system. NCDOT has the remaining arterial portion of US-29 between Greensboro and Danville funded to upgrade to interstate standards beginning in 2027. Lynchburg is the largest city in Virginia not linked to the interstate system.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 01, 2019, 06:06:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 05:38:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 01, 2019, 05:06:00 PM
Unless they bypass that county entirely, something that I see having no engineering feasibility and economic feasibility, you can forget it.
US-29 between the north end of the Danville Bypass to US-460 at Lynchburg at minimum.
I just don't see that much benefit for only that segment.

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 05:38:11 PM
Lynchburg is the largest city in Virginia not linked to the interstate system.
It is linked north, south, east and west by 4-lane high-speed intra-state highways that all connect to the Interstate highway system.

If they want to build 30 to 40 miles of freeway for Lynchburg to connect to the Interstate highway system, I would rather see them build the missing 5th leg to connect to I-81 and I-64 at Lexington.

Probably the shortest way would be to parallel US-60 between Amherst and Lexington, about 25 to 27 miles of new freeway that connects to the US-29 Madison Heights Bypass which is built to Interstate standards.

This would be I-781, and a much better connection between Lynchburg and I-64 West and I-81 North.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 06:11:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 01, 2019, 06:06:28 PM
It is linked north, south, east and west by 4-lane high-speed intra-state highways that all connect to the Interstate highway system.

If they want to build 30 to 40 miles of freeway for Lynchburg to connect to the Interstate highway system, I would rather see them build the missing 5th leg to connect to I-81 and I-64 at Lexington.

Probably the shortest way would be to parallel US-60 between Amherst and Lexington, about 25 to 27 miles of new freeway that connects to the US-29 Madison Heights Bypass which is built to Interstate standards.

This would be I-781, and a much better connection between Lynchburg and I-64 West and I-81 North.
Here's an idea - combine the Lynchburg - Danville freeway concept, and your US-60 freeway concept.

Freeway from Greensboro to Lexington, connecting Central North Carolina, Greensboro, I-40 (to/from west), I-73 (to/from south), I-85 (to/from south), Danville, Lynchburg, Lexington, I-81 (to/from north), and I-64 (to/from west).

An issue with a US-60 freeway would be the Blue Ridge Mountains - it'd be tough getting through there, though not impossible.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on November 01, 2019, 06:21:04 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 01, 2019, 02:41:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 01, 2019, 02:07:59 PM
What's wrong with the route? (Admittedly, it's the only section of US 29 between the state line and I-66 that I haven't been on, but it's a four-lane through route, isn't it?)

Anytime I see Lynchburg and Danville in the same place, Johnny Cash singing "The Wreck of the Old 97" goes through my mind.

At Tightsqueeze and especially between VA 24 and US 460 there is quite a bit of congestion.   Parts of the segment north of VA 24 remind me a little bit of US 29 through Madison Heights before it was bypassed.

I am much less familiar with US 29 south of Gretna so I can't speak to the US 29 area just north of the Danville bypass.

US-29 between Gretna and Danville isn't that bad at all. Tightsqueeze is the only major problem on that stretch. I live 9 miles from there and often go to that shopping center (Tightsqueeze Plaza). It can be a real PITA just trying to get onto Tightsqueeze Road from the plaza because traffic would be backed all the way up from the traffic light.

Regarding making right turns from Tightsqueeze Road onto US-29 South, I've often seen cars drive on the shoulder to bypass the line and cut through the gas station parking lot to get on US-29. Now, if you're trying to get on US-29 from CVS Pharmacy it's not bad, but Tightsqueeze Road could really use a dedicated right turn lane. Another improvement I'd like to see is lengthening the ramp merges on the Danville Bypass. They're too short and don't meet interstate standards for I-785 (when or if that happens).

Quote from: BrianP on November 01, 2019, 12:29:30 PM
The only thing I think is needed on that stretch is the southern half of the Lynchburg bypass.

Desperately needed!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 01, 2019, 09:57:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 06:11:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 01, 2019, 06:06:28 PM
This would be I-781, and a much better connection between Lynchburg and I-64 West and I-81 North.
Here's an idea - combine the Lynchburg - Danville freeway concept, and your US-60 freeway concept.
Freeway from Greensboro to Lexington, connecting Central North Carolina, Greensboro, I-40 (to/from west), I-73 (to/from south), I-85 (to/from south), Danville, Lynchburg, Lexington, I-81 (to/from north), and I-64 (to/from west).
I would let the others be separate and independent projects.

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 06:11:03 PM
An issue with a US-60 freeway would be the Blue Ridge Mountains - it'd be tough getting through there, though not impossible.
Probably no more so than Afton Mountain, maybe somewhat less.

Another one of those projects that seems so obvious but for some reason it hasn't surfaced as an official proposal.

The I-64 southern route would have passed somewhere in that general vicinity, but subsequent to the approval of the northern route, I have never seen that spur proposed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 02, 2019, 05:20:51 PM
So are you all saying that it's a tight squeeze on US 29 at Tightsqueeze?

:-D :-D

also...

Quote
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 11:53:49 AM
US-29 is a corridor that needs a massive study for long-term freeway upgrade, but as it stands, Virginia doesn't seem to have much interests
As said before, a fatal hole was shot in that concept in 2013, by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the governor at that time, Terry McAuliffe when he dishonestly torpedoed the under-contract US-29 western bypass extension, a vital segment of any such freeway corridor, and channeled the money to build the "Route 29 Solutions" which is little more than a local circulator system that does very little for the thru traffic.

Unless they bypass that county entirely, something that I see having no engineering feasibility and economic feasibility, you can forget it.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2019, 08:37:12 PM by Alps »

Quote
Quote from: Beltway on November 01, 2019, 05:06:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 11:53:49 AM
US-29 is a corridor that needs a massive study for long-term freeway upgrade, but as it stands, Virginia doesn't seem to have much interests
As said before, a fatal hole was shot in that concept in 2013, by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the governor at that time, Terry McAuliffe when he dishonestly torpedoed the under-contract US-29 western bypass extension, a vital segment of any such freeway corridor, and channeled the money to build the "Route 29 Solutions" which is little more than a local circulator system that does very little for the thru traffic.

Unless they bypass that county entirely, something that I see having no engineering feasibility and economic feasibility, you can forget it.
US-29 between the north end of the Danville Bypass to US-460 at Lynchburg at minimum.

The long-term vision for the US-29 corridor that was studied years back had the segment between the north end of the Danville Bypass and US-460 as a freeway, utilizing the existing bypasses and building bypass connectors in between, then extending the US-29 Lynchburg Bypass southward.

A northern extension of I-785 from Danville to link Lynchburg to the interstate system & southwards to Danville, Greensboro, I-73, I-40, I-85, and North Carolina overall would be a logical addition to the freeway / interstate system. NCDOT has the remaining arterial portion of US-29 between Greensboro and Danville funded to upgrade to interstate standards beginning in 2027. Lynchburg is the largest city in Virginia not linked to the interstate system.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2019, 08:37:33 PM by Alps »

Now I'm wondering what I missed!  :bigass:

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 02, 2019, 05:29:31 PM
I'm guessing there was probably a snide nickname used for the former governor and Alps removed it. Such would be consistent with prior occurrences.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 02, 2019, 06:02:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 01, 2019, 06:21:04 PM
Another improvement I'd like to see is lengthening the ramp merges on the Danville Bypass. They're too short and don't meet interstate standards for I-785 (when or if that happens).
Strictly looking at interstate standards, I don't think it would go against them, but it's certainly a safety improvement to look at acceleration / deceleration lane extensions, and something to look at.

But I don't think it would prevent VDOT from slapping up I-785 signs (if they even apply for the designation given their history, maybe just re-name to VA-785!)

Quote from: LM117 on November 01, 2019, 06:21:04 PM
Quote from: BrianP on November 01, 2019, 12:29:30 PM
The only thing I think is needed on that stretch is the southern half of the Lynchburg bypass.
Desperately needed!
The original concepts had a ~13 mile freeway stretching from US-29 / US-460 to US-29 just south of Yellow Branch, but ideally they should just build a ~20 mile freeway between US-29 / US-460 to US-29 tying seamlessly into the Atlavista Bypass. More mileage & cost, but would bypass another 7 miles of arterial US-29, and tie seamlessly into a pre-existing freeway segment, providing one long ~45 mile continuous freeway between south of Altavista to north of Amherst.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on November 02, 2019, 06:52:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 02, 2019, 05:29:31 PM
I'm guessing there was probably a snide nickname used for the former governor and Alps removed it. Such would be consistent with prior occurrences.
I removed an unnecessary political citation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 02, 2019, 07:03:52 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 02, 2019, 06:52:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 02, 2019, 05:29:31 PM
I'm guessing there was probably a snide nickname used for the former governor and Alps removed it. Such would be consistent with prior occurrences.
I removed an unnecessary political citation.

So putting an (R) or a (D) after the name is "an unnecessary political citation" and needs to be removed?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on November 02, 2019, 11:08:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 02, 2019, 07:03:52 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 02, 2019, 06:52:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 02, 2019, 05:29:31 PM
I'm guessing there was probably a snide nickname used for the former governor and Alps removed it. Such would be consistent with prior occurrences.
I removed an unnecessary political citation.

So putting an (R) or a (D) after the name is "an unnecessary political citation" and needs to be removed?


Yes, because it has no bearing on the discussion here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 02, 2019, 11:27:47 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 02, 2019, 11:08:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 02, 2019, 07:03:52 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 02, 2019, 06:52:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 02, 2019, 05:29:31 PM
I'm guessing there was probably a snide nickname used for the former governor and Alps removed it. Such would be consistent with prior occurrences.
I removed an unnecessary political citation.
So putting an (R) or a (D) after the name is "an unnecessary political citation" and needs to be removed?
Yes, because it has no bearing on the discussion here.
What about appellations like "The Punk" or "The Snail"?

One thing that gets me is these political campaign yard signs you see around that have the candidate name in giant letters, but the party name affiliation is usually omitted.  If you are driving outside your own district you probably don't know enough about the candidates there to know that unless it is posted on the sign, and if they want to inform everybody in their own district they should be aware that some people won't know if you don't tell them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on November 03, 2019, 05:23:58 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 02, 2019, 06:02:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 01, 2019, 06:21:04 PM
Another improvement I'd like to see is lengthening the ramp merges on the Danville Bypass. They're too short and don't meet interstate standards for I-785 (when or if that happens).
Strictly looking at interstate standards, I don't think it would go against them, but it's certainly a safety improvement to look at acceleration / deceleration lane extensions, and something to look at.

But I don't think it would prevent VDOT from slapping up I-785 signs (if they even apply for the designation given their history, maybe just re-name to VA-785!)

I just found an article from two months ago regarding I-785. It mentions what VA's part needs.

https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Funding-committed-for-long-awaited-Interstate-785-slated-to-reach-Danville-559967081.html (https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Funding-committed-for-long-awaited-Interstate-785-slated-to-reach-Danville-559967081.html)

QuoteIn the Commonwealth, VDOT says upgrades at the Elizabeth Street intersection and a few other "spot" improvements will be needed along Route 29; but aside from those changes the corridor already meets standards necessary to carry the 785 designation, possibly giving southside its first Interstate by the end of the next decade.


I never understood why I-785 isn't planned to go any further north than the 58/360 interchange. It would make more sense to have it go all the way to the US-29 Business split in Blairs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 07:54:18 AM
Quote from: LM117 on November 03, 2019, 05:23:58 AM
QuoteIn the Commonwealth, VDOT says upgrades at the Elizabeth Street intersection and a few other "spot" improvements will be needed along Route 29; but aside from those changes the corridor already meets standards necessary to carry the 785 designation, possibly giving southside its first Interstate by the end of the next decade.
The Elizabeth Street area is the only problematic point and easily fixable IMO with the construction of a grade separated diamond interchange. VDOT already owns the right of way and there's even ramp stubs along the mainline intended for a future interchange.

Quote from: LM117 on November 03, 2019, 05:23:58 AM
I never understood why I-785 isn't planned to go any further north than the 58/360 interchange. It would make more sense to have it go all the way to the US-29 Business split in Blairs.
Agreed. The expressway north of US-58 isn't any different than south, in fact it's newer, and equally meets interstate standards. It would also extend economic opportunities of having a blue-and-red shield along that part of the corridor, notably the dead VA-41 Franklin Tpke interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 03, 2019, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 07:54:18 AM
It would also extend economic opportunities of having a blue-and-red shield

Interstate-advocates always make claims like this, but validated economic studies don't substantiate that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 03, 2019, 08:53:37 AM
How far out is NC from completing their part of 785
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 09:55:55 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on November 03, 2019, 08:53:37 AM
How far out is NC from completing their part of 785
Construction is slated for 2027 on the 2020 - 2029 STIP to complete the gap between I-840 and Reidsville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 09:56:56 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2019, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 07:54:18 AM
It would also extend economic opportunities of having a blue-and-red shield

Interstate-advocates always make claims like this, but validated economic studies don't substantiate that.
How did I have a feeling you'd respond to that specific comment?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 03, 2019, 01:54:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 09:56:56 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2019, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 07:54:18 AM
It would also extend economic opportunities of having a blue-and-red shield
Interstate-advocates always make claims like this, but validated economic studies don't substantiate that.
How did I have a feeling you'd respond to that specific comment?

I dunno, but I have many times and many ways questioned that idea in online highway-related forums over the years, and long before February 2018.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 03, 2019, 03:29:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2019, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 07:54:18 AM
It would also extend economic opportunities of having a blue-and-red shield

Interstate-advocates always make claims like this, but validated economic studies don't substantiate that.

Can you link to one of those studies? They say that here as well, especially with the recent signing of I-165.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 03, 2019, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 03, 2019, 03:29:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2019, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 07:54:18 AM
It would also extend economic opportunities of having a blue-and-red shield
Interstate-advocates always make claims like this, but validated economic studies don't substantiate that.
Can you link to one of those studies? They say that here as well, especially with the recent signing of I-165.

I meant that I don't know of any, at least any body of validated economic research that would lead me to believe that idea.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2019, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 03, 2019, 03:29:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2019, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 07:54:18 AM
It would also extend economic opportunities of having a blue-and-red shield
Interstate-advocates always make claims like this, but validated economic studies don't substantiate that.
Can you link to one of those studies? They say that here as well, especially with the recent signing of I-165.

I meant that I don't know of any, at least any body of validated economic research that would lead me to believe that idea.
Are you denying that the interstate highway system has led to economic growth?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 03, 2019, 07:19:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 06:50:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2019, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 03, 2019, 03:29:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2019, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 07:54:18 AM
It would also extend economic opportunities of having a blue-and-red shield
Interstate-advocates always make claims like this, but validated economic studies don't substantiate that.
Can you link to one of those studies? They say that here as well, especially with the recent signing of I-165.
I meant that I don't know of any, at least any body of validated economic research that would lead me to believe that idea.
Are you denying that the interstate highway system has led to economic growth?
No, but the national system is in place, and much of that was built when it cost about one million dollars per mile to build rural mileage.  And now it is quite expensive to keep that in service.

What we are talking about now is today's costs/benefits of tacking on routes that in most cases do not have national significance.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 03, 2019, 10:19:32 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 06:50:31 PM
Are you denying that the interstate highway system has led to economic growth?

Are you implying that freeways alone don't lead to economic growth?

The interstates certainly led to economic growth. That's not deniable. But was it the shield, or the 60-80mph grade-separated roadway that led to the economic growth?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on November 03, 2019, 10:45:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 03, 2019, 10:19:32 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 06:50:31 PM
Are you denying that the interstate highway system has led to economic growth?

Are you implying that freeways alone don't lead to economic growth?

The interstates certainly led to economic growth. That's not deniable. But was it the shield, or the 60-80mph grade-separated roadway that led to the economic growth?
More the second, but some of the first.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 03, 2019, 11:44:56 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 03, 2019, 10:45:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 03, 2019, 10:19:32 PM
The interstates certainly led to economic growth. That's not deniable. But was it the shield, or the 60-80mph grade-separated roadway that led to the economic growth?
More the second, but some of the first.

No doubt, but how true is that still?

Early on, "interstate" had lots of weight to it. People knew that those were the truly important cross-country roads. That's still true today (I think most people know what "interstate" means, as it relates to the entire system), but I don't know how many people find "_____ Freeway" suddenly more economically-interesting just because it has a blue shield. Around here at least, an interstate is just another freeway. I-5 and I-90 have special meaning, but applying a 3DI to one of our numerous 500-series freeways wouldn't do much of anything. Especially since we usually drop the "I" when referring to the interstates anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 04, 2019, 07:58:14 AM
Even the Interstate shield is no guarantee that you'll have positive economic growth, especially of the non-retail variety.  Witness Meridian, MS as an example.  That city has lost population over the past 20 years despite annexation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on November 04, 2019, 08:36:55 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 03, 2019, 11:44:56 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 03, 2019, 10:45:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 03, 2019, 10:19:32 PM
The interstates certainly led to economic growth. That's not deniable. But was it the shield, or the 60-80mph grade-separated roadway that led to the economic growth?
More the second, but some of the first.

No doubt, but how true is that still?

Early on, "interstate" had lots of weight to it. People knew that those were the truly important cross-country roads. That's still true today (I think most people know what "interstate" means, as it relates to the entire system), but I don't know how many people find "_____ Freeway" suddenly more economically-interesting just because it has a blue shield. Around here at least, an interstate is just another freeway. I-5 and I-90 have special meaning, but applying a 3DI to one of our numerous 500-series freeways wouldn't do much of anything. Especially since we usually drop the "I" when referring to the interstates anyway.

The economic impact might depend a lot on how desperate a region is for growth/economic improvement. The western state DOTs that are most indifferent/resistant to the beauty of those red-white-and-blue shields (most notoriously Arizona's) seem to be the ones with already-high growth rates, and the focus is on handling existing growth rather than attracting new growth.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on November 04, 2019, 09:53:39 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 02, 2019, 11:27:47 PM
One thing that gets me is these political campaign yard signs you see around that have the candidate name in giant letters, but the party name affiliation is usually omitted.  If you are driving outside your own district you probably don't know enough about the candidates there to know that unless it is posted on the sign, and if they want to inform everybody in their own district they should be aware that some people won't know if you don't tell them.

Sorry to stray a little further off topic, but in some ways this does have an impact on roads in a locality due to "hidden" affiliations. Typically (at least at this end of the state), local races don't include a party affiliation on the ballot (board of supervisors, town council, constitutional offices [sheriff, commissioner of revenue, et al]) or on campaign material. The local party is free to promote the candidates who affiliate with their party but that is outside the local election process. Here in Montgomery County, the board of supervisors is split with 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats (with the Democrats having districts that include parts of college-town Blacksburg and the Republicans having districts that cover the rural areas of the county). Votes on things like taxes usually split on party lines, which has an impact on schools, amenities, and road improvement lists.

Bruce in Blacksburg (who is looking at a long day at the polls on Tuesday as an Officer of Elections)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 04, 2019, 01:28:39 PM
Too many posts to quote, but it's a logical conclusion that being able to market your community as being on an Interstate is a plus. Saying "Located on the Mountain Parkway, a four-lane high-speed limited-access freeway" doesn't carry the same clout as saying "Located on Interstate 164." Even "Interstate-quality Mountain Parkway" doesn't quite cut it. Everyone covets a red-white-and-blue shield for its numbered freeway, and quite honestly, it's a cheap and easy economic development tool to convert Kentucky's four-lane parkways to Interstates.

Quote from: VTGoose on November 04, 2019, 09:53:39 AM
Bruce in Blacksburg (who is looking at a long day at the polls on Tuesday as an Officer of Elections)

What offices are Virginians electing tomorrow? Kentucky, Mississippi, and one other state are electing governors. We elect our local officials in the midterms, and our state legislators in the presidential and midterm elections. There's a move here to change the state office elections to coincide with the presidential elections and eliminate an election cycle. I'm all for that. We did that with the local offices back in the late 1980s. We gave them a one-off five-year term to eliminate an election cycle. Prior to that, we had elections every four years. Now, we just have them three out of four years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on November 04, 2019, 02:57:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 04, 2019, 01:28:39 PMWhat offices are Virginians electing tomorrow?

The General Assembly is up for grabs, which is getting national attention.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 04, 2019, 04:32:13 PM
Please stick to roads. -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 04, 2019, 06:26:50 PM
Quote from: oscar on November 04, 2019, 08:36:55 AM
The economic impact [of interstate designations] might depend a lot on how desperate a region is for growth/economic improvement. The western state DOTs that are most indifferent/resistant to the beauty of those red-white-and-blue shields (most notoriously Arizona's) seem to be the ones with already-high growth rates, and the focus is on handling existing growth rather than attracting new growth.

Maricopa County has been the fastest-growing county (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/04/18/maricopa-county-fastest-growing-us-census-growth/3506291002/) in the US for three straight years. To imply that they could grow even faster with interstates is specious at best.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on November 15, 2019, 08:39:09 AM
Quote from: LM117 on November 01, 2019, 08:07:03 AM
VDOT is holding a public meeting in Chatham on November 14 to discuss improvements to US-29 between Lynchburg and Danville.

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

Article this morning regarding that meeting.

https://www.godanriver.com/news/local/vdot-receives-public-input-on-corridor-improvements/article_cbdb8c09-6fd9-5f9a-94d9-6ac635f35e9c.html (https://www.godanriver.com/news/local/vdot-receives-public-input-on-corridor-improvements/article_cbdb8c09-6fd9-5f9a-94d9-6ac635f35e9c.html)

Behind paywall:

QuoteCHATHAM – Chatham Town Manager Richard Cocke feels that the combination of businesses, industrial buildings and tractor trailers near the intersection of U.S. 29 and Toy Lane needs attention.

"That's a bottleneck right there at times,"  he said.

Cocke provided his input at Thursday's informational meeting regarding plans by the Virginia Department of Transportation to strategically improve the safety, efficiency and economic development potential along a 50-mile corridor stretching from Danville to Lynchburg.

A few residents showed up at VDOT's Chatham office in the first few minutes, but the traffic slowed within 30 minutes. One woman walked in, looked at the posters of road designs, and said "Well, none of this affects me,"  as she walked out.

Residents could examine a draft arterial preservation plan that addresses a variety of potential short-term and long-term improvements and changes along the corridor.

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

At the meeting, VDOT representatives provided one solution to help alleviate congestion and reduce accidents at each of the three intersections: restricted crossing U-turns, or RCUT.

The whole purpose of an RCUT is to prevent vehicles from turning left out of a connecting route onto a main road like U.S. 29. Instead, they would turn right, drive a short distance and make a U-turn at a median opening with a loon, which is a designated U-turn space on the side of the road you're turning into.

David Cook, a VDOT transportation planner, said RCUTs are becoming more popular since they reduce crashes, especially fatal ones.

"They're proven to be safer,"  he said.

The suggested RCUT for Tightsqueeze Road, which would include a traffic signal, would cost upward of $10 million, while the RCUT at E. Witt/Lawless Creek Road without a traffic signal would cost more than $6 million.

In the longer term, VDOT proposes replacing two of the intersections – with E. Witt Road/Lawless Creek Road and Malmaison Road – with hybrid roundabouts.

Paula Jones, a VDOT spokeswoman, said resident input is invaluable, especially since they are the people who actually experience the roads on a consistent basis.

"We're broadcasting information and were also gaining information from the locals,"  added Rick Youngblood, the VDOT planner for the Lynchburg district, which includes Danville and Pittsylvania County.

VDOT segmented its survey of U.S. 29 into several different sections and intentionally left out the limited access portions near the towns of Chatham, Gretna and Hurt.

"Everything that's in the study is conceptual at this stage,"  Youngblood said.

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

Ayers reports for the Register & Bee. Reach him at (434) 791-7981.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 17, 2019, 01:49:54 PM
Tolls to increase for Downtown and Midtown tunnels in January (https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/vp-nw-toll-increase-20191114-niox3azjjfcz3ovm7kedpmsxoe-story.html?fbclid=IwAR1yQ6fCXp1ynhGvfDYiRW1QNqLKrYtwNha2VJRfK925CZ2et1lNNA4JFNU)

QuoteTolls at the Downtown and Midtown tunnels will increase on New Year's Day.

Rates will increase by 13 cents during peak hours for E-ZPass drivers and 6 cents during the rest of the day, according to a news release from Elizabeth River Tunnels. The new rates will be $1.85 and $2.33.

Drivers of heavy vehicles will also see higher rates - a 49-cent increase during peak hours and an 18-cent increase during the rest of the day.

"This is part of the agreement between Skansa and Macquarie, and VDOT when they formed a private public partnership to build the tunnels in the first place,"  said Kathleen Morrison, a spokeswoman for Elizabeth River Tunnels.

The annual increase was built into the toll agreement to pay for the tunnels, she said.

At the beginning of 2019, tolls increased by 11 cents and 6 cents. Before that, tolls went up by 14 cents during peak hours and 8 cents in off-peak hours.

The release said E-ZPass customers always pay the lowest possible toll rates when using the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels, and can save more than 60% on tolls compared with drivers who choose the pay by plate option.
With those truck rates continuing to significantly rise annually it seems, wouldn't surprise me to see more trucks on the Beltway, notably those coming from NIT bound to US-58. Already see them a decent amount, along I-464 as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 25, 2019, 07:39:03 PM
Cost for HOT lanes heats up (https://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2019/11/21/costs-for-hot-lanes-heats-up/)
QuoteIt's a hefty price tag to relieve congestion, but in the next 10 years when all the dust settles, the work is complete, and the billions of dollars have been spent, it is the hope of the region's leaders that people who drive through the region – in particular the Bowers Hill area – will be able to move around easier.

Between high occupancy travel lanes, interchange work at Bowers Hill, an expanded High Rise Bridge and Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel, it will mean people who drive through that area to or from Suffolk will see a plethora of construction zones and delays associated with all of that.

But it doesn't even include the likely need for an expanded Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge -Tunnel, according to Linda T. Johnson, the Suffolk mayor and the chairwoman of the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission.

It held a joint meeting with the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization Thursday and learned of the $1.024 billion plan to put in those high occupancy travel, or HOT, lanes along a 45-mile stretch of I-64 from Bowers Hill near Suffolk to Jefferson Avenue in Newport News by 2025.

"The idea is to have a loop around Hampton Roads that connects all of the cities and everything together,"  Johnson said.

Vehicles with two or three passengers – depending on the proposal – would be allowed to use the HOT lanes as a method of easing congestion in the regular travel lanes. The price to use them would be based how busy the HOT lanes get. The busier the HOT lanes, the higher the cost to travel in them, according to HRTAC Executive Director Kevin Page, who said there is no downside to implementing it.

"It will give a reliable travel trip throughout the entire region of the HOT network and the system that's been proposed,"  Page said.

VDOT had been studying two alternatives to improve the Bowers Hill interchange, which includes the junction of Interstates 664, 64, 264, U.S. Routes 460, 58 and 13, and Jolliff Road with its preference to rebuild a majority of the interchange to separate mainline traffic between Route 58/I-264 and I-664/I-64 through the proposed interchange is estimated to cost about $450 million. That cost includes preliminary engineering, right-of-way and utilities and construction. Rebuilding that entire interchange, VDOT estimates, would cost $633.1 million.

On average, 121,800 vehicles use I-664 between the U.S. 460 ramps and the I-264/I-64 ramps daily, according to 2018 VDOT data, with projected traffic totals under each of its plans reaching more than 160,000 vehicles per day by 2040.

Page said HRTPO agreed to parameters last month on how the HOT lanes would be designed and constructed.

"In the feasibility of that, the Bowers Hill Interchange Study is likely to have some modifications to it,"  Page said, "that we can then start to integrate the HOT network through Bowers Hill and then up (Interstate) 664 heading toward the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel."

Johnson said a resolution that the HRTPO had planned to take up – but deferred action on – would have extended the HOT lane loop from Bowers Hill north on I-664 to College Drive and back to I-64 in the vicinity of the Hampton Coliseum.

That was the first step, she said.

The next is that the commission has to have a master tolling agreement, which it is working on with VDOT. That, according to Page, will determine how each will pool their resources and assure the public that the proper decisions will be made in its operation and development of the network. The agreement will also clarify where the money for the project will come from, how it will be spent and how future revenues from the HOT lanes will be allocated. The agreement is expected to be taken up at its Dec. 12 meeting.

"We're more concerned with through-traffic, getting people through, getting people moving, than we are the revenue,"  Johnson said. "We understand we need enough revenue to pay the bills, but we're not into making money as much as we are moving people."

Her other concern? Keeping the HOT lane tolls as low as possible, as she said the region's drivers would be hard-pressed to pay a higher toll.

"Our economy, and our citizens, they can't handle that,"  Johnson said. "So, it needs to be doable. It is for the citizens. It absolutely is, but getting to work on time is for the citizens too."

VDOT Commissioner Stephen Birch presented four HOT lane traffic and revenue options to the commission and the HRTPO – two of them that would allow for three passengers, HOT-3, and a pair that would allow for two, HOT-2.

Nick Donahue, state deputy secretary of transportation, said that while there is potential with HOT-3 lanes, the Hampton Roads region does not have the park-and-ride infrastructure for it to realize its potential and would be an added cost.

Barry Porter, a supervisor in Southampton County, said if that's the case, the commission and HRTPO should not spend a lot of time on it and move forward with one of the HOT-2 options.

With a $3.6 billion-plus price tag on expanding the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, the $409.6 million to expand the High Rise Bridge, in addition to adding HOT lanes and improving the Bowers Hill bottleneck, Johnson said it is imperative to make any tolling or other HOT lane costs as low as possible for the drivers who rely on the transportation network.

While the High Rise Bridge work is expected to be finished sometime in 2021, the rest of the work, at the earliest, will take anywhere from five years for the HRBT expansion, to at least eight or nine years for the HOT lane expansion.

"We're just going to have look at what works,"  Johnson said, "what is the least onerous on the citizens, and what pays the bills."
Interested to see how they would build a HO/T facility through a reconstructed Bowers Hill interchange, along with providing direct connectors to US-58 and I-264.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 26, 2019, 12:03:27 PM
Kentucky may become a clone of Virginia when it comes to transportation agency governance and project selection.

Link to discussion on the Ohio Valley board. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25996.0)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on November 26, 2019, 08:48:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 26, 2019, 12:03:27 PM
Kentucky may become a clone of Virginia when it comes to transportation agency governance and project selection.
Link to discussion on the Ohio Valley board. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25996.0)
I thought that the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet was basically similar to the Commonwealth Transportation Board....

But now I see that KYTC is the name of the state DOT... similar in structure as Maryland DOT but without mass transit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Transportation_Cabinet

The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) is Kentucky's state-funded agency charged with building and maintaining federal highways and Kentucky state highways, as well as regulating other transportation related issues.

The Transportation Cabinet is led by the Kentucky Secretary of Transportation, who is appointed by the governor of Kentucky. The current Secretary is Greg Thomas, who was appointed by Republican Governor Matt Bevin.

The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet headquarters in Frankfort, Kentucky.
As of October 2012, KYTC maintains 27,562.975 miles (44,358.308 km) of roadways in the state.

Office of the Secretary
Department of Highways - responsible for designing and constructing state highways
Department of Aviation - responsible for promoting the use and safety of Kentucky's airports
Department of Rural and Municipal Aid - provides aid and assistance for local governments to Department of Vehicle Regulation - oversees regulations for the use and operation of motor vehicles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on November 30, 2019, 01:57:39 PM
Brand new sign along 28 North at 267:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/2019-11-30_12_48_54_View_north_along_Virginia_State_Route_28_%28Sully_Road%29_at_the_exit_for_Virginia_State_Route_267_EAST_%28Dulles_Airport%2C_Washington%29_in_Dulles%2C_Loudoun_County%2C_Virginia.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)

Here's the old version:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/2017-10-12_11_41_53_View_north_along_Virginia_State_Route_28_%28Sully_Road%29_at_the_exit_for_Virginia_State_Route_267_EAST_%28Dulles_Airport%2C_Washington%29_in_Dulles%2C_Loudoun_County%2C_Virginia.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 30, 2019, 03:30:43 PM
^^^

The takeover of extruded panel signs continues.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 30, 2019, 04:43:06 PM
Quote from: famartin on November 30, 2019, 01:57:39 PM
Brand new sign along 28 North at 267:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/2019-11-30_12_48_54_View_north_along_Virginia_State_Route_28_%28Sully_Road%29_at_the_exit_for_Virginia_State_Route_267_EAST_%28Dulles_Airport%2C_Washington%29_in_Dulles%2C_Loudoun_County%2C_Virginia.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Shocking to see that FHWA font making a return on the APL signage, especially in Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadsguy on November 30, 2019, 09:15:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2019, 04:43:06 PM
Quote from: famartin on November 30, 2019, 01:57:39 PM
Brand new sign along 28 North at 267:
[image]
Shocking to see that FHWA font making a return on the APL signage, especially in Virginia.

Is this an old contract or is there evidence (since the national reinstatement of its interim approval) of VDOT ditching Clearview for good?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 30, 2019, 09:47:53 PM
Now, let's take down the hideous Clearview signage, and replace it with the standard and much better looking FHWA font.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 30, 2019, 10:28:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2019, 09:47:53 PM
Now, let's take down the hideous Clearview signage, and replace it with the standard and much better looking FHWA font.

Not happening. VDOT standard is to use Clearview.

https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 30, 2019, 11:18:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 30, 2019, 10:28:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2019, 09:47:53 PM
Now, let's take down the hideous Clearview signage, and replace it with the standard and much better looking FHWA font.

Not happening. VDOT standard is to use Clearview.

https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview.pdf
My comment was both merely an opinion, and sarcastic.

And if it's their "standard" , then why wasn't it used on this particular signage?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on December 01, 2019, 01:28:27 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2019, 11:18:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 30, 2019, 10:28:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2019, 09:47:53 PM
Now, let's take down the hideous Clearview signage, and replace it with the standard and much better looking FHWA font.

Not happening. VDOT standard is to use Clearview.

https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview.pdf
My comment was both merely an opinion, and sarcastic.

And if it's their "standard" , then why wasn't it used on this particular signage?

I can't answer any of these questions, but all new signage with this project (4th lane on 28 NB from 267 to Sterling Blvd) is FHWA, and is replacing Clearview.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: HTM Duke on December 01, 2019, 04:26:49 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2019, 11:18:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 30, 2019, 10:28:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2019, 09:47:53 PM
Now, let's take down the hideous Clearview signage, and replace it with the standard and much better looking FHWA font.

Not happening. VDOT standard is to use Clearview.

https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview.pdf (https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview.pdf)
My comment was both merely an opinion, and sarcastic.

And if it's their "standard" , then why wasn't it used on this particular signage?


I believe one of these reasons is your answer:
Quote
Projects under design: ...If the designer has begun work on the signing plans using Highway Gothic font for the mixed-case positive contrast destination messages, the plans should be revised to use Clearview font if such a design change can be implemented without impact to the project's budget or schedule.

Projects under construction:  For construction contracts, in-house efforts, or maintenance activities  that  are  already  under  construction,  the  plans  should  not be  revised  solely  to change fonts, and signs that have already been fabricated shall not be rejected unless they fail to conform to the contract documents.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 01, 2019, 08:39:54 AM
HTM Duke is correct. Also the same reason the I-395 HO/T lane signs use Gothic. It does lend a good opportunity to compare the typefaces directly, for those who are so inclined, because the signs over the general-purpose lanes are mostly in Clearview. Makes it easy to compare, say, "Seminary Rd" in both typefaces. (This is also true on southbound I-95 approaching Woodbridge.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on December 01, 2019, 01:10:51 PM
Quote from: HTM Duke on December 01, 2019, 04:26:49 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2019, 11:18:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 30, 2019, 10:28:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 30, 2019, 09:47:53 PM
Now, let's take down the hideous Clearview signage, and replace it with the standard and much better looking FHWA font.

Not happening. VDOT standard is to use Clearview.

https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview.pdf (https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/memos/TE-337_Clearview.pdf)
My comment was both merely an opinion, and sarcastic.

And if it's their "standard" , then why wasn't it used on this particular signage?


I believe one of these reasons is your answer:
Quote
Projects under design: ...If the designer has begun work on the signing plans using Highway Gothic font for the mixed-case positive contrast destination messages, the plans should be revised to use Clearview font if such a design change can be implemented without impact to the project's budget or schedule.

Projects under construction:  For construction contracts, in-house efforts, or maintenance activities  that  are  already  under  construction,  the  plans  should  not be  revised  solely  to change fonts, and signs that have already been fabricated shall not be rejected unless they fail to conform to the contract documents.

While that makes some sense, it still seems odd that they would start reverting back to FHWA if that's not their true intention. Did they change companies for large project sign fabrication to one which usually uses FHWA?  Its not like Clearview is that "new" anymore, so ordering signs in Clearview ought to be what one expects from a VDOT contract, assuming that is still their standard (which I mention because I suppose its possible that on-line documents just haven't been updated to show a change in VDOT standards).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: HTM Duke on December 01, 2019, 04:41:39 PM
Perhaps I should have put it in my previous post, but I believe this signage was probably designed in the period of time between the initial revocation of the Clearview IA, and its subsequent reinstatement.  As such, there would have been only one permissible font to use: Gothic.  I would then venture to guess by the time the IA was renewed, signage plans were already done, and redoing said plans to correctly implement Clearview would thus kick in one of  the exception clauses in VDOT's memo.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on December 01, 2019, 05:22:49 PM
Quote from: HTM Duke on December 01, 2019, 04:41:39 PM
Perhaps I should have put it in my previous post, but I believe this signage was probably designed in the period of time between the initial revocation of the Clearview IA, and its subsequent reinstatement.  As such, there would have been only one permissible font to use: Gothic.  I would then venture to guess by the time the IA was renewed, signage plans were already done, and redoing said plans to correctly implement Clearview would thus kick in one of  the exception clauses in VDOT's memo.

OK, that makes a lot more sense. I didn't realize the revocation had been long enough to affect designs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on December 02, 2019, 11:13:41 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 01, 2019, 05:22:49 PM
Quote from: HTM Duke on December 01, 2019, 04:41:39 PM
Perhaps I should have put it in my previous post, but I believe this signage was probably designed in the period of time between the initial revocation of the Clearview IA, and its subsequent reinstatement.  As such, there would have been only one permissible font to use: Gothic.  I would then venture to guess by the time the IA was renewed, signage plans were already done, and redoing said plans to correctly implement Clearview would thus kick in one of  the exception clauses in VDOT's memo.

OK, that makes a lot more sense. I didn't realize the revocation had been long enough to affect designs.

Happened here in Kentucky. Clearview signs were being installed after the revocation, and FHWA signs were installed after Clearview was reinstated. If it was already in design in one font, that wasn't changed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: odditude on December 02, 2019, 11:16:10 AM
side note - i personally much prefer the way the TOLL and directional banners are stacked on these signs than the "correct" (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6819358,-75.4991994,3a,75y,114.56h,95.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5LThGPB4xBo4z0aVdC93oA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) way of doing them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 05, 2019, 06:35:36 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 20, 2016, 07:56:07 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 19, 2016, 08:15:49 PM
Contract awarded for I-95/SR 630 Interchange and SR 630 Widening at Stafford CH. (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/contractor-chosen-for-courthouse-road-interchange-work-in-stafford/article_56823840-9e1b-5ae2-8683-80fc4a773d87.html)

Note that the 4th general lane addition to I-95 that was to be a part of this project was not included due to the funding not being secured for this add-on...

The Stafford DDI interchange will open on Saturday Dec 7.  3 of the 4 ramps will be open but the SB exit ramp can't be built until SR 630 is moved onto the new overpass alignment.  This 4th ramp is expected to take about a month to build.  Meanwhile the ramp will force drivers to turn left onto what will be the old SR 630 alignment.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2019/diverging-diamond-interchange-in-stafford-county-opens-at-exit-140-on-saturday-dec-711-21-2019.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 06, 2019, 05:53:42 AM
Throwback to the construction of I-64 near the Oyster Point / Victory Blvd interchange in Newport News in 1959.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1202769770992603138?s=20
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 06, 2019, 04:48:03 PM
For anybody interested...

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1203056859478994953?s=20
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 07, 2019, 08:43:16 AM
This is just south of Tightsqueeze.

https://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2019/lanes-reduced-on-route-29-n-over-banister-river12-5-2019.asp (https://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/lynchburg/2019/lanes-reduced-on-route-29-n-over-banister-river12-5-2019.asp)

QuoteLYNCHBURG, Va. — Motorists who use US Route 29 North over the Banister River in Pittsylvania County should begin to see work to reduce the number of lanes in the area from two to one in the coming weeks, weather permitting.

Recently an assessment of the bridge identified the need to lower the current load on the structure. Rather than posting new weight limits, VDOT opted to reduce the number of lanes. This will reduce the load by preventing two loaded tractor-trailers from crossing the bridge side by side.

VDOT crews have already started installing and covering necessary signage and will remove the current painted lines and add new ones for the planned traffic pattern as early as next week. Barrels will initially be used for the transition; however, more permanent devices will be installed as soon as possible.

A project to replace the necessary components of the bridge is in development, with an anticipated advertisement for construction in early 2021. Once the project is underway, one lane of northbound traffic and one of southbound traffic will run in the southbound lanes. This will give workers full access to the structure to make the necessary improvements safely and in a timely manner. Once the repairs are complete the bridge will be unposted.

Updates are available as traffic patterns change.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 07, 2019, 05:16:36 PM
Diverging Diamond Interchange Now Open at I-95 Exit 140 in Stafford County (https://virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2019/diverging-diamond-interchange-now-open-at-i-95-exit-140-in-stafford-county12-7-2019.asp)

Quote(https://virginiadot.org/VDOT/Newsroom/Fredericksburg/2019/asset_upload_file114_153502.png)

FREDERICKSBURG, Va. — Traffic has begun traveling in the new diverging diamond interchange at Interstate 95 at Exit 140 (Courthouse Road) in Stafford County.

Eastbound and westbound Courthouse Road traffic began traveling on the new road and overpasses shortly after 7 a.m. today, along with three of the I-95 ramps.

The new four-lane Hospital Center Boulevard extension is open west of Route 1, directly across from Stafford Hospital. Hospital Center Boulevard now connects directly to the diverging diamond interchange on Courthouse Road at a new intersection with Old Courthouse Road and Wyche Road.

The interchange opening is a major milestone in the $195 million project to expand capacity and improve travel in Stafford County's Courthouse Road area.

Diverging Diamond Interchanges (DDIs) lower the number of conflict points between vehicles by eliminating left turns. The new interchange briefly shifts vehicles on Courthouse Road to the other side of the road on new overpass bridges, which allows drivers to merge left onto the I-95 northbound and southbound ramps without stopping at a traffic signal.

Watch a video simulation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EfFWVlQ3y4) showing an aerial and windshield view of the diverging diamond interchange.

What Motorists Can Expect

Motorists are encouraged to use the new Hospital Center Boulevard intersection at Route 1 to connect with the new Courthouse Road.

With a greater number of travel lanes now open on Hospital Center Boulevard and Courthouse Road, this direct route will help motorists travel through Stafford's Courthouse area with the fewest delays.

Although many features of the new diverging diamond interchange are now open, travelers are advised that temporary traffic patterns are in place at several locations.

I-95 Southbound Exit Ramp Detour

Three of the new Exit 140 interchange ramps are open, but the I-95 southbound exit ramp to Courthouse Road will remain in a detour pattern until late December 2019.

Click here (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/630/I95_SB_Access_to_Rt_630_Exhibit_20191114.pdf) to view a map of the detour.

Motorists traveling from I-95 southbound to Courthouse Road should follow the posted detour signs to access the new Courthouse Road.

Traffic will be detoured for several weeks to allow crews to build the new exit ramp and raise its elevation to match the height of the new diverging diamond interchange and I-95 overpass bridges. Courthouse Road traffic was previously traveling in the location where this construction work will now be underway.

Westbound Courthouse Road

All three travel lanes are open in the diverging diamond interchange, but westbound Courthouse Road road will narrow to two westbound travel lanes just before Austin Ridge Drive.

Courthouse Road

Courthouse Road west of Austin Ridge Drive will remain reduced to one lane in each direction until late December 2019, when all four lanes will open between the I-95 interchange and Ramoth Church Road/Winding Creek Road.

Project Background

Construction on the Exit 140 interchange and Courthouse Road widening project began in July 2017. All work will be finished by July 31, 2020.

After the new four-lane portion of Courthouse Road opens to traffic west of Austin Ridge Drive in late December 2019, construction crews will focus on finishing the following project elements in 2020:

- Expanded Park & Ride commuter parking at Exit 140: New Park & Ride lots are under construction north and south of the future Old Courthouse Road. Together, the lots will offer around 1,100 parking spaces. The southern lot will have a dedicated pickup and dropoff area for buses, carpools, and vanpools.

- New sidewalk and shared use path: Crews will continue building new sidewalk from the Park & Ride lots east along Old Courthouse Road to the Stafford County Government Center, and a shared use path from Austin Ridge Drive to the Park & Ride lots through the interchange. A new, shared use path from Winding Creek Elementary School near the Ramoth Church Road/Winding Creek Road intersection to west of Austin Ridge Drive is now open.

Courthouse Road carries an average of 16,000 vehicles a day and around 136,000 vehicles a day travel on I-95 near Exit 140.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 08, 2019, 08:16:11 AM
Last night we took my mom to L'Auberge Chez François out in Great Falls. The route I use is the Beltway HO/T lanes (free for us last night with three people, though I'd use them anyway going past Tysons at 7:00 on a December Saturday!) to the Dulles Toll Road, west to Hunter Mill Road, north to Baron Cameron Avenue, and that becomes Springvale Road where the restaurant is.

I noticed at all four tolls on the Dulles Toll Road there was a very bright flash when we went through. At the main toll plaza in Tysons we went through one of the E-ZPass Only lanes to the far left with no tollbooth and the flash came from the gantry overhead. At Hunter Mill both lanes in both directions are tollbooth lanes and on the way out I used the E-ZPass Only Lane while on the way back I used the E-ZPass or coin drop lane, and in both cases there an extremely bright flash came from seemingly in front of us. I noted they don't have a red or green light anymore; instead, the display said "E-ZPass Paid" or something similar in red text (I was only able to read it on the way home). When we got to the restaurant and were waiting to be seated I did pull out my phone, log onto ezpassva.com, and confirm the outbound Dulles Toll Road charges posted properly, so I know the transponder was working.

What struck me is that I don't ever remember that sort of bright flash before (although I have seen routine flashes elsewhere, such as on the Bee Line in Florida this week, where the ETC gantry flashed for every vehicle). Is this something new? Stepped-up toll enforcement, perhaps? It also struck me as odd that a flash would seem to come from the front at the tollbooth. While Virginia persists in having the stupid front plate requirement, other states do not, so you'd think the photo enforcement would capture the rear plate. The main thing that I found annoying was how the flash was extremely bright and distracting on a fairly dark night.

The loss of the red and green lights is annoying because I use those to confirm my E-ZPass is working.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on December 08, 2019, 08:35:57 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 08, 2019, 08:16:11 AM
Last night we took my mom to L'Auberge Chez François out in Great Falls. The route I use is the Beltway HO/T lanes (free for us last night with three people, though I'd use them anyway going past Tysons at 7:00 on a December Saturday!) to the Dulles Toll Road, west to Hunter Mill Road, north to Baron Cameron Avenue, and that becomes Springvale Road where the restaurant is.

I noticed at all four tolls on the Dulles Toll Road there was a very bright flash when we went through. At the main toll plaza in Tysons we went through one of the E-ZPass Only lanes to the far left with no tollbooth and the flash came from the gantry overhead. At Hunter Mill both lanes in both directions are tollbooth lanes and on the way out I used the E-ZPass Only Lane while on the way back I used the E-ZPass or coin drop lane, and in both cases there an extremely bright flash came from seemingly in front of us. I noted they don't have a red or green light anymore; instead, the display said "E-ZPass Paid" or something similar in red text (I was only able to read it on the way home). When we got to the restaurant and were waiting to be seated I did pull out my phone, log onto ezpassva.com, and confirm the outbound Dulles Toll Road charges posted properly, so I know the transponder was working.

What struck me is that I don't ever remember that sort of bright flash before (although I have seen routine flashes elsewhere, such as on the Bee Line in Florida this week, where the ETC gantry flashed for every vehicle). Is this something new? Stepped-up toll enforcement, perhaps? It also struck me as odd that a flash would seem to come from the front at the tollbooth. While Virginia persists in having the stupid front plate requirement, other states do not, so you'd think the photo enforcement would capture the rear plate. The main thing that I found annoying was how the flash was extremely bright and distracting on a fairly dark night.

The loss of the red and green lights is annoying because I use those to confirm my E-ZPass is working.

The E-ZPass lanes in PA and DE do the same thing, even if you have a valid E-ZPass.  If the tag is read, I think they delete the photo.  If no tag is recorded, then the plate image is used for account lookup or violation generation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 09, 2019, 06:25:19 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 08, 2019, 08:16:11 AM
Last night we took my mom to L'Auberge Chez François out in Great Falls. The route I use is the Beltway HO/T lanes (free for us last night with three people, though I'd use them anyway going past Tysons at 7:00 on a December Saturday!) to the Dulles Toll Road, west to Hunter Mill Road, north to Baron Cameron Avenue, and that becomes Springvale Road where the restaurant is.

I noticed at all four tolls on the Dulles Toll Road there was a very bright flash when we went through. At the main toll plaza in Tysons we went through one of the E-ZPass Only lanes to the far left with no tollbooth and the flash came from the gantry overhead. At Hunter Mill both lanes in both directions are tollbooth lanes and on the way out I used the E-ZPass Only Lane while on the way back I used the E-ZPass or coin drop lane, and in both cases there an extremely bright flash came from seemingly in front of us. I noted they don't have a red or green light anymore; instead, the display said "E-ZPass Paid" or something similar in red text (I was only able to read it on the way home). When we got to the restaurant and were waiting to be seated I did pull out my phone, log onto ezpassva.com, and confirm the outbound Dulles Toll Road charges posted properly, so I know the transponder was working.

What struck me is that I don't ever remember that sort of bright flash before (although I have seen routine flashes elsewhere, such as on the Bee Line in Florida this week, where the ETC gantry flashed for every vehicle). Is this something new? Stepped-up toll enforcement, perhaps? It also struck me as odd that a flash would seem to come from the front at the tollbooth. While Virginia persists in having the stupid front plate requirement, other states do not, so you'd think the photo enforcement would capture the rear plate. The main thing that I found annoying was how the flash was extremely bright and distracting on a fairly dark night.

The loss of the red and green lights is annoying because I use those to confirm my E-ZPass is working.

Only 1 gantry is doing this on the 95 Express lanes, the southernmost one.  It has been doing this for several weeks.  Another gantry (ramp from Outer Loop to I-95 south) has been doing this for months.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 09, 2019, 08:10:05 AM
^^^^

I can't say as I noticed any of them doing it on the Beltway, but I wouldn't have thought much of it because I had our transponder in HOV mode and I assume the gantry treats that differently (this was the first time I recall using HOV mode at night since early 2018).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 10, 2019, 10:04:14 PM
This is still in development.  The governor's office is behind the recalcitrance on this corridor, and I am trying to figure out why they, including the Secretary of Transportation (who is part of that office) have refused to authorize a full EIS/location study for the I-95 corridor (not VDOT's call, but that of the governor and his CTB to authorize the EIS study).
. . . . .

Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Plan
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/dec/pres/11_i_95.pdf
Excerpts:

Corridor-wide Improvements Planning Level Cost Estimates
Estimated FY20 Capital Cost Ranges
- Freeway operations upgrades: $48 - $53 M
- Arterial operations upgrades: $12 - $15 M
- Multimodal improvements: $215 - $260 M
- Highway capital improvements: $1.3 - 1.8 B TOTAL: $1.6 - $2.1 B

Potential Capital Improvements
- 54 projects (highway, rail, bus, park & ride) with estimated cost between $1.5 - $2.1B
- 35 locations requiring additional study
- Challenge: Needs far exceed available annual revenues

Conduct further study on items identified
- Bi-directional HOT Lanes, Woodrow Wilson Bridge HOT Lanes, multiple interchange improvements
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 10, 2019, 10:50:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 10, 2019, 10:04:14 PM
This is still in development.  The governor's office is behind the recalcitrance on this corridor, and I am trying to figure out why they, including the Secretary of Transportation (who is part of that office) have refused to authorize a full EIS/location study for the I-95 corridor (not VDOT's call, but that of the governor and his CTB to authorize the EIS study).
. . . . .

Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Plan
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/dec/pres/11_i_95.pdf
Excerpts:

Corridor-wide Improvements Planning Level Cost Estimates
Estimated FY20 Capital Cost Ranges
- Freeway operations upgrades: $48 - $53 M
- Arterial operations upgrades: $12 - $15 M
- Multimodal improvements: $215 - $260 M
- Highway capital improvements: $1.3 - 1.8 B TOTAL: $1.6 - $2.1 B

Potential Capital Improvements
- 54 projects (highway, rail, bus, park & ride) with estimated cost between $1.5 - $2.1B
- 35 locations requiring additional study
- Challenge: Needs far exceed available annual revenues

Conduct further study on items identified
- Bi-directional HOT Lanes, Woodrow Wilson Bridge HOT Lanes, multiple interchange improvements
I'm still trying to figure out why I-95 is still only 3 general purpose lanes each direction south of VA-123, and the state has refused to study any widenings, and continues to be evident by the lack of -any- proposal in this study. It doesn't have to be some massive expansion to 12 lanes, but adding one lane in each direction would significantly help. This is evident by the significant improvement in performance north of VA-123.

VDOT would probably just call compensation events, and walk away.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 10, 2019, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 10, 2019, 10:50:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 10, 2019, 10:04:14 PM
This is still in development.  The governor's office is behind the recalcitrance on this corridor, and I am trying to figure out why they, including the Secretary of Transportation (who is part of that office) have refused to authorize a full EIS/location study for the I-95 corridor (not VDOT's call, but that of the governor and his CTB to authorize the EIS study).
. . . . .

Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Plan
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/dec/pres/11_i_95.pdf
Excerpts:

Corridor-wide Improvements Planning Level Cost Estimates
Estimated FY20 Capital Cost Ranges
- Freeway operations upgrades: $48 - $53 M
- Arterial operations upgrades: $12 - $15 M
- Multimodal improvements: $215 - $260 M
- Highway capital improvements: $1.3 - 1.8 B TOTAL: $1.6 - $2.1 B

Potential Capital Improvements
- 54 projects (highway, rail, bus, park & ride) with estimated cost between $1.5 - $2.1B
- 35 locations requiring additional study
- Challenge: Needs far exceed available annual revenues

Conduct further study on items identified
- Bi-directional HOT Lanes, Woodrow Wilson Bridge HOT Lanes, multiple interchange improvements
I'm still trying to figure out why I-95 is still only 3 general purpose lanes each direction south of VA-123, and the state has refused to study any widenings, and continues to be evident by the lack of -any- proposal in this study. It doesn't have to be some massive expansion to 12 lanes, but adding one lane in each direction would significantly help. This is evident by the significant improvement in performance north of VA-123.
VDOT would probably just call compensation events, and walk away.
Talk to the governor's office --- what did I just say?

The governor's office is behind the recalcitrance on this corridor, and I am trying to figure out why they, including the Secretary of Transportation (who is part of that office) have refused to authorize a full EIS/location study for the I-95 corridor (not VDOT's call, but that of the governor and his CTB to authorize the EIS study).

You can add the person who was governor from 2013-2017 as well.  The CTB members are entirely populated by these two governors.

The EIS/location study would be like the one on I-81 back 15 years ago, and the one on I-64 from Richmond to Norfolk more recently -- evaluate a full set of alternatives, prepare DEIS, conduct public hearings, obtain feedback from resources agencies, prepare FEIS with selected alternative, prepare ROD.

FWIW, I have talked to Shannon Valentine (Sec Trans) and Nick Donohue (Deputy Sec Trans) about this matter personally.  They work for the governor, not VDOT.
 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 11, 2019, 03:41:53 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 15, 2019, 08:09:10 PM
Route changes coming:


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

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

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

The CTB did add these segments to the primary highway system today. They did not specify a route designation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 11, 2019, 04:44:13 PM
New Renderings Show Future of I-64/264 Corridor (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/NEW-RENDERINGS-SHOW-FUTURE-OF-I-64-264-CORRIDOR.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=0gmJPiC0v1E)
QuoteVIRGINIA BEACH — Motorists now have a more clear picture of what the I-64/I-264 corridor will look like in the coming years, with new renderings of the completed Phase II project released today by the Virginia Department of Transportation.

The renderings depict key intersections included within the scope of the project, designed to increase capacity, improve mobility and enhance safety throughout the busiest interchange in Hampton Roads.

View full-size versions of the renderings here .

Phase II of the I-64/264 Interchange Improvements Project, currently under construction, includes:
  • Extending the new collector-distributor roadway built in Phase I from the Newtown Road interchange to the Witchduck Road interchange;
  • Re-configuring the south side of both interchanges to eliminate the weave movement; and
  • Building a flyover across I-264 to connect Greenwich Road on the south side of the interstate with Cleveland Street on the north side.

The project is set for completion in late 2021.

Witchduck Road at I-264 Interchange
(https://files.constantcontact.com/5ebe224c501/e238d214-2bcf-43c7-882a-d1f770f84c61.jpg)
To improve traffic operations, the Greenwich Road connection at the five-legged intersection at Witchduck Road will be removed, shown in its new configuration in the middle of this rendering. The existing stretch of Greenwich Road will terminate at a cul-de-sac just east of the former Norfolk-Southern railroad tracks, which is just beyond the left corner of this rendering.

I-264 and Cleveland Street
(https://files.constantcontact.com/5ebe224c501/20edaf23-f7dc-4ed1-a7d9-7dbe65d1487b.jpg)
The new Greenwich Road flyover connects to Cleveland Street near the left corner. Cleveland Street is shown in the middle of the image.

Newtown Road at Greenwich Road and I-264
(https://files.constantcontact.com/5ebe224c501/21fea24b-fe84-4d94-af36-134888aa3a88.jpg)
Interstate 264 is depicted extending from the top left corner, with the Newtown Road interchange improvements shown below.

Greenwich Road Flyover
(https://files.constantcontact.com/5ebe224c501/b50faa6e-23ce-480d-a393-a0c1b226872e.jpg)
Greenwich Road bisects the image diagonally as it diverges to the new flyover crossing I-264. Top Golf is pictured in the middle, right of the image.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 05:42:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 11, 2019, 04:44:13 PM
Greenwich Road bisects the image diagonally as it diverges to the new flyover crossing I-264. Top Golf is pictured in the middle, right of the image.
Plan view of the whole area around Witchduck Road and Newtown Road interchanges with I-264 --

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i64i264improvements.org%2Fimg%2Fi-264_witchduck_map.png&hash=c3a0f5644efe9ef1b093deb259acd01d8dc4bd07)

The Greenwich Road Connector will be a major local connectivity arterial.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 11, 2019, 09:14:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 05:42:33 PM
The Greenwich Road Connector will be a major local connectivity arterial.
Technically, the flyover bridge connecting to Cleveland St is to replace the existing Greenwich Rd that exists between Newtown and Witchduck Rd that's being severed at the eastern end to make room for a realigned I-264 off-ramp, but the new alignment will certainly be an improvement over the existing condition.

For one, the interchange will be reconfigured into a more traditional design rather than the substandard design now. Secondly, traffic will have a new option to get from one side of I-264 to the other without having to pass through one of the heavily congested interchanges. Traffic destined between Witchduck Rd north of I-264 to Newtown Rd south of I-264 will see the most benefit.

My biggest concern for the Phase #2 project is the setup of the Witchduck Rd interchange area. A few years back, Witchduck Rd was expanded from four to six lanes south of I-264, and is currently being widened between I-264 and Virginia Beach Blvd to six lanes to match that design. While this would in theory provide a continuous 6-lane corridor, VDOT's design plan as you posted, and the renderings above show Witchduck Rd reducing back down to only four lanes (a lane drop both ways) under the overpass and not maintaining a consistent section. Witchduck Rd is a congested roadway, and I have a feeling this lane drop will only create a new traffic chokepoint. No idea why they would not keep it consistent.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 11, 2019, 09:14:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 05:42:33 PM
The Greenwich Road Connector will be a major local connectivity arterial.
Technically, the flyover bridge connecting to Cleveland St is to replace the existing Greenwich Rd that exists between Newtown and Witchduck Rd that's being severed at the eastern end to make room for a realigned I-264 off-ramp, but the new alignment will certainly be an improvement over the existing condition.
Four lanes, and will connect across I-264 so that some of the local traffic won't have to cross at Witchduck or Newtown.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 11, 2019, 09:14:03 PM
For one, the interchange will be reconfigured into a more traditional design rather than the substandard design now. Secondly, traffic will have a new option to get from one side of I-264 to the other without having to pass through one of the heavily congested interchanges. Traffic destined between Witchduck Rd north of I-264 to Newtown Rd south of I-264 will see the most benefit.
Yes.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 11, 2019, 09:14:03 PM
My biggest concern for the Phase #2 project is the setup of the Witchduck Rd interchange area. A few years back, Witchduck Rd was expanded from four to six lanes south of I-264, and is currently being widened between I-264 and Virginia Beach Blvd to six lanes to match that design. While this would in theory provide a continuous 6-lane corridor, VDOT's design plan as you posted, and the renderings above show Witchduck Rd reducing back down to only four lanes (a lane drop both ways) under the overpass and not maintaining a consistent section. Witchduck Rd is a congested roadway, and I have a feeling this lane drop will only create a new traffic chokepoint. No idea why they would not keep it consistent.
Maybe a future project that might necessitate replacing the I-264 overpass with a longer span?

Although it looks like 3 lanes could be fit under each span.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8384004,-76.1592972,3a,90y,204.19h,91.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDF5Q_962-IEsR282lvutiw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 11, 2019, 11:17:41 PM
From personal experience, it'd be a very tight fit for 3 lanes under each existing span...and you'd basically have no room for crash protection for the bridge columns.

If you hollowed out the embankment on each side, that'd be one potential way to get two additional lanes on Witchduck without replacing the overpasses.  But then you'd have the operational issues of having such a lane split (and downstream rejoin).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 11:39:09 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 11, 2019, 11:17:41 PM
From personal experience, it'd be a very tight fit for 3 lanes under each existing span...and you'd basically have no room for crash protection for the bridge columns.
If you hollowed out the embankment on each side, that'd be one potential way to get two additional lanes on Witchduck without replacing the overpasses.  But then you'd have the operational issues of having such a lane split (and downstream rejoin).
That is about what I thought.

The correct solution would be replacing the bridges with longer span bridges.

Centerline width over Witchduck Road is 170 feet, so there is a large bridge structure there.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 12, 2019, 05:39:19 AM
While I agree the long-term solution should be bridge replacement, the Military Highway widening project had a similar issue with the narrow horizontal clearance under the I-64 overpass, though they managed to squeeze 3 lanes in the southbound direction.

Here's a before (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8818108,-76.2141782,3a,75y,158.68h,80.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAAWnWHin7JXQdxB2__j6VQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) and after (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8821339,-76.2144371,3a,75y,147h,82.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXlzRAgrLdHt2DAKkvps3Qg!2e0!5s20190401T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 12, 2019, 06:03:15 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 12, 2019, 05:39:19 AM
While I agree the long-term solution should be bridge replacement, the Military Highway widening project had a similar issue with the narrow horizontal clearance under the I-64 overpass, though they managed to squeeze 3 lanes in the southbound direction.
I get 34 feet of clearance possible southbound and 32 feet of clearance possible northbound.

That is after installing the concrete traffic barriers in front of the piers.

That is very tight and then it gets into how even with 3 lanes there might not be much of an increase in capacity.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 12, 2019, 07:19:33 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 12, 2019, 06:03:15 AM
then it gets into how even with 3 lanes there might not be much of an increase in capacity.
On Witchduck Rd or Military Highway?

If you're referring to Witchduck Rd, then I would disagree. That road is a major bottleneck, and all of it is being widened to 6-lanes north of I-264, and was recently widened to 6-lanes south of I-264. This, along with the interchange reconfiguration is a major operational improvement, except for the fact the right lane will drop off going both directions to go under the bridge. That alone will likely cause a chokepoint as people have to merge down to 2 lanes, then to open right back to 6-lanes. Keeping it consistent at 6-lanes is the best way to go if it can be done. One way to accommodate this may be to reduce the lanes to 11 feet which is acceptable on an arterial roadway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 12, 2019, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 12, 2019, 07:19:33 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 12, 2019, 06:03:15 AM
then it gets into how even with 3 lanes there might not be much of an increase in capacity.
Of course it helps to snip what I had to say about the width available.

As with the Military Highway situation, there will be a minimum of 12 inches between the edge line and the concrete wall, that is a basic minimum so that you don't have a concrete wall at the very edge of the roadway and sheet metal.

So that would be 10.5 foot lanes southbound and 10 foot lanes northbound.  That would be narrow enough to cause considerable per lane capacity losses, and enough to throw the issue into question as to widening to 3 lanes each way but not replacing the bridge with longer spans.

I would need to see professional detailed traffic engineering analysis.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 12, 2019, 07:19:33 AM
On Witchduck Rd or Military Highway?
If you're referring to Witchduck Rd, then I would disagree. That road is a major bottleneck, and all of it is being widened to 6-lanes north of I-264, and was recently widened to 6-lanes south of I-264. This, along with the interchange reconfiguration is a major operational improvement, except for the fact the right lane will drop off going both directions to go under the bridge. That alone will likely cause a chokepoint as people have to merge down to 2 lanes, then to open right back to 6-lanes. Keeping it consistent at 6-lanes is the best way to go if it can be done. One way to accommodate this may be to reduce the lanes to 11 feet which is acceptable on an arterial roadway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on December 13, 2019, 02:53:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 12, 2019, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 12, 2019, 07:19:33 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 12, 2019, 06:03:15 AM
then it gets into how even with 3 lanes there might not be much of an increase in capacity.
Of course it helps to snip what I had to say about the width available.

As with the Military Highway situation, there will be a minimum of 12 inches between the edge line and the concrete wall, that is a basic minimum so that you don't have a concrete wall at the very edge of the roadway and sheet metal.

So that would be 10.5 foot lanes southbound and 10 foot lanes northbound.  That would be narrow enough to cause considerable per lane capacity losses, and enough to throw the issue into question as to widening to 3 lanes each way but not replacing the bridge with longer spans.

I would need to see professional detailed traffic engineering analysis.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 12, 2019, 07:19:33 AM
On Witchduck Rd or Military Highway?
If you're referring to Witchduck Rd, then I would disagree. That road is a major bottleneck, and all of it is being widened to 6-lanes north of I-264, and was recently widened to 6-lanes south of I-264. This, along with the interchange reconfiguration is a major operational improvement, except for the fact the right lane will drop off going both directions to go under the bridge. That alone will likely cause a chokepoint as people have to merge down to 2 lanes, then to open right back to 6-lanes. Keeping it consistent at 6-lanes is the best way to go if it can be done. One way to accommodate this may be to reduce the lanes to 11 feet which is acceptable on an arterial roadway.
Here is your analysis:
10' lanes have up to an 18% capacity reduction from 12' lanes.
3x 82 = 246
Therefore there would be a 23% capacity improvement over 2 lanes
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 13, 2019, 11:06:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 13, 2019, 02:53:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 12, 2019, 08:30:21 AM
As with the Military Highway situation, there will be a minimum of 12 inches between the edge line and the concrete wall, that is a basic minimum so that you don't have a concrete wall at the very edge of the roadway and sheet metal.
So that would be 10.5 foot lanes southbound and 10 foot lanes northbound.  That would be narrow enough to cause considerable per lane capacity losses, and enough to throw the issue into question as to widening to 3 lanes each way but not replacing the bridge with longer spans.
Here is your analysis:
10' lanes have up to an 18% capacity reduction from 12' lanes.
3x 82 = 246
Therefore there would be a 23% capacity improvement over 2 lanes
Instead of 50%.

What about the capacity effect of having no shoulders, and concrete walls no more than 12 inches from each edge of the roadway?  How would that impact the figure?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on December 14, 2019, 02:17:35 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 13, 2019, 11:06:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 13, 2019, 02:53:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 12, 2019, 08:30:21 AM
As with the Military Highway situation, there will be a minimum of 12 inches between the edge line and the concrete wall, that is a basic minimum so that you don't have a concrete wall at the very edge of the roadway and sheet metal.
So that would be 10.5 foot lanes southbound and 10 foot lanes northbound.  That would be narrow enough to cause considerable per lane capacity losses, and enough to throw the issue into question as to widening to 3 lanes each way but not replacing the bridge with longer spans.
Here is your analysis:
10' lanes have up to an 18% capacity reduction from 12' lanes.
3x 82 = 246
Therefore there would be a 23% capacity improvement over 2 lanes
Instead of 50%.

What about the capacity effect of having no shoulders, and concrete walls no more than 12 inches from each edge of the roadway?  How would that impact the figure?
For such a short distance, negligible, especially because it's a permanent condition.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 06:21:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 14, 2019, 02:17:35 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 13, 2019, 11:06:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 13, 2019, 02:53:30 PM
Here is your analysis:
10' lanes have up to an 18% capacity reduction from 12' lanes.
3x 82 = 246
Therefore there would be a 23% capacity improvement over 2 lanes
Instead of 50%.  What about the capacity effect of having no shoulders, and concrete walls no more than 12 inches from each edge of the roadway?  How would that impact the figure?
For such a short distance, negligible, especially because it's a permanent condition.
Interesting.  So the agency would have to decide whether adding 50% more lanes but just obtaining 23% more capacity would be an effective use of resources.  That segment of the road would still have that much lower capacity than the rest of the road.

There would be benefits, but they could get the full 50% if they replaced the bridge, which would have its own resource costs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 06:38:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 06:21:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 14, 2019, 02:17:35 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 13, 2019, 11:06:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 13, 2019, 02:53:30 PM
Here is your analysis:
10' lanes have up to an 18% capacity reduction from 12' lanes.
3x 82 = 246
Therefore there would be a 23% capacity improvement over 2 lanes
Instead of 50%.  What about the capacity effect of having no shoulders, and concrete walls no more than 12 inches from each edge of the roadway?  How would that impact the figure?
For such a short distance, negligible, especially because it's a permanent condition.
Interesting.  So the agency would have to decide whether adding 50% more lanes but just obtaining 23% more capacity would be an effective use of resources.  That segment of the road would still have that much lower capacity than the rest of the road.

There would be benefits, but they could get the full 50% if they replaced the bridge, which would have its own resource costs.
Striping three lanes through there now and adding crash barriers could be a low-cost temporary relief for now, then in the long term could do a larger project to fully replace the bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 06:43:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 06:38:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 06:21:00 PM
So the agency would have to decide whether adding 50% more lanes but just obtaining 23% more capacity would be an effective use of resources.  That segment of the road would still have that much lower capacity than the rest of the road.
There would be benefits, but they could get the full 50% if they replaced the bridge, which would have its own resource costs.
Striping three lanes through there now and adding crash barriers could be a low-cost temporary relief for now, then in the long term could do a larger project to fully replace the bridge.

It would take more than striping, it would take widening the pavement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 06:46:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 06:43:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 06:38:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 06:21:00 PM
So the agency would have to decide whether adding 50% more lanes but just obtaining 23% more capacity would be an effective use of resources.  That segment of the road would still have that much lower capacity than the rest of the road.
There would be benefits, but they could get the full 50% if they replaced the bridge, which would have its own resource costs.
Striping three lanes through there now and adding crash barriers could be a low-cost temporary relief for now, then in the long term could do a larger project to fully replace the bridge.

It would take more than striping, it would take widening the pavement.
That's practically nothing compared to constructing a 12-lane overpass with full shoulders, then having to build it without significantly impacting traffic.

You're talking $5 - $15 million compared to at least $100 million.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 07:02:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 06:46:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 06:43:54 PM
It would take more than striping, it would take widening the pavement.
That's practically nothing compared to constructing a 12-lane overpass with full shoulders, then having to build it without significantly impacting traffic.
You're talking $5 - $15 million compared to at least $100 million.

It wouldn't cost $100 million to replace the bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 07:02:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 06:46:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 06:43:54 PM
It would take more than striping, it would take widening the pavement.
That's practically nothing compared to constructing a 12-lane overpass with full shoulders, then having to build it without significantly impacting traffic.
You're talking $5 - $15 million compared to at least $100 million.

It wouldn't cost $100 million to replace the bridge.
At least $50 million or more. It's a 12-lane bridge, and the new one would have full shoulders more than likely. Then there's the issue with building it without significantly impacting traffic in the narrow footprint.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 10:06:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
At least $50 million or more. It's a 12-lane bridge, and the new one would have full shoulders more than likely. Then there's the issue with building it without significantly impacting traffic in the narrow footprint.
Where do you get all these cost estimates from?

The current bridge is 154 feet wide and 188 feet long, and has 4 spans.  The new bridge could be considerably shorter and have one long span over Witchduck Road underneath.  The abutments could utilize MSE walls, which are a lot cheaper than the days when that would be a massive reinforced concrete backwall from ground to bridge level.  See the new bridges on I-64 over Nine Mile Road in Henrico County, they were made considerably shorter with a similar situation to the above.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 14, 2019, 11:31:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
Then there's the issue with building it without significantly impacting traffic in the narrow footprint.

Agreed with this. This construction would certainly create horrible backups on both roads, and I believe the backups will spill over well onto I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 11:55:49 PM
Quote from: plain on December 14, 2019, 11:31:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
Then there's the issue with building it without significantly impacting traffic in the narrow footprint.
Agreed with this. This construction would certainly create horrible backups on both roads, and I believe the backups will spill over well onto I-64.

Wouldn't have to.  I have worked in road design, and I could design a maintenance of traffic scheme that would keep the current number of lanes open at all times.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on December 15, 2019, 01:03:49 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 10:06:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
At least $50 million or more. It's a 12-lane bridge, and the new one would have full shoulders more than likely. Then there's the issue with building it without significantly impacting traffic in the narrow footprint.
Where do you get all these cost estimates from?

The current bridge is 154 feet wide and 188 feet long, and has 4 spans.  The new bridge could be considerably shorter and have one long span over Witchduck Road underneath.  The abutments could utilize MSE walls, which are a lot cheaper than the days when that would be a massive reinforced concrete backwall from ground to bridge level.  See the new bridges on I-64 over Nine Mile Road in Henrico County, they were made considerably shorter with a similar situation to the above.
You're questioning the cost estimate, so show us a comparable project in a comparable area that's cheaper.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 15, 2019, 08:20:42 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 15, 2019, 01:03:49 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 10:06:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
At least $50 million or more. It's a 12-lane bridge, and the new one would have full shoulders more than likely. Then there's the issue with building it without significantly impacting traffic in the narrow footprint.
Where do you get all these cost estimates from?
The current bridge is 154 feet wide and 188 feet long, and has 4 spans.  The new bridge could be considerably shorter and have one long span over Witchduck Road underneath.  The abutments could utilize MSE walls, which are a lot cheaper than the days when that would be a massive reinforced concrete backwall from ground to bridge level.  See the new bridges on I-64 over Nine Mile Road in Henrico County, they were made considerably shorter with a similar situation to the above.
You're questioning the cost estimate, so show us a comparable project in a comparable area that's cheaper.

What "cost estimate"?  He largely grabs numbers out of the air.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on December 15, 2019, 10:03:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 15, 2019, 08:20:42 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 15, 2019, 01:03:49 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 10:06:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
At least $50 million or more. It's a 12-lane bridge, and the new one would have full shoulders more than likely. Then there's the issue with building it without significantly impacting traffic in the narrow footprint.
Where do you get all these cost estimates from?
The current bridge is 154 feet wide and 188 feet long, and has 4 spans.  The new bridge could be considerably shorter and have one long span over Witchduck Road underneath.  The abutments could utilize MSE walls, which are a lot cheaper than the days when that would be a massive reinforced concrete backwall from ground to bridge level.  See the new bridges on I-64 over Nine Mile Road in Henrico County, they were made considerably shorter with a similar situation to the above.
You're questioning the cost estimate, so show us a comparable project in a comparable area that's cheaper.

What "cost estimate"?  He largely grabs numbers out of the air.
Okay, but you haven't even grabbed any numbers at all, so he's winning.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 15, 2019, 10:06:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 15, 2019, 10:03:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 15, 2019, 08:20:42 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 15, 2019, 01:03:49 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 10:06:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
At least $50 million or more. It's a 12-lane bridge, and the new one would have full shoulders more than likely. Then there's the issue with building it without significantly impacting traffic in the narrow footprint.
Where do you get all these cost estimates from?
The current bridge is 154 feet wide and 188 feet long, and has 4 spans.  The new bridge could be considerably shorter and have one long span over Witchduck Road underneath.  The abutments could utilize MSE walls, which are a lot cheaper than the days when that would be a massive reinforced concrete backwall from ground to bridge level.  See the new bridges on I-64 over Nine Mile Road in Henrico County, they were made considerably shorter with a similar situation to the above.
You're questioning the cost estimate, so show us a comparable project in a comparable area that's cheaper.
What "cost estimate"?  He largely grabs numbers out of the air.
Okay, but you haven't even grabbed any numbers at all, so he's winning.
OK, it will be $1 billion.

See how easy that is?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 15, 2019, 10:19:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 15, 2019, 10:06:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 15, 2019, 10:03:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 15, 2019, 08:20:42 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 15, 2019, 01:03:49 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 10:06:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
At least $50 million or more. It's a 12-lane bridge, and the new one would have full shoulders more than likely. Then there's the issue with building it without significantly impacting traffic in the narrow footprint.
Where do you get all these cost estimates from?
The current bridge is 154 feet wide and 188 feet long, and has 4 spans.  The new bridge could be considerably shorter and have one long span over Witchduck Road underneath.  The abutments could utilize MSE walls, which are a lot cheaper than the days when that would be a massive reinforced concrete backwall from ground to bridge level.  See the new bridges on I-64 over Nine Mile Road in Henrico County, they were made considerably shorter with a similar situation to the above.
You're questioning the cost estimate, so show us a comparable project in a comparable area that's cheaper.
What "cost estimate"?  He largely grabs numbers out of the air.
Okay, but you haven't even grabbed any numbers at all, so he's winning.
OK, it will be $1 billion.

See how easy that is?
You've refuted and questioned numerous of times when transportation agencies, even VDOT, have released cost estimates that don't match what you think they should be.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 15, 2019, 10:23:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 15, 2019, 10:19:08 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 15, 2019, 10:06:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 15, 2019, 10:03:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 15, 2019, 08:20:42 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 15, 2019, 01:03:49 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 10:06:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
At least $50 million or more. It's a 12-lane bridge, and the new one would have full shoulders more than likely. Then there's the issue with building it without significantly impacting traffic in the narrow footprint.
Where do you get all these cost estimates from?
The current bridge is 154 feet wide and 188 feet long, and has 4 spans.  The new bridge could be considerably shorter and have one long span over Witchduck Road underneath.  The abutments could utilize MSE walls, which are a lot cheaper than the days when that would be a massive reinforced concrete backwall from ground to bridge level.  See the new bridges on I-64 over Nine Mile Road in Henrico County, they were made considerably shorter with a similar situation to the above.
You're questioning the cost estimate, so show us a comparable project in a comparable area that's cheaper.
What "cost estimate"?  He largely grabs numbers out of the air.
Okay, but you haven't even grabbed any numbers at all, so he's winning.
OK, it will be $1 billion.  See how easy that is?
You've refuted and questioned numerous of times when transportation agencies, even VDOT, have released cost estimates that don't match what you think they should be.

You and your buddy seem to think that it is my job to prove your $50 million and $100 million figures wrong.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 15, 2019, 10:39:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 15, 2019, 10:23:01 PM
You and your buddy seem to think that it is my job to prove your $50 million and $100 million figures wrong.
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 07:02:41 PM
It wouldn't cost $100 million to replace the bridge.
You're the one who refuted the figure, so reasonably you should backup your argument with evidence to support it. The only thing you offered was a rural bridge replacement project in Richmond that was only two 3-lane bridges with no connecting interchanges. If you had brought up some major 10 - 14 lane bridge was recently replaced on some urban interstate in Virginia and it cost only $30 million, that would be reasonable. I suggested a $50 - $100 million generalized estimate based on the situation, a 12-lane interstate highway bridge in an urban area on a major route with limited room around it, and in today's day and age, nearby bridge projects seem to have high costs. These days a rural 2-lane overpass and connecting ramps will cost up to $15 - $20 million in Virginia, I'd say my estimate for a 12-lane urban interstate highway overpass is reasonable.

I'm not saying you're in the wrong for refuting the guesstimated figure, but refuting it without providing any counter argument and explanation doesn't give your comment much weight.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 16, 2019, 12:13:57 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 15, 2019, 10:39:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 14, 2019, 07:02:41 PM
It wouldn't cost $100 million to replace the bridge.
You're the one who refuted the figure, so reasonably you should backup your argument with evidence to support it. The only thing you offered was a rural bridge replacement project in Richmond that was only two 3-lane bridges with no connecting interchanges. If you had brought up some major 10 - 14 lane bridge was recently replaced on some urban interstate in Virginia and it cost only $30 million, that would be reasonable.
That is just the problem, how many "major 10 - 14 lane bridge was recently replaced on some urban interstate in Virginia" are there?  None!

Now that you keep picking and picking at this issue, I have been ready.

Quote from: Beltway on December 15, 2019, 08:20:42 AM
The current [Witchduck Road] bridge is 154 feet wide and 188 feet long, and has 4 spans.  The new bridge could be considerably shorter and have one long span over Witchduck Road underneath.  The abutments could utilize MSE walls, which are a lot cheaper than the days when that would be a massive reinforced concrete backwall from ground to bridge level.  See the new bridges on I-64 over Nine Mile Road in Henrico County, they were made considerably shorter with a similar situation to the above.
The bridges are quite comparable as far as span length and potential new design.  The Nine Mile Road new bridges (https://www.google.com/maps/place/ATM+(Fairfield+BP)/@37.5292399,-77.3117091,90m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b11a1c70972b0d:0xed68400a0e5f4f80!8m2!3d37.5464955!4d-77.3632999) each have one 92-foot span and each bridge is 62 feet wide.

So that is 124 feet of width.  Six 12 foot lanes could be fit under an 92-foot span.  Add 50% to the 124 feet to get 186 feet which should be ample for I-264.

Per the 2017 Six-Year Program the new Nine Mile Road bridges cost $9.5 million for construction.  So add 50% more and you get about $15 million.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 19, 2019, 02:30:08 PM
Gov. Northam is proposing raising the gas tax by 4 cents a year over a 3-year period, then tie the revenue to inflation. He also wants to do away with vehicle safety inspections and cut vehicle registration fees by half.

https://wtvr.com/2019/12/17/governor-northam-budget/ (https://wtvr.com/2019/12/17/governor-northam-budget/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 19, 2019, 04:26:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 19, 2019, 02:30:08 PM
Gov. Northam is proposing raising the gas tax by 4 cents a year over a 3-year period, then tie the revenue to inflation. He also wants to do away with vehicle safety inspections and cut vehicle registration fees by half.

https://wtvr.com/2019/12/17/governor-northam-budget/ (https://wtvr.com/2019/12/17/governor-northam-budget/)
Heard about this the other day... For once, I'm actually supportive of one of Governor Bl... Governor Northam's proposals.

My only skepticism is with the gas tax increase. If it goes forth, there better be some evident progress with road projects around the state being accelerated.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 19, 2019, 04:41:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 19, 2019, 04:26:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 19, 2019, 02:30:08 PM
Gov. Northam is proposing raising the gas tax by 4 cents a year over a 3-year period, then tie the revenue to inflation. He also wants to do away with vehicle safety inspections and cut vehicle registration fees by half.
https://wtvr.com/2019/12/17/governor-northam-budget/ (https://wtvr.com/2019/12/17/governor-northam-budget/)
Heard about this the other day... For once, I'm actually supportive of one of Governor Bl... Governor Northam's proposals.
My only skepticism is with the gas tax increase. If it goes forth, there better be some evident progress with road projects around the state being accelerated.
He did something to his face, but I will have to think carefully about whether I will support these tax increases.  Actually he looks like a used car salesman.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 19, 2019, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2019, 04:41:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 19, 2019, 04:26:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 19, 2019, 02:30:08 PM
Gov. Northam is proposing raising the gas tax by 4 cents a year over a 3-year period, then tie the revenue to inflation. He also wants to do away with vehicle safety inspections and cut vehicle registration fees by half.
https://wtvr.com/2019/12/17/governor-northam-budget/ (https://wtvr.com/2019/12/17/governor-northam-budget/)
Heard about this the other day... For once, I'm actually supportive of one of Governor Bl... Governor Northam's proposals.
My only skepticism is with the gas tax increase. If it goes forth, there better be some evident progress with road projects around the state being accelerated.
He did something to his face, but I will have to think carefully about whether I will support these tax increases.  Actually he looks like a used car salesman.
If the tax increases can visibly accelerate long-delayed projects, such as on I-64, I-95, I-81, I-73, and other urban projects, then I'm all for it.

But if it's not going to make a difference or not accelerate anything, then it's just another money grab.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 19, 2019, 05:29:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 19, 2019, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2019, 04:41:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 19, 2019, 04:26:58 PM
Heard about this the other day... For once, I'm actually supportive of one of Governor Bl... Governor Northam's proposals.
My only skepticism is with the gas tax increase. If it goes forth, there better be some evident progress with road projects around the state being accelerated.
He did something to his face, but I will have to think carefully about whether I will support these tax increases.  Actually he looks like a used car salesman.
If the tax increases can visibly accelerate long-delayed projects, such as on I-64, I-95, I-81, I-73, and other urban projects, then I'm all for it.
But if it's not going to make a difference or not accelerate anything, then it's just another money grab.
That is the problem with road use tax increases, sometimes the new revenues just get siphoned off into funding non-road use programs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 19, 2019, 05:52:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2019, 05:29:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 19, 2019, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 19, 2019, 04:41:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 19, 2019, 04:26:58 PM
Heard about this the other day... For once, I'm actually supportive of one of Governor Bl... Governor Northam's proposals.
My only skepticism is with the gas tax increase. If it goes forth, there better be some evident progress with road projects around the state being accelerated.
He did something to his face, but I will have to think carefully about whether I will support these tax increases.  Actually he looks like a used car salesman.
If the tax increases can visibly accelerate long-delayed projects, such as on I-64, I-95, I-81, I-73, and other urban projects, then I'm all for it.
But if it's not going to make a difference or not accelerate anything, then it's just another money grab.
That is the problem with road use tax increases, sometimes the new revenues just get siphoned off into funding non-road use programs.
Let's just hope that if this does happen that it will go towards the much needed improvements on VA's highways.



Also, while I got your attention Beltway, you and I were discussing the RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP on I-95 a couple years back at the Belvidere Toll Plaza. I saw this a few minutes ago, a Fredericksburg newspaper posted an article earlier this year about the HOT lanes in NOVA and they have an image of it. They say it's from 1991. The toll plaza was also expanded (they said 18 lanes but I count 16).

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/interstate-comes-full-circle-on-tolls/article_80540531-21e3-5bc3-8391-e5432d740fe3.html
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191219/2f6f0ad9e6889285181fd1c3201836dc.jpg)

SM-S820L

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 19, 2019, 05:54:02 PM
They need to come up with some means of ongoing taxation for alternative-fuel vehicles that aren't subject to the gas or diesel tax.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 19, 2019, 09:00:53 PM
Quote from: plain on December 19, 2019, 05:52:35 PM
Also, while I got your attention Beltway, you and I were discussing the RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP on I-95 a couple years back at the Belvidere Toll Plaza. I saw this a few minutes ago, a Fredericksburg newspaper posted an article earlier this year about the HOT lanes in NOVA and they have an image of it. They say it's from 1991. The toll plaza was also expanded (they said 18 lanes but I count 16).
That's it!

I wish I had taken photos of it back when it existed, it was removed when the toll plaza was removed in 1993.

I can see the design, where it reached about 20 feet high at the end, and had stone and gravel bedding in the concrete ramp structure.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 19, 2019, 09:37:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 19, 2019, 04:26:58 PM
My only skepticism is with the gas tax increase. If it goes forth, there better be some evident progress with road projects around the state being accelerated.

It seems to have helped in NJ. At least they cut the grass and clean up the highways here post tax increase, plus a ton of repaving projects. The revised NJ gas tax law took a different approach vs. indexing to inflation though. They adjust the rate yearly to compensate for any possible shortfall in the transportation trust fund based on the previous year's receipts. So if people bought less fuel the prior year due to higher prices or a weaker economy, they'll adjust the tax rate up a few cents for the new year to compensate.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 20, 2019, 11:11:54 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 19, 2019, 04:26:58 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 19, 2019, 02:30:08 PM
Gov. Northam is proposing raising the gas tax by 4 cents a year over a 3-year period, then tie the revenue to inflation. He also wants to do away with vehicle safety inspections and cut vehicle registration fees by half.

https://wtvr.com/2019/12/17/governor-northam-budget/ (https://wtvr.com/2019/12/17/governor-northam-budget/)
Heard about this the other day... For once, I'm actually supportive of one of Governor Bl... Governor Northam's proposals.

My only skepticism is with the gas tax increase. If it goes forth, there better be some evident progress with road projects around the state being accelerated.

My sentiment as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on December 20, 2019, 02:08:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 19, 2019, 05:54:02 PM
They need to come up with some means of ongoing taxation for alternative-fuel vehicles that aren't subject to the gas or diesel tax.

Those things don't get charged for free, do they?

I know several Sheetz locations have installed Tesla charging banks. Do Tesla drivers get to recharge for free, or do they have to pay the way gasoline users do to refuel? If so, there's the funding mechanism. Put a tax on that service.

And if people install home chargers, place an excise tax on those devices.

Surely, though, there aren't that many electric vehicles that they are eating into gas tax revenues that much.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on December 20, 2019, 02:49:12 PM
Tesla owners traditionally get to use Superchargers for free. However, they recently changed it so that newly purchased Teslas are only eligible for a set amount of free supercharging (after which it's $0.26/kWh)

Other public EV charging stations charge varying costs. Many are free, especially ones in municipal parking lots. Some charge a nominal per-charge fee (<$10), some charge a monthly fee, some charge a combination. Such is normally up to the property owner.

As for "home chargers", Level 1 charging just plugs right into a regular 120V three-prong outlet. No special charging device required for you to tax. Level 2 charging just requires a 240V large appliance plug (like for a dryer or generator).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 20, 2019, 09:09:57 PM
The ones at the Sheetz at exit 126 of I40 in Hickory  NC are free to Tesla owners, local electric is only $.096/KwH so that may be why.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 20, 2019, 09:45:32 PM
I didn't mean just electric vehicles. There are various other alternative-fuel vehicles on the road around here, though I expect the numbers will decline now that the HOV exemption is gone.

I do see a LOT of Teslas on the road lately, though. I'll typically see at least one any time I go somewhere.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on December 21, 2019, 04:38:35 PM
The only other alternative-fuel vehicles that were used around here were powered by natural gas, and they were very rare, and owned usually only by those who owned or worked at gas companies.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 21, 2019, 04:45:59 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1207797909808386048

They built a bypass to alleviate congestion in Downtown, and now they refuse to build a bypass to alleviate congestion on a major local and thru corridor north of Downtown.

The irony.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 21, 2019, 05:37:32 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 21, 2019, 04:45:59 PM
They built a bypass to alleviate congestion in Downtown, and now they refuse to build a bypass to alleviate congestion on a major local and thru corridor north of Downtown.
The irony.
They built "Route 29 Solutions" with the bypass-allocated funds, to provide an enhanced local circulator system around and across that section, that provides little in the way of benefits for the thru traffic.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 22, 2019, 08:15:39 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2019, 04:38:35 PM
The only other alternative-fuel vehicles that were used around here were powered by natural gas, and they were very rare, and owned usually only by those who owned or worked at gas companies.

They were somewhat more common here, along with various other oddities powered by propane and such, and the reason was that they were eligible for the HOV exemption until such was phased out recently as part of the HO/T projects. I knew a couple of guys who had CNG-powered vehicles. One of them had a CNG-powered Dodge Caravan and he later traded it in on a hybrid Camry. I'll have to ask him whether he's keeping the clean-fuel license plate. There's no reason for it anymore, so I'd imagine he'd probably opt to save the $25 a year.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 22, 2019, 01:17:39 PM
Wow.

https://twitter.com/vsppio/status/1208802100278386689?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on December 22, 2019, 01:41:47 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 22, 2019, 01:17:39 PM
Wow.

https://twitter.com/vsppio/status/1208802100278386689?s=21
Construction zone plus fog, I think
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 01:59:09 PM
^

Ice & fog. I don't think the construction zone had too much to do with it.

Crazy situation overall though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 22, 2019, 02:12:59 PM
I-64 has low truck percentages.  Lack of trucks in the accidents undoubtedly was a saving factor in preventing fatalities.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on December 22, 2019, 02:28:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 01:59:09 PM
^

Ice & fog. I don't think the construction zone had too much to do with it.

Crazy situation overall though.

I'm sure the cattle chute there helped compound things significantly...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 02:37:37 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 22, 2019, 02:28:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 01:59:09 PM
^

Ice & fog. I don't think the construction zone had too much to do with it.

Crazy situation overall though.

I'm sure the cattle chute there helped compound things significantly...
If you're referring to the narrow bridge, the bridge has always been that narrow. (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2918544,-76.6744556,3a,48.8y,333.86h,82.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su4C1soAm65sO6j16qmyrGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) The speed limit at the time of this wreck was only posted 55 mph due to the work zone, but is normally 70 mph. Once the current project expanding this section of I-64 to three lanes each and replacing this particular bridge, the new bridge will have three lanes each way with full left and right shoulders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on December 22, 2019, 03:29:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 02:37:37 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 22, 2019, 02:28:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 01:59:09 PM
^

Ice & fog. I don't think the construction zone had too much to do with it.

Crazy situation overall though.

I'm sure the cattle chute there helped compound things significantly...
If you're referring to the narrow bridge, the bridge has always been that narrow. (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2918544,-76.6744556,3a,48.8y,333.86h,82.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su4C1soAm65sO6j16qmyrGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) The speed limit at the time of this wreck was only posted 55 mph due to the work zone, but is normally 70 mph. Once the current project expanding this section of I-64 to three lanes each and replacing this particular bridge, the new bridge will have three lanes each way with full left and right shoulders.
Does any bridge sizes like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6111305,-77.5012588,3a,70.2y,259.4h,83.73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgXlVh5mysdS-a37AFCWCsQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DgXlVh5mysdS-a37AFCWCsQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D305.75015%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) would have to be replaced (or widened) before an interstate can get signed here?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 03:46:05 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 22, 2019, 03:29:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 02:37:37 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 22, 2019, 02:28:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 01:59:09 PM
^

Ice & fog. I don't think the construction zone had too much to do with it.

Crazy situation overall though.

I'm sure the cattle chute there helped compound things significantly...
If you're referring to the narrow bridge, the bridge has always been that narrow. (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2918544,-76.6744556,3a,48.8y,333.86h,82.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su4C1soAm65sO6j16qmyrGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) The speed limit at the time of this wreck was only posted 55 mph due to the work zone, but is normally 70 mph. Once the current project expanding this section of I-64 to three lanes each and replacing this particular bridge, the new bridge will have three lanes each way with full left and right shoulders.
Does any bridge sizes like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6111305,-77.5012588,3a,70.2y,259.4h,83.73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgXlVh5mysdS-a37AFCWCsQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DgXlVh5mysdS-a37AFCWCsQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D305.75015%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) would have to be replaced (or widened) before an interstate can get signed here?
The shoulder across the bridge is only 6 ft, and the bridge is only 150 ft long, so it would need to be widened to 10 ft to conform to interstate standards. Immediately, it could likely be signed, but with a condition with FHWA it would be widened eventually. No need to replace the entire structure though.

Looking at footage from my recent drive through there, it appears the current shoulder widening project simply follows the guardrail line and narrows from 10 ft to 6 ft at the bridge, then opens back out beyond the structure.

This is the Virginia thread, probably not the best place to be discussing North Carolina highways.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on December 22, 2019, 04:19:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 03:46:05 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 22, 2019, 03:29:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 02:37:37 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 22, 2019, 02:28:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 22, 2019, 01:59:09 PM
^

Ice & fog. I don't think the construction zone had too much to do with it.

Crazy situation overall though.

I'm sure the cattle chute there helped compound things significantly...
If you're referring to the narrow bridge, the bridge has always been that narrow. (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2918544,-76.6744556,3a,48.8y,333.86h,82.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su4C1soAm65sO6j16qmyrGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) The speed limit at the time of this wreck was only posted 55 mph due to the work zone, but is normally 70 mph. Once the current project expanding this section of I-64 to three lanes each and replacing this particular bridge, the new bridge will have three lanes each way with full left and right shoulders.
Does any bridge sizes like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6111305,-77.5012588,3a,70.2y,259.4h,83.73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgXlVh5mysdS-a37AFCWCsQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DgXlVh5mysdS-a37AFCWCsQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D305.75015%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) would have to be replaced (or widened) before an interstate can get signed here?
The shoulder across the bridge is only 6 ft, and the bridge is only 150 ft long, so it would need to be widened to 10 ft to conform to interstate standards. Immediately, it could likely be signed, but with a condition with FHWA it would be widened eventually. No need to replace the entire structure though.

Looking at footage from my recent drive through there, it appears the current shoulder widening project simply follows the guardrail line and narrows from 10 ft to 6 ft at the bridge, then opens back out beyond the structure.
That's still a problem i'm guessing. There's many gaps even here too (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5282411,-77.4292542,3a,75y,20.88h,81.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTOofKHuz7Vam6X3OM0AkDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1). Are they going to fix this or will it stay the way it is? Because i know that far right lane is not an exit lane.
Quote
This is the Virginia thread, probably not the best place to be discussing North Carolina highways.
Well I saw this post and I found it interesting that if bridges should be 10 feet long before designing an interstate and I didn't know where to put it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on December 23, 2019, 09:53:19 AM
Recognition that adding more lanes to I-95 won't solve anything:

"In the biggest boost in decades to train travel in the D.C. area, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and CSX announced a $3.7 billion agreement Thursday for the state to buy 225 miles of track and build new passenger rail improvements.

"Funding for Virginia's $3.7 billion plan is expected to include about $944 million from Amtrak and a similar amount from existing state rail and other transportation funds, with the remainder covered by regional funds, such as I-66 toll revenue; potential D.C. government contributions for the work in and impacting the city; potential Northern Virginia transportation funds for specific projects, such as a flyover for passenger trains near Franconia-Springfield; and VRE dedicated capital funding.

"A recent state study estimated adding a lane to I-95 from the Fredericksburg area to the Capital Beltway would cost more than $12 billion, with traffic backing up again soon after the lanes opened, so the project provides significant benefits to the state, Mitchell said. (Jennifer Mitchell, director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation)"

See the article for full details of what the state is buying, what rail services will be improved/upgraded/added, and future plans to extend passenger service in the state.

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2019/12/major-amtrak-vre-expansion-set-under-3-7-billion-virginia-csx-deal/

[Cue those who will argue that more lanes are better . . .]

Bruce in Blacksburg (45 minutes from the popular Amtrak stop in Roanoke)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 23, 2019, 10:27:40 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 23, 2019, 09:53:19 AM
Recognition that adding more lanes to I-95 won't solve anything:
"In the biggest boost in decades to train travel in the D.C. area, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and CSX announced a $3.7 billion agreement Thursday for the state to buy 225 miles of track and build new passenger rail improvements.
"Funding for Virginia's $3.7 billion plan is expected to include about $944 million from Amtrak and a similar amount from existing state rail and other transportation funds, with the remainder covered by regional funds, such as I-66 toll revenue; potential D.C. government contributions for the work in and impacting the city; potential Northern Virginia transportation funds for specific projects, such as a flyover for passenger trains near Franconia-Springfield; and VRE dedicated capital funding.
A valuable project, and while that is a lot of money, it will be built in phases to about 2030, with the parallel Long Bridge (Potomac River) being in the last phases.

Will enable large increases in VRE train trips per hour on both the Fredericksburg and Manassas lines, possibly the extension of those lines to Massaponax and Warrenton.

A lot of return-on-investment for the peak weekday commuting hours, but ...

Quote from: VTGoose on December 23, 2019, 09:53:19 AM
"A recent state study estimated adding a lane to I-95 from the Fredericksburg area to the Capital Beltway would cost more than $12 billion, with traffic backing up again soon after the lanes opened, so the project provides significant benefits to the state, Mitchell said. (Jennifer Mitchell, director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation)"
A nonsense figure from this current administration, that for some reason that I am still investigating, is intended to shut down any discussion of any major widening of I-95.

There are many off-peak hours and weekend hours when 8 general purpose lanes are (or will soon be) needed all the way down to I-295.  Not that the need doesn't exist as well in peak weekday commuting hours.

This compromised administration needs to award a contract for a full EIS/location study, to examine all the feasible alternatives, for this segment of I-95.  If they don't, then they are just blowing smoke (and probably groceries as well).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 23, 2019, 03:08:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 23, 2019, 10:27:40 AM
A nonsense figure from this current administration, that for some reason that I am still investigating, is intended to shut down any discussion of any major widening of I-95.

There are many off-peak hours and weekend hours when 8 general purpose lanes are (or will soon be) needed all the way down to I-295.  Not that the need doesn't exist as well in peak weekday commuting hours.

This compromised administration needs to award a contract for a full EIS/location study, to examine all the feasible alternatives, for this segment of I-95.  If they don't, then they are just blowing smoke (and probably groceries as well).
It gets even better when you look at other megaprojects on I-95 completed or under construction in the past 10 years and how low their costs were compared to this outrageous $12 billion figure for 36 miles.

For the record, $12 billion for 36 miles is $333 million per mile.

Other projects along I-95 in the past decade...
Looking through SmartScale applications, there's also project submissions for widening parts of I-95 by adding general purpose lanes, etc. and there associated cost estimates...
Note these are not official projects as they have either not been approved or were denied, in one instance due to "compensation events".
Overall, it seems that adding one general purpose lane each way would generally cost $40 - $60 million per mile, so the I-95 widening alternative the governor's office presented for $12 billion to add one lane each way should in reality be closer to $1.4 - $2.2 billion, which is far more reasonable.

Considering they now won't even consider adding as little as one general purpose each way, I think it's safe to say the current state of I-95 and local / regional / long-distance traffic movement will be staying the same for decades to come, and will only get worse and worse as each year passes. At this point, Virginia and Maryland have no care to fix the issue, whether it be widening I-95 or building an outer bypass to at least let the thru traffic not have to deal with the bottleneck Virginia refuses to fix. It gets even better when most of the issues are in areas with wide right of way and plenty of room for expansion, not some urban corridor with restricted right of way. At least a situation like that would be more understandable.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on December 23, 2019, 03:28:01 PM
Its kinda silly that the "widening won't fix the problem" argument still gets tossed around.  Of course not, not when the population is still expanding.  The only thing that will really fix the problem is stopping population growth...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 23, 2019, 03:31:45 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 23, 2019, 03:28:01 PM
Its kinda silly that the "widening won't fix the problem" argument still gets tossed around.  Of course not, not when the population is still expanding.  The only thing that will really fix the problem is stopping population growth...
They look at simple data that shows traffic did not get better after a widening project, then immediately come to that conclusion.

The reality is that the widening may not have improved traffic, but it would have been even worse had there been no widening at all.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on December 23, 2019, 03:34:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 23, 2019, 03:31:45 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 23, 2019, 03:28:01 PM
Its kinda silly that the "widening won't fix the problem" argument still gets tossed around.  Of course not, not when the population is still expanding.  The only thing that will really fix the problem is stopping population growth...
They look at simple data that shows traffic did not get better after a widening project, then immediately come to that conclusion.

The reality is that the widening may not have improved traffic, but it would have been even worse had there been no widening at all.

That, or they would've built more houses and businesses elsewhere... and god forbid the jurisisdictions lose tax revenue...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 23, 2019, 04:59:43 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on December 23, 2019, 09:53:19 AM
Recognition that adding more lanes to I-95 won't solve anything:

Unfortunately, putting in a few more trains is not likely to do much in terms of relief from traffic congestion.  I am not aware of any plan for trains in this corridor with headways or speeds coming close to that of the Japanese Shinkansen trains, which do carry large volumes of people.

Quote from: VTGoose on December 23, 2019, 09:53:19 AM
"In the biggest boost in decades to train travel in the D.C. area, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and CSX announced a $3.7 billion agreement Thursday for the state to buy 225 miles of track and build new passenger rail improvements.

When similar deals were done in Southern California, the taxpayers got stuck paying the maintenance of the tracks, and the freight operators kept their access to the tracks for profitable freight trains to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 23, 2019, 05:00:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 23, 2019, 03:08:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 23, 2019, 10:27:40 AM
A nonsense figure from this current administration, that for some reason that I am still investigating, is intended to shut down any discussion of any major widening of I-95.
Note these are not official projects as they have either not been approved or were denied, in one instance due to "compensation events".
Once again, we need the NEPA EIS/location study to be conducted to list all reasonable alternatives and costs, to determine what exactly what any "compensation events" will cost to the state.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 23, 2019, 03:08:31 PM
Considering they now won't even consider adding as little as one general purpose each way, I think it's safe to say the current state of I-95 and local / regional / long-distance traffic movement will be staying the same for decades to come,
Negatory.  All it will take is getting a new governor that will support the I-95 Corridor EIS/location study, and for him to quickly replace at least half of the members of the CTB so that they will vote in favor of projects like this.  They could have the first widening projects underway before his term ends.

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 23, 2019, 03:08:31 PM
It gets even better when most of the issues are in areas with wide right of way and plenty of room for expansion, not some urban corridor with restricted right of way. At least a situation like that would be more understandable.
It still gets really expensive, especially when considering up to 70 miles of major widening.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 23, 2019, 05:12:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 23, 2019, 05:00:36 PM
Negatory.  All it will take is getting a new governor that will support the I-95 Corridor EIS/location study, and for him to quickly replace at least half of the members of the CTB so that they will vote in favor of projects like this.  They could have the first widening projects underway before his term ends.
I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed... I'll be surprised to see any progress made by the end of this upcoming decade at the rate things are going now and have been for the past couple decades.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 23, 2019, 05:17:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 23, 2019, 05:12:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 23, 2019, 05:00:36 PM
Negatory.  All it will take is getting a new governor that will support the I-95 Corridor EIS/location study, and for him to quickly replace at least half of the members of the CTB so that they will vote in favor of projects like this.  They could have the first widening projects underway before his term ends.
I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed... I'll be surprised to see any progress made by the end of this upcoming decade at the rate things are going now and have been for the past couple decades.
Like I said need to get a new governor.  The one before him was just as bad in this regard.

Need the completed study first.

The priority over the last decade has been to widen and extend the express lanes between Fredericksburg and the 14th Street Bridge, something that has been a regional priority for a long time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 23, 2019, 08:01:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 23, 2019, 05:17:40 PM
Like I said need to get a new governor.  The one before him was just as bad in this regard.
The direction this state is headed... again I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 25, 2019, 06:27:22 PM
$509M TIFIA Loan Goes for Projects Already Under Construction (https://www.enr.com/articles/48355-509m-virginia-loan-may-break-new-ground-for-tifia)
QuoteIn an unusual move for the U.S. Dept. of Transportation's Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program (TIFIA), the department has approved a $502.9-million loan for a package of Virginia projects that are already under construction.

The loan, which DOT announced on Dec. 11, will help to finance a group of six highway and bridge projects in Hampton Roads.

The loan isn't the first for TIFIA for projects under way, however. In February, U.S. DOT approved a $605-million loan under the program for the Grand Parkway, a toll highway in the Houston area. Construction had started on that project before the TIFIA loan got the green light.

But Kevin Page, executive director of the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC), the Virginia loan's recipient, says that typically, agencies apply for TIFIA assistance for projects in an "embryonic" stage.

He says the group of Hampton Roads projects, whose total cost is about $1.4 billion, aim to reduce traffic congestion on Interstate-64. The projects involve 196 lane-miles of new construction or reconstruction. According to Page, a TIFIA loan for a group of projects also is unusual.

He says, "It was a very innovative approach for TIFIA to come forward and work with HRTAC in a very collaborative way." He credits DOT's Build America Bureau, which oversees TIFIA, as well as the Federal Highway Administration, Virginia DOT and the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization to assemble the group of projects, get them under way and now get the last major financing piece in place.

The Hampton Roads list includes: the first three segments of the I-64 Peninsula Improvement Project; phases one and two of the I-64/I-264 interchange project; and phase one of the High Rise Bridge I-64 south side widening.

The loan will supplement $583 million in bonds that the Hampton Roads commission issued in February 2018, as well as HRTAC, state and local government funding.

One advantage that the commission has is the Hampton Roads Transportation Fund, a dedicated regional gasoline, sales and use tax, which will generate revenue to help repay the TIFIA loan. The fund brought in $211 million last year, Page says.

VDOT administers the construction contracts for the projects, under a standard agreement with HRTAC. The Hampton Roads projects are scheduled to be completed in 2021 and 2022.

TIFIA was established in 1998. Its loans are limited to 33% of a project's total cost.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 25, 2019, 06:32:52 PM
TIFIA loans have to be serviced (paid off) by future FHWA allocations.

TANSTAAFL
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 25, 2019, 06:39:36 PM
^

QuoteOne advantage that the commission has is the Hampton Roads Transportation Fund, a dedicated regional gasoline, sales and use tax, which will generate revenue to help repay the TIFIA loan. The fund brought in $211 million last year, Page says.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 25, 2019, 07:03:25 PM
It is still a loan, that needs to be paid back, with interest, and will take money out of current revenues that could be spent on projects.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on December 26, 2019, 12:40:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 25, 2019, 07:03:25 PM
It is still a loan, that needs to be paid back, with interest, and will take money out of current revenues that could be spent on projects.
But it can be paid back over time, instead of having to come up with the money up front.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 07:08:02 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 26, 2019, 12:40:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 25, 2019, 07:03:25 PM
It is still a loan, that needs to be paid back, with interest, and will take money out of current revenues that could be spent on projects.
But it can be paid back over time, instead of having to come up with the money up front.
True indeed, but as the total debt increases, the debt service consumes a larger and larger portion of the budget.

IOW, modest amount of total debt can be a wise financial management strategy.  Large amounts of debt, unwise.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 07:20:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 07:08:02 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 26, 2019, 12:40:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 25, 2019, 07:03:25 PM
It is still a loan, that needs to be paid back, with interest, and will take money out of current revenues that could be spent on projects.
But it can be paid back over time, instead of having to come up with the money up front.
True indeed, but as the total debt increases, the debt service consumes a larger and larger portion of the budget.

IOW, modest amount of total debt can be a wise financial management strategy.  Large amounts of debt, unwise.
I think the issue is they're looking at it from the standpoint of receiving large amounts of money now to accelerate projects, rather than pushing them off. The loan is helping fund ongoing projects, which then can open up money for future projects.

I saw in an HRTPO report a few months back that projects like I-64 Phase #2 (widening to 8-lanes, interchange improvements including Oak Grove Interchange, replace existing High Rise Bridge), Bowers Hill Interchange, and Fort Eustis Interchange, may not be able to be funded until 2045 or later, whereas before they were expected to be underway by 2030 or thereabouts. Then there's future projects that aren't necessarily on HRTPO's radar at the moment, such as I-664 & Third Crossing, I-264 (implement $2+ billion worth of interchange improvements including overhauling the rest of the I-64 interchange), US-17 (upgrading to interstate standards), US-58 (upgrading to interstate standards to Suffolk, widening Suffolk Bypass to 6-lanes), VA-168 (widening to 8-lanes, interchange improvements, parallel bridge over Intracoastal Waterway), and others that will likely become priorities in the next 10-20 years. As traffic congestion, demand, and growth continue to rapidly increase, new freeway corridors such as never-built Pleasant Grove Pkwy and never-built Southeastern Pkwy may become relevant in altered or smaller forms in the future as well.

There's definitely a need for money to be flowing in, I think repaying it is the least of their concerns at the moment, and the tax district is bringing in plenty of revenues to repay debt and interest in years to come.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 09:10:15 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 07:20:31 AM
There's definitely a need for money to be flowing in, I think repaying it is the least of their concerns at the moment, and the tax district is bringing in plenty of revenues to repay debt and interest in years to come.
Taken to its logical conclusion, that could be a reckless financial management strategy.

"I need the money now, so I will max out all these credit cards, and not think about whether I will ever be able to pay off these debts in the future."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 09:15:26 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 09:10:15 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 07:20:31 AM
There's definitely a need for money to be flowing in, I think repaying it is the least of their concerns at the moment, and the tax district is bringing in plenty of revenues to repay debt and interest in years to come.
Taken to its logical conclusion, that could be a reckless financial management strategy.

"I need the money now, so I will max out all these credit cards, and not think about whether I will ever be able to pay off these debts in the future."
It will be interesting to see what happens in the future with this situation if this is indeed the road they continue down.

At least another $1 billion or more will be funded through bonds and loans in the near future simply adding more debt and interest to be paid off. Some of it will be paid back via toll revenue collected on HO/T lanes, the rest with tax dollars.

The question is though - how else do you accelerate and get all of these projects funded?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 26, 2019, 09:41:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 07:08:02 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 26, 2019, 12:40:13 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 25, 2019, 07:03:25 PM
It is still a loan, that needs to be paid back, with interest, and will take money out of current revenues that could be spent on projects.
But it can be paid back over time, instead of having to come up with the money up front.
True indeed, but as the total debt increases, the debt service consumes a larger and larger portion of the budget.

IOW, modest amount of total debt can be a wise financial management strategy.  Large amounts of debt, unwise.

I would be curious to see the loan terms.  In the early 2000's, SANDAG took on huge debt to finish the 125, which alarmed some watchdog groups only to find that out here was a negative interest rate on the debt:. There were special federal and state programs to cover 2.5% of any loan interest, SANDAG  was borrowing at 1.75% and legally pocketi g the difference
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 09:48:51 AM
More info -

https://www.transportation.gov/tifia/financed-projects/hampton-roads-regional-priority-projects
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 12:11:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 09:48:51 AM
More info -

https://www.transportation.gov/tifia/financed-projects/hampton-roads-regional-priority-projects
The one in green, should be a freeway, IMO! 6 lane freeway would be nice!

And these interchanges should be redesigned like this because this is kind of a weird freeway IMO.

http://prntscr.com/qg26aq

http://prntscr.com/qg26yq

Looks like the existing grading won't be extended.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 12:18:07 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 12:11:31 PM
The one in green, should be a freeway, IMO! 6 lane freeway would be nice!
The segment between I-64 and the US-58 Suffolk Bypass today is a 60 mph limited-access 6-lane expressway with a few at-grade intersections. The proposed project would have upgraded the roadway to interstate standards by widening cross section of the roadway to have full left and right shoulders and constructing two interchanges at Regional Landfill and the Hampton Roads Executive Airport.

The project had a detailed study underway, though has since been delayed indefinitely.

IMO, there's greater need to widen the US-58 Suffolk Bypass from 4 to 6 lanes then there is to upgrade the 6-lane expressway to interstate standards, though ultimately both projects need to be completed to provide a continuous 6-lane interstate-grade corridor between the west end of Suffolk to I-64 / I-664 / I-264.

Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 12:11:31 PM
And these interchanges should be redesigned like this because this is kind of a weird freeway IMO.

http://prntscr.com/qg26aq

http://prntscr.com/qg26yq

Looks like the existing grading won't be extended.
The freeway is designed how it is because US-58 is the main movement, not US-13.

The US-13 leg was merely a connector built between the 1974 US-58 Suffolk Bypass and US-13 south of Suffolk in 2003 to re-route trucks around the city. There's not nearly as much traffic that utilizes that leg than there is making the US-58 thru movement.

The existing design is adequate. The only major project that will happen in this area is widening of US-58 west of the interchange to a 6-lane boulevard design beginning in a few years. No further major improvements are planned along US-13 or US-58 as far as I'm aware.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 12:45:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 09:15:26 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 09:10:15 AM
Taken to its logical conclusion, that could be a reckless financial management strategy.
"I need the money now, so I will max out all these credit cards, and not think about whether I will ever be able to pay off these debts in the future."
It will be interesting to see what happens in the future with this situation if this is indeed the road they continue down.
At least another $1 billion or more will be funded through bonds and loans in the near future simply adding more debt and interest to be paid off. Some of it will be paid back via toll revenue collected on HO/T lanes, the rest with tax dollars.
The question is though - how else do you accelerate and get all of these projects funded?

How else and get all ...  ?

You don't pile large amounts of more debt upon large amounts of previous and unretired debt.

That is not a sustainable process, increasing amounts of P + I need to be serviced every month.

Financial Management 101.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 03:00:48 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/NZvfLMj/I64-Widening-Tie-In.png)

From VDOT's traffic camera, this provides a nice aerial shot of how the recently completed 6-lane widening outside of Richmond along I-64 seamlessly ties into the original 4-lane design east of there. Note the stubs to the inside where a future 3rd lane each way would continue.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 03:04:12 PM
^^^^^

when looking at that, there's a big stub right here. I wonder what this is going to be

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6569267,-77.4438188,3a,75y,331.77h,82.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sic3GVFLWIwNlug-vUn-TyA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dic3GVFLWIwNlug-vUn-TyA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D197.18385%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Looks like this bridge can hold 2 more lanes.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on December 26, 2019, 03:52:02 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 03:04:12 PM
^^^^^

when looking at that, there's a big stub right here. I wonder what this is going to be

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6569267,-77.4438188,3a,75y,331.77h,82.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sic3GVFLWIwNlug-vUn-TyA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dic3GVFLWIwNlug-vUn-TyA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D197.18385%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Looks like this bridge can hold 2 more lanes.



That's the ramp from I-295 North to I-95 North, it appears.  Thought that was 3 lanes at one point and they cut back?  The corresponding SB-SB ramp is 3 lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 03:54:21 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on December 26, 2019, 03:52:02 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 03:04:12 PM
^^^^^

when looking at that, there's a big stub right here. I wonder what this is going to be

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6569267,-77.4438188,3a,75y,331.77h,82.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sic3GVFLWIwNlug-vUn-TyA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dic3GVFLWIwNlug-vUn-TyA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D197.18385%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Looks like this bridge can hold 2 more lanes.



That's the ramp from I-295 North to I-95 North, it appears.  Thought that was 3 lanes at one point and they cut back?  The corresponding SB-SB ramp is 3 lanes.
Or they were probably saving those lanes once I-95 gets widened to 8 lanes, or have express lanes there in the future.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 04:02:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 03:54:21 PM
or have express lanes there in the future.
There were never plans for express lanes in Richmond, nor are there today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 04:12:06 PM
Another stub here (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6559528,-77.6051659,3a,75y,207.57h,94.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGuEpW123HntuA81Zpfr3tQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 26, 2019, 04:34:52 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 03:54:21 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on December 26, 2019, 03:52:02 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 03:04:12 PM
^^^^^

when looking at that, there's a big stub right here. I wonder what this is going to be

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6569267,-77.4438188,3a,75y,331.77h,82.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sic3GVFLWIwNlug-vUn-TyA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dic3GVFLWIwNlug-vUn-TyA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D197.18385%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Looks like this bridge can hold 2 more lanes.



That's the ramp from I-295 North to I-95 North, it appears.  Thought that was 3 lanes at one point and they cut back?  The corresponding SB-SB ramp is 3 lanes.
Or they were probably saving those lanes once I-95 gets widened to 8 lanes, or have express lanes there in the future.

This was originally built with the idea that I-295 would become I-95 and there would then be 3 though lanes through here.

Once I-295 was finished south to I-95 below Petersburg, they elected not to do the renumberings...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 04:46:21 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 26, 2019, 04:34:52 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 03:54:21 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on December 26, 2019, 03:52:02 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 03:04:12 PM
^^^^^

when looking at that, there's a big stub right here. I wonder what this is going to be

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6569267,-77.4438188,3a,75y,331.77h,82.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sic3GVFLWIwNlug-vUn-TyA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dic3GVFLWIwNlug-vUn-TyA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D197.18385%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Looks like this bridge can hold 2 more lanes.



That's the ramp from I-295 North to I-95 North, it appears.  Thought that was 3 lanes at one point and they cut back?  The corresponding SB-SB ramp is 3 lanes.
Or they were probably saving those lanes once I-95 gets widened to 8 lanes, or have express lanes there in the future.

This was originally built with the idea that I-295 would become I-95 and there would then be 3 though lanes through here.

Once I-295 was finished south to I-95 below Petersburg, they elected not to do the renumberings...
Do you have any document?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 26, 2019, 05:34:17 PM
Kozel has it well-documented on his website.  This was over 3 decades back.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 05:41:56 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 04:46:21 PM
Do you have any document?
QuoteVirginia got federal approval in the late 1970s to build a new Interstate corridor to parallel the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (RPT). The RPT was designated with I-95 for most of its length, and with I-85 on the southern 4 miles. The RPT was a state-built tollroad, opened in 1958; no federal funds were used. The new Interstate would provide a new I-85 and new I-95, south and east of Petersburg. The RPT would have had the Interstate signing removed, and become a state route. Two sections of federally-funded Interstate leading to the RPT would have been bypassed also; about 3 miles of I-85 west of Petersburg would have become I-385, and about 4 miles of I-95 south of Petersburg would have become I-795. I-295 northeast of Richmond would have become I-95, and I-95 from I-295 (north junction) to I-195 would have become I-195. In other words, what today is the I-295 bypass of I-95, would have been I-95.

The new I-85 section south of Petersburg was never built. The new I-95 east of Petersburg and Richmond was built from 1984 to 1992. The state and federal project numbers on the design documents were for I-95. As sections opened to traffic, southward from US-60 east of Richmond, they extended the I-295 corridor southward and carried the I-295 signage. When the road was completed, it all carried the I-295 signage. The decision was made to leave the I-95 and I-85 signage on the RPT, and to sign the new road as I-295. Incidentally, when the new road opened, the tolls ceased on the RPT, and the toll booths were removed within six months.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/RPT_I295.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:42 PM
Yeah I like where I-95 and I-295 is. I don't see any need to making I-295 I-95. I-85 is displaced IMO though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:42 PM
I-85 is displaced IMO though.
How?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 06:08:01 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 26, 2019, 04:34:52 PM
This was originally built with the idea that I-295 would become I-95 and there would then be 3 though lanes through here.
Once I-295 was finished south to I-95 below Petersburg, they elected not to do the renumberings...
Right, 4 lanes northbound on that connector between the Beltway and I-95 North, with the outer lane dropping just before the merge.

Originally they had all those lanes open, but based on traffic volumes, they repainted the connector to have 3 lanes dropping down to 2 lanes before the merge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:11:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:42 PM
I-85 is displaced IMO though.
How?
Like what's the need of having two north-south interstates that enter the Richmond metro ?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 06:15:43 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:11:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:42 PM
I-85 is displaced IMO though.
How?
Like what's the need of having two north-south interstates that enter the Richmond metro ?
Think of current I-295 extended to I-85/US-460.

That would have been the relocated I-85 under that plan.

All of I-295 that is east of current I-95 would have been the relocated I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:16:07 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:11:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:42 PM
I-85 is displaced IMO though.
How?
Like what's the need of having two north-south interstates that enter the Richmond metro ?
It feeds traffic from the southwest (from cities such as Mobile, Montgomery, Atlanta, Greenville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Durham, and everything in between) to I-95 North.

It just happens to meet in Petersburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:17:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 06:15:43 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:11:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:42 PM
I-85 is displaced IMO though.
How?
Like what's the need of having two north-south interstates that enter the Richmond metro ?
Think of current I-295 extended to I-85/US-460.

That would have been the relocated I-85 under that plan.

All of I-295 that is east of current I-95 would have been the relocated I-95.
Essentially, how it is today with I-85 and I-95 meeting in Petersburg, then heading northwards thru Richmond, but everything shifted outwards to a rural area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:21:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:17:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 06:15:43 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:11:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:06:42 PM
I-85 is displaced IMO though.
How?
Like what's the need of having two north-south interstates that enter the Richmond metro ?
Think of current I-295 extended to I-85/US-460.

That would have been the relocated I-85 under that plan.

All of I-295 that is east of current I-95 would have been the relocated I-95.
Essentially, how it is today with I-85 and I-95 meeting in Petersburg, then heading northwards thru Richmond, but everything shifted outwards to a rural area.
Do you think I-295 should be renumbered I-95 and I-85 extended?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 06:28:54 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:21:44 PM
Do you think I-295 should be renumbered I-95 and I-85 extended?
No, and it couldn't be I-85 Extended since that leg was never constructed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 06:32:44 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:21:44 PM
Do you think I-295 should be renumbered I-95 and I-85 extended?
No, not at this point.

That I-85 segment wasn't built, and I tend to think it better to have I-95 stay in Petersburg and Richmond, and for the bypass to be an I-x95, and for I-85 to junction I-95 in Petersburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 07:12:44 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 06:32:44 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 06:21:44 PM
Do you think I-295 should be renumbered I-95 and I-85 extended?
No, not at this point.

That I-85 segment wasn't built, and I tend to think it better to have I-95 stay in Petersburg and Richmond, and for the bypass to be an I-x95, and for I-85 to junction I-95 in Petersburg.
I agree with you. It's the best of having a main parent route (xx) through towns and bypasses xxx routes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on December 27, 2019, 09:54:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 12:45:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 09:15:26 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 09:10:15 AM
Taken to its logical conclusion, that could be a reckless financial management strategy.
"I need the money now, so I will max out all these credit cards, and not think about whether I will ever be able to pay off these debts in the future."
It will be interesting to see what happens in the future with this situation if this is indeed the road they continue down.
At least another $1 billion or more will be funded through bonds and loans in the near future simply adding more debt and interest to be paid off. Some of it will be paid back via toll revenue collected on HO/T lanes, the rest with tax dollars.
The question is though - how else do you accelerate and get all of these projects funded?

How else and get all ...  ?

You don't pile large amounts of more debt upon large amounts of previous and unretired debt.

That is not a sustainable process, increasing amounts of P + I need to be serviced every month.

Financial Management 101.
You did work for state DOTs, right?  Your shock at this is rather strange.  Resistance to raising taxes has forced a lot of states to go to bonding to ridiculous levels to meet citizens' demands.  Heck, NY's drunk on personal income tax bonds right now, with them funding megaprojects (Hunts Point, Van Wyck) and other initiatives. I want to confirm how much of the capital program is funded in this manner, because what I think it is off the top of my head is unbelievable.

(personal opinion addressed)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on December 27, 2019, 11:44:56 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 27, 2019, 09:54:24 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2019, 12:45:42 PM
How else and get all ...  ?
You don't pile large amounts of more debt upon large amounts of previous and unretired debt.
That is not a sustainable process, increasing amounts of P + I need to be serviced every month.
Financial Management 101.
You did work for state DOTs, right?  Your shock at this is rather strange.  Resistance to raising taxes has forced a lot of states to go to bonding to ridiculous levels to meet citizens' demands.  Heck, NY's drunk on personal income tax bonds right now, with them funding megaprojects (Hunts Point, Van Wyck) and other initiatives. I want to confirm how much of the capital program is funded in this manner, because what I think it is off the top of my head is unbelievable.
Yes indeed, and I saw what it did to PennDOT in the 1970s, where it took at least 20 years to dig themselves out of the hole.

That is the fundamental reason for such poor maintenance and so many obsolete roads that didn't get upgraded, from the 1970s to about 2000.

They have gradually improved their highway system after paying off those debts (I heard $2 billion in the 1970s which was ruinous given the costs of construction and maintenance at that time) and have actually gotten their system back to the point where I would consider their road system the equal of most other states in quality.

That is why I am so cautious about public financial management using general obligation bonds.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on December 28, 2019, 01:06:44 PM
I'm driving from Arlington to Halifax (VA) tomorrow. Any suggested route that is relatively scenic but not insanely long?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 28, 2019, 02:00:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 28, 2019, 01:06:44 PM
I'm driving from Arlington to Halifax (VA) tomorrow. Any suggested route that is relatively scenic but not insanely long?

I used to pass through Halifax on my way from Durham to Charlottesville or vice versa. From Arlington, use US-29 down past Charlottesville to Lynchburg. It dumps you into a concurrency with US-460 at the end of the new bypass around Lynchburg. Take the exit for US-501 south. Follow it to Rustburg and make a right to stay on US-501. Follow it to Brookneal and make another right to stay on US-501. That'll take you down to Halifax.

I don't recall it being any more scenic than other routes, but it worked very well for my needs. Note Route 501 is all two-lane roads, if that matters to you.

If instead you opt for US-360 coming from Richmond, make sure you slow down after the US-360/-460 split just west of Burkeville. Hold the speed limit past Green Bay and Meherrin. I've almost always seen someone pulled over through there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on December 28, 2019, 03:01:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 28, 2019, 02:00:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 28, 2019, 01:06:44 PM
I'm driving from Arlington to Halifax (VA) tomorrow. Any suggested route that is relatively scenic but not insanely long?

I used to pass through Halifax on my way from Durham to Charlottesville or vice versa. From Arlington, use US-29 down past Charlottesville to Lynchburg. It dumps you into a concurrency with US-460 at the end of the new bypass around Lynchburg. Take the exit for US-501 south. Follow it to Rustburg and make a right to stay on US-501. Follow it to Brookneal and make another right to stay on US-501. That'll take you down to Halifax.

I don't recall it being any more scenic than other routes, but it worked very well for my needs. Note Route 501 is all two-lane roads, if that matters to you.

If instead you opt for US-360 coming from Richmond, make sure you slow down after the US-360/-460 split just west of Burkeville. Hold the speed limit past Green Bay and Meherrin. I've almost always seen someone pulled over through there.

Awesome tips, hoo. Thank you; will update once I've determined a preferred route. I'm certainly not afraid of two lane roads, minus my tendency to become annoyed at those who doddle. But that's life in rural areas, I suppose.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 30, 2019, 12:56:53 PM
I-64 Segment III Project Update (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/I-64-Widening-Project-Update.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=RtdJtFbXxqo)
QuoteBridge and Median Construction Activity Underway
(https://files.constantcontact.com/5ebe224c501/3c4f7325-0a15-4cf2-9c73-c03754e08b80.jpg)
Despite decreasing temperatures, progress on the project continues to steadily heat up along the 8.2 miles of interstate and six bridges within the Segment III corridor, located roughly between the two Route 199 exits (Exit 234 and Exit 242) in York County.

Crews are continuing drainage pipe installations, earth-moving operations, and work on various stages of the layers of roadway for widening in the median. Clearing and grubbing operations are also taking place on the outside shoulders in areas of future stormwater ponds.

In multiple locations throughout the corridor, a majority of the roadwork for the new lanes in the median is nearly complete, with final paving work to begin once weather and temperatures allow. Traffic is continuing to travel along the outside lanes of I-64; however, the next phase of traffic shifts to the newly constructed median lanes are currently estimated to begin this spring or sooner, weather permitting.

Environmental controls also continue to remain an important focus for the project team. Not only does this include the continual inspection, maintenance and installation of erosion and sediment controls in place throughout the project site, but new measures are also being installed on a regular basis. Examples of these include the recent installation of a turbidity curtain in Queens Lake and continued construction underway of both temporary and permanent stormwater management facilities.

The three sets of bridges on the project are also seeing construction activity as follows:

Lakeshead Drive Bridges
(https://files.constantcontact.com/5ebe224c501/bac66be4-77b8-47f6-af94-dadbe8a68f7a.jpg)
The rehabilitation work and replacement of the existing bridge bearings on the I-64 bridges over Lakeshead Drive have been completed. Pile driving operations, placement of structural concrete at pier footings and columns, and the setting of bridge girders for the new sections of the Lakeshead Drive bridges have also been completed as seen pictured at the right.

Starting after the new year, occasional flagging operations may still occur on Lakeshead Drive on a less frequent basis to allow for the safety of motorists and crews during some of the planned bridge demolition and construction activities.

Colonial Parkway Bridges
(https://files.constantcontact.com/5ebe224c501/a9fbefbd-fa51-44e5-b671-435307d8f93f.jpg)
Excavation for the abutment footings and wing walls have been completed and are currently being formed and poured on the I-64 bridge over Colonial Parkway.

A long-term, single-lane closure alternating each direction of traffic via a temporary traffic signal on Colonial Parkway is anticipated to begin in early 2020 to begin the formation of the bridge arches and masonry work.

Queens Creek Bridges
(https://files.constantcontact.com/5ebe224c501/7a17ee96-76b9-4b09-94ca-b9004f72176a.jpg)
Unlike the other four Segment III bridges being rehabilitated and widened, the east- and westbound bridges on I-64 over Queens Creek will receive a full replacement.

Construction of the temporary trestle bridge and causeway has been completed, providing construction access over the water.

Structural concrete has been placed at all pier cap locations, and test and production pile driving operations have been completed for the new westbound bridge.

Crews are continuing to set girders, place steel, and pour the bridge decks for the new westbound bridge.

A temporary traffic shift moving eastbound traffic to the newly constructed westbound bridge is anticipated to begin as early as this spring to allow for the demolition and reconstruction of the eastbound bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 01, 2020, 09:51:26 PM
I ride thru this about once a week.  Interesting construction including a major box culvert, and 3 different types of retaining wall.  Will get rid of a hateful 4-way stop sign, with signals being installed at the intersection.  Just east of the VA-288/Lucks Lane interchange in Chesterfield County.

https://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/articles/lucks-lane-widening-project-a-year-behind-schedule/
Lucks Lane widening project a year behind schedule
January 01, 2020
Excerpts:

QuoteConstruction to widen Lucks Lane — from two lanes to four — near state Route 288 in Midlothian is a year behind schedule and $653,000 over budget.

Subpar performance by the contractor hired to widen a 1.3-mile stretch of Lucks Lane in Midlothian is expected to delay the $19 million project at least a year beyond its original completion date, a county official acknowledged recently.

Deputy County Administrator Jesse Smith, formerly Chesterfield's transportation director, told the Board of Supervisors last month that the project most likely won't be finished until August 2020 at the earliest.  "Even that could get pushed back,"  Smith said in a presentation at the board's December work session.

Under the terms of the county's November 2017 construction contract with Fielder's Choice Enterprises, the Troy, Virginia, company had until the end of August 2019 to widen Lucks Lane from two to four lanes between Spirea Lane and state Route 288.
[...]

The county says transforming Lucks Lane into a modern four-lane divided highway, with sidewalks, bicycle lanes and improved right- and left-turn lanes, is needed to more efficiently manage traffic volume and alleviate vehicle accidents — both of which have increased significantly since the northern section of Route 288 opened in 2004.

In addition to residents of several subdivisions that have direct access to Lucks Lane, many other motorists now use it to get from Courthouse Road to 288 and bypass tolls on the nearby Powhite Parkway extension.

More than 13,000 vehicles per day currently use the interchange at 288 and Lucks Lane. That number is projected to reach 21,700 by 2038.

The northern- and southern most stretches of Lucks Lane already are four lanes. The Board of Supervisors authorized county staff to proceed with widening the remaining two-lane segment in 2012, but it took several years to obtain state funding, relocate utilities and acquire right of way from more than 50 adjacent property owners.

The county solicited bids from interested construction companies in 2017 and Fielder's Choice Enterprises won the project with a $12.5 million bid.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on January 02, 2020, 11:25:30 PM
the funny thing about I-64 in hampton roads is that the sign doesn't even say if you are going west I-64 to Suffolk to east I-64 Virginia beach.

I'm guessing they did that to avoid confusion because of the weird jughandle. I-74 in North Carolina would be the same way if it ever got built like that (which i'm pretty sure it wont).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on January 03, 2020, 02:18:57 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 28, 2019, 03:01:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 28, 2019, 02:00:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 28, 2019, 01:06:44 PM
I'm driving from Arlington to Halifax (VA) tomorrow. Any suggested route that is relatively scenic but not insanely long?

I used to pass through Halifax on my way from Durham to Charlottesville or vice versa. From Arlington, use US-29 down past Charlottesville to Lynchburg. It dumps you into a concurrency with US-460 at the end of the new bypass around Lynchburg. Take the exit for US-501 south. Follow it to Rustburg and make a right to stay on US-501. Follow it to Brookneal and make another right to stay on US-501. That'll take you down to Halifax.

I don't recall it being any more scenic than other routes, but it worked very well for my needs. Note Route 501 is all two-lane roads, if that matters to you.

If instead you opt for US-360 coming from Richmond, make sure you slow down after the US-360/-460 split just west of Burkeville. Hold the speed limit past Green Bay and Meherrin. I've almost always seen someone pulled over through there.

Awesome tips, hoo. Thank you; will update once I've determined a preferred route. I'm certainly not afraid of two lane roads, minus my tendency to become annoyed at those who doddle. But that's life in rural areas, I suppose.

We ended up using 95 > 85 > US-58. Going back was US-360 > Route 288 > 295 > 95. Weather on the second day was fine enough to use some more interesting back roads, hence our decision to use less interstates. Still, we ended up on the 95 because we had to pick up my sister at DCA around 4pm. She was planning to fly through Dulles but the DCA flights ended up being more open (flying standby).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 03, 2020, 09:22:33 AM
"The 95" ????  :thumbdown:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2020, 11:48:37 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 03, 2020, 09:22:33 AM
"The 95" ????  :thumbdown:

Sounds like a traffic report on KNX-1070 (which cannot generally be heard over-the-air in Virginia, though it is possible to stream them).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on January 03, 2020, 01:50:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2020, 11:48:37 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 03, 2020, 09:22:33 AM
"The 95" ????  :thumbdown:

Sounds like a traffic report on KNX-1070 (which cannot generally be heard over-the-air in Virginia, though it is possible to stream them).

Its definitely a SoCal thing to call any route "The xx" (where XX is the route number). I remember watching an episode of American Dad (which is supposed to take place in Fairfax County more or less, since he works at the CIA) and the dad references "The 495". While it probably flew over most viewers heads, I immediately realized this episode had been written by a SoCal native, or at least someone who'd been there long enough to assume the lingo is universal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on January 03, 2020, 02:54:45 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 03, 2020, 01:50:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2020, 11:48:37 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 03, 2020, 09:22:33 AM
"The 95" ????  :thumbdown:

Sounds like a traffic report on KNX-1070 (which cannot generally be heard over-the-air in Virginia, though it is possible to stream them).

Its definitely a SoCal thing to call any route "The xx" (where XX is the route number). I remember watching an episode of American Dad (which is supposed to take place in Fairfax County more or less, since he works at the CIA) and the dad references "The 495". While it probably flew over most viewers heads, I immediately realized this episode had been written by a SoCal native, or at least someone who'd been there long enough to assume the lingo is universal.

Generally speaking so much of TV and movies originates out of the LA area.  While over the years, many shows were meant to take place in the Midwest or other areas to seem more "average American", enough people have called out that the writers don't typically know anything about such places, so more and more TV shows are set to take place in L.A. unless circumstances dictate that it must take place in a different city.  i guess they realize that there are average families in Sherman Oaks and Torrance and that they don't have to pretend that their show takes place in Peoria or Kansas City.

As an L.A. native who now lives in the DC area, when I first got here, there were plenty of people who rolled their eyes when I referred to the 270 or the 495.  I eventually got the local lingo.  But the 5 and the 101 will always be the 5 and the 101.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on January 03, 2020, 05:31:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 03, 2020, 09:22:33 AM
"The 95" ????  :thumbdown:

:-D Just following what my mother says. She takes "the 395" to work in the morning.

I don't know local lingo. Only thing we say without "the" is "US 1", which we either refer to as "Richmond Highway" or "Route 1".

Technically it's not full LA lingo, since I've started referring to every numbered road as "the". I believe LA lingo only uses the indefinite article for freeways.

So far, I've not had locals act disgusted towards my speech patterns.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on January 03, 2020, 11:38:09 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 03, 2020, 05:31:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 03, 2020, 09:22:33 AM
"The 95" ????  :thumbdown:

:-D Just following what my mother says. She takes "the 395" to work in the morning.

I don't know local lingo. Only thing we say without "the" is "US 1", which we either refer to as "Richmond Highway" or "Route 1".

Technically it's not full LA lingo, since I've started referring to every numbered road as "the". I believe LA lingo only uses the indefinite article for freeways.

So far, I've not had locals act disgusted towards my speech patterns.

I'm guessing she's from out west?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on January 04, 2020, 02:06:08 AM
Quote from: famartin on January 03, 2020, 11:38:09 PM
I'm guessing she's from out west?

Not really from anywhere. Military family. Same with myself. Hence why I'm not bothered by the various ways in which highways are referred to.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 04, 2020, 08:46:38 AM
Most people using route numbers here will just use the number without a descriptor, except sometimes for Interstates: "Take 395 to 110 to 66, exit at Glebe Road, make a right, then make a left on 16th Street and the hospital is on the right." It'd be just as common to hear "Take I-395 to 110 to I-66 ...." Some people say "Route," although that seems more common as to non-Interstates ("take 495 to Route 50"). Other than when a clarification is needed or requested, most people don't seem to bother with descriptions like "US-" or "VA-" or "MD-," although when I type directions for someone I always include them in the hope that knowing the route type might provide an additional visual cue when watching for road signs.

There's no real rule of thumb as to which arterials are referred to by name and which by number, although in Virginia most of the time you'll hear the name for secondary routes. Route 644 in Fairfax County is a notable exception, mainly because the radio traffic reporters call it by number. I assume that's for clarity because it changes names, but keeps its number, as it crosses I-95 in Springfield.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on January 04, 2020, 09:12:09 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 02, 2020, 11:25:30 PM
the funny thing about I-64 in hampton roads is that the sign doesn't even say if you are going west I-64 to Suffolk to east I-64 Virginia beach.

I'm guessing they did that to avoid confusion because of the weird jughandle. I-74 in North Carolina would be the same way if it ever got built like that (which i'm pretty sure it wont).
Signing I-64's correct cardinal directions was tried in the early 1980's, around 1981 or 1982, I believe.  It was quickly rescinded because of "motorist confusion".   The only cardinal direction I-64 signs left are at Exit 297 on US 13/460-Military Hwy.

Regarding your comment above, if I-64 was signed "I-64 EAST/ Suffolk" and a motorist knew they were heading west to reach Suffolk, they would be wondering what the heck was going on.  That is why I-64 has not had cardinal directions from the Indian River Road interchange to Bowers Hill.  It is just a product of the way I-64 was constructed.

Now, the reassurance signs have, along with I-64, a Hampton Roads Beltway sign with Inner Loop/Outer Loop directions on them to help motorists.

I had, a long time ago when I lived in Hampton Roads (Chesapeake-Western Branch High School graduate, 1980), thought of maybe having North-South cardinal directions on I-64 from either the I-664 interchange or the Mallory interchange to its end in Bowers Hill to help motorists.  The reasoning was that (a) I-64 does follow a north-south direction from the Hampton Coliseum to Indian River Road, where it begins to head west and (b) BYP US 13 was signed on I-64 from Bowers Hill to Northampton Blvd until 1981 with North-South cardinal directions (South/Suffolk, North/Va. Beach).  Alas, another solution was enacted out of "What to do about the I-64 issue in Hampton Roads?".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 04, 2020, 03:28:13 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 04, 2020, 09:12:09 AM
The only cardinal direction I-64 signs left are at Exit 297 on US 13/460-Military Hwy.
When the Dominion Blvd improvements were completed in 2017, the new overhead signage associated with that utilizes the cardinal directions as they previously were... "East"  when heading towards west Suffolk, and "West"  when heading towards east towards Va Beach. It makes me wonder why brought it back.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on January 05, 2020, 07:17:47 AM
Looking at Google Maps, I see that it was done on the one overhead sign bridge--agree in your assessment of why it was brought back.

VDOT needs to fix the Dominion Lakes/Bainbridge Blvd. exit signage, including adding VA 166 NORTH to the sign.  The current ones look horrific and unprofessional--1/4 MILE in the EXIT panel...sheesh!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 05, 2020, 11:11:42 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 05, 2020, 07:17:47 AM
VDOT needs to fix the Dominion Lakes/Bainbridge Blvd. exit signage, including adding VA 166 NORTH to the sign.  The current ones look horrific and unprofessional--1/4 MILE in the EXIT panel...sheesh!
Agreed, those signs are painful to look at. But it was the city of Chesapeake who built and operates the roadway, not VDOT, so they're the ones to blame.

The signs do though include VA-166 North shields in both directions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on January 06, 2020, 07:12:35 AM
I guess I was so appalled at the EXIT tab that I honestly did not pay attention to the VA 166 NORTH on the sign.  :pan: 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 06, 2020, 07:39:14 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 06, 2020, 07:12:35 AM
I guess I was so appalled at the EXIT tab that I honestly did not pay attention to the VA 166 NORTH on the sign.  :pan:
It amazes me that they put the distance in the exit tab for the VA-166 exit, but somehow managed to do it the correct way for the other interchanges.

The southbound exit overhead signage doesn't even have a proper arrow on the sign, since apparently putting "Last Exit Before Toll"  now allows you to omit the arrow.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 06, 2020, 09:45:48 AM
Quote from: mrsman on January 03, 2020, 02:54:45 PM
Generally speaking so much of TV and movies originates out of the LA area.  While over the years, many shows were meant to take place in the Midwest or other areas to seem more "average American", enough people have called out that the writers don't typically know anything about such places, so more and more TV shows are set to take place in L.A. unless circumstances dictate that it must take place in a different city.  i guess they realize that there are average families in Sherman Oaks and Torrance and that they don't have to pretend that their show takes place in Peoria or Kansas City.

It would have helped if they looked at a map once in a while. One of the worst shows for geography was JAG, which had the team zipping from Washington to Norfolk like they were just going across the river to Bethesda, or taking a quick jaunt to the middle of West Virginia, put in a full day investigating, and be back at quitting time. The absolute worst error was when they had Harm flying out of "Blacksburg," which wasn't too much of a stretch, except he was flying a crop duster to fly over the cotton crops. The spin-off, NCIS, isn't much better with its geography (although props to the production crew for having Virginia license plates and driver's licenses look like the real thing).

Bruce in Blacksburg (where cotton doesn't grow in the mountains)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2020, 07:23:56 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 06, 2020, 09:45:48 AM
Bruce in Blacksburg (where cotton doesn't grow in the mountains)

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

Not saying it does not grow in other counties in Virginia, but I have not seen it and identified it as cotton (I am not an expert at the identification of most plants, but cotton when it comes close to harvest time is pretty easy).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:26:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2020, 07:23:56 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 06, 2020, 09:45:48 AM
Bruce in Blacksburg (where cotton doesn't grow in the mountains)

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

Not saying it does not grow in other counties in Virginia, but I have not seen it and identified it as cotton (I am not an expert at the identification of most plants, but cotton when it comes close to harvest time is pretty easy).
Driving between Suffolk and I-95 along US-58, you see cotton fields along that corridor during the season.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:35:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:26:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2020, 07:23:56 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 06, 2020, 09:45:48 AM
Bruce in Blacksburg (where cotton doesn't grow in the mountains)
Only place where I have personally seen cotton growing in the Commonwealth is in Northampton County and just to the north in Accomack County on the Eastern Shore.
Not saying it does not grow in other counties in Virginia, but I have not seen it and identified it as cotton (I am not an expert at the identification of most plants, but cotton when it comes close to harvest time is pretty easy).
Driving between Suffolk and I-95 along US-58, you see cotton fields along that corridor during the season.
Lots of peanut fields as well... also along US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2020, 07:35:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:26:00 PM
Driving between Suffolk and I-95 along US-58, you see cotton fields along that corridor during the season.

I have driven all of 58 between Emporia and Virginia Beach and have not noticed it, but was probably there at the wrong time of year. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2020, 07:39:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:35:27 PM
Lots of peanut fields as well... also along US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk.

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

Sweden has a brand of peanuts that is called simply "Virginia," with an older model pickup truck on the label that looks like it could have been a VDH vehicle.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:42:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 07, 2020, 07:35:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:26:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2020, 07:23:56 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 06, 2020, 09:45:48 AM
Bruce in Blacksburg (where cotton doesn't grow in the mountains)
Only place where I have personally seen cotton growing in the Commonwealth is in Northampton County and just to the north in Accomack County on the Eastern Shore.
Not saying it does not grow in other counties in Virginia, but I have not seen it and identified it as cotton (I am not an expert at the identification of most plants, but cotton when it comes close to harvest time is pretty easy).
Driving between Suffolk and I-95 along US-58, you see cotton fields along that corridor during the season.
Lots of peanut fields as well... also along US-460 between Petersburg and Suffolk.
Yes, indeed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 07, 2020, 09:57:35 PM
As I recall, the Virginia Diner in Wakefield is well known for their peanuts.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 08, 2020, 07:07:58 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2020, 09:57:35 PM
As I recall, the Virginia Diner in Wakefield is well known for their peanuts.

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

It does make me wonder how much business Virginia Diner would have lost had the US 460 toll road been built.  Personally, I doubt it would have been very much as the current route would still be toll-free and word of mouth due to its popularity in theory should sustain it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 08, 2020, 07:12:35 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 08, 2020, 07:07:58 AM
It does make me wonder how much business Virginia Diner would have lost had the US 460 toll road been built.  Personally, I doubt it would have been very much as the current route would still be toll-free and word of mouth due to its popularity in theory should sustain it.
I have driven by the Virginia Diner untold hundreds of times without stopping there.

I doubt that they depend on drive-by traffic for their customers.  The Wakefield interchange would have had the typical logo signs, and the Virginia Diner would be included.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 11, 2020, 02:43:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 07, 2020, 07:26:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2020, 07:23:56 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 06, 2020, 09:45:48 AM
Bruce in Blacksburg (where cotton doesn't grow in the mountains)

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

Not saying it does not grow in other counties in Virginia, but I have not seen it and identified it as cotton (I am not an expert at the identification of most plants, but cotton when it comes close to harvest time is pretty easy).
Driving between Suffolk and I-95 along US-58, you see cotton fields along that corridor during the season.
Oh, not to mention US 301 in Skippers.

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

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 13, 2020, 09:41:44 PM
Truslow Road bridge over I-95 in Stafford to close by the end of the month



The Truslow Road [VA-652] bridge over Interstate 95 in Stafford County is set for a nine-month closure beginning in less than two weeks.

The Virginia Department of Transportation said in a news release Monday that the bridge is scheduled to close Jan. 27, and that it will be demolished soon after.  A new structure will then be built that is expected to open in the fall.

The existing span, built in 1963, is being replaced because it is structurally deficient, and to make way for the express lanes extension.  With the bridge gone, Truslow Road will temporarily be divided into two unconnected segments, and will no longer serve as an alternative route to get between Falmouth and Hartwood.   Signs will be set up for a detour route along U.S. 1, U.S. 17 and Plantation Drive during the project. VDOT spokeswoman Darragh Frye said drivers should use the detour that works best for them.

The Stafford Board of Supervisors have been worried about the traffic impact at the U.S. 1 and Truslow Road intersection, with some asking VDOT for a temporary traffic signal to control the intersection.

VDOT has added pavement markings at the intersection and will soon install new temporary flashing signs on U.S. 1 to alert traffic to vehicles turning left from Truslow.  Frye said in the release that VDOT will monitor traffic and intersections along the detour route during the project.

Work will start with the demolition, which will take four to six weeks to complete and will require overnight, intermittent full closures of I—95.

The new, wider bridge is expected to open in the fall.

Once the Truslow Road bridge is finished, the American Legion Road bridge over I—95 in Stafford will be closed while it is demolished and replaced, a project that also is expected to last nine months. That new bridge is slated to open in the summer of 2021.

Both projects are part of the $565 million, 10-mile express lanes extension from State Route 610 to U.S. 17 in Stafford. The new reversible toll lanes are expected to open in 2022.

https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/truslow-road-bridge-over-i--in-stafford-to-close/article_d8bfdb4c-bd1c-5507-8ebd-449aa23ed9f9.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 20, 2020, 08:51:10 PM
Something that I came across in a recent presentation regarding potential improvements to smart scale policies and methods round 4 was the question of future funding for interstate projects: http://www.smartscale.org/documents/october2019_smartscale_ctb_presentation.pdf
QuoteInterstate projects have been outlier projects that have
suppressed benefits scores for other investments
- Dedicated funding sources for operational and capacity
improvements for Interstates exists now from the 81 legislation
- Should Interstate projects still be eligible for SMART SCALE or
should they be handled through the new dedicated Interstate
funding?
- Intent is to develop Interstate Corridor Plans for each Interstate
— I-81 Complete
— I-95 Underway
— I-64 to start in January

While I personally believe that I-81, I-95, and I-64 will likely need far more funding than what is currently due to be annually allocated, I can also understand the opposing view that these major interstate projects can suck up most of the funding such as the HRBT project. Either way, I'm glad there are serious discussions in tweaking smart scale, just not 100% sure if this is the best way to do it. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 20, 2020, 09:06:58 PM
Should Interstate projects still be eligible for SMART SCALE or
should they be handled through the new dedicated Interstate
funding?


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

The instituting of separate Interstate funding plans seems to me to be circumventions of the original intent of the program.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 20, 2020, 09:42:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 20, 2020, 09:06:58 PM
Should Interstate projects still be eligible for SMART SCALE or
should they be handled through the new dedicated Interstate
funding?


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

The instituting of separate Interstate funding plans seems to me to be circumventions of the original intent of the program.
Having a separate funding streams for large-scale interstate projects allows funding in SmartScale to open up for smaller, local projects. As it is now, interstate projects suck up a significant amount of SmartScale funding which results in many smaller projects being continuously denied funding because there's insufficient available as a lot goes to interstates.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 20, 2020, 09:55:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 20, 2020, 09:42:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 20, 2020, 09:06:58 PM
The original intent of SMART SCALE was to program all highway improvements thru this programming tool.
The instituting of separate Interstate funding plans seems to me to be circumventions of the original intent of the program.
Having a separate funding streams for large-scale interstate projects allows funding in SmartScale to open up for smaller, local projects. As it is now, interstate projects suck up a significant amount of SmartScale funding which results in many smaller projects being continuously denied funding because there's insufficient available as a lot goes to interstates.
Then programming decisions are in the process of devolving back to a manual process whereby the process is not empirical but by planners deciding thru their own judgement what projects to fund and when to fund them.

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

Either use SMART SCALE 100% or do away with it, IMO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 20, 2020, 09:59:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 20, 2020, 09:55:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 20, 2020, 09:42:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 20, 2020, 09:06:58 PM
The original intent of SMART SCALE was to program all highway improvements thru this programming tool.
The instituting of separate Interstate funding plans seems to me to be circumventions of the original intent of the program.
Having a separate funding streams for large-scale interstate projects allows funding in SmartScale to open up for smaller, local projects. As it is now, interstate projects suck up a significant amount of SmartScale funding which results in many smaller projects being continuously denied funding because there's insufficient available as a lot goes to interstates.
Then programming decisions are in the process of devolving back to a manual process whereby the process is not empirical but by planners deciding thru their own judgement what project to fund and when to fund them.

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

Either use SMART SCALE 100% or do away with it, IMO.
I'd be supportive of a dedicated funding stream for large-scale interstate highway projects (I-64, I-95, I-81 widenings, I-73 construction, etc.) utilizing the new funding opened up last year for each corridor specifically and a dedicated amount for other interstates, and the existing SmartScale used for all other projects.

Mixing them as is gives an unfair advantage to interstate highways, and a roadblock to progress on many local projects.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 21, 2020, 06:49:16 PM
Public Invited to Meetings on Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Plan (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2020/public-invited-to-meetings-on-interstate-95-corridor-improvement-plan1-16-2020.asp)
QuoteRICHMOND, Va. — The Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, under the leadership of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), have been studying Virginia's 179 miles of the Interstate 95 corridor between the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in Alexandria, Virginia and the North Carolina border. The public is invited to attend the third set in a series of in-person meetings, planned for Jan. 27-30 along the corridor.

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

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

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

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

Compensation events though...

In other news, the I-64 Corridor Improvement Plan will begin soon. Assuming it's statewide, asides from desperately needed widening from Williamsburg to Richmond, another major area that needs a widening is Afton Mountain. 3 lanes each way for about 7 miles. I can't imagine much with I-64 west of I-81, seeing the AADT doesn't even hit 10,000 for most of the way, except between Clifton Forge and Covington where it "peaks" to a mere 20,000.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 21, 2020, 07:06:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2020, 06:49:16 PM
another major area that needs a widening is Afton Mountain. 3 lanes each way for about 7 miles.

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

Now, the I-64 / I-81 merge, that's a place that needs widening...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 21, 2020, 08:49:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2020, 06:49:16 PM
Most certainly their "study findings" will not include any mention of potential general purpose lane widening, as their same "study findings" somehow concluded the 4th lane project north of Woodbridge made traffic -worse- and then produced a $12 billion figure for adding one lane each way, when in reality, traffic got -better-, and such a project would cost at most $2 billion. It only got worse overall, because that nice flow of traffic that was opened up is punched down to only 3 lanes south of Woodbridge at a terrible, poorly planned location, which causes a major bottleneck. If those 4 lanes continued southwards however, to say Fredericksburg, that bottleneck would be significantly less, and those stop-and-go problems that occur on the daily all the way to Fredericksburg would largely be reduced. The auxiliary lane project between VA-123 and VA-294 which is supposed to significantly "relieve congestion" won't do much, seeing as that lane drop will still exist. If they extended the 4th lane itself though to the VA-294 exit, then maybe it would be more effective. But that's too complicated for VDOT to understand.

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

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2020, 06:49:16 PM
In other news, the I-64 Corridor Improvement Plan will begin soon. Assuming it's statewide, asides from desperately needed widening from Williamsburg to Richmond, another major area that needs a widening is Afton Mountain. 3 lanes each way for about 7 miles. I can't imagine much with I-64 west of I-81, seeing the AADT doesn't even hit 10,000 for most of the way, except between Clifton Forge and Covington where it "peaks" to a mere 20,000.

Will be very interested to see the results and subsequent recommendations of this study. However, if widening from Williamsburg to Richmond is not recommended then this study is invalid and will have been a huge waste of time and money.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 21, 2020, 08:54:55 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2020, 06:49:16 PM
Most certainly their "study findings" will not include any mention of potential general purpose lane widening, as their same "study findings" somehow concluded the 4th lane project north of Woodbridge made traffic -worse- and then produced a $12 billion figure for adding one lane each way, when in reality, traffic got -better-, and such a project would cost at most $2 billion. It only got worse overall, because that nice flow of traffic that was opened up is punched down to only 3 lanes south of Woodbridge at a terrible, poorly planned location, which causes a major bottleneck. If those 4 lanes continued southwards however, to say Fredericksburg, that bottleneck would be significantly less, and those stop-and-go problems that occur on the daily all the way to Fredericksburg would largely be reduced. The auxiliary lane project between VA-123 and VA-294 which is supposed to significantly "relieve congestion" won't do much, seeing as that lane drop will still exist. If they extended the 4th lane itself though to the VA-294 exit, then maybe it would be more effective. But that's too complicated for VDOT to understand.
Again, this is not VDOT that is refusing to study major GP widening on I-95.  They can't unless at least $20 million is allocated for the needed EIS/location study, and the CTB authorizes the project.

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

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

I will grant that the recently approved $3.7 billion railroad upgrade project between Richmond and Washington has probably gotten the funding that would have been allocated to I-95, but that is not a good excuse for not instituting an EIS/location study for I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 21, 2020, 08:57:51 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 21, 2020, 08:49:54 PM
I don't think even VDOT is trying to kid themselves on that one. During a project update presentation I attended recently by one of the VDOT NOVA district engineers, the guy said that the hope was to at best slightly relieve congestion. Basically, as a result of this auxiliary lane, rush-hour backups would likely start around Lorton as opposed to Newington currently.
I suppose it could help some, as once the bottleneck merge is complete, traffic coming on the freeway can have more merging time, etc. and not back traffic up again, but I think it's a stretch to say it would reduce it from Newington to Lorton. Maybe a mile at best, but that's it.

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

Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 21, 2020, 08:49:54 PM
Will be very interested to see the results and subsequent recommendations of this study. However, if widening from Williamsburg to Richmond is not recommended then this study is invalid and will have been a huge waste of time and money.
It wouldn't matter anyways, it's already a high priority for the region, and an EIS on the corridor has already been completed. The only thing that is preventing its construction is funding. As soon as funding for more segments becomes available, construction can pretty much begin.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 21, 2020, 08:59:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2020, 08:54:55 PM
Again, this is not VDOT that is refusing to study major GP widening on I-95.  They can't unless at least $20 million is allocated for the needed EIS/location study, and the CTB authorizes the project.

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

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

I will grant that the recently approved $3.7 billion railroad upgrade project between Richmond and Washington has probably gotten the funding that would have been allocated to I-95, but that is not a good excuse for not instituting an EIS/location study for I-95.
How about the minor segments, such as a proposed 4th lane project from VA-234 to Woodbridge? It was denied from SmartScale due to "compensation events". They wouldn't even agree to launch it into more detailed study, only a 9 mile segment. The cost estimate was roughly $50 million per mile, which is average. Nothing near the $200+ million per mile figure recently produced.

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

Ultimately, the entire I-95 corridor from Woodbridge to I-295 needs to be expanded to 8 lanes (4 each way). Ideally, this would be in conjunction with a ~90 mile toll road paralleling the US-301 corridor between I-95 at Ruther Glen and US-50, along with an 8-lane US-50, 3rd Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and a completed US-301 freeway along the Eastern Shore to provide a full bypass of the Washington-Baltimore metro, but you know... Maryland...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 21, 2020, 09:35:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 21, 2020, 08:59:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 21, 2020, 08:54:55 PM
Look at the current and previous governors, and the CTB that is entirely staffed by their appointees.
THEY are the reason for not instituting an EIS/location study since 2013 for I-95 between I-295 and Woodbridge.
How about the minor segments, such as a proposed 4th lane project from VA-234 to Woodbridge? It was denied from SmartScale due to "compensation events". They wouldn't even agree to launch it into more detailed study, only a 9 mile segment. The cost estimate was roughly $50 million per mile, which is average. Nothing near the $200+ million per mile figure recently produced.
Not a "minor project," a $400 million project, and I have not seen real evidence of why it was not moved forward other than the high construction cost.

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

Unless the current governor and the CTB approve the study, it will not move forward.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 22, 2020, 03:32:35 PM
A small section of I-81 will be widened to 3 lanes starting this spring. The work is expected to be completed in the summer of 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

QuoteThe northbound auxiliary lane will connect the exit 141 on-ramp directly to the exit 143 off-ramp and will be constructed along, and adjacent to, the existing outside through lane. The southbound auxiliary lane will extend the exit 143 on ramp and become the new inside through lane. The existing outside through lane will become an exit only lane that will end at the exit 141 off-ramp. (emphasis added)
(http://www.virginiadot.org/Projects/Salem/asset_upload_file907_129335.pdf)

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

Bruce in Blacksburg


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 04:28:23 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 22, 2020, 03:32:35 PM
As has been discussed/proposed here, the better solution would be to build new lanes parallel to the northbound lanes, starting a bit north of where the I-581 ramp joins I-81, bridge over the I-581 ramps and rejoin the southbound lanes just south of the I-581 exit from the northbound lanes. The existing lanes and ramps would then be C/D lanes and would allow a right-hand merge to and from I-81 to and from I-581.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Agreed, and this would be the most practical long-term solution. I had drew up a conceptual design for such a project around a year ago.
(https://i.ibb.co/VWPzF6P/I-81-Interchange.png)

At least they're starting somewhere though... this segment can be a bottleneck at peak hours due to local traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadsguy on January 22, 2020, 04:36:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 04:28:23 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 22, 2020, 03:32:35 PM
As has been discussed/proposed here, the better solution would be to build new lanes parallel to the northbound lanes, starting a bit north of where the I-581 ramp joins I-81, bridge over the I-581 ramps and rejoin the southbound lanes just south of the I-581 exit from the northbound lanes. The existing lanes and ramps would then be C/D lanes and would allow a right-hand merge to and from I-81 to and from I-581.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Agreed, and this would be the most practical long-term solution. I had drew up a conceptual design for such a project around a year ago.
(https://i.ibb.co/VWPzF6P/I-81-Interchange.png)

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

Should also have the ramp from I-81 NB pass under the ramp from 81 SB and merge in on the left so that future I-73 doesn't have a left merge. :bigass:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sparker on January 23, 2020, 03:54:41 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 22, 2020, 04:36:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 22, 2020, 04:28:23 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 22, 2020, 03:32:35 PM
As has been discussed/proposed here, the better solution would be to build new lanes parallel to the northbound lanes, starting a bit north of where the I-581 ramp joins I-81, bridge over the I-581 ramps and rejoin the southbound lanes just south of the I-581 exit from the northbound lanes. The existing lanes and ramps would then be C/D lanes and would allow a right-hand merge to and from I-81 to and from I-581.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Agreed, and this would be the most practical long-term solution. I had drew up a conceptual design for such a project around a year ago.
(https://i.ibb.co/VWPzF6P/I-81-Interchange.png)

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

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

That's assuming I-73 gets built (technically) north of Roanoke (guess the prospects of that is what the emoji's all about!).  Right now job #1 is getting any of it built in VA; whether it merges from the right or left won't be relevant for several decades at best -- and quite possibly never! 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 23, 2020, 09:03:43 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 22, 2020, 04:36:13 PM
Should also have the ramp from I-81 NB pass under the ramp from 81 SB and merge in on the left so that future I-73 doesn't have a left merge. :bigass:

:confused: The existing ramp from I-581 to I-81 southbound is already in a depression with the northbound lanes passing overhead (and also the I-81 southbound to I-581 exit ramp). The parallel southbound lanes would also cross the ramps on a bridge in these concepts, so the merge would be on the right.

As planned by VDOT, the contract just awarded will retain the left merge, but require southbound through drivers to move over a lane because the outside lane will change from through to "exit only" somewhere in the stretch between exits.

As to I-73  :-D . There is no real utility to slapping signs on I-81 and I-77 (the only viable route to West Virginia) because they won't mean anything due to the big disconnect between Roanoke and North Carolina.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on January 24, 2020, 05:15:20 PM
All discussion of speed limits has been merged into Speed Enforcement in Virginia (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21483.0)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 27, 2020, 02:03:28 PM
Washington Post: Va. Gov. Northam proposes gas tax increase as part of major transportation bill (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/va-gov-northam-proposes-gas-tax-increase-as-part-of-major-transportation-bill/2020/01/26/7562d39a-3ee9-11ea-8872-5df698785a4e_story.html)

QuoteVirginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) is proposing a 4-cent increase in the state's gas tax to raise money to jump-start his $3.7-billion landmark rail plan and shore up a fund used to pay for roads, transit and rail projects.

QuoteThe gas tax increase, which is expected to yield around $1 billion over the next four years, is included as part of a broad transportation bill Northam announced Monday. The proposal was endorsed by two Democratic leaders in the General Assembly, boosting its prospects in the body that flipped blue in November.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 27, 2020, 02:23:54 PM
Buried in the article: The legislation (as written) also includes a number of "safety" improvements, most notably of which is the introduction of speed cameras on certain "Highway Safety" corridors: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB1414

Quote
The bill adopts several safety initiatives, including: (i) making it illegal to possess an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, (ii) requiring all passengers in a vehicle to wear safety belts and making failure to wear a safety belt a primary offense, (iii) prohibiting the use of handheld personal communication devices, (iv) establishing a speed monitoring program in highway safety corridors that uses a vehicle sensor to take a picture of a vehicle traveling more than 10 miles over the speed limit, subjecting the driver to a monetary fine, and (v) allowing localities to lower the speed limit below 25 miles per hour in business and residential districts.  The Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles will establish an advisory committee to oversee education and enforcement of policies such as the seatbelt and hands-free provisions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 03:11:17 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 27, 2020, 02:23:54 PM
Buried in the article: The legislation (as written) also includes a number of "safety" improvements, most notably of which is the introduction of speed cameras on certain "Highway Safety" corridors: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB1414

Quote
The bill adopts several safety initiatives, including: (i) making it illegal to possess an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, (ii) requiring all passengers in a vehicle to wear safety belts and making failure to wear a safety belt a primary offense, (iii) prohibiting the use of handheld personal communication devices, (iv) establishing a speed monitoring program in highway safety corridors that uses a vehicle sensor to take a picture of a vehicle traveling more than 10 miles over the speed limit, subjecting the driver to a monetary fine, and (v) allowing localities to lower the speed limit below 25 miles per hour in business and residential districts.  The Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles will establish an advisory committee to oversee education and enforcement of policies such as the seatbelt and hands-free provisions.
Should be at least 15 mph over if anything, though really it shouldn't be a thing at all. This is the direction Virginia is turning now with blue control from Northern Virginia, and the other urban areas.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 03:18:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 03:11:17 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 27, 2020, 02:23:54 PM
Quote
The bill adopts several safety initiatives, including: (i) making it illegal to possess an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, (ii) requiring all passengers in a vehicle to wear safety belts and making failure to wear a safety belt a primary offense, (iii) prohibiting the use of handheld personal communication devices, (iv) establishing a speed monitoring program in highway safety corridors that uses a vehicle sensor to take a picture of a vehicle traveling more than 10 miles over the speed limit, subjecting the driver to a monetary fine, and (v) allowing localities to lower the speed limit below 25 miles per hour in business and residential districts.  The Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles will establish an advisory committee to oversee education and enforcement of policies such as the seatbelt and hands-free provisions.
Should be at least 15 mph over if anything, though really it shouldn't be a thing at all. This is the direction Virginia is turning now with blue control from Northern Virginia, and the other urban areas.
Yes indeed ... look at who is introducing that nonsense in the GA.

I don't support any type of camera traffic enforcement, because it targets the vehicle and not the driver.  While they are often one and the same, there are plenty of times when the driver is not the owner of the vehicle, so it should be illegal to ticket the owner and not the driver.

These enforcement cameras are -expensive- as well, I have heard figures in the $0.5 to $1.5 million dollar range, sometimes needing to be fully replaced every 2 years, as the kind of precision and accuracy needed from a technological standpoint makes them so expensive that they don't even generate the amount of "revenue" that some of the detractors claim.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 03:33:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 03:18:08 PM
Yes indeed ... look at who is introducing that nonsense in the GA.

I don't support any type of camera traffic enforcement, because it targets the vehicle and not the driver.  While they are often one and the same, there are plenty of times when the driver is not the owner of the vehicle, so it should be illegal to ticket the owner and not the driver.
While I agree with what you're saying, and disagree with the introduction of traffic cameras, isn't it the concept with toll by plate and red light cameras? Not that I agree with red light cameras either - those have been proven to increase accidents rather than reduce them.

Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 03:18:08 PM
These enforcement cameras are -expensive- as well, I have heard figures in the $0.5 to $1.5 million dollar range, sometimes needing to be fully replaced every 2 years, as the kind of precision and accuracy needed from a technological standpoint makes them so expensive that they don't even generate the amount of "revenue" that some of the detractors claim.
Not to mention, it's our tax dollars funding this nonsense. It's not much in the grand scheme of things, but it's still something that could be used elsewhere. I guess the tax increase will fund this program.

It won't stop here. First it was work zones, now it's going to "safety corridors" , next it'll be something like all urban highways, then eventually all highways if it gets that far.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 03:33:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 03:18:08 PM
I don't support any type of camera traffic enforcement, because it targets the vehicle and not the driver.  While they are often one and the same, there are plenty of times when the driver is not the owner of the vehicle, so it should be illegal to ticket the owner and not the driver.
While I agree with what you're saying, and disagree with the introduction of traffic cameras, isn't it the concept with toll by plate and red light cameras? Not that I agree with red light cameras either - those have been proven to increase accidents rather than reduce them.
I wrote "any type of camera traffic enforcement" because I wanted to include things like red light enforcement.  Same issue, it tickets the owner of the vehicle with may or may not be the driver.

Toll by plate is not law enforcement, and it usually deals with only small sums of money, so I am not opposed to that.  Tolling the vehicle itself is IMO acceptable.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 03:33:48 PM
Not to mention, it's our tax dollars funding this nonsense. It's not much in the grand scheme of things, but it's still something that could be used elsewhere. I guess the tax increase will fund this program.
It won't stop here. First it was work zones, now it's going to "safety corridors" , next it'll be something like all urban highways, then eventually all highways if it gets that far.
All after only 3 months in.
3 months???  How about 2 weeks since they assumed offices?  And they are ramming every possible dream of theirs through as quickly as possible, even though for at least 26 years the electorate voted against that, and one election doesn't say that they are in favor of those things such as automatic camera-based law enforcement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 27, 2020, 04:13:04 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 27, 2020, 02:23:54 PM
Buried in the article: The legislation (as written) also includes a number of "safety" improvements, most notably of which is the introduction of speed cameras on certain "Highway Safety" corridors: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB1414

Quote
The bill adopts several safety initiatives, including: (i) making it illegal to possess an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, (ii) requiring all passengers in a vehicle to wear safety belts and making failure to wear a safety belt a primary offense, (iii) prohibiting the use of handheld personal communication devices, (iv) establishing a speed monitoring program in highway safety corridors that uses a vehicle sensor to take a picture of a vehicle traveling more than 10 miles over the speed limit, subjecting the driver to a monetary fine, and (v) allowing localities to lower the speed limit below 25 miles per hour in business and residential districts.  The Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles will establish an advisory committee to oversee education and enforcement of policies such as the seatbelt and hands-free provisions.

How do you determine who the driver is? Facial recognition software?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 04:20:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 27, 2020, 04:13:04 PM
How do you determine who the driver is? Facial recognition software?
Don't laugh ... some have reported that as many as half of the population have been recorded on a database by that method!

Next time you are at a political rally the government may have a record of your being there!   :no:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cl94 on January 27, 2020, 05:39:04 PM
To be fair, the federal government has used facial recognition technology forever, as have most developed foreign countries. If you have ever done anything for the feds, chances are your face is in their system. I...don't really worry about it.

Re: the referenced bill, they will probably just fine the vehicle owner. No current system is advanced enough to easily determine the driver.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 05:42:40 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2020, 05:39:04 PM
Re: the referenced bill, they will probably just fine the vehicle owner. No current system is advanced enough to easily determine the driver.
Exactly, and is a major flaw in the plan.

Not to mention, merely doing 65 mph on I-95 in the Richmond area, which is quite easy on the straightaway south of the city and a lot of traffic already does, would get you a high fine automatically.

Merely doing 75 mph along I-81 between Roanoke and Christiansburg, notably the wide 3-lane segment southbound, which is quite easy and a lot of traffic already does, would get you a high fine automatically.

If they're going to do speed limit cameras at all, which I disagree 100% with them, it should be 15 mph over, not 10 mph. Doing 10 mph over on an interstate highway is not fairly uncommon, 15 mph is less common and a good place to ticket. But that money though....
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 08:08:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 05:42:40 PM
Not to mention, merely doing 65 mph on I-95 in the Richmond area, which is quite easy on the straightaway south of the city and a lot of traffic already does, would get you a high fine automatically.
Not automatic ... I pass thru the I-495 construction zones in P.G. County MD, that have photo speed enforcement, and news articles say that while they could technologically ticket at 56 mph, they allow 12 mph more than that.

The court systems would loudly object if they start having to deal with thousands of cases that are not important to them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 08:18:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 08:08:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 05:42:40 PM
Not to mention, merely doing 65 mph on I-95 in the Richmond area, which is quite easy on the straightaway south of the city and a lot of traffic already does, would get you a high fine automatically.
Not automatic ... I pass thru the I-495 construction zones in P.G. County MD, that have photo speed enforcement, and news articles say that while they could technologically ticket at 56 mph, they allow 12 mph more than that.
I-95 south of the Downtown Richmond area is a Highway Safety Corridor posted at only 55 mph, and since the photo speed enforcement proposed in Virginia will ticket at 10 mph or faster, it would be 65 mph on that stretch.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 08:24:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 08:18:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 08:08:36 PM
Not automatic ... I pass thru the I-495 construction zones in P.G. County MD, that have photo speed enforcement, and news articles say that while they could technologically ticket at 56 mph, they allow 12 mph more than that.
I-95 south of the Downtown Richmond area is a Highway Safety Corridor posted at only 55 mph, and since the photo speed enforcement proposed in Virginia will ticket at 10 mph or faster, it would be 65 mph on that stretch.
Is it still a corridor?  It has been a couple years at least since I recall seeing the HSC signs.

The speed limit becomes 60 just south of Maury Street, about 1 mile south of the river, or about 1.5 mile south of the downtown.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 08:36:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 08:24:10 PM
Is it still a corridor?  It has been a couple years at least since I recall seeing the HSC signs.
According to May 2019 imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5217831,-77.4275483,3a,48.2y,174.51h,84.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJXrnbdUFFTJv_6v2QnI7DA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) it still is.

I recall signage as well driving through there a few months ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 27, 2020, 08:57:47 PM
I-95 Exit 69 all the way up to Exit 83 is a Safety Corridor along with Exit 150 to just north of Exit 158
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 27, 2020, 09:00:32 PM
I-95 Interim Corridor Improvement Plan has been released. (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/projects/major_projects/easset_upload_file65013_141080_e.pdf)

Has stuff in it like metering a bunch of ramps in NoVA; variable speed limits from south of Richmond to Fredericksburg; shoulder lanes from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge that would open in the opposite direction of HOT lanes; various interchange improvements coming and being studied.

Says they should study making the HOT lanes bi-directional.

Other than a few transition lane additions no actual widening of I-95 other than between Exit 126 and 130 that I noticed.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 09:03:48 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 27, 2020, 09:00:32 PM
shoulder lanes from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge that would open in the opposite direction of HOT lanes; various interchange improvements coming and being studied.

Says they should study making the HOT lanes bi-directional.
The shoulder lanes would be the bi-directional HO/T lane. When Transurban's lanes are opened one way, VDOT's shoulder HO/T lane would be opened the other way.

Quote from: Mapmikey on January 27, 2020, 09:00:32 PM
Other than a few transition lane additions no actual widening of I-95 other than between Exit 126 and 130 that I noticed.
Go figure. I-95 will still be 6-lanes by 2040 and traffic will only get far worse than it is today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 09:07:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 08:36:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 08:24:10 PM
Is it still a corridor?  It has been a couple years at least since I recall seeing the HSC signs.
According to May 2019 imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5217831,-77.4275483,3a,48.2y,174.51h,84.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJXrnbdUFFTJv_6v2QnI7DA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) it still is.
I recall signage as well driving through there a few months ago.
The limit increases to 60 about 1/2 mile south of there (just measured it).

According to the VDOT website that HSC runs from Bells Road to Parham Avenue.

Much of the highway between the river and Chamberlayne Avenue Exit 62 has too much horizontal curvature to handle more than 55 or 60.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 09:15:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 09:03:48 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 27, 2020, 09:00:32 PM
The shoulder lanes would be the bi-directional HO/T lane. When Transurban's lanes are opened one way, VDOT's shoulder HO/T lane would be opened the other way.
Poor design, using a shoulder for a traffic lane; hopefully is it not the right shoulder.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 09:03:48 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 27, 2020, 09:00:32 PM
Other than a few transition lane additions no actual widening of I-95 other than between Exit 126 and 130 that I noticed.
Go figure. I-95 will still be 6-lanes by 2040 and traffic will only get far worse than it is today.
I-95 Interim Corridor Improvement Plan ???

So how far of a time horizon is "interim?" 

Seems the focus is on the recently approved $3.7 billion railroad upgrade program between Richmond and downtown D.C., that is where most of the money is going.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 09:22:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 09:15:43 PM
Poor design, using a shoulder for a traffic lane; hopefully is it not the right shoulder.
It would be the left shoulder. The I-64 Express Lanes network in Hampton Roads will utilize the shoulder adjacent to the reversible lanes as bi-directional between I-564 and I-264. The left shoulder will also be utilized on the HRBT corridor to provide 2+2 during peak hours, and 1+2 during off-peak each way, though quite frankly I say eliminate the left shoulder all together and provide 2 HO/T lanes each way full time. For HO/T lanes, it's quite often done like this across the country, providing minimal left shoulder, even with only 1 lane each way. It would be that way during peak hours, why not just make it full time?

Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 09:15:43 PM
I-95 Interim Corridor Improvement Plan ???

So how far of a time horizon is "interim?" 

Seems the focus is on the recently approved $3.7 billion railroad upgrade program between Richmond and downtown D.C., that is where most of the money is going.
I'm still convinced at this rate I-95 will still be 6-lanes by 2040, and no bypass would have been constructed.

That railroad upgrade program is being funded by the gas tax increase interestingly enough. Not a road expansion, but a rail expansion. Ridiculous.

Like I said, I-95 will still be 6-lanes by 2040. It needed 8-lanes 20 years ago and a bypass, and it will continue to need 8-lanes and a bypass in another 20 years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 09:33:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 09:22:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 09:15:43 PM
Poor design, using a shoulder for a traffic lane; hopefully is it not the right shoulder.
It would be the left shoulder. The I-64 Express Lanes network in Hampton Roads will utilize the shoulder adjacent to the reversible lanes as bi-directional between I-564 and I-264. The left shoulder will also be utilized on the HRBT corridor to provide 2+2 during peak hours, and 1+2 during off-peak each way, though quite frankly I say eliminate the left shoulder all together and provide 2 HO/T lanes each way full time. For HO/T lanes, it's quite often done like this across the country, providing minimal left shoulder, even with only 1 lane each way. It would be that way during peak hours, why not just make it full time?
Because the left shoulder is needed on a 3+ lane roadway. 

In any event, a 10-foot shoulder with 30% to 50% of the pavement thickness (I would have to research the original plans to know the exact figure) needs extensive upgrading to provide a 12-foot traffic lane.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 09:22:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 09:15:43 PM
Seems the focus is on the recently approved $3.7 billion railroad upgrade program between Richmond and downtown D.C., that is where most of the money is going.
I'm still convinced at this rate I-95 will still be 6-lanes by 2040, and no bypass would have been constructed.
I don't have ESP, and I am not a prophet, so I can't predict something like that, that far into the future.

The $3.7 billion railroad upgrade program will have a huge impact during peak hours, so it is not something to dismiss; and if they are willing to spend that kind of money, then by 2025 (the implied "interim" date) they could plan some major highway improvements.

However, with the C-D project between VA-3 and US-17, and the reversibles extension under construction, and these shoulders lanes, that would provide (in however they define peak hours) at least 5 lanes in one direction and 4 lanes the other direction all the way north (aside: this governor has at least partly spoiled the word "north" for me), from VA-3 to I-495.
 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 27, 2020, 09:38:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 09:03:48 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 27, 2020, 09:00:32 PM
shoulder lanes from Fredericksburg to Woodbridge that would open in the opposite direction of HOT lanes; various interchange improvements coming and being studied.

Says they should study making the HOT lanes bi-directional.
The shoulder lanes would be the bi-directional HO/T lane. When Transurban's lanes are opened one way, VDOT's shoulder HO/T lane would be opened the other way.

That is separate and in Appendix A.

Look at Table 3 in Appendix B (pg. 54).  i misspoke - it is to Springfield, not Woodbridge for making the HOT lanes run both directions.  It also says to study managed lanes on the Beltway from Springfield to the Wilson Bridge.

It occurs to me that allowing HOT lanes to be expanded to both ways could be a bargaining chip to allow a 4th general lane in each direction...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 09:46:07 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 27, 2020, 09:38:43 PM
Look at Table 3 in Appendix B (pg. 54).  i misspoke - it is to Springfield, not Woodbridge for making the HOT lanes run both directions.  It also says to study managed lanes on the Beltway from Springfield to the Wilson Bridge.
It occurs to me that allowing HOT lanes to be expanded to both ways could be a bargaining chip to allow a 4th general lane in each direction...
For further study, as only conceptual ideas at this point.

This was discussed at the last CBT meeting, and the wording notwithstanding, they are not going to make the existing express roadway two-way, they would build a second express roadway, and each would have permanent one-direction use.

Table 3 EXPRESS LANES IMPROVEMENTS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Exit 130 to Exit 170 -- Convert existing Express Lanes to bi-directional operations
Exit 170 to Maryland Border -- Construct managed lanes from Exit 170 across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge into Maryland

I would like to see how they are going to upgrade the Springfield Interchange to tie all this in to I-495 and to transition the pair of I-95 express roadways into the reversible I-395 roadway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 10:15:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 09:33:46 PM
Because the left shoulder is needed on a 3+ lane roadway.
How about along I-495 where there is no left general purpose shoulder due to HO/T lanes? In a lot of metros that use HO/T lanes, this is the same situation, and the HO/T lane also doesn't have a shoulder. It's not uncommon.

Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 09:33:46 PM
In any event, a 10-foot shoulder with 30% to 50% of the pavement thickness (I would have to research the original plans to know the exact figure) needs extensive upgrading to provide a 12-foot traffic lane.
Might as well just build a 4th general purpose lane each way... but that $12.5 billion cost  :no:

Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 09:33:46 PM
The $3.7 billion railroad upgrade program will have a huge impact during peak hours, so it is not something to dismiss; and if they are willing to spend that kind of money, then by 2025 (the implied "interim" date) they could plan some major highway improvements.
According to the report...

QuoteThe proposed multimodal improvements in the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg Districts cost considerably less ($375 million) than building an additional lane of capacity ($12.5 billion), representing a significant cost savings in terms of potential performance benefits. As part of the previously-mentioned hypothetical analysis of adding a lane in each direction on I-95 between Exits 118 and 170, the proposed multimodal improvements were evaluated. The multimodal improvements are projected to increase the number of persons moved in the corridor by non-SOV modes. As a direct result of the projects, increases are projected in the number of people carpooling (including slugging), vanpooling, taking commuter rail, and taking commuter bus during the morning peak period (Figure 18) in the five northernmost portions of the corridor. Other increases in other modes may be possible but were not forecasted as part of this effort. The commuter rail total does not include any additional assumed improvements to the VRE Manassas Line. At the Occoquan River, a major bottleneck along the corridor, the study team projects an increase of approximately 7,700 multimodal persons moved during the morning peak period. Other increases throughout the corridor vary depending on location.

They are continuing to dismiss any potential widening projects as apart of this study. I find it more ironic below under Table 7 - "Type of Improvement" - that describes potential improvements....

QuoteWidening by One Lane: an extra lane constructed for multiple miles to increase the capacity of the interstate

* Where there are high person hours of delay and incidents/ crashes with a lane closure
* Where there are high traffic volumes
* Where there are long distances that vehicles need to pass, merge, or travel through multiple interchanges

and that all of these apply to I-95 between Woodbridge and I-295, however according to Table 8 - "Proposed Mainline Roadway Improvements by Type by District" - 0 widening by one lane projects are included in the Northern Virginia district, and only 2 widening by one lane projects are included in the Fredericksburg district - from Exit 126 to Exit 130, one NB, one SB.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 10:25:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 10:15:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 09:33:46 PM
In any event, a 10-foot shoulder with 30% to 50% of the pavement thickness (I would have to research the original plans to know the exact figure) needs extensive upgrading to provide a 12-foot traffic lane.
Might as well just build a 4th general purpose lane each way... but that $12.5 billion cost  :no:
Sickening (vomit makes a sickening sound when it hits the floor).

The quote you posted from the report cites that figure in an engineering report.  The politicians (governor and his CTB appointees) obviously injected that figure into the report, and given the criticality of that data point, almost makes me want to dismiss the entire report as too tainted by the politicians.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 10:33:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 10:25:02 PM
Sickening (vomit makes a sickening sound when it hits the floor).

The quote you posted from the report cites that figure in an engineering report.  The politicians (governor and his CTB appointees) obviously injected that figure into the report, and given the criticality of that data point, almost makes me want to dismiss the entire report as too tainted by the politicians.
:thumbsup:

The figure was merely inserted to dismiss any talk of GP widening, and to put the focus on multimodal improvements. This is clearly evident in this excerpt below. I'd be curious to see a detailed engineering report that details each cost aspect of that given figure. They have yet to make any of this publicly available. An environmental impact statement needs to be completed along the entire corridor from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and I-295 specifically evaluating general purpose improvements, along evaluating the potential for an eastern or western parallel corridor providing a supplemental route to I-95.

QuoteThe proposed multimodal improvements in the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg Districts cost considerably less ($375 million) than building an additional lane of capacity ($12.5 billion), representing a significant cost savings in terms of potential performance benefits.

I don't see any real efforts on general purpose widening of the I-95 corridor between Woodbridge and I-295 or any bypass of the Washington / Baltimore metro parallleling the US-17 / US-15 or US-301 corridors being pursued before 2040.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 27, 2020, 10:38:14 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 27, 2020, 09:38:43 PM

It occurs to me that allowing HOT lanes to be expanded to both ways could be a bargaining chip to allow a 4th general lane in each direction...
How so?


What I don't understand is why there are no plans (or least discussions) to widen I-95 between Fredricksburg and Richmond where no HOT lanes currently exist and therefore a compensation event wouldn't be an issue. This stretch of I-95 is prone to random back-ups and delays all the time and with the "rural" area between Fredricksburg and Richmond likely to eventually fill in, traffic volumes on this stretch (today over 100,000 AADT) will only increase.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 10:43:39 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 27, 2020, 10:38:14 PM
How so?

What I don't understand is why there are no plans (or least discussions) to widen I-95 between Fredricksburg and Richmond where no HOT lanes currently exist and therefore a compensation event wouldn't be an issue. This stretch of I-95 is prone to random back-ups and delays all the time and with the "rural" area between Fredricksburg and Richmond likely to eventually fill in, traffic volumes on this stretch (today over 100 AADT) will only increase.
I-95 has gotten to the point where the entire corridor from I-295 to Washington has become unreliable during significant portions of the year, and it is a joke that Virginia has yet to complete a detailed environmental impact statement evaluating options for the entire corridor to construct at least one additional general purpose lane that is continuous throughout the entire length, along with reviving the long proposed eastern or western bypasses and launching them into detailed study and collaborating with Maryland to get something done. They think transit improvements will fix many of the issues, and that it would cost so much more, as per a figure generated without any engineering assessment, to complete the proper improvements that would directly relieve congestion. Their logic is flawed, and congestion on I-95 will only continue to get worse and it will get to a point where I-95 will be unreliable almost any time, even more than it is now.

At least they're getting it right with I-64 and are actively pursuing the completion of a continuous 6-lane interstate corridor between Hampton Roads and Richmond. I could only imagine them trying to claiming it would cost $12.5 billion to widen the remaining 30 miles to 6-lanes, and it would be cheaper to complete a high-speed passenger rail instead along US-460.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 27, 2020, 11:03:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 10:43:39 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 27, 2020, 10:38:14 PM
How so?

What I don't understand is why there are no plans (or least discussions) to widen I-95 between Fredricksburg and Richmond where no HOT lanes currently exist and therefore a compensation event wouldn't be an issue. This stretch of I-95 is prone to random back-ups and delays all the time and with the "rural" area between Fredricksburg and Richmond likely to eventually fill in, traffic volumes on this stretch (today over 100 AADT) will only increase.
I-95 has gotten to the point where the entire corridor from I-295 to Washington has become unreliable during significant portions of the year, and it is a joke that Virginia has yet to complete a detailed environmental impact statement evaluating options for the entire corridor to construct at least one additional general purpose lane that is continuous throughout the entire length, along with reviving the long proposed eastern or western bypasses and launching them into detailed study and collaborating with Maryland to get something done. They think transit improvements will fix many of the issues, and that it would cost so much more, as per a figure generated without any engineering assessment, to complete the proper improvements that would directly relieve congestion. Their logic is flawed, and congestion on I-95 will only continue to get worse and it will get to a point where I-95 will be unreliable almost any time, even more than it is now.

At least they're getting it right with I-64 and are actively pursuing the completion of a continuous 6-lane interstate corridor between Hampton Roads and Richmond. I could only imagine them trying to claiming it would cost $12.5 billion to widen the remaining 30 miles to 6-lanes, and it would be cheaper to complete a high-speed passenger rail instead along US-460.

VA seems to be pushing what some might call "21st-century" traffic solutions. While I can understand the reasoning behind this in some instances (funding restraints, urban roadways with no room to expand, environmental concerns, etc.) there is no legit reason why widening here should be completely off the table. I suspect a vast majority of I-95 traffic between Fredricksburg and Richmond is thru traffic in which rail, transit, and biking solutions are not viable alternatives.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 27, 2020, 11:40:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 10:33:00 PM
The figure [$12.5 billion] was merely inserted to dismiss any talk of GP widening, and to put the focus on multimodal improvements. This is clearly evident in this excerpt below. I'd be curious to see a detailed engineering report that details each cost aspect of that given figure. They have yet to make any of this publicly available. An environmental impact statement needs to be completed along the entire corridor from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and I-295 specifically evaluating general purpose improvements, along evaluating the potential for an eastern or western parallel corridor providing a supplemental route to I-95.
As I have been saying!  Conduct a full EIS/location study, evaluate a range of alternatives, produce cost estimates and environmental impact details, produce cost estimates for any compensation event, produce a DEIS, an FEIS and a ROD.

I have no problem with focusing on multimodal improvements, as they would have the biggest impacts during peak commuting hours.

But the EIS needs to be conducted and started immediately, for I-95 improvements between I-295 and Woodbridge.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 10:33:00 PM
I don't see any real efforts on general purpose widening of the I-95 corridor between Woodbridge and I-295 or any bypass of the Washington / Baltimore metro parallleling the US-17 / US-15 or US-301 corridors being pursued before 2040.
Nothing about 2040 is mentioned anywhere.  A major priority change with new multi-billion funding could happen in 5 years, especially after the $3.7 billion has been fully spent on the railroad improvements.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 10:43:39 PM
I-95 has gotten to the point where the entire corridor from I-295 to Washington has become unreliable during significant portions of the year, and it is a joke that Virginia has yet to complete a detailed environmental impact statement evaluating options for the entire corridor to construct at least one additional general purpose lane that is continuous throughout the entire length,
Not "Virginia," per se; it is the fault of the current and previous governor and all current CTB members which are their appointees, and their lack of action since 2013.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2020, 10:43:39 PM
along with reviving the long proposed eastern or western bypasses and launching them into detailed study and collaborating with Maryland to get something done.
Nope, not until and unless Maryland and their associated counties show clear and credible evidence that they will participate.
 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 28, 2020, 06:24:29 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 27, 2020, 10:38:14 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 27, 2020, 09:38:43 PM

It occurs to me that allowing HOT lanes to be expanded to both ways could be a bargaining chip to allow a 4th general lane in each direction...
How so?

In exchange for allowing you to build the second set of HOT lanes which will increase your revenue, you agree to reduce/eliminate the compensation event the widening would ordinarily trigger.

Given that VDOT says even with the 4th lane added congestion would return to today's levels fairly quickly, this would suggest that HOT lane usage would not see a huge decrease if 95 was widened and the HOT lanes were expanded.

Maybe I am underthinking it...

Was the adding of a full 4th lane on I-395 as part of HOV to HOT conversion stuff a small example of this?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 06:49:44 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 28, 2020, 06:24:29 AM
In exchange for allowing you to build the second set of HOT lanes which will increase your revenue, you agree to reduce/eliminate the compensation event the widening would ordinarily trigger.
Given that VDOT says even with the 4th lane added congestion would return to today's levels fairly quickly, this would suggest that HOT lane usage would not see a huge decrease if 95 was widened and the HOT lanes were expanded.
Maybe I am underthinking it...
Over, under, whatever, I can't really say ... all this speculation because ... there is one way to analyze all of this and come up with solutions ...

They need to conduct a full EIS/location study, evaluate a range of alternatives, produce cost estimates and environmental impact details, produce cost estimates for any compensation event, produce a DEIS, an FEIS and a ROD.  Between I-295 and I-495 even if there is no widening north of Woodbridge.

Quote from: Mapmikey on January 28, 2020, 06:24:29 AM
Was the adding of a full 4th lane on I-395 as part of HOV to HOT conversion stuff a small example of this?
I-395 doesn't have 4 thru GP lanes until north of Glebe Road and it was built that way in the 1970s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 07:15:55 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 28, 2020, 06:24:29 AM
In exchange for allowing you to build the second set of HOT lanes which will increase your revenue, you agree to reduce/eliminate the compensation event the widening would ordinarily trigger.
If Transurban becomes the entity that would construct such new HO/T lanes, then this needs to be included in any contract if it's to be properly done.

But knowing Virginia, they'll just give it to Transurban and include no negotiation with compensation events. It's not like they have any plans to expand the general purpose lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 05:45:33 PM
Governor Northam and Legislative Leaders Highlight Plan to Improve Driver Safety, Modernize Transportation System (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2020/governor-northam-and-legislative-leaders-highlight-plan-to-improve-driver-safety-modernize-transportation-system01-27-2020.asp)
QuoteRICHMOND – Governor Ralph Northam and legislative leaders today announced support for a comprehensive transportation package that will improve driver and pedestrian safety and modernize funding for transit, rail, and roads.

House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn and Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw joined the Governor for the announcement, along with House Transportation Committee Chair Delores McQuinn and Senate Transportation Committee Chair David Marsden. The measures are outlined in House Bill 1414 (Filler-Corn) and Senate Bill 890 (Saslaw).

"Virginians should be able to get to work or to school safely, without sitting in traffic,"  said Governor Northam. "This bold package will reduce congestion, transform transit and rail service, and support economic growth across Virginia. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the General Assembly to pass it into law."

This landmark transportation package will make roads safer by establishing a Virginia Highway Safety Improvement Program and implementing a number of proven safety policies. These measures include prohibiting the use of handheld cell phones while driving, banning open containers of alcohol in vehicles, making failure to wear a seatbelt a primary offense, enhancing speed enforcement, and allowing localities to lower speed limits. Combined, they are expected to save more than 120 lives a year.

"In November, Virginians overwhelmingly demanded we take swift, decisive action that improves their lives,"  said Speaker of the House of Delegates Eileen Filler-Corn. "I am excited to work with the Governor and my colleagues in the General Assembly to pass this legislation that will make our roads safer, commutes shorter, and transform passenger and commuter rail in the Commonwealth."

Despite Virginians driving more than ever, revenues from motor fuel taxes have continued to drop. This legislation modernizes Virginia's transportation funding model by cutting vehicle registration fees in half, raising the gas tax, and indexing it to inflation. New revenues will build a sustainable transportation system over the next decade and will be distributed through a new streamlined funding mechanism that supports a multimodal network.

"We know we can't pave our way out of congestion,"  said Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw. "This bill will ensure we are using taxpayer money efficiently, will save Virginians' time, and will enhance infrastructure options for moving people and goods throughout the Commonwealth. This measure is long overdue and a much needed path forward to addressing Virginia's transportation challenges."

This proposal also includes measures to dramatically transform Virginia's transit and rail systems. It establishes the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority to promote and expand passenger and commuter rail service across the Commonwealth. In coordination with the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, the legislation authorizes the use of bonds to assist with the construction of a new rail Long Bridge across the Potomac River, increasing capacity for passenger, commuter and freight trains, and reducing congestion. The package also establishes a Transit Incentive Program, which will promote improved transit service, support regional routes, and reduce barriers to transit use by low-income individuals.

"This legislation is the foundation for a true multimodal transportation system,"  said Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine. "By building a sustainable funding bridge to the future, Virginia is making a bold investment in safe, reliable travel options that create mobility for all Virginians."

The legislation also includes funding to support:

  • Smart Scale, the data-driven model for new capacity transportation projects;
  • Interstates, secondary and city streets to meet safety and performance targets;
  • Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, to help restore funding for regional priorities;
  • I-81 Debt Authorization to accelerate $2 billion program of projects; and
  • Matching Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) funds for WMATA
  • Critical or Special bridges and tunnels
Overreach.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 06:38:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 05:45:33 PM
Quote
The legislation also includes funding to support:

  • Smart Scale, the data-driven model for new capacity transportation projects;
  • Interstates, secondary and city streets to meet safety and performance targets;
  • Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, to help restore funding for regional priorities;
  • I-81 Debt Authorization to accelerate $2 billion program of projects; and
  • Matching Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) funds for WMATA
  • Critical or Special bridges and tunnels
Overreach.
That, and blather, and nothing really new.  Plus the old strawman that is trotted out to dismiss any major upgrades --
"We know we can't pave our way out of congestion,"  said Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw

We know we can't mass transit our way out of congestion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 06:39:37 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 06:38:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 05:45:33 PM
Quote
The legislation also includes funding to support:

  • Smart Scale, the data-driven model for new capacity transportation projects;
  • Interstates, secondary and city streets to meet safety and performance targets;
  • Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, to help restore funding for regional priorities;
  • I-81 Debt Authorization to accelerate $2 billion program of projects; and
  • Matching Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) funds for WMATA
  • Critical or Special bridges and tunnels
Overreach.
That, and blather, and nothing really new.  Plus the old strawman that is trotted out to dismiss any major upgrades --
"We know we can't pave our way out of congestion,"  said Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw
This one was even better
Quote"Virginians should be able to get to work or to school safely, without sitting in traffic,"  said Governor Northam. "This bold package will reduce congestion, transform transit and rail service, and support economic growth across Virginia. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the General Assembly to pass it into law."
Yet they refuse to expand any part of I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 06:42:37 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 07:15:55 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 28, 2020, 06:24:29 AM
In exchange for allowing you to build the second set of HOT lanes which will increase your revenue, you agree to reduce/eliminate the compensation event the widening would ordinarily trigger.
If Transurban becomes the entity that would construct such new HO/T lanes, then this needs to be included in any contract if it's to be properly done.
But knowing Virginia, they'll just give it to Transurban and include no negotiation with compensation events. It's not like they have any plans to expand the general purpose lanes.
Let me correctly reword that last sentence --

But knowing Governor Northam and his CTB members, they'll just give it to Transurban and include no negotiation with compensation events.  It's not like they have any plans to expand the general purpose lanes, or perform the EIS/location study for I-95 upgrades between I-295 and Woodbridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 28, 2020, 08:28:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 07:15:55 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 28, 2020, 06:24:29 AM
In exchange for allowing you to build the second set of HOT lanes which will increase your revenue, you agree to reduce/eliminate the compensation event the widening would ordinarily trigger.
If Transurban becomes the entity that would construct such new HO/T lanes, then this needs to be included in any contract if it's to be properly done.

But knowing Virginia, they'll just give it to Transurban and include no negotiation with compensation events. It's not like they have any plans to expand the general purpose lanes.

Presumably Transurban would have to build the 4th lane as part of the expansion of HOT lanes.  This would make sense to do since in many places the extra room to add more HOT lanes would have to come from moving the main lanes further out.  Similar to how they built the 495 HOT lanes but add an extra lane while they are expanding.


QuoteWas the adding of a full 4th lane on I-395 as part of HOV to HOT conversion stuff a small example of this?
QuoteI-395 doesn't have 4 thru GP lanes until north of Glebe Road and it was built that way in the 1970s.

I was referring to the project to add a 4th lane between Edsall Rd and Duke St which is under construction.  This would likely be a compensation event if this were being done on I-95 between say Dale City and Woodbridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 08:55:05 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 28, 2020, 08:28:01 PM
QuoteWas the adding of a full 4th lane on I-395 as part of HOV to HOT conversion stuff a small example of this?
QuoteI-395 doesn't have 4 thru GP lanes until north of Glebe Road and it was built that way in the 1970s.
I was referring to the project to add a 4th lane between Edsall Rd and Duke St which is under construction.
That is 1.1 mile and between adjacent interchanges, so that is an auxiliary lane and not a thru lane.

Quote from: Mapmikey on January 28, 2020, 08:28:01 PM
This would likely be a compensation event if this were being done on I-95 between say Dale City and Woodbridge.
4.1 miles which would be a bona fide general purpose lane.

We have no idea what is 'likely' when the current state executive branch won't conduct the EIS/location study needed to formally evaluate whether there would be compensation among all the yada yada yada ...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 08:57:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 08:55:05 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 28, 2020, 08:28:01 PM
QuoteWas the adding of a full 4th lane on I-395 as part of HOV to HOT conversion stuff a small example of this?
QuoteI-395 doesn't have 4 thru GP lanes until north of Glebe Road and it was built that way in the 1970s.
I was referring to the project to add a 4th lane between Edsall Rd and Duke St which is under construction.
That is 1.1 mile and between adjacent interchanges, so that is an auxiliary lane and not a thru lane.

Quote from: Mapmikey on January 28, 2020, 08:28:01 PM
This would likely be a compensation event if this were being done on I-95 between say Dale City and Woodbridge.
4.1 miles which would be a bona fide general purpose lane.

We have no idea what is 'likely' when the current state executive branch won't conduct the EIS/location study needed to formally evaluate whether there would be compensation.
But remember, $12.5 billion is a waste of money and not worth studying and instead multimodal is the way to go since it's only $400 million  :-o
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 08:59:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 08:57:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 08:55:05 PM
We have no idea what is 'likely' when the current state executive branch won't conduct the EIS/location study needed to formally evaluate whether there would be compensation.
But remember, $12.5 billion is a waste of money and not worth studying and instead multimodal is the way to go since it's only $400 million  :-o

The bulk of the multimodal improvements are the $3.7 billion already approved for the railroad upgrades.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 09:03:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 08:59:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 08:57:25 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 08:55:05 PM
We have no idea what is 'likely' when the current state executive branch won't conduct the EIS/location study needed to formally evaluate whether there would be compensation.
But remember, $12.5 billion is a waste of money and not worth studying and instead multimodal is the way to go since it's only $400 million  :-o

The bulk of the multimodal improvements are the $3.7 billion already approved for the railroad upgrades.
Approved with little to no second thought by the administration, but lane widening - nope!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 09:11:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 09:03:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 08:59:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 08:57:25 PM
But remember, $12.5 billion is a waste of money and not worth studying and instead multimodal is the way to go since it's only $400 million  :-o
The bulk of the multimodal improvements are the $3.7 billion already approved for the railroad upgrades.
Approved with little to no second thought by the administration, but lane widening - nope!

The did a EIS/location study for the railroad upgrades... nothing even started on I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 09:12:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 09:11:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 09:03:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 08:59:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 08:57:25 PM
But remember, $12.5 billion is a waste of money and not worth studying and instead multimodal is the way to go since it's only $400 million  :-o
The bulk of the multimodal improvements are the $3.7 billion already approved for the railroad upgrades.
Approved with little to no second thought by the administration, but lane widening - nope!

The did a EIS/location study for the railroad upgrades... nothing even started on I-95.
And that EIS/location study was approved with little to no second thought, but isn't even an option for I-95 widening.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 09:13:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 09:12:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 09:11:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 09:03:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2020, 08:59:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2020, 08:57:25 PM
But remember, $12.5 billion is a waste of money and not worth studying and instead multimodal is the way to go since it’s only $400 million  :-o
The bulk of the multimodal improvements are the $3.7 billion already approved for the railroad upgrades.
Approved with little to no second thought by the administration, but lane widening - nope!
The did a EIS/location study for the railroad upgrades... nothing even started on I-95.
And that EIS/location study was approved with little to no second thought, but isn't even an option for I-95 widening.
Well, no, it took at least 4 years to conduct that study (I would have to research the exact figure), but they need to start a study first of all.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 11, 2020, 07:39:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 26, 2019, 05:41:56 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 26, 2019, 04:46:21 PM
Do you have any document?
QuoteVirginia got federal approval in the late 1970s to build a new Interstate corridor to parallel the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (RPT). The RPT was designated with I-95 for most of its length, and with I-85 on the southern 4 miles. The RPT was a state-built tollroad, opened in 1958; no federal funds were used. The new Interstate would provide a new I-85 and new I-95, south and east of Petersburg. The RPT would have had the Interstate signing removed, and become a state route. Two sections of federally-funded Interstate leading to the RPT would have been bypassed also; about 3 miles of I-85 west of Petersburg would have become I-385, and about 4 miles of I-95 south of Petersburg would have become I-795. I-295 northeast of Richmond would have become I-95, and I-95 from I-295 (north junction) to I-195 would have become I-195. In other words, what today is the I-295 bypass of I-95, would have been I-95.

The new I-85 section south of Petersburg was never built. The new I-95 east of Petersburg and Richmond was built from 1984 to 1992. The state and federal project numbers on the design documents were for I-95. As sections opened to traffic, southward from US-60 east of Richmond, they extended the I-295 corridor southward and carried the I-295 signage. When the road was completed, it all carried the I-295 signage. The decision was made to leave the I-95 and I-85 signage on the RPT, and to sign the new road as I-295. Incidentally, when the new road opened, the tolls ceased on the RPT, and the toll booths were removed within six months.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/RPT_I295.html
You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was I-95.

https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417

Unless this was a misprint.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 11, 2020, 08:13:50 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 11, 2020, 07:39:10 PM
You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was originally I-95.

https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417

Unless this was a misprint.



I believe this is an error (additionally the VA 142 label above the I-95 shield is on a part of the road that has never been VA 142) on the 1959 Topo.

however...there is an April 1960 CTB (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-04-1960-01.pdf) (see pdf pg. 42) item that reads in part:   ...certain modifications in the location of US Route 1 where the entrance and exit ramps of the Turnpike, Interstate 95, intersect US Route 1 in Dinwiddie County...

I think that is also in error because the contract to build I-95 from SCL Petersburg to SR 626 (this is located south of present I-295) is shown on pdf pg. 11 of July 1958 CTB (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-07-1958-01.pdf)

The 1959 Official shows I-95 on the turnpike in the Richmond inset but does not show any shields on the turnpike in the Petersburg inset.  The next issue (1961) explicitly shows the short segment of I-85 as I-85.

Because of when the Turnpike opened relative to any free segment of either interstate it is certainly possible 95 shields existed at the US 1 interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 11, 2020, 09:43:05 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 11, 2020, 07:39:10 PM
You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was originally I-95.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417
Unless this was a misprint.
It correctly shows the I-85 portion as I-85.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 11, 2020, 10:46:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2020, 09:43:05 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 11, 2020, 07:39:10 PM
You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was originally I-95.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417
Unless this was a misprint.
It correctly shows the I-85 portion as I-85.

He was looking at the 1959 Topo which shows it in two places as I-95 between US 1 and the actual I-95
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 11, 2020, 11:07:04 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 11, 2020, 10:46:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2020, 09:43:05 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 11, 2020, 07:39:10 PM
You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was originally I-95.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417
Unless this was a misprint.
It correctly shows the I-85 portion as I-85.
He was looking at the 1959 Topo which shows it in two places as I-95 between US 1 and the actual I-95
I see it shows the RPT without any of the subsequent Interstate highway connections (I-85, I-95 and I-64), with the temporary termini in Dinwiddie and Henrico counties.

I see the I-95 shield near US-1 in Dinwiddie County ... that is wrong.

USGS maps are not necessarily completely accurate when they get outside of the topo itself.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 11, 2020, 11:56:24 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 11, 2020, 10:46:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2020, 09:43:05 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 11, 2020, 07:39:10 PM
You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was originally I-95.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417
Unless this was a misprint.
It correctly shows the I-85 portion as I-85.

He was looking at the 1959 Topo which shows it in two places as I-95 between US 1 and the actual I-95
I could believe that because there was one short segment of freeway that tied into the rest of I-95, with no southward connections, that it was signed as I-95 for the time being.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 12, 2020, 12:14:42 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 11, 2020, 11:56:24 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 11, 2020, 10:46:57 PM
He was looking at the 1959 Topo which shows it in two places as I-95 between US 1 and the actual I-95
I could believe that because there was one short segment of freeway that tied into the rest of I-95, with no southward connections, that it was signed as I-95 for the time being.
I-95 was already located on the US-301 corridor, and I-85 on the US-1 corridor, heading south from Petersburg, in 1957 VDH planning/location studies.

I would tend to believe that the USGS made a mapo.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 12, 2020, 06:38:59 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 11, 2020, 09:43:05 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 11, 2020, 07:39:10 PM
You know, this afternoon I was looking at the Petersburg area on Historic Aerials, and I found out that originally all of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike was originally I-95.
https://historicaerials.com/?layer=map&zoom=11&lat=37.21295&lon=-77.400417
Unless this was a misprint.
It correctly shows the I-85 portion as I-85.
Check out the 1959 topographical map, and scroll towards US 1.

Quote from: Beltway on February 12, 2020, 12:14:42 AM
I would tend to believe that the USGS made a mapo.
That's what I'm thinking.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 12, 2020, 07:08:11 AM
^

Likely either a "mapo" or it was originally sign-posted I-95 all the way to US-1, but removed once the actual I-95 segment south of the Turnpike was completed just a few years later in 1961.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 12, 2020, 07:45:09 AM
Did Virginia ever use "TEMP I-95" signage, such that perhaps what you're seeing is a function of someone mapping that and omitting the "TEMP" designation? I either have, or more likely used to have, some old maps from before I-95 was completed in Maryland between the Beltways that showed the B-W Parkway as "TEMP I-95," and I seem to recall there was a period more recently in which a "TEMP I-77" was designated near Columbia, South Carolina, as said road was not yet finished there. Those two scenarios are what prompted me to wonder if Virginia ever did the same (I don't recall, as the years cited in the posts above were before I was born).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 12, 2020, 11:12:07 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 12, 2020, 07:45:09 AM
Did Virginia ever use "TEMP I-95" signage, such that perhaps what you're seeing is a function of someone mapping that and omitting the "TEMP" designation? I either have, or more likely used to have, some old maps from before I-95 was completed in Maryland between the Beltways that showed the B-W Parkway as "TEMP I-95," and I seem to recall there was a period more recently in which a "TEMP I-77" was designated near Columbia, South Carolina, as said road was not yet finished there. Those two scenarios are what prompted me to wonder if Virginia ever did the same (I don't recall, as the years cited in the posts above were before I was born).

The only TEMP designation I'm familiar with in VA is the former TEMP VA 168 in Hampton and Newport News
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on February 12, 2020, 11:13:59 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 12, 2020, 07:45:09 AM
Did Virginia ever use "TEMP I-95" signage, such that perhaps what you're seeing is a function of someone mapping that and omitting the "TEMP" designation? I either have, or more likely used to have, some old maps from before I-95 was completed in Maryland between the Beltways that showed the B-W Parkway as "TEMP I-95," and I seem to recall there was a period more recently in which a "TEMP I-77" was designated near Columbia, South Carolina, as said road was not yet finished there. Those two scenarios are what prompted me to wonder if Virginia ever did the same (I don't recall, as the years cited in the posts above were before I was born).

My memory is fuzzy on this, but I think the segment of the I-77/I-81 overlap between Wytheville and Ft. Chiswell may have been signed as a TEMP route along US 11/US 52.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on February 13, 2020, 06:13:45 AM
Actually, it was signed with TO I-81 and TO I-77 signs along that stretch in the mid-1970's.  This was shortly after (a year or two) I-77 opened north out of Wytheville.

AFAIK, Virginia did not use TEMP banners, only TO banners.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 06:29:39 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on February 13, 2020, 06:13:45 AM
Actually, it was signed with TO I-81 and TO I-77 signs along that stretch in the mid-1970's.  This was shortly after (a year or two) I-77 opened north out of Wytheville.
AFAIK, Virginia did not use TEMP banners, only TO banners.
I don't recall any TEMP banners.

That would not be logical to use on anything other than a freeway with 4 or more lanes, a highway below Interstate standards which at least could be called a "temporary Interstate highway" pending the building of an Interstate highway segment to replace it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 07:10:40 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 06:29:39 AM
That would not be logical to use on anything other than a freeway with 4 or more lanes, a highway below Interstate standards which at least could be called a "temporary Interstate highway" pending the building of an Interstate highway segment to replace it.
"TEMP" banners were used on arterial highway segments that were not freeways in the past that connected two disconnected segments planned to be filled.

In North Carolina, US-301 and US-29 / US-70, 4-lane divided highways, but not freeways, were marked as TEMP I-95 and TEMP I-85 respectively before the interstate highway segments were completed on new location.

Currently, I-26 north of Asheville is designated as FUTURE I-26 as it's a freeway that connects the I-26 system through and north of Asheville, but does not meet interstate standards yet lacking 10 foot paved shoulders in area, plus the mess of an interchange complex with single-lane, 25 mph ramps through Asheville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 08:31:59 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 07:10:40 AM
"TEMP" banners were used on arterial highway segments that were not freeways in the past that connected two disconnected segments planned to be filled.
But they shouldn't be.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 07:10:40 AM
In North Carolina, US-301 and US-29 / US-70, 4-lane divided highways, but not freeways, were marked as TEMP I-95 and TEMP I-85 respectively before the interstate highway segments were completed on new location.
A highway can't legitimately be a "temporary Interstate highway" if it is not at least a 4-lane limited access highway with no at-grade crossings.  Interstate highways are freeways first and formost.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 07:10:40 AM
Currently, I-26 north of Asheville is designated as FUTURE I-26 as it's a freeway that connects the I-26 system through and north of Asheville, but does not meet interstate standards yet lacking 10 foot paved shoulders in area, plus the mess of an interchange complex with single-lane, 25 mph ramps through Asheville.
A "future Interstate highway" means that none exists currently and that maybe one may exist in the future.  It is information on a proposal for the future.

That doesn't need to be restricted to any particular class of highway currently.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 13, 2020, 04:41:13 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 08:31:59 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 07:10:40 AM
"TEMP" banners were used on arterial highway segments that were not freeways in the past that connected two disconnected segments planned to be filled.
But they shouldn't be.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 07:10:40 AM
In North Carolina, US-301 and US-29 / US-70, 4-lane divided highways, but not freeways, were marked as TEMP I-95 and TEMP I-85 respectively before the interstate highway segments were completed on new location.
A highway can't legitimately be a "temporary Interstate highway" if it is not at least a 4-lane limited access highway with no at-grade crossings.  Interstate highways are freeways first and formost.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 07:10:40 AM
Currently, I-26 north of Asheville is designated as FUTURE I-26 as it's a freeway that connects the I-26 system through and north of Asheville, but does not meet interstate standards yet lacking 10 foot paved shoulders in area, plus the mess of an interchange complex with single-lane, 25 mph ramps through Asheville.
A "future Interstate highway" means that none exists currently and that maybe one may exist in the future.  It is information on a proposal for the future.

That doesn't need to be restricted to any particular class of highway currently.
Please cite your source for TEMP banner standards
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 04:56:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 08:31:59 AM
But they shouldn't be.
But they were. Please cite a source that claims the TEMP banner could only be applied to pre-existing freeway segments.

Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 08:31:59 AM
A highway can't legitimately be a "temporary Interstate highway" if it is not at least a 4-lane limited access highway with no at-grade crossings.  Interstate highways are freeways first and formost.
Temporary in the sense they filled the gap for the interstate thru traffic where a segment did not yet exist. They weren't freeways, but served interstate traffic and were marked as such to provide continuity. Please cite a source that claims the TEMP banner could only be applied to pre-existing freeway segments.

Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 08:31:59 AM
A "future Interstate highway" means that none exists currently and that maybe one may exist in the future.  It is information on a proposal for the future.

That doesn't need to be restricted to any particular class of highway currently.
My point was the way the banners are signed. It's not merely a green sign that says "Future I-XX", it's an actual interstate shield with a directional marker that reads "FUTURE". Hard to notice it's not an actual interstate highway shield if you don't look close enough and it provides continuity for drivers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 05:11:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 04:56:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 08:31:59 AM
A highway can't legitimately be a "temporary Interstate highway" if it is not at least a 4-lane limited access highway with no at-grade crossings.  Interstate highways are freeways first and formost.
Temporary in the sense they filled the gap for the interstate thru traffic where a segment did not yet exist. They weren't freeways, but served interstate traffic and were marked as such to provide continuity. Please cite a source that claims the TEMP banner could only be applied to pre-existing freeway segments.
I never said there was an official policy, just that a "temporary Interstate highway" shouldn't logically be something that is not even on a limited access right-of-way let alone not grade separated and maybe only 2 lanes.

An unresolved question on highway forums is whether the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway was "TEMP I-95" before I-95 was completed, there have been possible recollections on either side.  Nevertheless, that would be an appropriate use of the "TEMP" designation.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 04:56:23 PM
My point was the way the banners are signed. It's not merely a green sign that says "Future I-XX", it's an actual interstate shield with a directional marker that reads "FUTURE". Hard to notice it's not an actual interstate highway shield if you don't look close enough and it provides continuity for drivers.
Seems pretty clear to me.  Calling something "future" means that it doesn't exist now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 05:12:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 05:11:30 PM
I never said there was an official policy, just that a "temporary Interstate highway" shouldn't logically be something that is not even on a limited access right-of-way let alone grade separated.
Well it was in the height of interstate highway construction in the 70s - 80s.

The point was to fill the gap between two disconnected interstate highway segments for long-distance traffic.

As an example, US-301 between Emporia and Petersburg could've logically been "TEMP I-95" before it was constructed.

Do "BUSINESS" interstate highway routes have to be on limited-access / grade-separated right of way?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 05:23:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 05:12:31 PM
Well it was in the height of interstate highway construction in the 70s - 80s.
The point was to fill the gap between two disconnected interstate highway segments for long-distance traffic.
As an example, US-301 between Emporia and Petersburg could've logically been "TEMP I-95" before it was constructed.
Using the trailblazer "TO I-95" seemed like a good way to handle a gap of that length.  "This highway will take you to I-95."

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 05:12:31 PM
Do "BUSINESS" interstate highway routes have to be on limited-access / grade-separated right of way?
That is a separate question, as they are not Interstate highways, although one may be a freeway.

The shields are green and they give the route number, the word "Business" and either the word "Loop" or "Spur."  They don't have the word "Interstate."  See -- https://tinyurl.com/svka9sg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 05:33:07 PM
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/i64i264%20Phase%20III%20Subprojects_UPC%20106693_11.20.2019.pdf

Draft drawings from the I-264 Phase III Study recommendations were posted on the HRTPO's website today.

Here's some notable features from the concept -
- The Newtown Rd interchange would be overhauled on the northern quadrant, a new folded diamond interchange from the roadway, a new flyover dedicated for I-64 bound traffic to begin before the interchange, and allowing traffic from Newtown Rd to enter. The ramp from I-264 west to I-64 east would be relocated to the right as apart of this new flyover, eliminating the substandard left exit that presently exists. The existing C/D road that travels through the Military Hwy interchange area would have a separate exit splitting off at the I-64 interchange.
- The flyover from I-264 east to I-64 west would be relocated to the right.
- The flyover from I-64 east to I-264 east would be relocated to enter I-264 east on the right hand side, tying into the recently-completed flyover.
- The Military Hwy interchange on I-264 would be converted into a folded diamond interchange, contrary to another study recommendations a few years ago for a diverging diamond.
- I-64 between Providence Rd and Military Hwy would be widened, presumably to 8-10 lanes including auxiliary lanes.
- The Indian River Rd interchange on I-64 would be converted into a partial cloverleaf interchange.

And the most interesting concept...
- The Northampton Blvd interchange would be expanded to include an interchange with Wesleyan Dr / Premium Outlets Blvd tying directly into the I-64 interchange ramps, providing a full freeway design along Northampton Blvd from I-64 to north of the former golf course. The first ever step towards any freeway along Northampton Blvd.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 05:34:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 05:23:44 PM
That is a separate question, as they are not Interstate highways, although one may be a freeway.

The shields are green and they give the route number, the word "Business" and either the word "Loop" or "Spur."  They don't have the word "Interstate."  See -- https://tinyurl.com/svka9sg
It's really the same thing, it's a subset of an interstate highway that doesn't have to be a freeway.

Much like the Business Loops / Spurs and the Future trailblazer used on I-26, I don't believe the TEMP banners had the word "Interstate".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sparker on February 13, 2020, 05:52:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 08:31:59 AM
A highway can't legitimately be a "temporary Interstate highway" if it is not at least a 4-lane limited access highway with no at-grade crossings.  Interstate highways are freeways first and formost.

While that may be the case in present-day VA and/or NC, it certainly wasn't in CA prior to completion of it's share of the Interstate system.  For instance, I-505 was signed as a "temporary" Interstate starting circa 1967 while it was a 2-lane expressway (w/grade separations) albeit with two short freeway sections at the CA 128 and CA 16 junctions.  That signage was for the full 33-mile length of the facility, including on the BGS's at I-80 and I-5, its termini; a "Temporary" banner was affixed to the BGS, at least at 505's southern terminus at Vacaville.  Freestanding shields were plentiful along its length.  The build-out to full Interstate standards started about 1973 with the center section between Winters & CA 16 the first to be converted, with the remainder completed by 1980.  Another example was the temporary I-5 between Stockton and Sacramento; the interim route, clearly signed as "Temporary I-5" was not only signed along CA 99 between the two cities (with a lengthy freeway section clearly not meeting Interstate standards) but also on the surface connector in Stockton comprising portions of CA 4 and CA 26.  And as late as the opening of the final section of I-5 in the Sacramento River canyon between Vollmers and Castle Crags, the former US 99 4-lane expressway was signed as "Temporary I-5" until bypassed/supplanted in early 1992.  So at least in CA, "temporary" Interstate signage was posted on quite a few roadways -- mostly in the northern part of the state.  An exception to that was the "Temporary I-215" signage on old US 395 between Temecula and Riverside during the 1980's and early '90's, replaced a piece at a time by actual Interstate signage as the facility was brought up to appropriate standards. 

It's just too bad that most of this sort of signage came about after the demise of the late & lamented CH&PW periodical -- or pix of these would likely have been part of their state system improvement coverage!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 09:01:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 13, 2020, 05:52:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 08:31:59 AM
A highway can't legitimately be a "temporary Interstate highway" if it is not at least a 4-lane limited access highway with no at-grade crossings.  Interstate highways are freeways first and formost.
While that may be the case in present-day VA and/or NC, it certainly wasn't in CA prior to completion of it's share of the Interstate system.  <examples>
I don't deny that there are instances contrary to what I said above, but I simply didn't like or approve of the practice.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 05:34:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 05:23:44 PM
That is a separate question, as they are not Interstate highways, although one may be a freeway.
The shields are green and they give the route number, the word "Business" and either the word "Loop" or "Spur."  They don't have the word "Interstate."  See -- https://tinyurl.com/svka9sg
It's really the same thing, it's a subset of an interstate highway that doesn't have to be a freeway.
But not Interstate highways.  As they were conceived, they were arterial business connectors between an Interstate highway and a downtown, to guide traffic between them.

The use of them on freeways such as at Spartanburg, SC, came much later, like 1990s+.

Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 05:34:16 PM
Much like the Business Loops / Spurs and the Future trailblazer used on I-26, I don't believe the TEMP banners had the word "Interstate".
Not my recollection, but like with the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway, until we can find historical photos of the highway signing, that will remain unresolved.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 14, 2020, 12:15:08 AM
Scott: I object to your use of "should" when discussing a traffic control device. You know well that "should" has a specific meaning in the context of the MUTCD. You ought to state "my opinion is", and then we would have less reason to argue it, since all we have are opinions on this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 14, 2020, 03:19:17 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2020, 09:01:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 05:34:16 PM
Much like the Business Loops / Spurs and the Future trailblazer used on I-26, I don't believe the TEMP banners had the word "Interstate".
Not my recollection, but like with the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway, until we can find historical photos of the highway signing, that will remain unresolved.

Not sure if you guys are just talking about VA; an "I-90 TEMP" sign (https://goo.gl/maps/Toc9CcGrMbJB5Cid6) at the Seattle Ferry Terminal, installed god knows how long ago, shows (yes, still there, 25+ years after I-90 opened) a full interstate shield with the word "TEMP" below it.

The route is no longer possible to follow, as all other TEMP signs have been removed. But, to access I-90 at the time, it was a good two mile jaunt via city streets to the Lake Washington Floating Bridge.

What I don't recall is whether or not the surface streets were actually signed as "I-90 TEMP", or "TO I-90 TEMP", or if only the bridge was labelled with one of those. The bridge was definitely part of of the temporary route; I believe the permanent freeway ended at the 405 east of Seattle until the rest was completed in the late 80s/early 90s.

(https://mynorthwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ghostsign.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:44:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2020, 12:15:08 AM
Scott: I object to your use of "should" when discussing a traffic control device. You know well that "should" has a specific meaning in the context of the MUTCD. You ought to state "my opinion is", and then we would have less reason to argue it, since all we have are opinions on this.
Of course it is my opinion, and not some official statement.  And we are talking about a practice utilized decades ago on missing links on the original Interstate highway system that was authorized in 1956 and 1968, after it was mostly built but missing links remained.  Like before 1990.

I am a stickler (maybe too much so but, hey) for how the English language is utilized, that should be obvious based in various comments (complaints) over the years.  In this case it is when to call something a "temporary Interstate highway."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 12:32:16 PM
Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!

That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"

Weasel word, IMHO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 14, 2020, 04:22:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 12:32:16 PM
Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!

That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"

Weasel word, IMHO.
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.

A big example of this is shoulders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 14, 2020, 04:41:19 PM
Chesapeake's Centerville Bridge will reopen on Saturday (https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/vp-nw-chesapeake-centerville-bridge-20200214-hgwjifvxdve67komokxojyjg2q-story.html)
QuoteAfter six months of traffic jams caused by the Centerville Turnpike Bridge's closure, drivers are finally getting some relief.

The two-lane bridge, which was closed in August for repairs, will open at 7 a.m. Saturday.

Additional weekend closures will be needed over the next few months as the bridge's rehabilitation is completed.

Earl Sorey, the city's assistant director of public works, said he anticipates the project to be completed in August.

"This was a very aggressive schedule from the very start,"  he said. "We had it as an aggressive schedule because we knew it was going to have a tremendous impact on those who depend on that bridge for their daily commute."

The overhaul cost $8.5 million and was funded by the city and the Virginia Department of Transportation's State of Good Repair program. Replacing the surface and the mechanism that allows the bridge to pivot so vessels can pass through were the major elements of the project.

The remaining work includes curing the bridge deck's concrete and building the bridge fender system.

"They are rebuilding some, and then there's another that was a victim of a vessel strike, and they are reconstructing that now,"  Sorey said. The accident was not related to construction.

Extensive testing on the bridge has been completed, but staff will continue to closely monitor the bridge once traffic is flowing.

The bridge is expected to last another 15 or 20 years before it will have to be entirely replaced.

"Obviously with an aging bridge, we wanted to do rehabilitation to extend the service. ... What's also going on now is a feasibility study for replacement bridge options,"  Sorey said. The study is expected to be completed in late 2020.

Reopening of the bridge is expected to relieve commuters who had to take a 5- to 8-mile detour to the Va. 168 Bypass over the waterway.

Sorey said the traffic impact was similar to what city staff anticipated.

"What we could deal with were signal timings and re-designating some of the traffic lanes at the busier intersections,"  he said. "On the bypass itself and some of the merge areas, there was just nothing we could do about that and that's where we saw the daily traffic backups."

The bridge regularly carried 16,000 vehicles a day. Almost 30,000 vehicles travel across the Veterans Bridge and 26,000 across the Deep Creek Bridge per day.

"Rest assured, we fully recognize that there were major traffic impacts and that had quite a significant impact on the community,"  Sorey said. "The most painful part is behind us."
The Centerville Turnpike Bridge in Chesapeake re-opens tomorrow, Saturday, February 15 at 7 a.m. after being closed for 6 months apart of an ongoing $10.5 million rehabilitation project. The project will continue on, with periodic weekend closures though will be completed in the next few months.
QuoteThe Centerville Turnpike Bridge reopens to vehicle traffic ahead of schedule on Saturday, February 15 at 7 a.m. The bridge will resume normal weekday openings (on the hour and half-hour), and on-demand openings on weekends to permit the passage of maritime traffic in the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal, in accordance with Federal regulations.

Forthcoming Weekend Closures To Be Scheduled
Additional weekend closures of the Centerville Turnpike Bridge to vehicle traffic will be required in the coming months as the bridge rehabilitation project continues into its final phases. These closures will not be scheduled during weekdays, and will be announced and posted via the City of Chesapeake website and social media channels, sent through text message notification via Chesapeake Alert, and will be provided to local media outlets to ensure widest dissemination. The detour route during these weekend closures will be the existing project detour route, which utilizes the Chesapeake Expressway.

http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Page13809.aspx
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sparker on February 14, 2020, 04:46:33 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:44:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2020, 12:15:08 AM
Scott: I object to your use of "should" when discussing a traffic control device. You know well that "should" has a specific meaning in the context of the MUTCD. You ought to state "my opinion is", and then we would have less reason to argue it, since all we have are opinions on this.
Of course it is my opinion, and not some official statement.  And we are talking about a practice utilized decades ago on missing links on the original Interstate highway system that was authorized in 1956 and 1968, after it was mostly built but missing links remained.  Like before 1990.

I am a stickler (maybe too much so but, hey) for how the English language is utilized, that should be obvious based in various comments (complaints) over the years.  In this case it is when to call something a "temporary Interstate highway."

Perhaps another term for a facility, qualifying freeway or not, that is or has been used to provide a continuation or "bridge" between completed Interstate segments would be a "temporary Interstate routing", which is specific enough to convey that meaning but not exclusionary regarding the temporary route's format.  That would have been optimally applicable in the case of the I-5 "bridge" between Stockton and Sacramento in the late '70's and early 90's that primarily used CA 99.  The roadway types included:  surface streets (CA 4), a 2-lane expressway (the western isolated leg of CA 26, formerly US 50), a substandard 4-lane freeway (at the time) around the east side of Stockton, and a mixture of freeway types the remainder of the signed temporary route to the (then) I-80/5 junction in Sacramento, where traffic was returned to a completed I-5 facility.  The term "routing" would take in all roadway types and simply indicate what was signed in the field.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:28:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2020, 04:22:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 12:32:16 PM
Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
Weasel word, IMHO.
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."

The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:30:41 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2020, 04:46:33 PM
Perhaps another term for a facility, qualifying freeway or not, that is or has been used to provide a continuation or "bridge" between completed Interstate segments would be a "temporary Interstate routing", which is specific enough to convey that meaning but not exclusionary regarding the temporary route's format.  That would have been optimally applicable in the case of the I-5 "bridge" between Stockton and Sacramento in the late '70's and early 90's that primarily used CA 99.  The roadway types included:  surface streets (CA 4), a 2-lane expressway (the western isolated leg of CA 26, formerly US 50), a substandard 4-lane freeway (at the time) around the east side of Stockton, and a mixture of freeway types the remainder of the signed temporary route to the (then) I-80/5 junction in Sacramento, where traffic was returned to a completed I-5 facility.  The term "routing" would take in all roadway types and simply indicate what was signed in the field.
This would work fine --

TO  I-5
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 14, 2020, 05:38:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:30:41 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2020, 04:46:33 PM
Perhaps another term for a facility, qualifying freeway or not, that is or has been used to provide a continuation or "bridge" between completed Interstate segments would be a "temporary Interstate routing", which is specific enough to convey that meaning but not exclusionary regarding the temporary route's format.  That would have been optimally applicable in the case of the I-5 "bridge" between Stockton and Sacramento in the late '70's and early 90's that primarily used CA 99.  The roadway types included:  surface streets (CA 4), a 2-lane expressway (the western isolated leg of CA 26, formerly US 50), a substandard 4-lane freeway (at the time) around the east side of Stockton, and a mixture of freeway types the remainder of the signed temporary route to the (then) I-80/5 junction in Sacramento, where traffic was returned to a completed I-5 facility.  The term "routing" would take in all roadway types and simply indicate what was signed in the field.
This would work fine --

TO  I-5
But it was TEMP I-5.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:39:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2020, 04:41:19 PM
The Centerville Turnpike Bridge reopens to vehicle traffic ahead of schedule on Saturday, February 15 at 7 a.m. The bridge will resume normal weekday openings (on the hour and half-hour), and on-demand openings on weekends to permit the passage of maritime traffic in the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal, in accordance with Federal regulations.
Right down the road from where I was today, so I checked it out.

The truss span is installed on the center pier and looks fresh and newly painted, and the signal lights are lit and seemingly ready for use.  I didn't realize how close the bridge was to reopening. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:42:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2020, 05:38:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:30:41 PM
This would work fine --
TO  I-5
But it was TEMP I-5.
Right, but ought to have been "TO  I-5" 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 14, 2020, 05:50:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:28:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2020, 04:22:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 12:32:16 PM
Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
Weasel word, IMHO.
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."

The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
Should does not mean voluntary. Should means you need an engineering reason not to do it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:58:01 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2020, 05:50:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:28:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2020, 04:22:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 12:32:16 PM
Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
Weasel word, IMHO.
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."
The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
Should does not mean voluntary. Should means you need an engineering reason not to do it.
I don't see that here -- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should

Nor do I see any engineering-specific definition of 'should.'
[search on Should definition engineering]
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 14, 2020, 06:59:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:58:01 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2020, 05:50:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:28:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2020, 04:22:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 12:32:16 PM
Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
Weasel word, IMHO.
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."
The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
Should does not mean voluntary. Should means you need an engineering reason not to do it.
I don't see that here -- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should)

Nor do I see any engineering-specific definition of 'should.'
[search on Should definition engineering]
MUTCD... maybe you didn't work in sign design.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 14, 2020, 08:14:12 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2020, 05:50:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:28:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2020, 04:22:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 12:32:16 PM
Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
Weasel word, IMHO.
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."

The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
Should does not mean voluntary. Should means you need an engineering reason not to do it.

What about "should be considered"? As in 4D.11.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 09:00:28 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2020, 08:14:12 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2020, 05:50:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:28:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2020, 04:22:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 12:32:16 PM
Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."
The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
Should does not mean voluntary. Should means you need an engineering reason not to do it.
What about "should be considered"? As in 4D.11.
There are many "should be considered" statements in the MUTCD manual.

There are many "shall" statements as well.

Shall = mandatory
Should = recommended by not mandatory

Here is an engineering approach to the use of "Shall vs. Should."
http://asq.org/standards-shall-should

"Because of the built-in flexibility of the word, if the document writer intends to mandate a requirement, should is not an appropriate choice."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 14, 2020, 10:22:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 09:00:28 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2020, 08:14:12 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2020, 05:50:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 05:28:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 14, 2020, 04:22:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 12:32:16 PM
Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."
The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
Should does not mean voluntary. Should means you need an engineering reason not to do it.
What about "should be considered"? As in 4D.11.
There are many "should be considered" statements in the MUTCD manual.

There are many "shall" statements as well.

Shall = mandatory
Should = recommended by not mandatory

Here is an engineering approach to the use of "Shall vs. Should."
http://asq.org/standards-shall-should

"Because of the built-in flexibility of the word, if the document writer intends to mandate a requirement, should is not an appropriate choice."

Could be that "should", in engineer-speak, is de facto for "shall" under most circumstances. In regular English, obviously the definition will vary, as will someone's personal definition.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 10:44:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2020, 10:22:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 09:00:28 PM
There are many "should be considered" statements in the MUTCD manual.
There are many "shall" statements as well.
Shall = mandatory
Should = recommended by not mandatory
Here is an engineering approach to the use of "Shall vs. Should."
http://asq.org/standards-shall-should
"Because of the built-in flexibility of the word, if the document writer intends to mandate a requirement, should is not an appropriate choice."
Could be that "should", in engineer-speak, is de facto for "shall" under most circumstances. In regular English, obviously the definition will vary, as will someone's personal definition.

Really?  I worked with and around engineers for over 40 years and I don't think I ever heard the two words defined as the same.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 15, 2020, 12:24:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 10:44:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2020, 10:22:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 09:00:28 PM
There are many "should be considered" statements in the MUTCD manual.
There are many "shall" statements as well.
Shall = mandatory
Should = recommended by not mandatory
Here is an engineering approach to the use of "Shall vs. Should."
http://asq.org/standards-shall-should
"Because of the built-in flexibility of the word, if the document writer intends to mandate a requirement, should is not an appropriate choice."
Could be that "should", in engineer-speak, is de facto for "shall" under most circumstances. In regular English, obviously the definition will vary, as will someone's personal definition.
Really?  I worked with and around engineers for over 40 years and I don't think I ever heard the two words defined as the same.

I dunno, I'm not an engineer. But I think an outside-looking-in perspective might be due here, since Steve and you are both engineers and are equally trained, yet disagree on this.

I don't think either if you have this 100% right. That said, I'm inclined to agree with you on this, as Steve hasn't provided any evidence to his statement that "'should' means you need an engineering reason not to do it", and you're simply stating that "should" doesn't mean "shall", and I would agree with that.

I am also inclined to agree with you, on account of sheer number of "should" statements in the MUTCD that are ignored by so many places. I doubt many engineers would be going to great lengths to avoid those "should" items.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 15, 2020, 02:31:07 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2020, 12:24:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 10:44:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2020, 10:22:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 14, 2020, 09:00:28 PM
There are many "should be considered" statements in the MUTCD manual.
There are many "shall" statements as well.
Shall = mandatory
Should = recommended by not mandatory
Here is an engineering approach to the use of "Shall vs. Should."
http://asq.org/standards-shall-should (http://asq.org/standards-shall-should)
"Because of the built-in flexibility of the word, if the document writer intends to mandate a requirement, should is not an appropriate choice."
Could be that "should", in engineer-speak, is de facto for "shall" under most circumstances. In regular English, obviously the definition will vary, as will someone's personal definition.
Really?  I worked with and around engineers for over 40 years and I don't think I ever heard the two words defined as the same.

I dunno, I'm not an engineer. But I think an outside-looking-in perspective might be due here, since Steve and you are both engineers and are equally trained, yet disagree on this.

I don't think either if you have this 100% right. That said, I'm inclined to agree with you on this, as Steve hasn't provided any evidence to his statement that "'should' means you need an engineering reason not to do it", and you're simply stating that "should" doesn't mean "shall", and I would agree with that.

I am also inclined to agree with you, on account of sheer number of "should" statements in the MUTCD that are ignored by so many places. I doubt many engineers would be going to great lengths to avoid those "should" items.
I did provide a reason - the MUTCD defines "should" as Guidance:
Guidance–a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. All Guidance statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb "should" is typically used. The verbs "shall" and "may" are not used in Guidance statements.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 15, 2020, 03:46:14 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 15, 2020, 02:31:07 AM
I did provide a reason - the MUTCD defines "should" as Guidance:
Guidance–a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. All Guidance statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb "should" is typically used. The verbs "shall" and "may" are not used in Guidance statements.

Thanks. Do you think "deviations" is interpreted as being after the "should" statement is included in plans (i.e. implementing the "should" statement with some deviation)? Or, as I'm suspecting it means, deviating from guidance and ignoring the "should" statement entirely?

I think the problem is that individual engineers can justify just about anything, to the point that "should" statements are meaningless (apart from states where things are taken a bit more seriously -- NJ I presume).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 15, 2020, 09:27:45 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2020, 03:46:14 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 15, 2020, 02:31:07 AM
I did provide a reason - the MUTCD defines "should" as Guidance:
Guidance–a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. All Guidance statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb "should" is typically used. The verbs "shall" and "may" are not used in Guidance statements.
Thanks. Do you think "deviations" is interpreted as being after the "should" statement is included in plans (i.e. implementing the "should" statement with some deviation)? Or, as I'm suspecting it means, deviating from guidance and ignoring the "should" statement entirely?
I think the problem is that individual engineers can justify just about anything, to the point that "should" statements are meaningless (apart from states where things are taken a bit more seriously -- NJ I presume).
As well as engineering managers, engineering departments, and highway agencies themselves.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 15, 2020, 10:52:36 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2020, 03:46:14 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 15, 2020, 02:31:07 AM
I did provide a reason - the MUTCD defines "should" as Guidance:
Guidance–a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. All Guidance statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb "should" is typically used. The verbs "shall" and "may" are not used in Guidance statements.

Thanks. Do you think "deviations" is interpreted as being after the "should" statement is included in plans (i.e. implementing the "should" statement with some deviation)? Or, as I'm suspecting it means, deviating from guidance and ignoring the "should" statement entirely?

I think the problem is that individual engineers can justify just about anything, to the point that "should" statements are meaningless (apart from states where things are taken a bit more seriously -- NJ I presume).
It depends on the agency, and it depends on which statement. If you're talking about guide sign progression, field conditions such as limited visibility, tunnels, right-of-way, etc. may require you to change up the progression or limit your messaging. If you're talking about use of a stop/yield sign, you better have a good reason to deviate, since none of the above tend to apply.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 15, 2020, 09:57:03 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 15, 2020, 10:52:36 AM
It depends on the agency, and it depends on which statement. If you're talking about guide sign progression, field conditions such as limited visibility, tunnels, right-of-way, etc. may require you to change up the progression or limit your messaging. If you're talking about use of a stop/yield sign, you better have a good reason to deviate, since none of the above tend to apply.
In this case we're discussing a signing practice that ended, what, 30+ years ago, and existed in some states but not in others?

I worked with the MUTCD manual in one of the highway engineering jobs I had (many) years ago, signing plans for maintenance of traffic on construction projects, so far be it for me to be dismissive about any aspect of MUTCD.

I don't recall any "temporary Interstate routes" in Virginia, so I don't know what VDOT's policy with them might have been.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 18, 2020, 09:50:21 PM
Excerpt:
Shropshire said VDOT expects to select a contractor for the Chatham Bridge's [Business VA-3 Rappahannock River] $23.4 million makeover in April, and will then have a better timeline for work on the span's superstructure.  The nearly 80-year-old bridge, which VDOT has determined is structurally deficient, is expected to close no earlier than late May for the project.  The work is expected to take 16 to 18 months, and VDOT is offering an incentive if it is completed early.

Plans call for widening the bridge from 50 feet to a little more than 57 feet–an additional 3 feet and 7 inches per side, removing the narrow sidewalks and adding the shared-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists.  The existing sidewalks don't meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards, and aren't bicycle friendly.  Currently, bicyclists are expected to share traffic lanes with vehicles.


Revamped Chatham Bridge will feature overlook for pedestrians, bicyclists
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/revamped-chatham-bridge-will-feature-overlook-for-pedestrians-bicyclists/article_3bb6b00c-90ca-5361-aa8b-2f81f4d3b2ac.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jmacswimmer on February 20, 2020, 08:13:13 AM
I was driving I-81 in VA this past weekend and had a random question that might have been answered elsewhere: Did there used to be a rest area northbound somewhere around exits 200 or 205? Besides the 103-mile gap between Ironto and Mt Sidney, I noticed 2 other clues:

-The "Next Rest Area" sign on 81 NB opposite the SB Troutville rest area looks like the mileage was patched over to reflect distance to Mt Sidney:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4682889,-79.8121033,3a,75y,70.6h,86.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-p62NSpMXiW0oSs_F0gwpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4682889,-79.8121033,3a,75y,70.6h,86.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-p62NSpMXiW0oSs_F0gwpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en)

-The "Next Rest Area" sign on 64 EB approaching the Jerry's Run welcome center shows 69 miles to the next area on 81 NB, which would be right around MM 205 during the 64/81 overlap:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8002996,-80.2038668,3a,75y,70.02h,84.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suVut9LlZLvoave6o9QGQjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2020, 08:49:54 AM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on February 20, 2020, 08:13:13 AM
I was driving I-81 in VA this past weekend and had a random question that might have been answered elsewhere: Did there used to be a rest area northbound somewhere around exits 200 or 205? Besides the 103-mile gap between Ironto and Mt Sidney, I noticed 2 other clues:
Not that I know of, and my knowledge of I-81 goes back 50 years.

The missing Fairfield NB rest area is a hole in the system, and there have been proposals to build it.  I-64 also overlaps, and it is over 100 miles between their eastbound rest areas as well, and the same for I-64 EB to I-81 NB traffic.  It would be well placed for the I-64 corridor as well.

Since the 1990s it has gotten more difficult to build a new rest area, with current environmental standards, and construction cost inflation.  Originally they had their own sewage treatment plant, but they were not very efficient or long-lasting, so most of them have been connected to municipal sewage systems, but that has its own costs as well as needing to have one nearby in the first place.

I would like to see it formally studied and scoped for costs and impacts.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on February 20, 2020, 09:08:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 20, 2020, 08:49:54 AM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on February 20, 2020, 08:13:13 AM
I was driving I-81 in VA this past weekend and had a random question that might have been answered elsewhere: Did there used to be a rest area northbound somewhere around exits 200 or 205? Besides the 103-mile gap between Ironto and Mt Sidney, I noticed 2 other clues:
Not that I know of, and my knowledge of I-81 goes back 50 years.

The missing Fairfield NB rest area is a hole in the system, and there have been proposals to build it. . . I would like to see it formally studied and scoped for costs and impacts.

Things have gotten better with the addition of more businesses at more exits, such as the McDonald's at Fairfield, but for the longest time seasoned travelers heading north up I-81 from Roanoke and the New River Valley knew to hold off on large amounts of coffee before and during the trip. It was a test of who had iron kidneys and could hold out to the rest area north of Staunton or on the other side of Afton Mountain. I believe VDOT did look at fixing the problem a number of years ago but there were problems with property acquisition in an appropriate location.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2020, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on February 20, 2020, 09:08:38 AM
Things have gotten better with the addition of more businesses at more exits, such as the McDonald's at Fairfield, but for the longest time seasoned travelers heading north up I-81 from Roanoke and the New River Valley knew to hold off on large amounts of coffee before and during the trip. It was a test of who had iron kidneys and could hold out to the rest area north of Staunton or on the other side of Afton Mountain. I believe VDOT did look at fixing the problem a number of years ago but there were problems with property acquisition in an appropriate location.
That is a good point, and true of many rural Interstate highways nowadays.

There is no southbound rest area on I-95 near Carson, VA, but the Davis Truck Plaza at VA-602 Exit 33 is convenient to access and has all services including restaurants, fuel and large public restrooms.  Plus plenty of parking if you just want to stop and rest for a bit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jmacswimmer on February 20, 2020, 09:30:33 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 20, 2020, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on February 20, 2020, 09:08:38 AM
Things have gotten better with the addition of more businesses at more exits, such as the McDonald's at Fairfield, but for the longest time seasoned travelers heading north up I-81 from Roanoke and the New River Valley knew to hold off on large amounts of coffee before and during the trip. It was a test of who had iron kidneys and could hold out to the rest area north of Staunton or on the other side of Afton Mountain. I believe VDOT did look at fixing the problem a number of years ago but there were problems with property acquisition in an appropriate location.
That is a good point, and true of many rural Interstate highways nowadays.

There is no southbound rest area on I-95 near Carson, VA, but the Davis Truck Plaza at VA-602 Exit 33 is convenient to access and has all services including restaurants, fuel and large public restrooms.  Plus plenty of parking if you just want to stop and rest for a bit.

Thanks for the info. So I wonder if those next rest area signs I mentioned were originally placed assuming that a NB facility would eventually be built around Fairfield? (And then VDOT later patched the one by Troutville, but not by Jerry's Run?)

Personally I always prefer using on-highway rest areas/service plazas even though there's services off most exits nowadays, as has been pointed out. But I'm probably in the minority with that opinion :paranoid:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 20, 2020, 11:31:29 AM
Hmmmm....

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/02/19/new-app-can-be-used-toll-payments-virginia-highways/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2020, 12:53:16 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on February 20, 2020, 09:30:33 AM
Thanks for the info. So I wonder if those next rest area signs I mentioned were originally placed assuming that a NB facility would eventually be built around Fairfield? (And then VDOT later patched the one by Troutville, but not by Jerry's Run?)
Personally I always prefer using on-highway rest areas/service plazas even though there's services off most exits nowadays, as has been pointed out. But I'm probably in the minority with that opinion :paranoid:

I am in favor of having both.  The highway safety rest areas are directly connected to the highway, making them simpler to use.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 20, 2020, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on February 20, 2020, 08:13:13 AM
I was driving I-81 in VA this past weekend and had a random question that might have been answered elsewhere: Did there used to be a rest area northbound somewhere around exits 200 or 205? Besides the 103-mile gap between Ironto and Mt Sidney, I noticed 2 other clues:

-The "Next Rest Area" sign on 81 NB opposite the SB Troutville rest area looks like the mileage was patched over to reflect distance to Mt Sidney:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4682889,-79.8121033,3a,75y,70.6h,86.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-p62NSpMXiW0oSs_F0gwpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4682889,-79.8121033,3a,75y,70.6h,86.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-p62NSpMXiW0oSs_F0gwpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en)

-The "Next Rest Area" sign on 64 EB approaching the Jerry's Run welcome center shows 69 miles to the next area on 81 NB, which would be right around MM 205 during the 64/81 overlap:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8002996,-80.2038668,3a,75y,70.02h,84.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suVut9LlZLvoave6o9QGQjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en

The Jerrys Run sign is supposed to be 96 miles, not 69.

The covered 76 miles used to say 103 miles when the Rest Area near Weyers Cave was closed for a period when Virginia shut some of their rest areas down.  When the rest areas reopened, they patched the 76 on that sign.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2020, 02:48:13 PM
All this work to get the limited access right-of-way lines moved to accommodate the I-95 widening between VA-10 and VA-288!

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2020/feb/reso/3.pdf
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD
February 19, 2020
Title: Limited Access Control Changes (LACCs) I-95 Auxiliary Lanes (Northbound and Southbound) between Route 10 and Route 288 Chesterfield County
. . . . . . .

It will be a welcome improvement.

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-95_improvements_in_chesterfield.asp
The proposed $29 million project will add auxiliary travel lanes on I-95 north and south between Rt. 288 and Rt. 10 in Chesterfield County for approximately 1.2 miles.

Construction starts in FY2022 per the SYIP.
. . . . . . . .

Of interest for highway historians --
WHEREAS, on October 4, 1956, the State Highway Commission, predecessor to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), designated the Interstate Highway System to be  Limited Access Highways in accordance with then Article 3, Chapter 1, Title 33 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, and established the limited access line locations and limits as "the final locations of said routes, including all necessary grade separations, interchanges, ramps, etc." ; and 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2020, 02:58:05 PM
Major project planned to relieve congestion and assist industrial development.

I-95 AND WILLIS RD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS
FROM: NORTH OF INTERCHANGE TO: SOUTH OF INTERCHANGE
Jurisdiction  Chesterfield County
                            Estimated Cost (Thousands)   Schedule
Prelim. Eng. (PE)               $3,800                      Complete
Right of Way (RW)             $3,200                      Underway
Construction (CN)            $40,000                      FY2021
Total Estimate                  $47,000

http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/lineitemDetails.aspx?syp_scenario_id=247&line_item_id=1459205
. . . . . . .

I don't see a project website yet, but at that cost, the tight diamond interchange should see a major expansion and maybe a new ramp or two.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 20, 2020, 03:14:43 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on February 20, 2020, 09:30:33 AM
....

Personally I always prefer using on-highway rest areas/service plazas even though there's services off most exits nowadays, as has been pointed out. But I'm probably in the minority with that opinion :paranoid:

I prefer rest areas for restroom breaks. I really don't like stopping at a restaurant or gas station solely to use the restroom.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2020, 03:58:47 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 20, 2020, 03:14:43 PM
I prefer rest areas for restroom breaks. I really don't like stopping at a restaurant or gas station solely to use the restroom.
Some of them make it easy, like the Davis Service Center that I mentioned, large rest rooms that are off a hallway so you don't have to walk past the cash registers.   Even so, I typically buy something.

It takes some scouting to find these establishments in advance.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on February 21, 2020, 08:51:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 20, 2020, 03:58:47 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 20, 2020, 03:14:43 PM
I prefer rest areas for restroom breaks. I really don't like stopping at a restaurant or gas station solely to use the restroom.
Some of them make it easy, like the Davis Service Center that I mentioned, large rest rooms that are off a hallway so you don't have to walk past the cash registers.   Even so, I typically buy something.

It takes some scouting to find these establishments in advance.

For the longest time, White's Truck Stop at Raphine was about the only game in town, but that was a whole experience to stop there (and the place has continued to expand with more and more services). Before the advent of cell phones, that was the stopping point for returning school field trips down the valley (such as to Luray or Monticello). A phone call started the phone tree back home so parents knew when to show up at the school to meet the buses. It was a two-hour trip from there to Blacksburg so people could plan accordingly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadsguy on February 23, 2020, 08:23:57 PM
I just noticed that if I-74 in Virginia ever sees the light of day (i.e. if WV builds at least part of their segment connecting to I-77), then I-74 and I-77 would be concurrent for their entire lengths in Virginia. Would this be the first whole-state concurrency, at least of significant length? (I-95/495 in DC technically exists, but of course is infamously short.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 23, 2020, 10:09:38 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 23, 2020, 08:23:57 PM
I just noticed that if I-74 in Virginia ever sees the light of day (i.e. if WV builds at least part of their segment connecting to I-77), then I-74 and I-77 would be concurrent for their entire lengths in Virginia. Would this be the first whole-state concurrency, at least of significant length? (I-95/495 in DC technically exists, but of course is infamously short.)
I-80 and I-90 across Indiana comes close, but they are separated on the very western side outside Chicago.

Ditto with the two interstates in Ohio, again except on the eastern side near Cleveland.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on February 27, 2020, 06:36:02 AM
Sen. Mark Warner is pushing for more federal funding for I-81.

https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Sen-Warner-calls-for-more-federal-funding-for-I-81-in-Virginia-568179001.html (https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Sen-Warner-calls-for-more-federal-funding-for-I-81-in-Virginia-568179001.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on February 28, 2020, 01:17:06 PM
The latest bill to raise the Reckless Driving threshold has finally passed both houses of the General Assembly.

https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general-assembly-notebook-roanoke-county-senator-s-bill-to-change/article_3f771175-22c1-5288-b6ff-e48db9376609.html (https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general-assembly-notebook-roanoke-county-senator-s-bill-to-change/article_3f771175-22c1-5288-b6ff-e48db9376609.html)

QuoteRICHMOND – It's been a long journey, but Sen. David Suetterlein's bill to raise the reckless driving threshold has passed the legislature.

It's the fifth year that Suetterlein, R-Roanoke County, has sponsored this measure, which would increase from 80 to 85 mph the threshold for reckless driving in areas of Virginia where a 70 mph limit is posted. The House of Delegates passed his Senate Bill 63 on 85-14 vote, and the Senate passed it 25-14.

Both chambers also passed a companion bill from Del. Mark Sickles, D-Fairfax. Both bills head to the governor's desk.

Under Virginia's driving laws, reckless driving is 20 mph over the speed limit. What Suetterlein is trying to address is more of an issue on the interstates, where speed limits may be set at 70 mph. So going 11 mph over is considered a reckless driving offense.

If a police officer clocks a driver going over 80 mph in Virginia, that person faces a misdemeanor charge that can carry up to a year in jail or a $2,500 fine. While offenders may not get thrown behind bars, and judges will reduce the charge, drivers may hire lawyers because of the possible punishment.

"For too long, Virginia has had overly punitive punishments for going 11 miles over the speed limit on certain highways,"  Suetterlein said.

In past years, Suetterlein's bill passed the Senate, but died in a House subcommittee dealing with criminal matters. The subcommittee is now controlled by Democrats, although a handful of Democrats opposed to Suetterlein's proposal continue to vote against it this year.

"In the past, a very small group of opposition had been able to thwart the bill,"  Suetterlein said.

Took long enough...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 28, 2020, 02:21:10 PM
^

Should have been passed back in 2010 when the speed limit was increased to 70 mph.

Glad to finally see this getting done.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on February 28, 2020, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 28, 2020, 02:21:10 PM
^

Should have been passed back in 2010 when the speed limit was increased to 70 mph.

Glad to finally see this getting done.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on February 28, 2020, 04:03:19 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 28, 2020, 01:17:06 PM
The latest bill to raise the Reckless Driving threshold has finally passed both houses of the General Assembly.

https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general-assembly-notebook-roanoke-county-senator-s-bill-to-change/article_3f771175-22c1-5288-b6ff-e48db9376609.html (https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general-assembly-notebook-roanoke-county-senator-s-bill-to-change/article_3f771175-22c1-5288-b6ff-e48db9376609.html)

QuoteIn past years, Suetterlein's bill passed the Senate, but died in a House subcommittee dealing with criminal matters. The subcommittee is now controlled by Democrats, although a handful of Democrats opposed to Suetterlein's proposal continue to vote against it this year.

Took long enough...

Want to bet that those in opposition are traffic-court attorneys who make decent coin from reckless driving cases . . .
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 28, 2020, 04:15:22 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on February 28, 2020, 04:03:19 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 28, 2020, 01:17:06 PM
The latest bill to raise the Reckless Driving threshold has finally passed both houses of the General Assembly.

https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general-assembly-notebook-roanoke-county-senator-s-bill-to-change/article_3f771175-22c1-5288-b6ff-e48db9376609.html (https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general-assembly-notebook-roanoke-county-senator-s-bill-to-change/article_3f771175-22c1-5288-b6ff-e48db9376609.html)

QuoteIn past years, Suetterlein's bill passed the Senate, but died in a House subcommittee dealing with criminal matters. The subcommittee is now controlled by Democrats, although a handful of Democrats opposed to Suetterlein's proposal continue to vote against it this year.

Took long enough...

Want to bet that those in opposition are traffic-court attorneys who make decent coin from reckless driving cases . . .


A former member of the House of Delegates who opposed these efforts, and who was involved in sponsoring those absurd "abusive driver fees" some years back, was indeed a traffic defense attorney (I'm not sure if that's still his practice area since he joined a large law firm's Tysons office).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 05:21:51 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on February 28, 2020, 04:03:19 PM
Want to bet that those in opposition are traffic-court attorneys who make decent coin from reckless driving cases . . .
Why will there necessarily be any reduction in the number of reckless tickets issued? 

A small but substantial number of drivers exceed 80 today, if not well exceed, and that is based on observation of freeway traffic while driving; and it has been years since I saw one of them get stopped by a police officer.

Also there are at least 5 ways to get a reckless ticket other than the speed threshold.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 28, 2020, 05:24:11 PM
Not super familiar with VA politics...what else needs to happen to ensure that threshold is raised to 85? Governor's signature?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on February 28, 2020, 05:44:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2020, 05:24:11 PM
Not super familiar with VA politics...what else needs to happen to ensure that threshold is raised to 85? Governor's signature?

Yep. Once he signs it, it's a done deal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 28, 2020, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 05:21:51 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on February 28, 2020, 04:03:19 PM
Want to bet that those in opposition are traffic-court attorneys who make decent coin from reckless driving cases . . .
Why will there necessarily be any reduction in the number of reckless tickets issued? 

A small but substantial number of drivers exceed 80 today, if not well exceed, and that is based on observation of freeway traffic while driving; and it has been years since I saw one of them get stopped by a police officer.

Also there are at least 5 ways to get a reckless ticket other than the speed threshold.
There will be a small reduction in tickets, but most importantly, it raises the threshold high enough that the casual driver following the flow of traffic is unlikely to accidentally drive "recklessly".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 28, 2020, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 05:21:51 PM
A small but substantial number of drivers exceed 80 today, if not well exceed, and that is based on observation of freeway traffic while driving; and it has been years since I saw one of them get stopped by a police officer.
Also there are at least 5 ways to get a reckless ticket other than the speed threshold.
There will be a small reduction in tickets, but most importantly, it raises the threshold high enough that the casual driver following the flow of traffic is unlikely to accidentally drive "recklessly".
Why would there be any reduction in tickets, when 99+% of the current violators are not being stopped?

Anyone who can't control having 11 mph of overspeeding needs remedial driver training.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 28, 2020, 11:40:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
99+% of the current violators are not being stopped?

[citation needed]
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 11:54:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2020, 11:40:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
99+% of the current violators are not being stopped?
[citation needed]
Alps first -- he said "There will be a small reduction in tickets".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 29, 2020, 02:53:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 11:54:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2020, 11:40:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
99+% of the current violators are not being stopped?
[citation needed]
Alps first -- he said "There will be a small reduction in tickets".
No, you first. You alleged there would be no reduction. I'm tired of you making baseless arguments but then demanding the gnat's ass of support for anyone's opinion that countermands your own.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 06:56:03 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 29, 2020, 02:53:34 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 11:54:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2020, 11:40:50 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
99+% of the current violators are not being stopped?
[citation needed]
Alps first -- he said "There will be a small reduction in tickets".
No, you first. You alleged there would be no reduction. I'm tired of you making baseless arguments but then demanding the gnat's ass of support for anyone's opinion that countermands your own.
That's baloney.  You made the claim that there -would- be a reduction.  Then I responded to that. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 29, 2020, 02:33:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 06:56:03 AM
You made the claim that there -would- be a reduction.

But by your own admission, an amount [less than 100% of drivers] are being stopped and ticketed for exceeding 80 (ergo, some are). How would raising the threshold to 85 not change that?

The onus is on you to prove that drivers are not being stopped for 80+ right now. Keeping in mind that evidence exists (https://jalopnik.com/never-speed-in-virginia-lessons-from-my-three-days-in-1613604053) to the contrary.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 03:47:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 29, 2020, 02:33:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 06:56:03 AM
You made the claim that there -would- be a reduction.
But by your own admission, an amount [less than 100% of drivers] are being stopped and ticketed for exceeding 80 (ergo, some are). How would raising the threshold to 85 not change that?
The onus is on you to prove that drivers are not being stopped for 80+ right now.
I don't have to prove anything, and I never said that some might not be ticketed in the range 81-85, just that the police won't necessarily issue less tickets; they could legitimately issue 10 times the number of tickets after the limit is raised if they wanted to.

Quote from: jakeroot on February 29, 2020, 02:33:30 PM
Keeping in mind that evidence exists (https://jalopnik.com/never-speed-in-virginia-lessons-from-my-three-days-in-1613604053) to the contrary.  "
93 mph in a 55 mph zone.   That is not "evidence," that is a complaint post by someone who was, well, driving recklessly.  US-211, not even a freeway.  These type posts never get into whatever else he might have violated.  "Jalopnik is a news and opinion website about cars..."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 29, 2020, 05:49:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 03:47:57 PM
I never said that some might not be ticketed in the range 81-85

Yes you did:

Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
Why would there be any reduction in tickets, when 99+% of the current violators are not being stopped?

The point is that the 81-85 threshold will no longer be a ticketable offence (assuming less than 20 over). Ergo, fewer ticketable opportunities, ergo less tickets.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 03:47:57 PM
93 mph in a 55 mph zone.   That is not "evidence," that is a complaint post by someone who was, well, driving recklessly.  US-211, not even a freeway.  These type posts never get into whatever else he might have violated.  "Jalopnik is a news and opinion website about cars..."
Reckless, agreed, but certainly didn't warrant jail time. That's a separate issue aside from the 80 mph threshold being increased though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 29, 2020, 05:49:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 03:47:57 PM
I never said that some might not be ticketed in the range 81-85
Yes you did:
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
Why would there be any reduction in tickets, when 99+% of the current violators are not being stopped?
No, I didn't make a declaration, I posed a question to anyone reading.

As far as that number goes, for example, a drive from Richmond to Washington, with my cruise control set at 77 mph, probably 1/10 of the vehicles pass me going at least 85 mph.  Most of the time I see no police stop of a vehicle off on the shoulder on that whole trip.  Minimum AADT is over 100,000, so that is lot of vehicles.  Ergo, I could go say 87 mph with impunity, assuming I didn't do something dumb like pass a marked police car at that speed.

Quote from: jakeroot on February 29, 2020, 05:49:42 PM
The point is that the 81-85 threshold will no longer be a ticketable offence (assuming less than 20 over). Ergo, fewer ticketable opportunities, ergo less tickets.
Ergo, that assumes that the police issue will less tickets.  If they wanted to crack down on what I posted above, they could increase tickets of 86+ a hundred fold.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 07:58:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 03:47:57 PM
93 mph in a 55 mph zone.   That is not "evidence," that is a complaint post by someone who was, well, driving recklessly.  US-211, not even a freeway.  These type posts never get into whatever else he might have violated.  "Jalopnik is a news and opinion website about cars..."
Reckless, agreed, but certainly didn't warrant jail time. That's a separate issue aside from the 80 mph threshold being increased though.
Well, like I intimated, when I see an article like that, I am left wondering what other major infractions were committed that he didn't post, that led to it being not just a whopper of a speeding ticket, but a couple days in jail as well.  Disorderly conduct can lead to getting locked up, for example.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 29, 2020, 09:17:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 29, 2020, 05:49:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 03:47:57 PM
I never said that some might not be ticketed in the range 81-85
Yes you did:
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
Why would there be any reduction in tickets, when 99+% of the current violators are not being stopped?
No, I didn't make a declaration, I posed a question to anyone reading.

I don't care if it was a question, a rhetorical question, or a statement. You implied that ticketing wouldn't go down. I explained to you why that's ridiculous.

Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 29, 2020, 05:49:42 PM
The point is that the 81-85 threshold will no longer be a ticketable offence (assuming less than 20 over). Ergo, fewer ticketable opportunities, ergo less tickets.
Ergo, that assumes that the police issue will less tickets.  If they wanted to crack down on what I posted above, the could increase tickets of 86+ a hundred fold.

They will issue zero tickets for reckless driving under 85 (assuming less than 20 over), not "less". Whether they do or don't right now is irrelevant. It's a matter of law.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 09:27:10 PM
^

Not to mention places such a Hopewell and Emporia who patiently wait along I-295 and I-95 respectively for those going 81 mph or higher then hit the blue lights. Driving through Hopewell weekly in the past few years, almost always saw them camping out in the median where the interstate briefly enters city limits.

Emporia has gotten better over the past few years, though in the past they had patrols frequently watching the highway. Same applies to US-58.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 09:55:22 PM
Update on the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan planning process for the Hampton Roads region.

Comments were received on the candidate projects, notably from the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC).

They have and will continue to oppose the following projects -
1) New Route 460 (Suffolk to Zuni) - New location freeway paralleling the existing US-460. Expensive, little benefits, severe wetland impact, score poor on SmartScale, VDOT scrapped.

2) Route 460/58/13 Connector - Upgrade to interstate standards & potential 8-lane widening of US-58 between I-664 and Suffolk. Existing capacity adequate through 2040, enormous impacts on wetlands, VDOT scrapped study.

3) Southeastern Pkwy & Greenbelt - New location freeway through Chesapeake and Virginia Beach paralleling Clearfield Ave, Elbow Rd, Dam Neck Rd, and Oceana Blvd. High wetland impact. "Climate change" makes impact worse today more than 2010.

4) Nimmo Pkwy Phase VII-B - New location roadway parallel to narrow and windy Sandbridge Rd. Serious wildlife, habitat, and wetland impact.

They also recommend "close scrutiny" for the any Bowers Hill Interchange proposals, which in their terms means they will oppose any proposal once its officially put out there. Concepts were revealed earlier this year, however they are now re-evaluating it to include a continuous HO/T lane network through the interchange tying in with a potential I-664 HO/T system.

Throughout March, cost estimates and prioritization scores will be developed for all of the candidate projects.

Finally, an interactive map displaying all of the candidate projects has been created - http://hrpdc-gis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=b8852614e73a42bfa3730963d216f2ab

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/030420%2000A%20Full%20Agenda%28new%29.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 29, 2020, 09:55:53 PM
The problem that people have with Virginia's reckless driving stature is that the bar is set particularly low and its classed as a class 1 criminal misdemeanor (the highest level and equivalent to a DUI, simple assault, or petit larceny). Driving 10mph over the speed limit in a 70mph zone is considered reckless driving and gives one a criminal record... which is ridiculous. The flow of traffic on the Richmond to Washington stretch of I-95 tends to be around 75-80mph outside of rush hours, which makes just about everyone on the road a "reckless" driving criminal depending on the current speed limit.

My home state of NJ has a reckless driving stature (NJSA 39:4-96) that is written similar to Virginia's. the biggest difference is that there are no speed limit thresholds in the law and its not a criminal misdemeanor. In practice people are rarely charged with it because you have to actually be driving recklessly to be charged with it. People usually get a ticket for it in conjunction with a DUI, a serious accident, or speeding really really above the speed limit (usually 100+mph and/or street racing which is also another chargeable offense). Basically you really have to screw up to be charged with it. Even then its not a criminal charge (that I can find, DUI isn't a criminal charge in NJ either), although it has possible jail time associated with it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 10:22:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 09:27:10 PM
Not to mention places such a Hopewell and Emporia who patiently wait along I-295 and I-95 respectively for those going 81 mph or higher then hit the blue lights. Driving
How do you know they "hit the lights" at 81 mph?

Do you do ride-alongs with the police?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 10:27:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 29, 2020, 09:17:57 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 29, 2020, 05:49:42 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 03:47:57 PM
I never said that some might not be ticketed in the range 81-85
Yes you did:
Quote from: Beltway on February 28, 2020, 10:04:19 PM
Why would there be any reduction in tickets, when 99+% of the current violators are not being stopped?
No, I didn't make a declaration, I posed a question to anyone reading.
I don't care if it was a question, a rhetorical question, or a statement. You implied that ticketing wouldn't go down. I explained to you why that's ridiculous.
It could stay the same or go up, as I explained, whether or not the 81 to 85 range was being targeted.  Besides, that range is still well over a limit of 70 mph and still can be ticketed for speeding.

I entered the subthread when the claim was made (in so many words) that total ticketing revenues would drop.  That is not provable either way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on March 01, 2020, 02:28:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 10:22:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 09:27:10 PM
Not to mention places such a Hopewell and Emporia who patiently wait along I-295 and I-95 respectively for those going 81 mph or higher then hit the blue lights. Driving
How do you know they "hit the lights" at 81 mph?

Do you do ride-alongs with the police?

Calmmmmmmmmmmmm your questions. Calmmmmmmmmm.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Verlanka on March 01, 2020, 05:48:42 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 03:47:57 PM
93 mph in a 55 mph zone.   That is not "evidence," that is a complaint post by someone who was, well, driving recklessly.  US-211, not even a freeway.  These type posts never get into whatever else he might have violated.  "Jalopnik is a news and opinion website about cars..."
Reckless, agreed, but certainly didn't warrant jail time.
Especially since he was isolated from the world during the time in jail, according to what he wrote.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 08:12:30 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 01, 2020, 02:28:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 10:22:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 09:27:10 PM
Not to mention places such a Hopewell and Emporia who patiently wait along I-295 and I-95 respectively for those going 81 mph or higher then hit the blue lights. Driving
How do you know they "hit the lights" at 81 mph?
Do you do ride-alongs with the police?
Calmmmmmmmmmmmm your questions. Calmmmmmmmmm.
Ummmmmmmmm  the comment provoked an inquiry  Hmmmmmmmm.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 08:14:19 AM
Quote from: Verlanka on March 01, 2020, 05:48:42 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 03:47:57 PM
93 mph in a 55 mph zone.   That is not "evidence," that is a complaint post by someone who was, well, driving recklessly.  US-211, not even a freeway.  These type posts never get into whatever else he might have violated.  "Jalopnik is a news and opinion website about cars..."
Reckless, agreed, but certainly didn't warrant jail time.
Especially since he was isolated from the world during the time in jail, according to what he wrote.
Jail does that to a degree, but they didn't put him in solitary per what he wrote.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2020, 11:46:36 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 09:55:22 PM
Update on the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan planning process for the Hampton Roads region.

Comments were received on the candidate projects, notably from the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC).

Has the SELC ever expressed any favorable comments about any proposed highway project?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2020, 12:07:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 10:22:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 09:27:10 PM
Not to mention places such a Hopewell and Emporia who patiently wait along I-295 and I-95 respectively for those going 81 mph or higher then hit the blue lights. Driving
How do you know they "hit the lights" at 81 mph?

Because at least one (and maybe more) City of Hopewell sheriffs have said so to the news media.

I am not going to post a link since you can look it up yourself - so do not ask.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 01, 2020, 12:13:26 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2020, 12:07:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 10:22:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 09:27:10 PM
Not to mention places such a Hopewell and Emporia who patiently wait along I-295 and I-95 respectively for those going 81 mph or higher then hit the blue lights. Driving
How do you know they "hit the lights" at 81 mph?

Because at least one (and maybe more) City of Hopewell sheriffs have said so to the news media.

I am not going to post a link since you can look it up yourself - so do not ask.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpt8-HcEYy8

3:09

The assistant city manager of Hopewell said, "We don't ticket until over 10 miles over the speed limit", which is 81 mph, conveniently where the reckless driving threshold begins. I would be willing to bet when the speed limit was 65 mph, they still didn't start ticketing until 81 mph.

Why ticket at 80 mph or below when it would just be a regular speeding ticket?

$1.8 million collected in speeding tickets in one year. That's a speed trap, and one that's taking advantage of that reckless driving threshold.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 01, 2020, 01:58:12 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 01, 2020, 12:13:26 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2020, 12:07:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 10:22:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 09:27:10 PM
Not to mention places such a Hopewell and Emporia who patiently wait along I-295 and I-95 respectively for those going 81 mph or higher then hit the blue lights. Driving
How do you know they "hit the lights" at 81 mph?

Because at least one (and maybe more) City of Hopewell sheriffs have said so to the news media.

I am not going to post a link since you can look it up yourself - so do not ask.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpt8-HcEYy8

3:09

The assistant city manager of Hopewell said, "We don't ticket until over 10 miles over the speed limit", which is 81 mph, conveniently where the reckless driving threshold begins. I would be willing to bet when the speed limit was 65 mph, they still didn't start ticketing until 81 mph.

Why ticket at 80 mph or below when it would just be a regular speeding ticket?

$1.8 million collected in speeding tickets in one year. That's a speed trap, and one that's taking advantage of that reckless driving threshold.

Hopewell's delegate at the time was also responsible for getting rid of a budget amendment that was passed in 2012 that reduced the amount of ticket revenue local governments could keep.

https://www.progress-index.com/news/20161001/another-chance-for-hopewells-million-dollar-mile (https://www.progress-index.com/news/20161001/another-chance-for-hopewells-million-dollar-mile)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 02:07:06 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2020, 12:07:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 29, 2020, 10:22:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 09:27:10 PM
Not to mention places such a Hopewell and Emporia who patiently wait along I-295 and I-95 respectively for those going 81 mph or higher then hit the blue lights. Driving
How do you know they "hit the lights" at 81 mph?
Because at least one (and maybe more) City of Hopewell sheriffs have said so to the news media.
I am not going to post a link since you can look it up yourself - so do not ask.
There was a newspaper article posted a year or so ago in one of these threads that quoted them as saying that they don't ticket stop someone until beyond 85 mph.

"CBS This Morning" is a tabloid show.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on March 01, 2020, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 02:07:06 PM
"CBS This Morning" is a tabloid show.

shit man, all news media is. But we don't all have access to scholarly articles. Even those of us who do (hi!) don't care enough to scour around for hours to prove a point that you'll just refute anyways. Arguing with you really is pointless.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on March 01, 2020, 05:03:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2020, 03:47:51 PM
scholarly articles

Written by viatologists?  :-D :-D :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on March 01, 2020, 05:32:28 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 01, 2020, 05:03:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2020, 03:47:51 PM
scholarly articles

Written by viatologists?  :-D :-D :-D

I think that predates me :D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 06:09:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2020, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 02:07:06 PM
"CBS This Morning" is a tabloid show.
shit man, all news media is. But we don't all have access to scholarly articles. Even those of us who do (hi!) don't care enough to scour around for hours to prove a point that you'll just refute anyways. Arguing with you really is pointless.
I cited a newspaper article in my previous post, I am not disagreeing necessarily with many things that get posted, there are some areas of concern; however, it is always good to be analytical but not the "paralysis of analysis."  Try to rightly divide the word of truth.

I don't know why it is so important to travel at 80 to 85 mph or more, at least in eastern seaboard population densities; certainly not for me.  Since is far above the speed limits, it is breaking the law; and if people want to break the law, then I don't need to comment, unless it keeps showing up on my computer monitor; then sometimes I may get annoyed enough at those who keep regaling the group about their speeds and their complaints about the government, that I may make some comments that may inconvenience some people.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: SSOWorld on March 01, 2020, 07:27:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 06:09:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 01, 2020, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 02:07:06 PM
"CBS This Morning" is a tabloid show.
shit man, all news media is. But we don't all have access to scholarly articles. Even those of us who do (hi!) don't care enough to scour around for hours to prove a point that you'll just refute anyways. Arguing with you really is pointless.
I cited a newspaper article in my previous post, I am not disagreeing necessarily with many things that get posted, there are some areas of concern; however, it is always good to be analytical but not the "paralysis of analysis."  Try to rightly divide the word of truth.

I don't know why it is so important to travel at 80 to 85 mph or more, at least in eastern seaboard population densities; certainly not for me.  Since is far above the speed limits, it is breaking the law; and if people want to break the law, then I don't need to comment, unless it keeps showing up on my computer monitor; then sometimes I may get annoyed enough at those who keep regaling the group about their speeds and their complaints about the government, that I may make some comments that may inconvenience some people.

To catch up with traffic ;)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 01, 2020, 07:37:26 PM
If I'm alone on a 70 mph highway, more than likely I'll travel 73 - 75 mph. However, if the traffic is flowing 78 - 82 mph, I'll usually match those speeds naturally to keep with the flow. If it's over ~82 mph though, I won't go beyond that.

Then there's I-64 east of Richmond where everybody thinks the speed limit is 60 or 65 mph and it's impossible to travel any faster, usually due to people ten cars up who are traveling 60 - 65 mph in both lanes with a wide open clearing for miles in front of them who refuse to move over. Every single time I travel this road. Anywhere else, non-existent unless there's trucks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 09:37:31 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 01, 2020, 07:27:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 06:09:04 PM
I don't know why it is so important to travel at 80 to 85 mph or more, at least in eastern seaboard population densities; certainly not for me.  Since is far above the speed limits, it is breaking the law; and if people want to break the law, then I don't need to comment, unless it keeps showing up on my computer monitor; then sometimes I may get annoyed enough at those who keep regaling the group about their speeds and their complaints about the government, that I may make some comments that may inconvenience some people.
To catch up with traffic ;)
Yeah, that is one of the claims that they make, and some were making it on the Usenet newsgroups misc.transport.road and rec.autos.driving back in the day.  Maybe out West and on the Great Plains, perhaps. 

Like I said my estimate (not claiming it to be scientific but hundreds of trips) I-95 Richmond-Washington would be about 10% or so.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 09:42:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 01, 2020, 07:37:26 PM
Then there's I-64 east of Richmond where everybody thinks the speed limit is 60 or 65 mph and it's impossible to travel any faster, usually due to people ten cars up who are traveling 60 - 65 mph in both lanes with a wide open clearing for miles in front of them who refuse to move over. Every single time I travel this road. Anywhere else, non-existent unless there's trucks.
During peak travel periods it can get slower than that.  Non-peak there have been many times where I could set the cruise control on 78 mph and only occasionally have to slow due to a bunch of slower vehicles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 01, 2020, 10:01:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 09:42:11 PM
Non-peak there have been many times where I could set the cruise control on 78 mph and only occasionally have to slow due to a bunch of slower vehicles.
You must have gotten lucky then. I travel the corridor occasionally during off-peak times (during peak travel periods, I'll usually go US-460), and always seem to get caught behind 60 - 65 mph traffic, and it's usually packs of cars that have empty space for miles in front. After getting past them having to pass using both lanes back and forth because nobody knows what left lane for passing only is (I suppose cars traveling in the left lane at 66 mph passing those on the right at 65 mph is technically "passing"), there's another pack a mile past them doing the same exact thing. I recall one time where I passed about 15 cars on the right at 75 mph when they were all in the left lane doing 63 - 65 mph (speed limit 70 mph). At least they were in one lane so passing was easier, but it's still ridiculous. My latest return trip heading eastbound around 8 pm wasn't terrible, the highway was full though traffic was flowing 75 - 80 mph. I always seem to get the worst luck westbound.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 11:05:13 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 01, 2020, 10:01:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 01, 2020, 09:42:11 PM
Non-peak there have been many times where I could set the cruise control on 78 mph and only occasionally have to slow due to a bunch of slower vehicles.
You must have gotten lucky then. I travel the corridor occasionally during off-peak times (during peak travel periods, I'll usually go US-460), and always seem to get caught behind 60 - 65 mph traffic, and it's usually packs of cars that have empty space for miles in front. After getting past them having to pass using both lanes back and forth because nobody knows what left lane for passing only is (I suppose cars traveling in the left lane at 66 mph passing those on the right at 65 mph is technically "passing"), there's another pack a mile past them doing the same exact thing. I recall one time where I passed about 15 cars on the right at 75 mph when they were all in the left lane doing 63 - 65 mph (speed limit 70 mph). At least they were in one lane so passing was easier, but it's still ridiculous. My latest return trip heading eastbound around 8 pm wasn't terrible, the highway was full though traffic was flowing 75 - 80 mph. I always seem to get the worst luck westbound.
It sounds like your travels are in peak or near peak hours.

I seldom travel it at such times, but then neither at low times (such as wee hours) either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 01, 2020, 11:37:00 PM
^

Nonetheless, I-64 needs to be completed to a minimum of 6 lanes between Williamsburg and Richmond, and 8 lanes (1 HOV each way, though presumably HO/T with their new system) between Williamsburg and Newport News.

It's taken long enough, and the remaining segments still remain unfunded.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 12:36:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 01, 2020, 11:37:00 PM
Nonetheless, I-64 needs to be completed to a minimum of 6 lanes between Williamsburg and Richmond, and 8 lanes (1 HOV each way, though presumably HO/T with their new system) between Williamsburg and Newport News.
Of course.  Three lanes is much superior over two lanes for handling high volumes in peak periods.

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 01, 2020, 11:37:00 PM
It's taken long enough, and the remaining segments still remain unfunded.
Much as we may disagree with much of what the General Assembly is doing, there is legislation for an 8 cent per gallon motor fuel tax increase that might become 12 cents and a $1 billion annual increase, and there is talk of creating a regional transportation authority for central Virginia, and advancing the Powhite Parkway Western Extension among other projects.  Like I-64 widening.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 02, 2020, 12:44:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 12:36:24 AM
advancing the Powhite Parkway Western Extension
That's still a proposal? I thought they eliminated that years back. Nonetheless, that project, along with I-64 and I-95 widenings are among some of the projects for central VA that are needed. I'd put the US-460 toll road up there as well, but we all know that's never being revived.

Have the existing Powhite Pkwy and VA-288 reached volumes to the point they will eventually need 6-lane widening as well?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 01:02:25 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2020, 12:44:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 12:36:24 AM
advancing the Powhite Parkway Western Extension
That's still a proposal? I thought they eliminated that years back.
It is on the 2019  Chesterfield County Thoroughfare Plan
https://www.chesterfield.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1322/Thoroughfare-Plan-PDF

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2020, 12:44:27 AM
Have the existing Powhite Pkwy and VA-288 reached volumes to the point they will eventually need 6-lane widening as well?
I worked on the design of the Powhite Parkway Extension in the early 1980s.  The section between VA-150 and just west of US-60 was built on a cross-section for a future 3rd lane on each side.  I would say that it warrants 6 lanes based on what I have seen there in peak hours.

Not sure about VA-288 but it does congest sometimes during peak hours in the VA-6 and US-360 areas.  Several schemes are being studied on how to expand the US-360 interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:07:29 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 29, 2020, 09:55:22 PM
Update on the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan planning process for the Hampton Roads region.

Comments were received on the candidate projects, notably from the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC).

They have and will continue to oppose the following projects -
1) New Route 460 (Suffolk to Zuni) - New location freeway paralleling the existing US-460. Expensive, little benefits, severe wetland impact, score poor on SmartScale, VDOT scrapped.

2) Route 460/58/13 Connector - Upgrade to interstate standards & potential 8-lane widening of US-58 between I-664 and Suffolk. Existing capacity adequate through 2040, enormous impacts on wetlands, VDOT scrapped study.

3) Southeastern Pkwy & Greenbelt - New location freeway through Chesapeake and Virginia Beach paralleling Clearfield Ave, Elbow Rd, Dam Neck Rd, and Oceana Blvd. High wetland impact. "Climate change" makes impact worse today more than 2010.

4) Nimmo Pkwy Phase VII-B - New location roadway parallel to narrow and windy Sandbridge Rd. Serious wildlife, habitat, and wetland impact.

They also recommend "close scrutiny" for the any Bowers Hill Interchange proposals, which in their terms means they will oppose any proposal once its officially put out there. Concepts were revealed earlier this year, however they are now re-evaluating it to include a continuous HO/T lane network through the interchange tying in with a potential I-664 HO/T system.

Throughout March, cost estimates and prioritization scores will be developed for all of the candidate projects.

Finally, an interactive map displaying all of the candidate projects has been created - http://hrpdc-gis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=b8852614e73a42bfa3730963d216f2ab

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/030420%2000A%20Full%20Agenda%28new%29.pdf
It is nice that there is a 25-year long range plan concerning the future traffic situation in the Hampton Roads area, however, this has been attempted before--specifically in the 1980's, although not in as much detail as now.

The Southeastern Parkway has been discussed since the late 1970's, yet nothing has been done to complete it.  Hold on, there was the proposed routing.  I know about that because in the 1980's, there were small signs posted on Elbow Road to let one know that this was where the future route of the Southeastern Parkway was going to be built.  Now, if this was attempted in the late 1980's, the proposed routing on the interactive map (section from VA 168 northeast of Great Bridge to I-264 in Va. Beach) could have been built without much disruption to houses and businesses.  Now, forget about it!  Also, why would the section next to the Oak Grove Connector be built?  That would be silly and redundant.

Two of the three other projects that SELC opposes and the one that would be under "close scrutiny" are needed.  No, Nimmo Parkway does not need to be extended to Sandbridge Road.  There has to be some rustic charm left in Va. Beach.  When my family lived there, we preferred going to Sandbridge rather than the Va. Beach Oceanfront--more laid back and quiet.  US 460 needs to be improved from the Suffolk Bypass all the way to at least Wagner Road near Petersburg.  US 13/58/460 through the edge of the Dismal Swamp should be upgraded to, at the very least, freeway standards with an upgraded Bowers Hill interchange included in this.

There are many projects on this interactive map that really needed to be completed 20-25 years ago--mainly road widenings and the Southeastern Parkway.

The traffic in the Hampton Roads area has become a lot busier than it was when I moved to Northern Kentucky in late 1994.  I-664 and the Western Freeway (VA 164) had just been completed two years prior (of course, not counting the Port Norfolk connector which was completed 10 years after I moved), the Oak Grove Connector had not been started, Dominion Blvd. was still VA 104, and the Va. Beach-Norfolk Expressway was still VA 44, along with a few other projects not mentioned.  The improvements made to vehicle transportation in the last 25 years has opened up the area to the population increase seen, especially in Chesapeake, Va. Beach, and northern Suffolk, and with that, an increase in traffic--which is being addressed in the 2045 Long Range Plan.

It is a shame some of this wasn't acted upon 30+ years ago.

Sure beats discussing whether or not 81 mph is reckless (it really isn't as long as the speed limit is 70 and the road is engineered for it).  It is fast, yes, but not reckless--unless a driver is constantly changing lanes doing 81+, that I would consider reckless.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 02, 2020, 09:43:28 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:07:29 AM
....

Sure beats discussing whether or not 81 mph is reckless (it really isn't as long as the speed limit is 70 and the road is engineered for it).  It is fast, yes, but not reckless--unless a driver is constantly changing lanes doing 81+, that I would consider reckless.

I would submit that sort of behavior (weaving in and out, tailgating, etc.) can be reckless regardless of the driver's raw speed. That is, if there's heavy traffic and most of the traffic is moving at 55—60 due to the congestion, someone weaving in and out trying to go 65—70 might well be acting recklessly as well, and current Virginia law does allow for a reckless ticket if the cop deems it appropriate. That is, a lot of people out there (probably not the people on this forum, of course), tend to forget that the "20 over or in excess of 80" law is not the only basis for a reckless driving ticket in Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 09:45:38 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:07:29 AM
The Southeastern Parkway has been discussed since the late 1970's, yet nothing has been done to complete it.  Hold on, there was the proposed routing.  I know about that because in the 1980's, there were small signs posted on Elbow Road to let one know that this was where the future route of the Southeastern Parkway was going to be built.  Now, if this was attempted in the late 1980's, the proposed routing on the interactive map (section from VA 168 northeast of Great Bridge to I-264 in Va. Beach) could have been built without much disruption to houses and businesses. 
Has the FHWA and ACOE ever approved it?  It has very high wetlands impacts for 21 miles of highway.

"The highway has been on the back burner since 2010, when the Federal Highway Administration rejected it because it would be built on 170 acres of wetlands."
Article from 2015:
https://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/article_37f8a7ee-9cc4-5dc8-88c0-06237a1ffb26.html

Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:07:29 AM
US 460 needs to be improved from the Suffolk Bypass all the way to at least Wagner Road near Petersburg.
It needs to be completely relocated onto a modern alignment.  The existing highway would be very expensive to upgrade to modern standards, at least two town bypasses are needed, and the only result would be a somewhat better arterial highway.

Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:07:29 AM
US 13/58/460 through the edge of the Dismal Swamp should be upgraded to, at the very least, freeway standards with an upgraded Bowers Hill interchange included in this.
Priority will be seen on these projects, IMO.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 10:08:24 AM
^ The proximity to Stumpy Lake, the North Landing River, and the marshy area east of Oceana are most likely the reasons this project was never attempted.  I was opining that this may have had a better chance to be built in the late 1980's if the wetlands issue could have ever been resolved.

US 460 does need to be on a relocated, modern alignment--constructed like OH 32 (Appalachian Corridor D) or US 48 (Appalachian Corridor H).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 11:24:04 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 10:08:24 AM
US 460 does need to be on a relocated, modern alignment--constructed like OH 32 (Appalachian Corridor D) or US 48 (Appalachian Corridor H).
Higher design than that. 

Full freeway standards like the southerly approved route CBA 1 as approved by the CTB in 2005 and the Final EIS and Record of Decision was signed and approved by FHWA in 2008.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 02, 2020, 05:08:57 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:07:29 AM
The Southeastern Parkway has been discussed since the late 1970's, yet nothing has been done to complete it.  Hold on, there was the proposed routing.  I know about that because in the 1980's, there were small signs posted on Elbow Road to let one know that this was where the future route of the Southeastern Parkway was going to be built.  Now, if this was attempted in the late 1980's, the proposed routing on the interactive map (section from VA 168 northeast of Great Bridge to I-264 in Va. Beach) could have been built without much disruption to houses and businesses.  Now, forget about it!  Also, why would the section next to the Oak Grove Connector be built?  That would be silly and redundant.
As of 2010, this was the proposed routing. It's very similar / the same to the southern alternative outlined in the Location Study in the 1980s.
(https://www.pilotonline.com/resizer/8SbBuLJAk8Tg1lDP6_IQB6X3mnw=/415x233/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/62AN722DMFCBDODR3W2RXRMQCU.jpg)

Back in the 1980s when the concept was introduced, it was mainly to traverse wetlands and forested areas, despite large amounts of farmland also available in the path. This was one of its biggest issues from the beginning. Today, the only path that remains available is that wetlands and forested path as all of the farmland now has been largely developed. Had they chosen a less impactful route from the beginning when there was lots of land, it more than likely would've been built in some form.

It was also originally planned as an 8-lane freeway for its entire length. This has been downsized to a 4-lane freeway with tolls in the more recent proposals.

Despite the map showing a new (incorrect) routing parallel to the Oak Grove Connector, the actual proposal ties into the Great Bridge Bypass south of Kempsville and overlays it up to I-64. This would involve 8-lane widening of the Oak Grove Connector, though with today's volumes it needs widening to 8-lanes down to VA-165 including a new parallel Intracoastal Waterway bridge regardless if the parkway is built. The 2045 LRTP Candidate Projects features a project to do this, along with widening to 6-lanes between VA-165 and Hillcrest Pkwy.

If there's -any- chance of it ever resurrecting, it would have to be built in phases and utilize existing roadways where possible.

Here are potential SIUs in order of priority -
1) VA-168 widening to 8-lanes
2) VA-168 to Elbow Road east of Centerville Tpke - New location 4-lane freeway, tying into the proposed Elbow Rd 4-lane project.
3) Princess Anne Rd to Oceana Blvd - New location 4-lane freeway
4) Oceana Blvd to I-264 - Upgrade the existing Oceana Blvd to freeway standards using the existing footprint of the 55 mph expressway (with the 30 ft median), then new connector to I-264 on the northern end.
5) Elbow Rd at Virginia Beach city line to Princess Anne Rd - New location 4-lane freeway tying into the proposed Elbow Rd 4-lane project on the western end and a completed Southeastern Pkwy segment on the eastern end.
6) Elbow Rd between east of Centerville Tpke and the Virginia Beach city line - Upgrade the proposed Elbow Road 4-lane project to freeway standards using the existing footprint of the proposed project which if I recall would be built to at least expressway standards (wider curves, paved shoulders, etc.) (likely a reduced 30 ft median).

Speaking of Elbow Rd, the city of Chesapeake is set to begin construction in the next couple of years on Elbow Rd phase #2 which would widen Elbow Rd between east of Centerville Tpke and the Virginia Beach city line to have 12 foot lanes and a right 4 foot paved shoulder with right of way for future 4-lane. Options include a typical widening, whereas another would build a new one-way 1-lane carriageway parallel to the existing, convert the existing to one-way 1-lane, and have a 2-lane expressway divided by a depressed median.

http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Brochures/Citizen+Information+Meeting+-+Elbow+Road+Widening+Phase+2+Brochure.pdf

Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:07:29 AM
Two of the three other projects that SELC opposes and the one that would be under "close scrutiny" are needed.  No, Nimmo Parkway does not need to be extended to Sandbridge Road.  There has to be some rustic charm left in Va. Beach.  When my family lived there, we preferred going to Sandbridge rather than the Va. Beach Oceanfront--more laid back and quiet.
Debateful. Sandbridge remains the beach primarily for locals, but Sandbridge Rd sees a high amount of traffic during the summer, and the roadway has too many substandard features to handle this load, including narrow roadway, sharp curves, etc. and not to mention it's subject to flooding. The parkway extension would only be 2-lanes, not 4-lanes. IMO, it's needed.

Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:07:29 AM
There are many projects on this interactive map that really needed to be completed 20-25 years ago--mainly road widenings and the Southeastern Parkway.
Agreed the Southeastern Pkwy is needed, though in today's environment it will never be built.

Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 09:45:38 AM
Has the FHWA and ACOE ever approved it?  It has very high wetlands impacts for 21 miles of highway.
No, and will likely never will, but nonetheless it's a needed project that should've been built 40 years ago when proposed in the 1980s as an 8-lane freeway. Now, it's been downsized to a 4-lane toll road, wetland impacts seem to have gone up, the cost has skyrocketed, and close proximity to newer developments presents further challenges.

Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 09:45:38 AM
Priority will be seen on these projects, IMO.
The Bowers Hill Interchange is a priority, though the US-58 / US-13 / US-460 connector study was scrapped by VDOT last year. It'd be nice to have and will eventually be needed, though it's an expensive project and there's higher priorities in the area. The existing highway is a high-capacity 6-lane expressway that practically functions as a 70 mph freeway that doesn't have any traffic issues unless there's an accident. I'd argue widening the Suffolk Bypass to 6-lanes is a higher priority then upgrading the connector. Once the major widenings and bridge-tunnel expansions are completed in the next 10 years, then we can turn the focus on these smaller priority, more expensive projects.

Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 11:24:04 AM
Full freeway standards like the southerly approved route CBA 1 as approved by the CTB in 2005 and the Final EIS and Record of Decision was signed and approved by FHWA in 2008.
The entire corridor would have to go through an entirely new NEPA process if it was ever resurrected.

Given today's climate, projects such as the US-460 relocation and the Southeastern Pkwy may never see the light of day. The only possible way I could see it if it was built in bite size phases, though if the Suffolk to Zuni proposal was any indication, that may not even be possible.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on March 02, 2020, 06:20:10 PM
If that southeastern parkway was built, I think that's where I-87 should go.

They have a little similar project (although it's a little shorter), being studied.

https://www.pilotonline.com/government/local/article_896fd3fa-73bd-5ffa-aecf-f6887e873ede.html


__________________________________

https://www.bayjournal.com/article/new_virginia_route_would_impact_nearly_480_acres_of_wetlands

When looking at this, I think this should be I-56 or I-62. If it was being built as a full freeway. It's supposed to help I-64 traffic, especially with the trucks.

It says a four lane highway, so it may not be a freeway. It could be similar to US 17 in North Carolina.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 02, 2020, 06:28:21 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 02, 2020, 06:20:10 PM
If that southeastern parkway was built, I think that's where I-87 should go.
If it even makes it to Virginia, more than likely it would not go beyond the I-64 / I-464 junction from US-17. The only extension I could ever see is replacing I-464.

I couldn't see the Southeastern Pkwy, if ever built, getting an interstate highway designation.

Quote from: tolbs17 on March 02, 2020, 06:20:10 PM
They have a little similar project (although it's a little shorter), being studied.

https://www.pilotonline.com/government/local/article_896fd3fa-73bd-5ffa-aecf-f6887e873ede.html
There's no project being studied anymore. That article practically says the parkway is dead.

Quote from: tolbs17 on March 02, 2020, 06:20:10 PM
https://www.bayjournal.com/article/new_virginia_route_would_impact_nearly_480_acres_of_wetlands

When looking at this, I think this should be I-56 or I-62. If it was being built as a full freeway. It's supposed to help I-64 traffic, especially with the trucks.

It says a four lane highway, so it may not be a freeway. It could be similar to US 17 in North Carolina.
The previous plan for the US-460 relocation was a 4-lane divided highway built to full interstate standards.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 02, 2020, 08:04:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 01:02:25 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2020, 12:44:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 12:36:24 AM
advancing the Powhite Parkway Western Extension
That's still a proposal? I thought they eliminated that years back.
It is on the 2019  Chesterfield County Thoroughfare Plan
https://www.chesterfield.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1322/Thoroughfare-Plan-PDF

Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2020, 12:44:27 AM
Have the existing Powhite Pkwy and VA-288 reached volumes to the point they will eventually need 6-lane widening as well?
Not sure about VA-288 but it does congest sometimes during peak hours in the VA-6 and US-360 areas.  Several schemes are being studied on how to expand the US-360 interchange.

https://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/Traffic_2018/AADT_PrimaryInterstate_2018.pdf

According to this VA-288 seems to average traffic volumes from around 40,000 to nearly 60,000 (near the US-360 interchange). I would assume these volumes will only increase as development seems to keep creeping west in the Woodlake area. IMO these traffic volumes warrant at least discussion of 6 lane widening in some areas (Between US-60 and US-360, Vicinity of VA-6 interchange) and is a far better solution than the highly unlikely to ever get built east-west freeway. Agreed however that significantly improving the US-360 interchange should probably be first priority. I'll be interested to see what the designs for that end up being.

On a related note, I think the creation of a Central Virginia Transportation Authority would be very helpful to the region in expediating many of these potential and currently needed projects.  Without one, I would not be surprised if more new HOT lanes plans come up...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 02, 2020, 08:24:13 PM
Hampton Roads has a TPO and special tax and over the next 5-10 years will be getting a completed HO/T lane network along I-64 and eventually I-664.

I would not be surprised if Richmond were to get HO/T lanes in the future given how much Virginia is obsessed with them for any lane widening project in urban areas.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 02, 2020, 08:47:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2020, 08:24:13 PM
Hampton Roads has a TPO and special tax and over the next 5-10 years will be getting a completed HO/T lane network along I-64 and eventually I-664.

True and so has Northern Virginia. However, I think the main reason behind that is because the state fell so far behind in funding numerous important/massive transportation projects in these regions. In the Richmond area, I don't believe this has happened yet, with only a few notable exceptions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 02, 2020, 08:55:40 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 02, 2020, 08:47:28 PM
True and so has Northern Virginia. However, I think the main reason behind that is because the state fell so far behind in funding numerous important/massive transportation projects in these regions.
The HRBT and I-64 High Rise Bridge projects are largely tax-dollar funded, with only limited amounts of funding coming from toll revenue. The reason they are building HO/T lanes instead of general purpose lanes is because they belief that's the solution to get better traffic throughput for all lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 02, 2020, 10:39:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2020, 08:55:40 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 02, 2020, 08:47:28 PM
True and so has Northern Virginia. However, I think the main reason behind that is because the state fell so far behind in funding numerous important/massive transportation projects in these regions.
The HRBT and I-64 High Rise Bridge projects are largely tax-dollar funded, with only limited amounts of funding coming from toll revenue. The reason they are building HO/T lanes instead of general purpose lanes is because they belief that's the solution to get better traffic throughput for all lanes.

I have a hard time believing that they truly believe that. Adding HOT lanes on the crowded 4-lane sections of I-64 within a growing metro area of 1.7 million seems to me like they had to make the most in a short amount of time with what limited funding they had.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on March 03, 2020, 01:44:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 02, 2020, 09:43:28 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:07:29 AM
....

Sure beats discussing whether or not 81 mph is reckless (it really isn't as long as the speed limit is 70 and the road is engineered for it).  It is fast, yes, but not reckless--unless a driver is constantly changing lanes doing 81+, that I would consider reckless.

I would submit that sort of behavior (weaving in and out, tailgating, etc.) can be reckless regardless of the driver's raw speed. That is, if there's heavy traffic and most of the traffic is moving at 55—60 due to the congestion, someone weaving in and out trying to go 65—70 might well be acting recklessly as well, and current Virginia law does allow for a reckless ticket if the cop deems it appropriate. That is, a lot of people out there (probably not the people on this forum, of course), tend to forget that the "20 over or in excess of 80" law is not the only basis for a reckless driving ticket in Virginia.

If said heavy traffic is moving below the speed limit, and the person changing lanes is doing so in an attempt to drive at the legal maximum posted speed, then I would suggest that the slow-moving drivers are the ones who are driving recklessly, not the person who's trying to do the speed limit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 03, 2020, 01:55:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 03, 2020, 01:44:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 02, 2020, 09:43:28 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:07:29 AM
....

Sure beats discussing whether or not 81 mph is reckless (it really isn't as long as the speed limit is 70 and the road is engineered for it).  It is fast, yes, but not reckless--unless a driver is constantly changing lanes doing 81+, that I would consider reckless.

I would submit that sort of behavior (weaving in and out, tailgating, etc.) can be reckless regardless of the driver's raw speed. That is, if there's heavy traffic and most of the traffic is moving at 55—60 due to the congestion, someone weaving in and out trying to go 65—70 might well be acting recklessly as well, and current Virginia law does allow for a reckless ticket if the cop deems it appropriate. That is, a lot of people out there (probably not the people on this forum, of course), tend to forget that the "20 over or in excess of 80" law is not the only basis for a reckless driving ticket in Virginia.

If said heavy traffic is moving below the speed limit, and the person changing lanes is doing so in an attempt to drive at the legal maximum posted speed, then I would suggest that the slow-moving drivers are the ones who are driving recklessly, not the person who's trying to do the speed limit.

I deliberately did not address the speed limit! But in general, you don't automatically have a right to drive at the posted speed limit, and as we all know it's sometimes impossible to do so (inbound I-395 during the morning rush hour is an example that readily comes to mind of a location where you won't likely be able to go that fast).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 03, 2020, 09:16:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2020, 01:55:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 03, 2020, 01:44:40 PM
If said heavy traffic is moving below the speed limit, and the person changing lanes is doing so in an attempt to drive at the legal maximum posted speed, then I would suggest that the slow-moving drivers are the ones who are driving recklessly, not the person who's trying to do the speed limit.
I deliberately did not address the speed limit! But in general, you don't automatically have a right to drive at the posted speed limit, and as we all know it's sometimes impossible to do so (inbound I-395 during the morning rush hour is an example that readily comes to mind of a location where you won't likely be able to go that fast).
Those of us that commonly drive on highways like the Capital Beltway, can attest to that fact.

Peak period traffic with all 3 or 4 directional lanes, at least sometimes, moving well below the speed limit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 03, 2020, 09:20:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 03, 2020, 01:44:40 PM
If said heavy traffic is moving below the speed limit, and the person changing lanes is doing so in an attempt to drive at the legal maximum posted speed, then I would suggest that the slow-moving drivers are the ones who are driving recklessly, not the person who's trying to do the speed limit.
Happens every time I travel I-64 east of Richmond it seems where the speed limit is 70 mph. Anywhere else in the state, in free-flow conditions, it's the speed limit or higher.

Sometimes it's simply due to heavy traffic, other times it's ignorant drivers traveling 60 - 65 mph in both lanes holding everybody up, and other times it's those ignorant drivers spread throughout the highway in both lanes making it necessary to weave between lanes to maintain 70 - 78 mph.

Only at night am I able to drive that stretch and maintain 70 - 78 mph without interruption it seems. Any time during the day, always full of slow drivers or congested.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 03, 2020, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 03, 2020, 09:20:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 03, 2020, 01:44:40 PM
If said heavy traffic is moving below the speed limit, and the person changing lanes is doing so in an attempt to drive at the legal maximum posted speed, then I would suggest that the slow-moving drivers are the ones who are driving recklessly, not the person who's trying to do the speed limit.
Happens every time I travel I-64 east of Richmond it seems where the speed limit is 70 mph. Anywhere else in the state, in free-flow conditions, it's the speed limit or higher.
What is this "every time?"  Didn't we just have a discussion about this where I cited the fact most of my such trips that does not occur.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 03, 2020, 09:28:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 03, 2020, 09:25:34 PM
What is this "every time?"  Didn't we just have a discussion about this where I cited the fact most of my such trips that does not occur.
I don't travel the corridor on a daily or weekly basis, though usually at least 2-4 times per month round trip I will. The majority of my trips, this seems to occur, largely westbound. Eastbound, usually at night, usually isn't an issue.

I may just have bad luck, but this is my experience a lot of the time to the point where I've had to "weave" in and out of the lanes doing the speed limit or slightly over because people cannot maintain it and do not know how to stay right.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 03, 2020, 09:49:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 03, 2020, 09:28:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 03, 2020, 09:25:34 PM
What is this "every time?"  Didn't we just have a discussion about this where I cited the fact most of my such trips that does not occur.
I don't travel the corridor on a daily or weekly basis, though usually at least 2-4 times per month round trip I will. The majority of my trips, this seems to occur, largely westbound. Eastbound, usually at night, usually isn't an issue.
I may just have bad luck, but this is my experience a lot of the time to the point where I've had to "weave" in and out of the lanes doing the speed limit or slightly over because people cannot maintain it and do not know how to stay right.
Maybe a peak period situation.  All bets are off when the highway is really busy.

My complaint is "middle lane slow drivers" on the 6-lane parts of I-95, as I experienced many times today on my trip to the Maryland Eastern Shore.  As in 5 to 15 mph below the speed limit in free-flowing conditions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 03, 2020, 09:57:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 03, 2020, 09:49:45 PM
Maybe a peak period situation.  All bets are off when the highway is really busy.
I suppose this is the middle of the day on any day then. I will say that every time I've encountered these slow waves, it's usually when the highway is full, though it always seems there's two people in front of a "pack" with large empty space in front of them. Once I manage to weave through rows of 60 - 65 mph drivers, it opens up for a mile or two maintaining 75 - 78 mph then right back down to 60 - 65 mph behind another "pack".

A highway can easily be full of traffic but still maintain the speed limit or greater. It's a mix of full highway and slower drivers blocking a free-flow at the speed limit or greater and no / limited room to pass due to heavy traffic and only 2 lanes in a single direction.

I've encountered these types of flows on the recently completed 6-lane portions, though it's much easier to get by them with a third lane each way (and it's not always the left lane, sometimes the right lane ends up being the open lane with the slower drivers using the middle and left lane) maintaining the speed limit or greater.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on March 03, 2020, 11:17:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 03, 2020, 09:16:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2020, 01:55:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 03, 2020, 01:44:40 PM
If said heavy traffic is moving below the speed limit, and the person changing lanes is doing so in an attempt to drive at the legal maximum posted speed, then I would suggest that the slow-moving drivers are the ones who are driving recklessly, not the person who's trying to do the speed limit.
I deliberately did not address the speed limit! But in general, you don't automatically have a right to drive at the posted speed limit, and as we all know it's sometimes impossible to do so (inbound I-395 during the morning rush hour is an example that readily comes to mind of a location where you won't likely be able to go that fast).
Those of us that commonly drive on highways like the Capital Beltway, can attest to that fact.

Peak period traffic with all 3 or 4 directional lanes, at least sometimes, moving well below the speed limit.

Anything above 35 MPH peak direction during rush hour is a good day. Of course, I have a reverse commute (smart on me!) so it rarely affects me.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on March 06, 2020, 10:23:36 AM
There's a whole lot of transportation changes wrapped up in the closing votes of the General Assembly:



QuoteRICHMOND – State legislators have reached an agreement on a transportation funding package that will raise the gas tax by 10 cents a gallon over two years and authorize nearly $1 billion in bonds to go toward improving Interstate 81.

The transportation proposal is one of the top priorities for the Northam administration. Gov. Ralph Northam originally called for an increase of 12 cents a gallon over three years, scrapping the annual vehicle inspections and reducing the vehicle registration fee by $20.

Under the compromise that the legislature will vote on before it adjourns Saturday, the gas tax increase will be slightly less and inspections will stay the same. The $40 vehicle registration fee will be $10 less and the $5 fee people pay when they go to Department of Motor Vehicle offices in person to do a transaction instead of online or by phone will be eliminated.

Del. Terry Austin, R-Botetourt, said the package will include the sale of roughly $900 million in bonds to expedite I-81 upgrades. If the state paid for the projects as it collected the revenue from the 2.1% gas tax increase in localities along the I-81 corridor, it would take about a decade longer to get the more than 60 projects done.

There's accompanying legislation dealing with traffic safety that will require mandatory seat belt use for all passengers. Proposals making it illegal to possess an open container and installing a speed monitoring program in certain highway corridors are expected to be scrapped under the tentative compromise. That legislation also still needs voted on by both chambers.

https://www.roanoke.com/news/local/deal-reached-on-gas-tax-increase-to-fund-transportation-improvements/article_1de80a4c-84ce-5aab-b5fd-b777e56ca30d.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on March 06, 2020, 11:13:41 AM
100 gallons/year (8.33 gallons/month) as the break-even point on this. If you use less than 100 gallons year/automobile, you come out ahead. If you use more than 100/gallons year, you come out behind.

A typical month sees me using about 30 gallons (2.5 fill ups at 12 gallons/fill), so I'm a $20 net loser for the year.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 06, 2020, 11:39:00 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 06, 2020, 11:13:41 AM
100 gallons/year (8.33 gallons/month) as the break-even point on this. If you use less than 100 gallons year/automobile, you come out ahead. If you use more than 100/gallons year, you come out behind.
A typical month sees me using about 30 gallons (2.5 fill ups at 12 gallons/fill), so I'm a $20 net loser for the year.
I use about 120 gallons per month.

I wonder how much net new revenue this will realize statewide?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: RoadPelican on March 06, 2020, 12:56:58 PM
I was really hoping that VA would get rid of Vehicle Inspections because maybe that would put pressure on NC to get rid of ours. 

The $5 fee for people to visit the DMV over going online would also be a good idea for NC to take. (Overcrowded is an understatement in the Tar Heel State)

Also, I think that registration fees should be increased and the gas tax decreased, cars are only going to get more fuel efficient over time.

All in all, nothing to like in this legislation, but gas will STILL probably be cheaper in VA over NC, now just not as much.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 06, 2020, 04:16:13 PM
Quote from: RoadPelican on March 06, 2020, 12:56:58 PM
All in all, nothing to like in this legislation, but gas will STILL probably be cheaper in VA over NC, now just not as much.
If the road use tax increases are so great, then why the need to float $900 million in bonds to expedite I-81 upgrades?

Those bonds are a loan that will have to be paid off in installments over a 20 to 30 year period.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on March 06, 2020, 08:10:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2020, 11:39:00 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 06, 2020, 11:13:41 AM
100 gallons/year (8.33 gallons/month) as the break-even point on this. If you use less than 100 gallons year/automobile, you come out ahead. If you use more than 100/gallons year, you come out behind.
A typical month sees me using about 30 gallons (2.5 fill ups at 12 gallons/fill), so I'm a $20 net loser for the year.
I use about 120 gallons per month.

I wonder how much net new revenue this will realize statewide?

:-o :-o :-o
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 06, 2020, 09:32:47 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 06, 2020, 08:10:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2020, 11:39:00 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 06, 2020, 11:13:41 AM
100 gallons/year (8.33 gallons/month) as the break-even point on this. If you use less than 100 gallons year/automobile, you come out ahead. If you use more than 100/gallons year, you come out behind.
A typical month sees me using about 30 gallons (2.5 fill ups at 12 gallons/fill), so I'm a $20 net loser for the year.
I use about 120 gallons per month.
I wonder how much net new revenue this will realize statewide?
:-o :-o :-o
About 33,000 miles and an average of 23 mpg.  Car gets 30 or 31 at steady Interstate highway speed, but city driving lowers the average.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on March 06, 2020, 09:35:57 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 06, 2020, 11:13:41 AM
100 gallons/year (8.33 gallons/month) as the break-even point on this. If you use less than 100 gallons year/automobile, you come out ahead. If you use more than 100/gallons year, you come out behind.

A typical month sees me using about 30 gallons (2.5 fill ups at 12 gallons/fill), so I'm a $20 net loser for the year.
Who uses less than 100 gallons/year of gas? Especially on this forum?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 06, 2020, 10:14:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2020, 09:35:57 PM
Who uses less than 100 gallons/year of gas? Especially on this forum?

Hybrids?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on March 06, 2020, 10:15:02 PM
Public transit commuters who only drive limited amounts on nights and weekends. Plenty here in the DC area
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2020, 10:26:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2020, 10:14:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2020, 09:35:57 PM
Who uses less than 100 gallons/year of gas? Especially on this forum?

Hybrids?

I have an Insight and use about 8 gallons a week for 350-400 miles of driving...so I'll still be using over 400 gallons a year.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 06, 2020, 10:26:55 PM
What about retired people who don't commute at all?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on March 06, 2020, 10:49:40 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2020, 10:26:55 PM
What about retired people who don't commute at all?
They should make way for progress.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 07, 2020, 07:19:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2020, 10:26:55 PM
What about retired people who don't commute at all?

Senior dinners, visiting the grandkids, doctor's appointments, commuting to their retirement home...haha

But really...even retirees probably fill up the tank more than once a month, so most of them will use more than 100 gallons in a year
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 07, 2020, 10:11:40 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 07, 2020, 07:19:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2020, 10:26:55 PM
What about retired people who don't commute at all?
Senior dinners, visiting the grandkids, doctor's appointments, commuting to their retirement home...haha
But really...even retirees probably fill up the tank more than once a month, so most of them will use more than 100 gallons in a year
Depends on how much they travel.

Some of them put 40,000 miles or more a year on a car or RV.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 07, 2020, 12:21:30 PM
Quote from: RoadPelican on March 06, 2020, 12:56:58 PM
I was really hoping that VA would get rid of Vehicle Inspections because maybe that would put pressure on NC to get rid of ours. 

The $5 fee for people to visit the DMV over going online would also be a good idea for NC to take. (Overcrowded is an understatement in the Tar Heel State)

Even NJ managed to get rid of safety inspections and emissions inspections on pre-OBD2 vehicles. One thing they do that is really annoying is charge credit card surcharges if paying motor vehicle registration fees online. I understand there is a merchant fee to be recovered, but how much does it cost them to process check payments which involves actually people to handle them?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 07, 2020, 06:37:52 PM
Quote from: RoadPelican on March 06, 2020, 12:56:58 PM
I was really hoping that VA would get rid of Vehicle Inspections because maybe that would put pressure on NC to get rid of ours.

Hell, I'd settle for VA doing away with stickers and going electronic like NC did years ago.

Quote from: RoadPelican on March 06, 2020, 12:56:58 PMThe $5 fee for people to visit the DMV over going online would also be a good idea for NC to take. (Overcrowded is an understatement in the Tar Heel State)

Depends on where one is in NC. When I lived near Goldsboro, the license plate office was usually a breeze and the DMV driver's license office wasn't too bad. I don't doubt that it's worse in the more urban areas, though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: RoadPelican on March 08, 2020, 10:46:41 AM
Times have changed, the problem right now is the Real ID, fortunately the NCDMV has come out this past week and said "it's not required", but when I went to the NCDMV in rural Rockingham County in March 2019, to change my out of state info, I had to wait 3 HOURS!  I got there 15 mins before they opened and there were still 15-20 ahead of me! 

They say make an appointment, the problem is NO ONE answers the phone! and there is no online system in place yet.

On the other hand, I was in and out of the license plate office in 15 mins!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on March 10, 2020, 09:09:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on March 06, 2020, 04:16:13 PM
Quote from: RoadPelican on March 06, 2020, 12:56:58 PM
All in all, nothing to like in this legislation, but gas will STILL probably be cheaper in VA over NC, now just not as much.
If the road use tax increases are so great, then why the need to float $900 million in bonds to expedite I-81 upgrades?

Those bonds are a loan that will have to be paid off in installments over a 20 to 30 year period.

The key is right there: expedite. How long will it take to put money in the coffers to pay for I-81 improvements that should have been built 10 (or more) years ago? At least with the bonds, the top projects on the list can be put under contract pretty much right away, with the gas tax stream there to pay off the bonds in the future. One has to balance the cost of the interest against the cost of doing nothing while daily wrecks tally up expenses (and the occasional life). Sell those bonds and get to work!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 10, 2020, 09:48:52 AM
The Washington Post's article states, but without any detail, that a fee will be imposed on hybrid and alternative-fuel vehicles to make up for the fact that their owners pay less or no gas tax. Makes sense to me. Naturally, they're already whining about it being unfair and unjust because they think their not being taxed is a "reward" for buying a more efficient car.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on March 10, 2020, 10:13:12 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2020, 09:48:52 AM
The Washington Post's article states, but without any detail, that a fee will be imposed on hybrid and alternative-fuel vehicles to make up for the fact that their owners pay less or no gas tax. Makes sense to me. Naturally, they're already whining about it being unfair and unjust because they think their not being taxed is a "reward" for buying a more efficient car.

I think you're being a little harsh. After all, when these owners bought their cars, the gas tax was just that - a tax on gasoline purchases. The fact that the gas tax revenues are lower when you include hybrids and electrics is a fault of the taxing system, not the owners who played by the rules.

That said, I agree that the gas tax is an imperfect, since what you really want is a road-use tax when you think about it. That's why a mileage-driven tax system is probably the best*, although I'm at a loss for thinking of ways to implement it. Gasoline usage was/is merely a proxy for miles driven.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on March 10, 2020, 10:23:45 AM
Pending details on how hybrid cars get taxed, it could affect my Prius. It's not a plug-in, so it's entirely gas-fueled. It's also a low-mileage vehicle (only a few thousand miles a year), since it's rather elderly, and my newer (non-hybrid) car now handles most of my non-local travel. So if the surcharge is a flat annual fee, it will sting me especially hard.

There was an earlier attempt in Virginia to surcharge hybrids, which got undone after public reaction. Could happen again?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 10, 2020, 10:51:32 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 10, 2020, 10:13:12 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2020, 09:48:52 AM
The Washington Post's article states, but without any detail, that a fee will be imposed on hybrid and alternative-fuel vehicles to make up for the fact that their owners pay less or no gas tax. Makes sense to me. Naturally, they're already whining about it being unfair and unjust because they think their not being taxed is a "reward" for buying a more efficient car.

I think you're being a little harsh. After all, when these owners bought their cars, the gas tax was just that - a tax on gasoline purchases. The fact that the gas tax revenues are lower when you include hybrids and electrics is a fault of the taxing system, not the owners who played by the rules.

Well, here's part of why I react that way: Many of those people are the same people who complain about tolls and say "the gas tax was supposed to pay for the roads." In other words, "make everybody pay except me." As a practical matter, I get it why they wouldn't be thrilled about having to pay a tax or fee they didn't pay before. Nobody likes having that happen. But as an intellectual matter, it seems reasonable to me that if you're using the roads, you have to pay something towards maintaining the roads, whether that's via the gas tax or some other means.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 10, 2020, 10:13:12 AM
That said, I agree that the gas tax is an imperfect, since what you really want is a road-use tax when you think about it. That's why a mileage-driven tax system is probably the best*, although I'm at a loss for thinking of ways to implement it. Gasoline usage was/is merely a proxy for miles driven.

The biggest practical problem I see with that system is that there has to be a way to compensate each jurisdiction for your use of their roads. That is, suppose I worked in Annapolis but lived where I do now and drove to work each day. Most of my driving would be on Maryland's roads. There would need to be some way to compensate Maryland for that. But the idea of GPS monitoring or similar is really sinister and rife with the opportunity for abuse.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on March 10, 2020, 11:20:42 AM
Don't disagree with your sentiments. There will always be winners and losers in any taxing regimen.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on March 10, 2020, 08:39:33 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on March 10, 2020, 10:13:12 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2020, 09:48:52 AM
The Washington Post's article states, but without any detail, that a fee will be imposed on hybrid and alternative-fuel vehicles to make up for the fact that their owners pay less or no gas tax. Makes sense to me. Naturally, they're already whining about it being unfair and unjust because they think their not being taxed is a "reward" for buying a more efficient car.

I think you're being a little harsh. After all, when these owners bought their cars, the gas tax was just that - a tax on gasoline purchases. The fact that the gas tax revenues are lower when you include hybrids and electrics is a fault of the taxing system, not the owners who played by the rules.

That said, I agree that the gas tax is an imperfect, since what you really want is a road-use tax when you think about it. That's why a mileage-driven tax system is probably the best*, although I'm at a loss for thinking of ways to implement it. Gasoline usage was/is merely a proxy for miles driven.
The original legislation actually had language that created a pilot program for implementing a VMT-based tax on vehicles with plugs. I'm guessing that got stripped out in this compromise bill, along with the section on speeding cameras.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 11, 2020, 07:22:26 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 02, 2020, 05:08:57 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:07:29 AM
The Southeastern Parkway has been discussed since the late 1970's, yet nothing has been done to complete it.  Hold on, there was the proposed routing.  I know about that because in the 1980's, there were small signs posted on Elbow Road to let one know that this was where the future route of the Southeastern Parkway was going to be built.  Now, if this was attempted in the late 1980's, the proposed routing on the interactive map (section from VA 168 northeast of Great Bridge to I-264 in Va. Beach) could have been built without much disruption to houses and businesses.  Now, forget about it!  Also, why would the section next to the Oak Grove Connector be built?  That would be silly and redundant.
As of 2010, this was the proposed routing. It's very similar / the same to the southern alternative outlined in the Location Study in the 1980s.
(https://www.pilotonline.com/resizer/8SbBuLJAk8Tg1lDP6_IQB6X3mnw=/415x233/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/62AN722DMFCBDODR3W2RXRMQCU.jpg)

Back in the 1980s when the concept was introduced, it was mainly to traverse wetlands and forested areas, despite large amounts of farmland also available in the path. This was one of its biggest issues from the beginning. Today, the only path that remains available is that wetlands and forested path as all of the farmland now has been largely developed. Had they chosen a less impactful route from the beginning when there was lots of land, it more than likely would've been built in some form.

It was also originally planned as an 8-lane freeway for its entire length. This has been downsized to a 4-lane freeway with tolls in the more recent proposals.

Despite the map showing a new (incorrect) routing parallel to the Oak Grove Connector, the actual proposal ties into the Great Bridge Bypass south of Kempsville and overlays it up to I-64. This would involve 8-lane widening of the Oak Grove Connector, though with today's volumes it needs widening to 8-lanes down to VA-165 including a new parallel Intracoastal Waterway bridge regardless if the parkway is built. The 2045 LRTP Candidate Projects features a project to do this, along with widening to 6-lanes between VA-165 and Hillcrest Pkwy.

If there's -any- chance of it ever resurrecting, it would have to be built in phases and utilize existing roadways where possible.

Here are potential SIUs in order of priority -
1) VA-168 widening to 8-lanes
2) VA-168 to Elbow Road east of Centerville Tpke - New location 4-lane freeway, tying into the proposed Elbow Rd 4-lane project.
3) Princess Anne Rd to Oceana Blvd - New location 4-lane freeway
4) Oceana Blvd to I-264 - Upgrade the existing Oceana Blvd to freeway standards using the existing footprint of the 55 mph expressway (with the 30 ft median), then new connector to I-264 on the northern end.
5) Elbow Rd at Virginia Beach city line to Princess Anne Rd - New location 4-lane freeway tying into the proposed Elbow Rd 4-lane project on the western end and a completed Southeastern Pkwy segment on the eastern end.
6) Elbow Rd between east of Centerville Tpke and the Virginia Beach city line - Upgrade the proposed Elbow Road 4-lane project to freeway standards using the existing footprint of the proposed project which if I recall would be built to at least expressway standards (wider curves, paved shoulders, etc.) (likely a reduced 30 ft median).

Speaking of Elbow Rd, the city of Chesapeake is set to begin construction in the next couple of years on Elbow Rd phase #2 which would widen Elbow Rd between east of Centerville Tpke and the Virginia Beach city line to have 12 foot lanes and a right 4 foot paved shoulder with right of way for future 4-lane. Options include a typical widening, whereas another would build a new one-way 1-lane carriageway parallel to the existing, convert the existing to one-way 1-lane, and have a 2-lane expressway divided by a depressed median.

http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Assets/documents/departments/public_works/Brochures/Citizen+Information+Meeting+-+Elbow+Road+Widening+Phase+2+Brochure.pdf

Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:07:29 AM
Two of the three other projects that SELC opposes and the one that would be under "close scrutiny" are needed.  No, Nimmo Parkway does not need to be extended to Sandbridge Road.  There has to be some rustic charm left in Va. Beach.  When my family lived there, we preferred going to Sandbridge rather than the Va. Beach Oceanfront--more laid back and quiet.
Debateful. Sandbridge remains the beach primarily for locals, but Sandbridge Rd sees a high amount of traffic during the summer, and the roadway has too many substandard features to handle this load, including narrow roadway, sharp curves, etc. and not to mention it's subject to flooding. The parkway extension would only be 2-lanes, not 4-lanes. IMO, it's needed.

Quote from: amroad17 on March 02, 2020, 09:07:29 AM
There are many projects on this interactive map that really needed to be completed 20-25 years ago--mainly road widenings and the Southeastern Parkway.
Agreed the Southeastern Pkwy is needed, though in today's environment it will never be built.

Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 09:45:38 AM
Has the FHWA and ACOE ever approved it?  It has very high wetlands impacts for 21 miles of highway.
No, and will likely never will, but nonetheless it's a needed project that should've been built 40 years ago when proposed in the 1980s as an 8-lane freeway. Now, it's been downsized to a 4-lane toll road, wetland impacts seem to have gone up, the cost has skyrocketed, and close proximity to newer developments presents further challenges.

Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 09:45:38 AM
Priority will be seen on these projects, IMO.
The Bowers Hill Interchange is a priority, though the US-58 / US-13 / US-460 connector study was scrapped by VDOT last year. It'd be nice to have and will eventually be needed, though it's an expensive project and there's higher priorities in the area. The existing highway is a high-capacity 6-lane expressway that practically functions as a 70 mph freeway that doesn't have any traffic issues unless there's an accident. I'd argue widening the Suffolk Bypass to 6-lanes is a higher priority then upgrading the connector. Once the major widenings and bridge-tunnel expansions are completed in the next 10 years, then we can turn the focus on these smaller priority, more expensive projects.

Quote from: Beltway on March 02, 2020, 11:24:04 AM
Full freeway standards like the southerly approved route CBA 1 as approved by the CTB in 2005 and the Final EIS and Record of Decision was signed and approved by FHWA in 2008.
The entire corridor would have to go through an entirely new NEPA process if it was ever resurrected.

Given today's climate, projects such as the US-460 relocation and the Southeastern Pkwy may never see the light of day. The only possible way I could see it if it was built in bite size phases, though if the Suffolk to Zuni proposal was any indication, that may not even be possible.
^

Interesting enough, the map has been updated between now and the time of this post.

Instead of showing a rough route of the entire parkway, it now shows two specific projects -
Southeastern Pkwy and Greenbelt - Phase I - Between London Bridge Rd and Princess Anne Rd
Southeastern Pkwy and Greenbelt - Phase II - Between Princess Anne Rd and Chesapeake City Line

The rest of the alignment has been removed. The project is still proposed as 4 lanes.

With this change, is it possible they are still trying to get it built, now in phases?

Here's another interesting find, in a History article from the Virginian Pilot from back in February 2020. The highway proposal at the time was downsized from 8 lanes from the 1980s study to 4 lanes, along with the elimination of two interchanges. The cost estimate for an 8-lane freeway in 1991 was $515 million, and a 4-lane freeway was $300 million. Around 2010, the cost estimate per VDOT's site is $1 billion, though more recent SYIP cost estimates have shown near $5 billion. As the 2045 LRTP is studied more in depth and cost estimates are determined this month, new estimates would be released. This could be either the entire parkway, along with these two phases alone. As I said before, phases is the only way this project will ever get built, and I suppose it's easiest to start on the low impact areas then tackle the more expensive and complex segments later.

Quote1991 - Trying to salvage plans for a superhighway that would run through southern Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, the councils of both cities reluctantly accept a state proposal for a road half as wide and 40% cheaper. The state's plan scales down the $515 million Southeastern Expressway from eight lanes to four and eliminates two interchanges, reducing the cost of the project to around $300 million. The proposed 21-mile road would run roughly from the Virginia-Beach-Norfolk Expressway near First Colonial Road, south along the eastern edge of the Oceana Naval Air Station, then southwest toward Chesapeake, crossing the city line south of Stumpy Lake. There the highway would continue west, linking up to the Interstate 64/464 interchange at Doziers Corner in Chesapeake, forming a beltway around the two cities.

Keep in mind, the VA-168 Oak Grove Connector wasn't built at the time of this publication, it was completed in 1999. About 3 miles of the proposed route has technically been built, from I-64 / I-464 to the Great Bridge Bypass, since.
https://www.pilotonline.com/history/vp-nk-back-superhighway-0223-20200217-dd5jzns7y5eove5cpfqad36uca-story.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 27, 2020, 06:32:43 PM
The governor signed the bill amending the reckless driving statute. It takes effect July 1.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 27, 2020, 07:17:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 27, 2020, 06:32:43 PM
The governor signed the bill amending the reckless driving statute. It takes effect July 1.
Indeed. https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/SB63/2020

Glad to see it finally through.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 27, 2020, 08:00:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2020, 07:17:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 27, 2020, 06:32:43 PM
The governor signed the bill amending the reckless driving statute. It takes effect July 1.
Indeed. https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/SB63/2020
Glad to see it finally through.
Speeders still won't be satisfied.

Their ultimate wish is "derestricted speed limits."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 27, 2020, 08:15:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 27, 2020, 08:00:02 PM
Speeders still won't be satisfied.

Their ultimate wish is "derestricted speed limits."
Nonsense. For me, a comfortable cruising speed is around 82 mph. I'm entirely satisfied with the increase, and is much more reasonable. 81 mph is -not- reckless, any way you slice it. Please explain why 11 mph over the speed limit warrants a reckless driving charge that has the potential to be punished by up to a year in jail / a fine of $2,500. Above 85 mph, it's questionable, but certainly getting up there. Ideally, I'd say cut the upper limit and leave it to 20 mph over (meaning 90 mph is reckless for 70 mph), but this is certainly good enough. This means reckless driving is above 20 mph over for any limit, except 70 mph where it would be above 15 mph over. I'd say the vast majority of current "reckless" drivers won't be in the new "reckless" category. I've stated before (actually in another post today) that 85 mph is the maximum I would comfortably hit, and that was on a road posted at 85 mph. I had no desire to exceed the limit, though was also not trying to be under it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 27, 2020, 08:31:51 PM
Near my neck of the woods, Prince William County will soon be constructing a $55 million dollar interchange project on VA-234, a major and increasingly busy corridor that somewhat acts as an outer beltway to the DC area. This project will eliminate the lights at both VA-234 Business and at Brentsville Road/PW Pkwy. Very unique and creative interchange IMO that will seemingly save a lot of money while also eliminating a frequent cause for backups.   
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Route%20234%20Brentsville%20Road%20Interchange%20Project%20PIM%20Brochure.pdf

Unfortunately, I can't say I have the same level of enthusiasm for what is planned a few miles north on VA-234 at its intersection with University Blvd. Here a Quadrant Road intersection is planned that instead of getting rid of this annoying light, adds an additional light to handle left-turn movements. Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the safety and traffic flow improvements that a quadrant road intersection can bring to the table. However, I personally don't think one works very well here (VA-234 is planned to have interchanges at essentially every other light between I-66 and VA-294 (PW Pkwy) and at a $24 million dollar price tag, would have rather waited a few more years for a more expensive, yet more beneficial, grade-separated interchange.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Prince%20William%20Parkway%20and%20University%20Boulevard%20Quadrant%20Road%20Intersection%20Brochure.pdf

Important to note that both of these projects are being administered by PWCDOT not VDOT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 27, 2020, 08:39:43 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 27, 2020, 08:31:51 PM
Near my neck of the woods, Prince William County will soon be constructing a $55 million dollar interchange project on VA-234, a major and increasingly busy corridor that somewhat acts as an outer beltway to the DC area. This project will eliminate the lights at both VA-234 Business and at Brentsville Road/PW Pkwy. Very unique and creative interchange IMO that will seemingly save a lot of money while also eliminating a frequent cause for backups.   
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Route%20234%20Brentsville%20Road%20Interchange%20Project%20PIM%20Brochure.pdf

Unfortunately, I can't say I have the same level of enthusiasm for what is planned a few miles north on VA-234 at its intersection with University Blvd. Here a Quadrant Road intersection is planned that instead of getting rid of this annoying light, adds an additional light to handle left-turn movements. Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the safety and traffic flow improvements that a quadrant road intersection can bring to the table. However, I personally don't think one works very well here (VA-234 is planned to have interchanges at essentially every other light between I-66 and VA-294 (PW Pkwy) and at a $24 million dollar price tag, would have rather waited a few more years for a more expensive, yet more beneficial, grade-separated interchange.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Prince%20William%20Parkway%20and%20University%20Boulevard%20Quadrant%20Road%20Intersection%20Brochure.pdf

Important to note that both of these projects are being administered by PWCDOT not VDOT.
The more lights removed on VA-234, the better. IMO, that bypass of Manassas should've been built as a full freeway when it was built only 20 years ago. Whoever thought an expressway design with signals would be appropriate in a rapidly growing area was clearly not thinking for anything beyond 10 years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 27, 2020, 09:20:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2020, 08:39:43 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 27, 2020, 08:31:51 PM
Near my neck of the woods, Prince William County will soon be constructing a $55 million dollar interchange project on VA-234, a major and increasingly busy corridor that somewhat acts as an outer beltway to the DC area. This project will eliminate the lights at both VA-234 Business and at Brentsville Road/PW Pkwy. Very unique and creative interchange IMO that will seemingly save a lot of money while also eliminating a frequent cause for backups.   
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Route%20234%20Brentsville%20Road%20Interchange%20Project%20PIM%20Brochure.pdf

Unfortunately, I can't say I have the same level of enthusiasm for what is planned a few miles north on VA-234 at its intersection with University Blvd. Here a Quadrant Road intersection is planned that instead of getting rid of this annoying light, adds an additional light to handle left-turn movements. Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the safety and traffic flow improvements that a quadrant road intersection can bring to the table. However, I personally don't think one works very well here (VA-234 is planned to have interchanges at essentially every other light between I-66 and VA-294 (PW Pkwy) and at a $24 million dollar price tag, would have rather waited a few more years for a more expensive, yet more beneficial, grade-separated interchange.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Prince%20William%20Parkway%20and%20University%20Boulevard%20Quadrant%20Road%20Intersection%20Brochure.pdf

Important to note that both of these projects are being administered by PWCDOT not VDOT.
The more lights removed on VA-234, the better. IMO, that bypass of Manassas should've been built as a full freeway when it was built only 20 years ago. Whoever thought an expressway design with signals would be appropriate in a rapidly growing area was clearly not thinking for anything beyond 10 years.

Agreed. It's especially frustrating when the right of way is practically a non-issue. I believe an additional type of innovative intersection is also planned for the current light at Clover Hill Road. However, at the moment this project is not yet fully funded.
http://www.virginiadot.org/info/innovative_intersections_and_interchanges/Bowtie.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 27, 2020, 09:32:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2020, 08:15:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 27, 2020, 08:00:02 PM
Speeders still won't be satisfied.
Their ultimate wish is "derestricted speed limits."
Nonsense.
Go out and look online.  Many articles from motorist advocacy groups over the last 20+ years.

Magazine articles by the likes of Car and Driver from the 60s onward.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 27, 2020, 09:37:18 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2020, 08:39:43 PM
The more lights removed on VA-234, the better. IMO, that bypass of Manassas should've been built as a full freeway when it was built only 20 years ago. Whoever thought an expressway design with signals would be appropriate in a rapidly growing area was clearly not thinking for anything beyond 10 years.
Lots of development and changes in the last 20 years.

VA-234 south of the bypass is an access-managed but not limited access highway, except for the Independent Hill bypass which is an expressway; so that was capacity-limiting of the corridor when built.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 28, 2020, 11:56:05 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 27, 2020, 08:31:51 PM
Unfortunately, I can't say I have the same level of enthusiasm for what is planned a few miles north on VA-234 at its intersection with University Blvd. Here a Quadrant Road intersection is planned that instead of getting rid of this annoying light, adds an additional light to handle left-turn movements. Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the safety and traffic flow improvements that a quadrant road intersection can bring to the table. However, I personally don't think one works very well here (VA-234 is planned to have interchanges at essentially every other light between I-66 and VA-294 (PW Pkwy) and at a $24 million dollar price tag, would have rather waited a few more years for a more expensive, yet more beneficial, grade-separated interchange.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Prince%20William%20Parkway%20and%20University%20Boulevard%20Quadrant%20Road%20Intersection%20Brochure.pdf

While I agree an interchange would be optimum, it's worth nothing that the proposal here both adds a 3rd lane in each direction on 234 through the intersection and eliminates all left turns at the existing intersection, which means it'll operate with a much simpler two-phase signal (i.e. more green time for through movements).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 28, 2020, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 27, 2020, 06:32:43 PM
The governor signed the bill amending the reckless driving statute. It takes effect July 1.

Glad he signed it. I was starting to wonder if it had gotten lost in the shuffle. At any rate, this was 10 years overdue.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 28, 2020, 02:06:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 28, 2020, 11:56:05 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 27, 2020, 08:31:51 PM
Unfortunately, I can't say I have the same level of enthusiasm for what is planned a few miles north on VA-234 at its intersection with University Blvd. Here a Quadrant Road intersection is planned that instead of getting rid of this annoying light, adds an additional light to handle left-turn movements. Now don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the safety and traffic flow improvements that a quadrant road intersection can bring to the table. However, I personally don't think one works very well here (VA-234 is planned to have interchanges at essentially every other light between I-66 and VA-294 (PW Pkwy) and at a $24 million dollar price tag, would have rather waited a few more years for a more expensive, yet more beneficial, grade-separated interchange.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Documents/Prince%20William%20Parkway%20and%20University%20Boulevard%20Quadrant%20Road%20Intersection%20Brochure.pdf

While I agree an interchange would be optimum, it's worth nothing that the proposal here both adds a 3rd lane in each direction on 234 through the intersection and eliminates all left turns at the existing intersection, which means it'll operate with a much simpler two-phase signal (i.e. more green time for through movements).

Believe me, when this project is complete in late 2022 it will be by far better than the current intersections at Balls Ford Road, Sudley Manor Drive, Wellington Road, Business 234, and Brentsville Road/ PW Pkwy. However, by the eventual time that all these lights are gone (Sudley Manor/Wellington Road interchange is the only one left that still needs funding), this new at-grade University Blvd intersection (along with Clover Hill Road) will soon become inadequate, annoying, and an unfortunate missed opportunity. Don't think that 3rd lane will help much either since it'll barely even be half a mile long and thru traffic will quickly discover that it ain't worth leaving their lane only to have quickly merge back. Now if the 3rd lane was planned to be extended in the future than I would maybe reconsider...

Also to be clear, I am not advocating for every traffic light on VA-234 to be turned into an interchange. Only the portion north of the PW Pkwy (Manassas Bypass) would I like to see get the same treatment as VA-28 and VA-7. South of there, I would just like to see no more additional traffic lights if possible but am all for new innovative intersections if they improve traffic flow. Currently, I find taking US-29/US-15 to US-17 faster than taking VA-234/I-95 to get to Fredricksburg and points south.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on March 28, 2020, 06:08:35 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 28, 2020, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 27, 2020, 06:32:43 PM
The governor signed the bill amending the reckless driving statute. It takes effect July 1.
Glad he signed it. I was starting to wonder if it had gotten lost in the shuffle. At any rate, this was 10 years overdue.

And some people will be satisfied with it for about, oh, 10 minutes ...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 28, 2020, 07:47:11 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 28, 2020, 06:08:35 PM
Quote from: LM117 on March 28, 2020, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 27, 2020, 06:32:43 PM
The governor signed the bill amending the reckless driving statute. It takes effect July 1.
Glad he signed it. I was starting to wonder if it had gotten lost in the shuffle. At any rate, this was 10 years overdue.

And some people will be satisfied with it for about, oh, 10 minutes ...
Been satisfied with it for 24 hours so far... I'll let you know when I think it should be higher.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 29, 2020, 12:12:55 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2020, 08:39:43 PM
The more lights removed on VA-234, the better. IMO, that bypass of Manassas should've been built as a full freeway when it was built only 20 years ago. Whoever thought an expressway design with signals would be appropriate in a rapidly growing area was clearly not thinking for anything beyond 10 years.

Please consider that finances play into these decisions.  Though a signal costs money to design and build (and has operating costs as well), signalized intersections cost less to construct than interchanges, and VDOT has not had an unlimited budget at all since the study and preliminary engineering of what is now VA-234 between VA-294 and I-66 started in the early 1990's. 

The same comments apply to VA-286 and VA-289 in Fairfax County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 29, 2020, 12:19:35 AM
At minimum, right of way should have been reserved and acquired for interchanges for a future freeway build out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 29, 2020, 04:15:43 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 29, 2020, 12:19:35 AM
At minimum, right of way should have been reserved and acquired for interchanges for a future freeway build out.

It would appear that the space is there, but I do not know if that land belongs to VDOT or is in reservation to prevent it from being developed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on April 02, 2020, 07:09:43 PM
Perhaps one of the few promising developments during these times:
https://www.insidenova.com/news/transportation/fairfax/reduced-traffic-means-more-time-for-roadwork-during-coronavirus-crisis/article_3945b110-727f-11ea-8473-c7b64473c9cd.html
QuoteRoad crews will have more time to work on Route 7 corridor improvements due to reduced traffic during the coronavirus crisis.

The Virginia Department of Transportation announced that lane closures between Reston Avenue and Jarrett Valley Drive have been extended "due to the significant decrease in traffic as a result of school closures, increased telework, and limitations on public gatherings."

The seven-mile road widening project west of the Dulles Toll Road includes an additional lane in each direction, shared-use paths and intersection improvements.

They'll now run from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. from Monday, March 30, to Friday April 3

Will be interesting to see if this approach will be implemented for other big projects across the state also experiencing significant drops in traffic volumes (Which I would assume would be pretty much everywhere). Would be awesome if they could finish some of these megaprojects (especially the ones on I-95) way sooner than expected.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on April 07, 2020, 11:24:02 PM
I was browsing Historic Aerials and noticed that the eastern end of the bypass was graded for a parclo at Portsmouth Blvd (photo is from 1982, bypass opened in 1973):

(https://i.imgur.com/uh78v94.png)

Does anyone know if a southeastern portion of the bypass was planned? Presume that it was permanently cancelled in favor of the southwestern extension opened in 2003.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Beltway on April 07, 2020, 11:46:17 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on April 07, 2020, 11:24:02 PM
I was browsing Historic Aerials and noticed that the eastern end of the bypass was graded for a parclo at Portsmouth Blvd (photo is from 1982, bypass opened in 1973):
Does anyone know if a southeastern portion of the bypass was planned? Presume that it was permanently cancelled in favor of the southwestern extension opened in 2003.
A full Suffolk loop was planned in the 1970s.  I'm not sure exactly but I don't think that quadrant survived the 1980s.

Business US-58 to the west of there does not connect to the bypass, and that section of Bus US-58 has only circuitous access to the bypass.  It would be helpful to built that access, those graded roadways could be built and paved and brought to an at-grade intersection with Bus US-58.  One overpass would be needed where those two roadways cross.  The grading and R/W is already there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 08, 2020, 12:01:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 07, 2020, 11:46:17 PM
A full Suffolk loop was planned in the 1970s.  I'm not sure exactly but I don't think that quadrant survived the 1980s.
IIRC, it was fully killed in the early 2000s when it was removed from long range plans in Suffolk.

Quote from: Beltway on April 07, 2020, 11:46:17 PM
Business US-58 to the west of there does not connect to the bypass, and that section of Bus US-58 has only circuitous access to the bypass.  It would be helpful to built that access, those graded roadways could be built and paved and brought to an at-grade intersection with Bus US-58.  One overpass would be needed where those two roadways cross.  The grading and R/W is already there.
The previously graded ramp is now an entrance to a new subdivision.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7527005,-76.5306663,1506m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7488341,-76.5317404,3a,75y,339.9h,82.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ076Yj495YRNditZhhjRHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

An interchange such as this (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.373185,-76.3074997,2080m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1) would be ideal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 10, 2020, 11:52:54 AM
Report from the HRTPO (Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization) detailing the impact of COVID-19 on the Hampton Roads region as far as transportation, traffic volume decreases, transit ridership decreases, etc.

Traffic volumes on tunnels (March 1 - 7 week vs. March 22 - 28 week)
HRBT - Down 38.6%
Downtown Tunnel - Down 35.7%
MMMBT - Down 36.1%
Midtown Tunnel - Down 42.6%
CBBT - Down 45.6%

VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) (March 1 - 7 week vs. March 22 - 28 week)
Chesapeake - Down 67.4%
Franklin - Down 49.2%
Gloucester - Down 61.7%
Hampton - Down 64.8%
Isle of Wight - Down 63.8%
James City - Down 73.4%
Newport News - Down 68%
Norfolk - Down 68.1%
Poquoson - Down 77.2%
Portsmouth - Down 59.1%
Southampton - Down 51%
Suffolk - Down 66.8%
Surry - Down 49.9%
Virginia Beach - Down 72.9%
Williamsburg - Down 90.9%
York - Down 75.5%

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/COVID-19%20Transportation_v3.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 15, 2020, 08:44:06 PM
Major road projects moving along at a faster pace with drivers homebound (https://www.pilotonline.com/news/health/vp-nw-road-projects-0415-20200415-m6uindiwkjcazeqj4iib7rswd4-story.html)
QuoteThere's a silver lining to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, according to Virginia Department of Transportation. With so many people staying at home and traffic volumes dropping 40 to 60 percent, contractors are finding themselves with more elbow room during what would traditionally be rush hour.

Traffic is so low, crews are likely getting ahead of schedule on interstate projects, pavement repairs and bridge replacements.

"Normally, our lane closures are scheduled to occur during off-peak travel times, but in some cases we have been able to extend the work hours so that crews have more time each day available to complete their tasks,"  said VDOT spokeswoman Jordan-Ashley Walker.

Contractors are working longer hours on two major interstate projects in some of the region's busiest corridors – the widening of Interstate 64 Southside/High Rise Bridge and improvements to the I-64/I-264 interchange. Road work on the Peninsula is also progressing including the widening of Longhill Road and the bridge rehabilitation over College Creek.

It's possible that some projects will be completed earlier than expected. VDOT will reassess schedules after the emergency has passed, Walker said.

In Virginia Beach's Hilltop area, the removal of the feeder lanes along Laskin Road and the replacement of a bridge built in 1938 is moving forward at a faster pace. The contractor has been able to complete critical steps during daylight hours by closing a lane when the road is normally too busy.

In some cases, traffic engineers are re-evaluating the sequence of events. Construction that was going to be an inconvenience to businesses later can be completed earlier.

Shops and restaurants along 19th Street at the Oceanfront were expecting an intersection to be closed during the height of the summer, but the city's contractor recently bumped up its plans to install new pavers over the next several weeks.

One of the biggest benefits has been safety for drivers and construction workers.

"Fewer cars in the work zone and fewer distractions reduces the probability of an accident, which is a good thing for everyone,"  said David Jarman, transportation division manager for Virginia Beach.

Less traffic also means less wear and tear on temporary pavement.

"This allows the contractor to focus more on pursuing the work and less on roadway maintenance during construction,"  Jarman said.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 20, 2020, 02:12:15 PM
Traffic Shifts Continue on Third Segment of Peninsula I-64 Widening Project (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/I-64-WIDENING--TRAFFIC-SHIFTS-CONTINUE-ON-SEGMENT-III.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=sshs-CNWz4I)
QuoteYORK COUNTY — A series of traffic shifts continue next week on the third segment of the Interstate 64 Widening Project, moving traffic left from the two existing concrete travel lanes onto the new travel lanes in the median to allow for the full reconstruction of the outside lanes.

Starting as early as overnight Tuesday, April 21, the next scheduled traffic shift will take place eastbound on I-64, from Colonial Parkway to the eastern limits of the project near Route 199/Humelsine Parkway (exit 242), weather permitting.

To complete the traffic shift operations, crews will alternate single-lane closures on I-64 east between Colonial Parkway to just west of Route 199/Humelsine Parkway, April 20-21 from 7 p.m. until 5 a.m., as well as implement a brief stoppage overnight to transition the traffic safely to the new lanes.

Two additional traffic shifts are currently estimated to take place over the following two weeks, with one shift implemented each week as weather and schedule allows. The shifts will be implemented in the following locations:
* I-64 east, from the western project limits of the project–approximately 1 mile west of Route 199/Newman Road–to the Lightfoot exit at Route 199/Newman Road (exit 234)
* I-64 west, from the eastern project limits of the project–approximately 1 mile west of Route 199/Humelsine Parkway (exit 242)–to the Colonial Parkway overpass bridge

While lower traffic volumes continue to be observed overall in Hampton Roads recently, motorists are reminded that they must still obey the reduced 55 mph speed limit and drive with caution when traveling in the project work zone, especially when navigating the upcoming new traffic patterns. 

All project work and scheduled closures are dependent upon weather conditions.

(https://files.constantcontact.com/5ebe224c501/2ac7894d-fc4b-4460-baeb-7e638e9141bc.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 20, 2020, 03:27:01 PM
The recent shift at Queens Creek seems to be flowing well (as expected). Despite the light traffic, it's still going to take quite a while for the freeway over the Colonial Pkwy to be finished, for obvious reasons. I drove past it Saturday and it's nowhere near as advanced as much of the rest of the project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 20, 2020, 03:29:11 PM
Quote from: plain on April 20, 2020, 03:27:01 PM
The recent shift at Queens Creek seems to be flowing well (as expected). Despite the light traffic, it's still going to take quite a while for the freeway over the Colonial Pkwy to be finished, for obvious reasons. I drove past it Saturday and it's nowhere near as advanced as much of the rest of the project.
I'd expect with the recent decrease in traffic, the projected completion date of Fall 2021 may be moved forward to potentially being open with all 6 lanes by next Spring.

The sooner the better. Glad to see work progressing and lane shifts beginning to happen. So far, everything seems on track as planned.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 22, 2020, 11:00:59 AM
Drive through I-64 Segment 3 heading eastbound. Traffic is now shifted on inside lanes and over new westbound bridge. Note the slight shift at the Queens Dr overpass, where the completed project left shoulder will reduce from 12 ft to ~4-5 ft underneath the bridge.
https://www.facebook.com/VirginiaDOT/videos/10156927623165974/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 22, 2020, 04:11:33 PM
Quote from: plain on April 20, 2020, 03:27:01 PM
The recent shift at Queens Creek seems to be flowing well (as expected). Despite the light traffic, it's still going to take quite a while for the freeway over the Colonial Pkwy to be finished, for obvious reasons. I drove past it Saturday and it's nowhere near as advanced as much of the rest of the project.

I presume the replacement bridges that carry I-64 over the Colonial Parkway will be a similar design to the arch structures with many red bricks that have been there since this part of I-64 was constructed?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 22, 2020, 10:34:34 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 22, 2020, 04:11:33 PM
Quote from: plain on April 20, 2020, 03:27:01 PM
The recent shift at Queens Creek seems to be flowing well (as expected). Despite the light traffic, it's still going to take quite a while for the freeway over the Colonial Pkwy to be finished, for obvious reasons. I drove past it Saturday and it's nowhere near as advanced as much of the rest of the project.

I presume the replacement bridges that carry I-64 over the Colonial Parkway will be a similar design to the arch structures with many red bricks that have been there since this part of I-64 was constructed?

It actually looked like they're adding on to the existing structures in the widening effort. There was a tarp covering the whole arch under each direction of the freeway, looked like the Parkway was closed in that area. I wish I could be there more often to see this process being carried out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on April 23, 2020, 02:47:13 PM
A leftover from the dual-ization of U.S. 460 in Bedford County is going to be fixed next spring and summer. When the road was widened in the late? 1950s, new westbound lanes were built east of Montvale and the eastbound lanes retained on the climbing S-curves of the original highway. Over the years a number of incidents and wrecks have been problematic, with one in 2012 that involved a fuel tanker that overturned, killing the driver and requiring that portion of the road to be closed for several months to clean up the soil contaminated by spilled gasoline.

The improvement will be construction of two new lanes parallel to the existing westbound lanes and adjustments to several crossovers in that stretch. Traffic will be maintained although there may be occasional lane closures. See http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/route_460_s_curve_realignment_-_bedford_county.asp for VDOT info and https://www.roanoke.com/news/local/elimination-of-us-460-s-curves-in-bedford-county-approved/article_289245a5-5782-5f39-9dc8-8224ac6946b8.html for the news story.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 23, 2020, 03:43:57 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on April 23, 2020, 02:47:13 PM
A leftover from the dual-ization of U.S. 460 in Bedford County is going to be fixed next spring and summer. When the road was widened in the late? 1950s, new westbound lanes were built east of Montvale and the eastbound lanes retained on the climbing S-curves of the original highway. Over the years a number of incidents and wrecks have been problematic, with one in 2012 that involved a fuel tanker that overturned, killing the driver and requiring that portion of the road to be closed for several months to clean up the soil contaminated by spilled gasoline.

The improvement will be construction of two new lanes parallel to the existing westbound lanes and adjustments to several crossovers in that stretch. Traffic will be maintained although there may be occasional lane closures. See http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/route_460_s_curve_realignment_-_bedford_county.asp for VDOT info and https://www.roanoke.com/news/local/elimination-of-us-460-s-curves-in-bedford-county-approved/article_289245a5-5782-5f39-9dc8-8224ac6946b8.html for the news story.
For a second, I was thinking of this mess in Narrows, VA / Giles County, VA. In some areas, a slight error and you're loosing paint.

Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3659349,-80.8165905,3a,48.7y,326.29h,85.34t,0r/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRwZQfkbewVF2bsz7zH2giQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)
Aerial (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3555953,-80.8076603,3166m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1)

The project mentioned above is certainly needed, though I would hope this area would also be addressed at some point in the future. I-73 won't ever be coming through this area, it would be a standalone US-460 project. Not cheap.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 24, 2020, 02:33:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 23, 2020, 03:43:57 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on April 23, 2020, 02:47:13 PM
A leftover from the dual-ization of U.S. 460 in Bedford County is going to be fixed next spring and summer. When the road was widened in the late? 1950s, new westbound lanes were built east of Montvale and the eastbound lanes retained on the climbing S-curves of the original highway. Over the years a number of incidents and wrecks have been problematic, with one in 2012 that involved a fuel tanker that overturned, killing the driver and requiring that portion of the road to be closed for several months to clean up the soil contaminated by spilled gasoline.

The improvement will be construction of two new lanes parallel to the existing westbound lanes and adjustments to several crossovers in that stretch. Traffic will be maintained although there may be occasional lane closures. See http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/route_460_s_curve_realignment_-_bedford_county.asp for VDOT info and https://www.roanoke.com/news/local/elimination-of-us-460-s-curves-in-bedford-county-approved/article_289245a5-5782-5f39-9dc8-8224ac6946b8.html for the news story.
For a second, I was thinking of this mess in Narrows, VA / Giles County, VA. In some areas, a slight error and you're loosing paint.

Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3659349,-80.8165905,3a,48.7y,326.29h,85.34t,0r/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRwZQfkbewVF2bsz7zH2giQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)
Aerial (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3555953,-80.8076603,3166m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1)

The project mentioned above is certainly needed, though I would hope this area would also be addressed at some point in the future. I-73 won't ever be coming through this area, it would be a standalone US-460 project. Not cheap.

Isn't one of the roadways of U.S. 460 there on the right-of-way of the former Virginian Railway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginian_Railway)?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 24, 2020, 10:07:24 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 24, 2020, 02:33:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 23, 2020, 03:43:57 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on April 23, 2020, 02:47:13 PM
A leftover from the dual-ization of U.S. 460 in Bedford County is going to be fixed next spring and summer. When the road was widened in the late? 1950s, new westbound lanes were built east of Montvale and the eastbound lanes retained on the climbing S-curves of the original highway. Over the years a number of incidents and wrecks have been problematic, with one in 2012 that involved a fuel tanker that overturned, killing the driver and requiring that portion of the road to be closed for several months to clean up the soil contaminated by spilled gasoline.

The improvement will be construction of two new lanes parallel to the existing westbound lanes and adjustments to several crossovers in that stretch. Traffic will be maintained although there may be occasional lane closures. See http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/route_460_s_curve_realignment_-_bedford_county.asp for VDOT info and https://www.roanoke.com/news/local/elimination-of-us-460-s-curves-in-bedford-county-approved/article_289245a5-5782-5f39-9dc8-8224ac6946b8.html for the news story.
For a second, I was thinking of this mess in Narrows, VA / Giles County, VA. In some areas, a slight error and you're loosing paint.

Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3659349,-80.8165905,3a,48.7y,326.29h,85.34t,0r/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRwZQfkbewVF2bsz7zH2giQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)
Aerial (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3555953,-80.8076603,3166m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1)

The project mentioned above is certainly needed, though I would hope this area would also be addressed at some point in the future. I-73 won't ever be coming through this area, it would be a standalone US-460 project. Not cheap.

Isn't one of the roadways of U.S. 460 there on the right-of-way of the former Virginian Railway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginian_Railway)?

US 460 EB is on the railroad ROW from Rich Creek to VA 61 and both directions use the old alignment from Rich Creek west to a little short of the WV state line
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on April 24, 2020, 10:26:33 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 24, 2020, 02:33:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 23, 2020, 03:43:57 PM

For a second, I was thinking of this mess in Narrows, VA / Giles County, VA. In some areas, a slight error and you're loosing paint.

Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3659349,-80.8165905,3a,48.7y,326.29h,85.34t,0r/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRwZQfkbewVF2bsz7zH2giQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)
Aerial (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3555953,-80.8076603,3166m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1)

The project mentioned above is certainly needed, though I would hope this area would also be addressed at some point in the future. I-73 won't ever be coming through this area, it would be a standalone US-460 project. Not cheap.

Isn't one of the roadways of U.S. 460 there on the right-of-way of the former Virginian Railway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginian_Railway)?

I can't imagine what that section of road between Narrows and Rich Creek was like when it was two-way traffic. It isn't too bad now if there isn't any traffic around you and you can ignore the arbitrary lines on the road and run straight across the curves.

The four-laning of U.S. 460 through Giles County went on well into the '70s, with the Pearisburg bypass and new bridges over the New River and improvements in Glen Lyn being the last sections completed. The stretch from Glen Lyn to the east side of Narrows was one of the early sections built because of the curves on the bluff. The Norfolk & Western Railway merged with the Virginian Railway in the late '50s, which gave the railroad parallel tracks on both sides of the New River between Glen Lyn and Whitethorne (the Virginian started its climb there to eventually reach the tunnel under U.S. 460 between Blacksburg and Christiansburg, then dropped into the Ellet Valley; the N&W continued up the river to Walton, then turned to climb to Christiansburg). A connection in Kellysville, W.Va. allowed loaded eastbound coal trains from Bluefield to cross over to the Virginian to continue on the easier grade to Roanoke.

The Virginia Department of Highways looked at the broad, flat right of way of the Virginian below the twisting section of U.S. 460 and made the N&W an offer it couldn't refuse. If the N&W gave up its right of way between Glen Lyn and Narrows, the state would build it two new bridges to change its traffic pattern. Instead of moving to the VGN tracks in Kellysville, trains from Princeton would cross to the N&W there (that was the closest location of the two lines), then cross back to VGN tracks on a new bridge on the east side of Narrows. The deal was done and new eastbound U.S. 460 lanes were built from Glen Lyn to Narrows. Downtown Rich Creek was bypassed and a new road configuration through Narrows improved traffic flow.

This page mainly covers changes in Kellysville and the new U.S. 460 in West Virginia from Glen Lyn west, but those changes were the result of the changes in Virginia:  https://brucebharper.info/nwrwy/kellysville/kellysville.html

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 30, 2020, 02:42:53 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1255848056538443776
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 30, 2020, 10:26:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 09, 2020, 08:12:08 PM
The Hampton Blvd ramp is not yet completed. Lane striping in many areas, notably westbound, is missing. The approach to the connector on I-564 is still not finished. The package was a completed Intermodal Connector with access to Gate 6, NIT, Hampton Blvd ramp by October 2018. To the public, it's not completed.

Dash-cam footage from today's drive. You can see various aspects on VDOT's side not completed, along with the major construction work near the bridge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sachP_NPfmw
Continuing this on the appropriate forum...

VDOT's I-564 Intermodal Connector (http://www.i564intermodal.com/) website has been updated.

The CVIS (Commercial Vehicle Inspection Station) facility is now projected to be open in May 2020 and Gate 6 to be open in July 2020. Full project completion is scheduled for Fall 2020.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i564intermodal.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F04%2F564Map1.jpg&hash=7734d9675f285bd10c9c73653deca1b1eb604334)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i564intermodal.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F04%2F564Map2.jpg&hash=cc2d6c568e4e5f7849d9856bb28060fe53ac8f66)

Originally opened to NIT Traffic in December 2017 and projected to be completed in Fall 2018, this project is about 24 months behind schedule. As seen in the above video taken on April 9, 2020, they demolished a segment of roadway a couple years old and are replacing it (?), which is likely adding to the delay.

Here are pictures of different aspects of the project from March 2020 from the FHWA. The CVIS and Gate 6 appear complete and ready to handle traffic, it seems they are just waiting on VDOT to complete approach work. https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/projects/va/i564/documents/Project-Photos-03.2020.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 01, 2020, 03:51:13 PM
Does anyone have an old Fairfax County map dating back to the 1970s or earlier? I seem to recall that once upon a time, Bannerwood Drive went through to Woodburn Road at the intersection where Wellness Boulevard now comes in from the other side, but I can't find any confirmation anywhere (though if you look closely at Street View, you can see where the power lines head up through the trees along the path through the woods there). This would be back in the 1970s and earlier; by the 1980s, it was definitely gone. Historic Aerials shows a dirt road there in the 1964 aerial, but the 1979 and 1981 images are just too fuzzy to be able to tell.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.853875,-77.2262232,425m/data=!3m1!1e3

What prompted me to think of it is that we may head over to near there tomorrow morning for the Blue Angels flyover. When I was a little kid, we lived nearby in Strathmeade Square, so any time we went anywhere by car we had to use Woodburn Road either up to Gallows or down towards Route 236.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 01, 2020, 09:13:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 01, 2020, 03:51:13 PM
Does anyone have an old Fairfax County map dating back to the 1970s or earlier? I seem to recall that once upon a time, Bannerwood Drive went through to Woodburn Road at the intersection where Wellness Boulevard now comes in from the other side, but I can't find any confirmation anywhere (though if you look closely at Street View, you can see where the power lines head up through the trees along the path through the woods there). This would be back in the 1970s and earlier; by the 1980s, it was definitely gone. Historic Aerials shows a dirt road there in the 1964 aerial, but the 1979 and 1981 images are just too fuzzy to be able to tell.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.853875,-77.2262232,425m/data=!3m1!1e3

What prompted me to think of it is that we may head over to near there tomorrow morning for the Blue Angels flyover. When I was a little kid, we lived nearby in Strathmeade Square, so any time we went anywhere by car we had to use Woodburn Road either up to Gallows or down towards Route 236.

Thanks to Froggie, I have Fairfax County map scans for 1967, 1971, 1977, 1979, 1987.

None show a connection to Woodburn.

Historic Aerials in the 1960s and older clearly show a dirt road leading south from Woodburn to a couple properties.  The 1979 and 1981 images seem to show that whatever connection was left was a lot narrower than the paved street coming from the south.  So it may have still been possible to drive that dirt lane in the time frame you mention, but it was never a road taken in by VDOT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 01, 2020, 09:29:30 PM
Thanks! I was sure I have vague memories of something being there, but given that I was a little kid, those memories are very vague. I remember Woodburn not curving slightly to the left at Gallows when we first lived in Strathmeade, but they reconfigured that area in the late 1970s as well.

Thanks for the info. Maybe after the flyover I might go have a look at the path there. I drive down Woodburn every once in a while, but when I go through there I'm usually looking at how the hospital area has changed since I was a kid.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 08, 2020, 01:31:16 PM
I-64 Southside Widening and High Rise Bridge Expansion Project - Project Newsletter - May 2020 (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/I-64-Widening-and-High-Rise-Bridge-Project-Newsletter.html?soid=1129611264940&aid=0_QYDwg8T4U)
QuoteConstruction Continues on the New High Rise Bridge

Bridge piers continue to be built on both sides of the the river. As of April 20 th , 80% of piles have been installed, and crews have successfully constructed 30 columns, 11 pier caps, and are making preparations to start installing large beams on top of the piers beginning in May 2020.

The highest part of the new bridge is currently 99 feet, a small height compared to the 113 feet it will be to the top of the bridge in order to provide a final 100 foot clearance under the bridge for the navigational channel.

(https://files.constantcontact.com/ca304120701/6c0e8a1d-0866-4b1e-9ccc-21dc9eff1d42.jpg)(https://files.constantcontact.com/ca304120701/e938dc52-12fc-4c26-bec7-a75ec060413d.jpg)

Drainage Ponds Underway near the I-464 exit

Storm water basins at the cloverleafs at 464 are being constructed to manage storm-water runoff for the new road widening. Retention basins collect storm-water run-off in permanent pools to provide flood control, pollutant removal and erosion control.

(https://files.constantcontact.com/ca304120701/d4d02d80-b823-4a21-973f-93d0976c7c7c.jpg)

Update on Great Bridge Boulevard Bridge Replacement

Construction of the Great Bridge Boulevard Bridge has kicked into high gear! This new replacement bridge will have longer spans than the existing bridge to allow for the construction of the new High Rise Bridge and additional interstate lanes. The new bridge is being built slightly to the west (towards Suffolk) of the current bridge and will replace the current bridge once complete.

During the winter, construction continued on the center pier and the abutments on the north and south side of I-64 (parallel to the current Great Bridge Boulevard Bridge). The pier and abutments serve as the supports of the new bridge that will be built over I-64.

As seen in the photo below, a bridge pier is being constructed in the median to support the new overpass.

(https://files.constantcontact.com/ca304120701/42f7b921-10db-43b1-8a02-52a23b0f8c50.jpg)

Columns and Piers Taking Form for the Interstate Widening over Military Highway

The columns for the bridge widenings over I-64 at Military Highway as shown in the photos are nearly complete. Crews have begun working on the pier caps. Girders, which are the horizontal structures that support the roadway, will begin being installed this summer.

Military Highway continues to be reduced to one lane in each direction under the I-64 overpass.

(https://files.constantcontact.com/ca304120701/3f2c120f-2a13-4e8a-8e5a-7593670f6dc8.jpg)(https://files.constantcontact.com/ca304120701/184414a1-80eb-47bb-8068-4c7013ccf6c8.jpg)

Update on I-64 Widening over Yadkin Road

"Crashwalls" were added to the existing I-64 columns for added protection in the event that a train incident were to occur near the overpass. Crews will soon begin working on the pier caps and abutments. Crews will then begin installing girders during the summer.

(https://files.constantcontact.com/ca304120701/01b4cd2c-ef5d-4a2d-9aad-9845aaf29cfd.jpg)

Pardon Our Noise - Construction Activities at the Shell Road I-64 Overpass Starting Soon

Construction activities at the Shell Road I-64 overpass began mid-April and will continue into fall. Typical daily work hours are from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.

With construction progressing, residents and businesses can expect noise and may feel minor vibrations due to pile driving and other construction activities in the vicinity.

Instances may occur where activities extend past 5 p.m.; however, per City of Chesapeake noise ordinance, all excessive loud noise activities will be suspended between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. the following morning unless otherwise approved and the public has been notified.

Temporary road closures and flagging operations on local roadways may also be necessary for the safety of our workers and traveling motorists. All road closures will be announced in advance with variable message boards on the roadways and on the traffic alerts section of our project website.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on May 09, 2020, 05:32:04 AM
^ Concerning the above post...

   1.  It is great that VDOT is widening I-64 from Bowers Hill to I-464--although it is really 15 years late.  However, with the funding issues before, I realize that this is the first opportunity available to do this.  Also, it is the perfect time to do this to coincide with the building of the new High Rise Bridge.
   2.  I could possibly see flyovers in the future for the I-64/I-464 (Exit 291) interchange.
           - I-64 (East) to US 17/VA 168 South
           - I-64 (West) to I-464 North
   3.  I noticed that the VDOT camera screenshot showed an "I-64 WEST/Va. Beach" sign.  Is VDOT starting to sign I-64 EAST/WEST (opposite compass direction) between I-464 and I-264?  I have posted before in other topics that maybe VDOT could change the cardinal direction of I-64 to NORTH/SOUTH from either the I-664 interchange in Hampton or at Mallory Ave. just before the HRBT to the Bowers Hill interchange (using that US 13 used to be a signed NORTH/SOUTH bypass on I-64 from Bowers Hill to Northampton Blvd. from the time it opened until 1981).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 09, 2020, 06:00:18 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on May 09, 2020, 05:32:04 AM
^ Concerning the above post...

   1.  It is great that VDOT is widening I-64 from Bowers Hill to I-464--although it is really 15 years late.  However, with the funding issues before, I realize that this is the first opportunity available to do this.  Also, it is the perfect time to do this to coincide with the building of the new High Rise Bridge.
Unfortunately, while the project will help significantly, it's only Phase 1 of the ultimate build outlined in the EIS.

One HO/T (high occupancy toll) lane is being built each way, with still only two general purpose lanes each way. This will still help congestion and provide a congestion-free option. However, I feel as if general purpose improvements would have been more appropriate at least for this phase.

The new High Rise Bridge is also currently one piece of the ultimate build. When Phase 1 is complete in 2021, the new bridge will carry westbound (towards Va Beach) traffic while the existing bridge will continue carrying eastbound traffic.

The currently unfunded Phase 2 project will widen the corridor further to 8 lanes (which at that time I feel adding one HO/T lane along with 3 general purpose lanes - the exact typical section that will be utilized west of I-464 - would be appropriate though I believe the official plan is 2+2 which hopefully gets changed), replace the existing High Rise Bridge with a twin of the new one currently under construction, and reconfigure all interchanges.

Quote
   2.  I could possibly see flyovers in the future for the I-64/I-464 (Exit 291) interchange.
           - I-64 (East) to US 17/VA 168 South
           - I-64 (West) to I-464 North
As mentioned above, the future unfunded Phase 2 project will overhaul all interchanges including the Oak Grove Interchange. The plan in the EIS showed a flyover from VA-168 / US-17 North to I-64 East along with one from I-464 South to I-64 West. This would leave the major I-64 East to VA-168 / US-17 South movement as a loop, though weaving would be eliminated entirely. My personal belief is the loops in the southern quadrant are adequate with a C/D road handling I-64 weaving between the light traffic movements, and that the I-464 South to I-64 West flyover should be instead built from I-64 East to VA-168 / US-17 South, a much busier movement.

In my opinion, the Oak Grove Interchange (I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 / US-17) warrants its own project similar to the Bowers Hill Interchange, apart from the I-64 Phase 2 project. Different options should be evaluated including building a flyover to VA-168 / US-17 South. Consideration should also be taken to the potential Future I-87 corridor to Raleigh that will follow US-17 into North Carolina that will likely increase volumes further once built. Fixing that bottleneck sooner independent of the almost $2 billion Phase 2 would be helpful considering the interchange has been a joke since the Oak Grove Connector was built in 1999. I'd argue it's more of a bottleneck and hazard than the Bowers Hill Interchange, which VDOT seems to be putting more priority on.

(https://i.ibb.co/KyKJMtt/64-464-168-17-interchange-phase-2.png)

Quote
   3.  I noticed that the VDOT camera screenshot showed an "I-64 WEST/Va. Beach" sign.  Is VDOT starting to sign I-64 EAST/WEST (opposite compass direction) between I-464 and I-264?  I have posted before in other topics that maybe VDOT could change the cardinal direction of I-64 to NORTH/SOUTH from either the I-664 interchange in Hampton or at Mallory Ave. just before the HRBT to the Bowers Hill interchange (using that US 13 used to be a signed NORTH/SOUTH bypass on I-64 from Bowers Hill to Northampton Blvd. from the time it opened until 1981).
It's not signed in most places, there's the obvious exception of that sign, also on the Dominion Blvd freeway upgrade that also signs East and West.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on May 09, 2020, 07:05:05 AM
I did not realize that there was more Phases to this construction project.  I need to research more.   :D

In a perfect world, the Oak Grove interchange should be built to a four-level stack.  However, with development infringing against the ROW throughout most of the interchange, it would be difficult to build this without some extra ROW acquisition.

You are correct that a flyover needs to be built from I-64 to US 17/VA 168 South (Future I-87).  That seems more important than the I-464 to I-64 flyover.

Either VDOT or the city of Chesapeake has to realize that the Oak Grove interchange area isn't "country" anymore.  This interchange was adequate in the 1970's and 1980's.  Not now.  Because of the opening of I-464 north of Military Hwy., the opening of the Oak Grove Connector (VA 168), and the upgrade of Dominion Blvd. (US 17) to a freeway, this interchange has turned into one of the more complex and busy interchanges in South Hampton Roads.  It needs to be upgraded big time.

Could you give me an opinion on why VDOT believes the Bowers Hill interchange is a "problem"?  There seems to be free-flowing movements on the main freeways throughout the interchange--with the exception being the US 58 East to I-664 North movement utilizing a loop ramp.  That could be solved with a flyover possibly tying in with the US 58 West to I-664 North on ramp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 09, 2020, 01:46:02 PM
Bowers Hill is a problem because of a significant weave in the eastbound direction, where traffic from Suffolk continuing to Portsmouth/Norfolk has to weave across traffic from 664 wanting to continue along 64 towards the High Rise all in the span of about 2/3 mile  These are the primary southbound/eastbound movements and cause a problem especially during the morning rush.

The westbound weave is less of a problem but by no means zero.

So it's reasonable to conclude that VDOT considers the safety issues at Bowers Hill to be more important than the mostly-capacity issues at 464.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 09, 2020, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 09, 2020, 01:46:02 PM
Bowers Hill is a problem because of a significant weave in the eastbound direction, where traffic from Suffolk continuing to Portsmouth/Norfolk has to weave across traffic from 664 wanting to continue along 64 towards the High Rise all in the span of about 2/3 mile  These are the primary southbound/eastbound movements and cause a problem especially during the morning rush.

The westbound weave is less of a problem but by no means zero.

So it's reasonable to conclude that VDOT considers the safety issues at Bowers Hill to be more important than the mostly-capacity issues at 464.
The Oak Grove Interchange is by no means a piece of cake either. The busiest movements, VA-168 North to I-64 East and I-64 East to VA-168 South have to weave where the two loops converge, and once on I-464 South right before the US-17 and VA-168 split, traffic bound to VA-168, the busier route, has to cross across one or two lanes in a very short distance coming up a 25 mph loop, mixed in with I-464 South in all lanes traffic moving 60+ mph. It's mind boggling that the flyover concept presented in the I-64 EIS wouldn't even address this.

In addition to these major safety issues at this 1960's era interchange, largely worsened by the Oak Grove Connector tie in in 1999 with no improvements to the I-64 cloverleaf, traffic backs up daily (non-COVID) on I-64 East back to at least Greenbrier Pkwy and is a crawl until past the bridge and onto the congested High Rise Bridge where it finally begins to pick back up to 40-55 mph.

At least with the Bowers Hill Interchange, weaving movements are all done at roughly the same high speed, not one at 25 mph and the other at 60+ mph. Traffic congestion isn't nearly as much as a problem as it is at Oak Grove.

Do I think the Bowers Hill interchange should get an overhaul? Yes. Do I think the Oak Grove Interchange should be a higher priority and at least given its own EIS such as Bowers Hill independent of I-64 Phase 2? Yes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2020, 10:39:10 AM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1263810854371373057
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 22, 2020, 02:22:58 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2020, 10:39:10 AM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1263810854371373057

OK, now this is interesting. When I load the page, whatever was quoted is visible only for a brief moment, then disappears. Happens every time I reload the page.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 22, 2020, 02:26:10 PM
Saw this on VDOT's Facebook page today.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/99010844_10157031563590974_716069407289245696_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=WZtm306pXw8AX8IeEDl&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=55b82aae3747215d0298445781e3f82e&oe=5EED1B32)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2020, 02:37:54 PM
^

The image you posted is what was also on their Twitter.

QuoteFLASHBACK #FRIDAY: These markers along routes 17 & 360 in @EssexCountyGov illustrate how highway signs have changed from 1946 to now. They also show how Tappahannock has expanded in the past 74 yrs @VaDOTFRED
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 22, 2020, 03:19:54 PM
I find it interesting that the green sign has the arrow to the left of the word "Tappahannock." Normally VDOT puts that on the right side in the same position where a distance would go to note that a place is just a short distance ahead. (See Street View from the weigh station between Gilbert's Corner and Aldie, for example: https://goo.gl/maps/LWQdJdqcWWwNzLnj8 )

The US shields on the newer assembly there sure are ugly versions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2020, 03:35:58 PM
The US-17 assembly is typical, the US-360 one is off.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2020, 09:27:32 PM
Hasn't been mentioned yet...

2019 AADT data was released in the past couple of weeks - https://www.virginiadot.org/info/2019_traffic_data.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2020, 10:23:22 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTSalem/status/1263985997618065415
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sparker on May 22, 2020, 10:33:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2020, 02:26:10 PM
Saw this on VDOT's Facebook page today.

(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/99010844_10157031563590974_716069407289245696_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=WZtm306pXw8AX8IeEDl&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=55b82aae3747215d0298445781e3f82e&oe=5EED1B32)

They could have solved that "fraction" and put 0.04722 either in the shield or on the banner below!  :-P/ :-D

Yeah, I'm becoming weirder than usual during this sequestration/quarantine period!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 23, 2020, 03:53:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2020, 10:23:22 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTSalem/status/1263985997618065415
Long-term closure in place for US-460 in both directions near the Virginia state line. Thru traffic will need to use I-81 and I-77 as a detour. That routing is only about 10 minutes longer so nothing significant.

TRAFFIC ALERT: ROUTE 460 CLOSED IN VIRGINIA IN GILES COUNTY, EAST OF WEST VIRGINIA BORDER
Drivers will need to use Interstate 77 as an alternative route traveling in or out of Virginia
(http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/salem/2020/traffic-alert-route-460-closed-in-virginia-in-giles-county-east-of-west-virginia-border5-23-2020.asp?fbclid=IwAR29a2GGUcl-HGgpthkY9N4I75FO8ZY7AiZ5fqrhfIrXehtcNy5V4a0ePLs)
QuoteGILES COUNTY, VIRGINIA — As of Saturday, May 23, all lanes of Route 460 in Giles County, Virginia, about five miles east of the West Virginia border, are closed following a mudslide that collapsed portions of the roadway and damaged a retaining wall.

Virginia motorists traveling to West Virginia from Roanoke, Blacksburg and other locations east of the West Virginia border will need to take Interstate 81 to Wytheville and detour onto northbound Interstate 77.

West Virginia drivers traveling east into Virginia will need to use southbound Interstate 77 as an alternative route around the Route 460 closure.

The slide occurred on Route 460 about a mile west of the Town of Narrows. Route 460 traffic between Route 61 and Route 643 (State Line Road) is affected.

The Virginia Department of Transportation expects this to be a long-term closure possibly lasting weeks, but an exact time for reopening Route 460 has not been established.

Updates on this closure and the latest Virginia traffic information are available at www.511virginia.org, through the free mobile app or by phone.

This segment needs to be fully reconstructed in the long term, to straighten that part of the roadway heading westbound.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 23, 2020, 03:57:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2020, 03:35:58 PM
The US-17 assembly is typical, the US-360 one is off.

Compare them to the US-50 shield seen in the Street View image I linked from near Aldie. The ones in VDOT's photo are more like bubble shields by comparison.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 23, 2020, 06:41:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2020, 03:35:58 PM
The US-17 assembly is typical, the US-360 one is off.

I actually prefer the square three-digit markers, with a smaller font, to the wider rectangular signs, and have since the wider versions were introduced in Kentucky in the 1970s.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2020, 03:53:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 22, 2020, 10:23:22 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTSalem/status/1263985997618065415
Long-term closure in place for US-460 in both directions near the Virginia state line. Thru traffic will need to use I-81 and I-77 as a detour. That routing is only about 10 minutes longer so nothing significant.

TRAFFIC ALERT: ROUTE 460 CLOSED IN VIRGINIA IN GILES COUNTY, EAST OF WEST VIRGINIA BORDER
Drivers will need to use Interstate 77 as an alternative route traveling in or out of Virginia
(http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/salem/2020/traffic-alert-route-460-closed-in-virginia-in-giles-county-east-of-west-virginia-border5-23-2020.asp?fbclid=IwAR29a2GGUcl-HGgpthkY9N4I75FO8ZY7AiZ5fqrhfIrXehtcNy5V4a0ePLs)
QuoteGILES COUNTY, VIRGINIA — As of Saturday, May 23, all lanes of Route 460 in Giles County, Virginia, about five miles east of the West Virginia border, are closed following a mudslide that collapsed portions of the roadway and damaged a retaining wall.

Virginia motorists traveling to West Virginia from Roanoke, Blacksburg and other locations east of the West Virginia border will need to take Interstate 81 to Wytheville and detour onto northbound Interstate 77.

West Virginia drivers traveling east into Virginia will need to use southbound Interstate 77 as an alternative route around the Route 460 closure.

The slide occurred on Route 460 about a mile west of the Town of Narrows. Route 460 traffic between Route 61 and Route 643 (State Line Road) is affected.

The Virginia Department of Transportation expects this to be a long-term closure possibly lasting weeks, but an exact time for reopening Route 460 has not been established.

Updates on this closure and the latest Virginia traffic information are available at www.511virginia.org, through the free mobile app or by phone.

This segment needs to be fully reconstructed in the long term, to straighten that part of the roadway heading westbound.

This sounds to me like the embankment under the eastbound lanes gave way and slid down onto the westbound lanes. Hopefully some photos will emerge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 23, 2020, 07:12:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 23, 2020, 06:41:28 PM
This sounds to me like the embankment under the westbound lanes gave way and slid down onto the eastbound lanes.
FTFY. The westbound roadway is on higher elevation than the eastbound roadway.

Likely occurred around this area - https://www.google.com/maps/@37.349193,-80.8086961,3a,74.3y,137.38h,97.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPZdc48UTMID3Ko0Ay9Oxcg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 24, 2020, 05:56:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2020, 07:12:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 23, 2020, 06:41:28 PM
This sounds to me like the embankment under the westbound lanes gave way and slid down onto the eastbound lanes.
FTFY. The westbound roadway is on higher elevation than the eastbound roadway.

Likely occurred around this area - https://www.google.com/maps/@37.349193,-80.8086961,3a,74.3y,137.38h,97.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPZdc48UTMID3Ko0Ay9Oxcg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

Yep, I got them backwards.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 26, 2020, 10:47:28 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 23, 2020, 07:12:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 23, 2020, 06:41:28 PM
This sounds to me like the embankment under the westbound lanes gave way and slid down onto the eastbound lanes.
FTFY. The westbound roadway is on higher elevation than the eastbound roadway.

Likely occurred around this area - https://www.google.com/maps/@37.349193,-80.8086961,3a,74.3y,137.38h,97.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPZdc48UTMID3Ko0Ay9Oxcg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

Yes, once again the bank gave way under the original route (first VA 8, later U.S. 460). The two-lane highway was built high on the bluff through the Narrows to Rich Creek, then climbed again to run to Glen Lyn. The Virginian Railway ran closer to the New River below the road. After the Virginian and Norfolk & Western merged, the Virginia Department of Highways condemned the Virginian from Glen Lyn through Narrows to improve the highway. A new four-lane road was built on and along the former railroad from Glen Lyn east to Rich Creek. A new two-lane road was built on the railroad roadbed to carry eastbound traffic from Rich Creek through "suburban" Narrows (the main part of the town is on the other side of the New River), joining the original road at the east end of town. The original road then became the two-lane westbound road.

The original road twists and turns around rock outcroppings as it follows the terrain in the Narrows. Little has been done other than to build retaining walls on the river side of the road and to shore up the occasional landslide that dropped part of a lane toward the eastbound lanes below. It is past time for VDOT to widen a few places along the eastbound lanes and move the westbound lanes off the mountain. The original road could be cut just east of State Line Road without causing undue problems to local residents.

In the meantime, most traffic is taking the long way around via I-81 and I-77, while locals and others in the know use Lurich Road on the other side of the river to get between Narrows and Glen Lyn. It is a narrow two-lane road with a tight square turn to get to and through the underpass beneath the N&W near the Glen Lyn end (https://www.google.com/maps/place/37°22'28.7%22N+80°50'42.9%22W/@37.374651,-80.8462109,313m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d37.374651!4d-80.8452507?hl=en&authuser=0). It is not for the faint of heart and definitely not for any type of truck over pickup size.

Bruce in Blacksburg

Fixed I-81 typo (was I-88).  -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 26, 2020, 08:38:07 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 26, 2020, 10:47:28 AM
while locals and others in the know use Lurich Road on the other side of the river to get between Narrows and Glen Lyn. It is a narrow two-lane road with a tight square turn to get to and through the underpass beneath the N&W near the Glen Lyn end (https://www.google.com/maps/place/37°22'28.7%22N+80°50'42.9%22W/@37.374651,-80.8462109,313m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d37.374651!4d-80.8452507?hl=en&authuser=0). It is not for the faint of heart and definitely not for any type of truck over pickup size.

Google Maps suggests the rail underpass in question is closed through next week.  Is that the case?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 27, 2020, 09:38:29 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 26, 2020, 08:38:07 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 26, 2020, 10:47:28 AM
while locals and others in the know use Lurich Road on the other side of the river to get between Narrows and Glen Lyn. It is a narrow two-lane road with a tight square turn to get to and through the underpass beneath the N&W near the Glen Lyn end (https://www.google.com/maps/place/37°22'28.7%22N+80°50'42.9%22W/@37.374651,-80.8462109,313m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d37.374651!4d-80.8452507?hl=en&authuser=0). It is not for the faint of heart and definitely not for any type of truck over pickup size.

Google Maps suggests the rail underpass in question is closed through next week.  Is that the case?

That may be so, just to keep traffic off an inadequate road. This is from the Bluefield Daily Telegraph:

QuoteCounty officials, law enforcement and VDOT workers have been attempting to redirect traffic to safer alternate eastbound and westbound routes, but these efforts have been complicated by drivers following GPS driving app instructions instead of following the illuminated warning signs VDOT has posted.

"I think some of these truckers will follow a GPS over the edge of a damn cliff if it told them "˜recalculating ... turn right.' They need to turn off their apps and pay attention to signs in a situation like this,"  said Capt. E.S. Thwaites of the Giles County Sheriff's Office, who noted that errant commercial truck traffic has compounded the congestion at multiple traffic choke points.

The story also gives somewhat correct but questionable directions for an alternative route from I-77 to Narrows via VA 61 from Rocky Gap. The road is mostly on a former railroad roadbed, so it has easy curves and a pretty flat grade -- but it is a two-lane country road. It may be OK for locals who are used to that type road, but the story also quotes Capt. Thwaites, "This is the route commercial truckers should definitely take."

The whole article is at https://www.bdtonline.com/news/landslide-closes-stretch-of-route-460-in-virginia/article_5b07ca56-9eec-11ea-bb64-772e1217230e.html and includes a photo and a pretty good description of the problem.

WVVA, the Bluefield television station also posted the detour info from the sheriff's office:

QuoteFollowing the closing, the Giles County Sheriffs Office has shared alternative routes for those affected by the incident.

The BEST ALTERNATE ROUTE includes taking I-77 to Rocky Gap, leading you to Wolf Creek Road. This has been deemed the best and saftest alternative route. STRONGLY RECOMMENDED FOR TRUCKERS.

Other alternative routes include taking Lurich Road off of 460 to get around the closures, taking you back on to 460. THIS ROUTE IS NOT ALLOWED FOR TRUCKS OR VEHICLES OVER 20 FEET because there is a one lane tunnel.

Motorists can also take I-77 to I-81 and then come through Dublin to hit Route 100 to get around the road closures on 460.

It would seem that the I-77/I-81 routing would be preferred by truckers (especially

Virginia 511 is showing Lurich Road open as of Wednesday morning.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 09:52:56 AM
Then there's Google Maps which shows US-460 closed in both directions, yet if you type in a routing - such as Roanoke to Beckley - it has no problem telling you to take US-460 right through the closure.

Do a closer in routing though, it then routes you down Lurich Rd to "avoid road closure". It would be helpful if it would tell people routing from I-81 instead of right at the closure. Wonder how many people have followed Google Maps to the closure then finding themselves going down Lurich Rd.

It shows I-81 and I-77 as 10 minutes slower, 25 miles longer.

Per 511virginia.org, the only VMS up on I-81 South between Roanoke and Christiansburg read "SAFETY IS NOT CANCELED SLOW DOWN". A select few VMS on Christiansburg local roads read "US-460 TRAFFIC TO WEST VA USE TO I-77 NB TO WV EXIT 9", but that's about it. There may be portable VMS up as well that just aren't displayed - I would hope that's the case.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 27, 2020, 11:57:07 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 09:52:56 AM
Per 511virginia.org, the only VMS up on I-81 South between Roanoke and Christiansburg read "SAFETY IS NOT CANCELED SLOW DOWN". A select few VMS on Christiansburg local roads read "US-460 TRAFFIC TO WEST VA USE TO I-77 NB TO WV EXIT 9", but that's about it. There may be portable VMS up as well that just aren't displayed - I would hope that's the case.

I drove I-81 southbound from Strasburg to Wytheville on Sunday.  There were at least five of VDOT's DMS units on the southbound side south of Lexington warning drivers headed for Princeton, West Virginia to use I-81 S to I-77 N to avoid the U.S. 460 problem discussed above. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 27, 2020, 02:49:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 27, 2020, 11:57:07 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 09:52:56 AM
Per 511virginia.org, the only VMS up on I-81 South between Roanoke and Christiansburg read "SAFETY IS NOT CANCELED SLOW DOWN". A select few VMS on Christiansburg local roads read "US-460 TRAFFIC TO WEST VA USE TO I-77 NB TO WV EXIT 9", but that's about it. There may be portable VMS up as well that just aren't displayed - I would hope that's the case.

I drove I-81 southbound from Strasburg to Wytheville on Sunday.  There were at least five of VDOT's DMS units on the southbound side south of Lexington warning drivers headed for Princeton, West Virginia to use I-81 S to I-77 N to avoid the U.S. 460 problem discussed above.

If you're coming from an area north of Princeton, wouldn't it be better to exit I-81 at Lexington and use I-64 to Beckley, and then south on I-77?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 27, 2020, 02:50:39 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 27, 2020, 09:38:29 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 26, 2020, 08:38:07 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 26, 2020, 10:47:28 AM
while locals and others in the know use Lurich Road on the other side of the river to get between Narrows and Glen Lyn. It is a narrow two-lane road with a tight square turn to get to and through the underpass beneath the N&W near the Glen Lyn end (https://www.google.com/maps/place/37°22'28.7%22N+80°50'42.9%22W/@37.374651,-80.8462109,313m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d37.374651!4d-80.8452507?hl=en&authuser=0). It is not for the faint of heart and definitely not for any type of truck over pickup size.

Google Maps suggests the rail underpass in question is closed through next week.  Is that the case?

That may be so, just to keep traffic off an inadequate road. This is from the Bluefield Daily Telegraph:

QuoteCounty officials, law enforcement and VDOT workers have been attempting to redirect traffic to safer alternate eastbound and westbound routes, but these efforts have been complicated by drivers following GPS driving app instructions instead of following the illuminated warning signs VDOT has posted.

"I think some of these truckers will follow a GPS over the edge of a damn cliff if it told them "˜recalculating ... turn right.' They need to turn off their apps and pay attention to signs in a situation like this,"  said Capt. E.S. Thwaites of the Giles County Sheriff's Office, who noted that errant commercial truck traffic has compounded the congestion at multiple traffic choke points.

The story also gives somewhat correct but questionable directions for an alternative route from I-77 to Narrows via VA 61 from Rocky Gap. The road is mostly on a former railroad roadbed, so it has easy curves and a pretty flat grade -- but it is a two-lane country road. It may be OK for locals who are used to that type road, but the story also quotes Capt. Thwaites, "This is the route commercial truckers should definitely take."

The whole article is at https://www.bdtonline.com/news/landslide-closes-stretch-of-route-460-in-virginia/article_5b07ca56-9eec-11ea-bb64-772e1217230e.html and includes a photo and a pretty good description of the problem.

WVVA, the Bluefield television station also posted the detour info from the sheriff's office:

QuoteFollowing the closing, the Giles County Sheriffs Office has shared alternative routes for those affected by the incident.

The BEST ALTERNATE ROUTE includes taking I-77 to Rocky Gap, leading you to Wolf Creek Road. This has been deemed the best and saftest alternative route. STRONGLY RECOMMENDED FOR TRUCKERS.

Other alternative routes include taking Lurich Road off of 460 to get around the closures, taking you back on to 460. THIS ROUTE IS NOT ALLOWED FOR TRUCKS OR VEHICLES OVER 20 FEET because there is a one lane tunnel.

Motorists can also take I-77 to I-81 and then come through Dublin to hit Route 100 to get around the road closures on 460.

It would seem that the I-77/I-81 routing would be preferred by truckers (especially

Virginia 511 is showing Lurich Road open as of Wednesday morning.

Bruce in Blacksburg

Around here, trucks regularly ply routes a lot worse than that stretch of VA 61.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 28, 2020, 03:36:49 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 27, 2020, 02:49:07 PM
If you're coming from an area north of Princeton, wouldn't it be better to exit I-81 at Lexington and use I-64 to Beckley, and then south on I-77?

Does that routing involve at least one West Virginia Turnpike toll?

That may be why VDOT was not suggesting it (speculation, of course).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 28, 2020, 06:07:34 PM
The problems in Giles County continue to mount. Between people who don't believe the signs apply to them ("No trucks over 20 feet") and rising waters on the New River, getting around the county is a problem. Between the already-high river and additional flow from Appalachian Power releasing water from Claytor Dam to be ready for more rain this weekend, Lurich Road was flooded out in several places where it runs close to the river. To help local traffic, the eastbound lanes of U.S. 460 were opened to two-way traffic for a time.

QuoteBond [Jason Bond, a spokesman for VDOT] said that as of about 3:30 p.m. Thursday, repair work was halted in the two formerly eastbound lanes of U.S. 460 and one lane of traffic was opened to both east- and westbound drivers. The reopening is to last only until the water recedes from Lurich Road, at which point the detour will be restored and U.S. 460 will be completely shut down again, Bond said.

Flaggers and pilot trucks are controlling traffic through the section of the highway that was affected by Friday's mudslide, and drivers should continue to expect delays, Bond said.

The highway department advises non-local traffic to use Interstates 81 and 77 as a bypass around U.S. 460.​

See https://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/detour-road-flooding-prompts-vdot-to-reopen-u-s-460-in-giles-co-but-not/article_7ba2ab0c-ecce-5283-b18e-c807f9e6887a.html for the full story.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 29, 2020, 10:08:59 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on May 28, 2020, 06:07:34 PM
The problems in Giles County continue to mount. Between people who don't believe the signs apply to them ("No trucks over 20 feet") and rising waters on the New River, getting around the county is a problem. Between the already-high river and additional flow from Appalachian Power releasing water from Claytor Dam to be ready for more rain this weekend, Lurich Road was flooded out in several places where it runs close to the river. To help local traffic, the eastbound lanes of U.S. 460 were opened to two-way traffic for a time.

QuoteBond [Jason Bond, a spokesman for VDOT] said that as of about 3:30 p.m. Thursday, repair work was halted in the two formerly eastbound lanes of U.S. 460 and one lane of traffic was opened to both east- and westbound drivers. The reopening is to last only until the water recedes from Lurich Road, at which point the detour will be restored and U.S. 460 will be completely shut down again, Bond said.

Flaggers and pilot trucks are controlling traffic through the section of the highway that was affected by Friday's mudslide, and drivers should continue to expect delays, Bond said.

The highway department advises non-local traffic to use Interstates 81 and 77 as a bypass around U.S. 460.​

See https://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/detour-road-flooding-prompts-vdot-to-reopen-u-s-460-in-giles-co-but-not/article_7ba2ab0c-ecce-5283-b18e-c807f9e6887a.html for the full story.

An oddity associated with the New River in Virginia - most of it is not a county/city boundary - it pretty nicely cuts Giles County in two, though it is a boundary just upstream for a while  Compare and contrast with the James, Rappahannock and Potomac Rivers, which have political boundaries associated with them pretty far upstream (the North Branch of the Potomac almost to its source). 

And issues along U.S. 460 make matters worse for Giles County, since so much of its population appears to be concentrated along the 460 corridor.

Curiously, I only visited Giles County for the first time last weekend - I had never been there before but wanted to visit the Virginia counties along the West Virginia border between Tazewell County and Craig County - and did.

Some of the streams in this area were running pretty high, including Wolf Creek (along VA-61) and Craig Creek in Botetourt and Craig Counties.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 29, 2020, 12:58:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 11:08:19 PM
Maybe a future project that might necessitate replacing the I-264 overpass with a longer span?
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 12, 2019, 05:39:19 AM
While I agree the long-term solution should be bridge replacement
Bringing back this discussion regarding the Witchduck Rd overpass on I-264, several projects for a "I-64 / I-264 Interchange Phase III" project have been submitted as Draft Candidate Projects for the 2045 LRTP. One of them includes a full replacement of the I-264 overpass over Witchduck Rd. Additional bridges either on both I-64 and I-264 and passing over them would be replaced as well.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/HR_2045LRTP_RegionalNeeds.pdf
QuoteI-64/I-264 Interchange Phase IIIA
Construct structures through interchange, bridges carrying EB I-64 over Kempsville Rd and Virginia Beach Blvd, and bridge carrying EB I-264 over Newtown Rd; widen EB I-64 by 1-2 lanes from Northampton Blvd entrance ramp; widening EB I-264 one lane to C/D merge with mainline.

I-64/I-264 Interchange Phase IIIB
Widen I-264 EB outer C/D from Newtown Rd interchange to mainline merge point; widen I-264 EB to east of Witchduck Rd; reconfigure I-264 EB entrance ramp from Witchduck Rd. Widen I-264 EB exit ramps to provide additional lanes; modify signals at ramp terminal intersections along Newtown Rd. Replace bridge carrying I-264 over Witchduck Rd.

I-64/I-264 Interchange Phase IIIC
Widen I-64 WB from north of Virginia Beach Blvd to Northampton Blvd Interchange; construct minor widening of bridges carrying I-64 WB over Northampton Blvd; north of exit ramp to Northampton Blvd, operate shoulder use lane along I-64 WB during AM peak only.

I-64/I-264 Interchange Phase IIID
Construct ramp through interchange and merge lanes onto I-64 WB; realign entrance ramp from Military Hwy, widen I-264 EB C/D, and widen I64 WB to three lanes approaching overpass of I-264 EB. Remove loop exit ramp from I-264 EB C/D to I-64 WB, and remove left exit from I-264 EB mainline.

I-64/I-264 Interchange Phase IIIE
Construct I-264 WB/Newtown Interchange improvements; widen Newtown Rd from Greenwich Rd to north of Cleveland St; construct I-264 WB C/D roadway and oter ramp to I-64 EB/WB; widen I-64 WB to receive new ramp lanes. Widen I-64 WB shoulder north of entrance ramp from Northampton Blvd, operate shoulder use lane along I-64 WB during AM peak only

I-64/I-264 Interchange Phase IIIF
Construct ramp through interchange, over Nosehs Creek and Curlew Dr. Widen I-64 EB to provide one additional lane to Indian River Rd exit ramp; replace bridges carrying Providence Rd over I-64. Remove loop exit ramp from I-264 WB C/D roadway and left exit ramp from I-264 WB mainline

From a few months ago, here's an overall schematic from the HRTPO on proposed improvements. An IMR (Interchange Modification Report) was completed in March 2020, though has not been posted publicly as far as I'm aware except these two figures snipped from it. (Edit: I emailed VDOT regarding this, and they said that it will be shared publicly once approved by the FHWA).

(https://i.ibb.co/X7MM2Mr/I264-Phase31.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/zGk7Vz3/I264-Phase32.png)

See higher resolution - https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/i64i264%20Phase%20III%20Subprojects_UPC%20106693_11.20.2019.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 31, 2020, 11:20:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2020, 09:52:56 AM
Then there's Google Maps which shows US-460 closed in both directions, yet if you type in a routing - such as Roanoke to Beckley - it has no problem telling you to take US-460 right through the closure.

Do a closer in routing though, it then routes you down Lurich Rd to "avoid road closure". It would be helpful if it would tell people routing from I-81 instead of right at the closure. Wonder how many people have followed Google Maps to the closure then finding themselves going down Lurich Rd.
Google Maps is now routing with the closure in mind, but is still telling you to take US-460 then bypass the closure via Lurich Rd for a trip from Roanoke to Beckley. Does not recommend I-81 and I-77 as the primary route since it's a couple minutes slower than the Lurich Rd bypass. Reality plays out though, one would much rather take I-81 and I-77 then Lurich Rd.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 01, 2020, 01:49:42 PM
The state line sure takes an interesting northward jog here to keep Rich Creek in Virginia, when logically (looking at the map) it should be part of West Virginia.

https://goo.gl/maps/jA7mhtJskJJH7qTT8
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 01, 2020, 02:16:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 01, 2020, 01:49:42 PM
The state line sure takes an interesting northward jog here to keep Rich Creek in Virginia, when logically (looking at the map) it should be part of West Virginia.

https://goo.gl/maps/jA7mhtJskJJH7qTT8

It most likely has to do with historic county lines. The county where Rich Creek is presumably chose not to join the breakaway counties in the 1860s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 01, 2020, 05:10:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 29, 2020, 10:08:59 AM
An oddity associated with the New River in Virginia - most of it is not a county/city boundary - it pretty nicely cuts Giles County in two, though it is a boundary just upstream for a while  Compare and contrast with the James, Rappahannock and Potomac Rivers, which have political boundaries associated with them pretty far upstream (the North Branch of the Potomac almost to its source). 

The river also runs through the middle of Pulaski County before reaching Giles County. A slip of the legislation back many decades ago came to light in the '70s while annexation was still a thing in Virginia. The City of Radford coveted the commercial strip along U.S. 11 in the Fairlawn area of Pulaski County, just across the New River from the city and started annexation proceedings to expand its tax base. While research was going on for the proceedings, it was discovered that Radford had no standing to annex because it didn't have a common border with Pulaski County. Apparently when the town of Radford left Montgomery County to become the City of Radford, the boundary line was set at the waterline of the New River and not the center of the river. Montgomery County enveloped the city with a small strip of river from west to east. The result was that the boundary was adjusted to transfer the "land" from the county to the city. Pulaski County, which didn't want to lose a big chunk of its tax base, worked out a deal with Radford that kept Fairlawn in the county but set up a sharing process for tax revenue that worked for both sides.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2020, 01:42:38 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 01, 2020, 05:10:23 PM
Apparently when the town of Radford left Montgomery County to become the City of Radford, the boundary line was set at the waterline of the New River and not the center of the river. Montgomery County enveloped the city with a small strip of river from west to east.

On another Radford-related issue, looking at Google Maps, it appears that the southbound lanes of I-81 are within the city limits of Radford, and I wanted to scratch the city off of my list (I am getting close to having visited every county and county-equivalent in the Commonwealth, something that amused a colleague and friend at VDOT a lot).   

Fortunately, the nice people of Radford have put a lot of their GIS (geographic information system) data online where it can be reached through their municipal Web site, so I looked there.  Google Maps is wrong - it appears that the city limits of Radford extend up to the VDOT right-of-way boundary next to the southbound side of I-81, but none of the travel lanes of I-81 are in the city.  So I need to exit I-81 at 105 (VA-292) the next time I am down that way and drive  few signals north into the city.

I am still baffled as to why a relatively small place like Radford (and others, such as Falls Church, Fairfax, Manassas Park and Norton) want to be independent cities.  I can understand being a town, and having more control than counties are granted in Virginia, but unless a place has a decently large population (such as Alexandria, Virginia Beach, Roanoke, Richmond and some others, I just do not grasp the benefit of being a city in Virginia).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 03, 2020, 09:44:04 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2020, 01:42:38 PM
I am still baffled as to why a relatively small place like Radford (and others, such as Falls Church, Fairfax, Manassas Park and Norton) want to be independent cities.  I can understand being a town, and having more control than counties are granted in Virginia, but unless a place has a decently large population (such as Alexandria, Virginia Beach, Roanoke, Richmond and some others, I just do not grasp the benefit of being a city in Virginia).

Radford moved from town to city in 1892 and has gone through a number of boom and bust cycles. It has also been affected by transportation over the years. The Wilderness Road (now Rock Road) crossed the area south of the city to Ingles Ferry. When the railroad came, population shifted from the ferry crossing north to the river, where the Virginia and Tennessee built facilities. Eventually U.S. 11 came through the city, changing travel patterns. When I-81 was built, it took the southern route (as opposed to following somewhat along U.S. 11 from Dublin to Fairlawn, then along the VA 114 corridor to split the difference between Blacksburg and Christiansburg) that bypassed the city and once again changed traffic patterns.

Even though it has lost some major industries over the years, there is enough of a tax base to keep the city operating, plus Radford University provides a boost to downtown businesses. Radford City schools are well-regarded, so there isn't much incentive there to give up city status and become part of Montgomery County. While other cities have reverted back to town status (such as Clifton Forge and Bedford) Radford will probably continue to hang in there.

Bruce in Blacksburg (who was a reporter for the Radford News Journal a long time ago)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 03, 2020, 10:24:49 AM
Virginia Beach drops speed limit on busy Oceanfront street. More fixes are coming. (https://www.pilotonline.com/government/local/vp-nw-pacific-avenue-0603-20200603-yo6nkypazrg6lcnbysawbarr5q-story.html)
QuoteCrossing Pacific Avenue on foot in Virginia Beach's resort area can be a harrowing, all-or-nothing experience.

"There's really nowhere to stand,"  said Ric Lowman, the city's top traffic engineer. "You have to go across all of the four lanes, or you don't go."

To make the busy thoroughfare safer for pedestrians and bicylists, the city has lowered the speed limit on the stretch through the resort area.

Just before Memorial Day weekend, Virginia Beach dropped the limit from 35 mph to 25 mph between 16th and 32nd streets. The change will remain in effect until Sept. 30.

"25 (mph) is a good speed limit in the summertime in the core area,"  said Preston Midgett, who owns Jungle Golf on the corner of Pacific Avenue at 22nd Street and leads a resort area transportation committee that successfully pushed for improvements to the road. "It does make people aware that there are more people walking across the street."

The speed reduction is the first phase of a $1.4 million safety improvement project that will include the construction of high visibility crosswalks, improved intersection lighting and other upgrades to make crossing the street easier.

Virginia Beach received a $485,000 state grant to help pay for the project. Construction will begin this fall and take four months.

The Virginia Department of Transportation has identified Pacific Avenue as one of the state's priority "crash cluster"  areas. The four-lane undivided street runs parallel to Atlantic Avenue, and in some sections, has long stretches without traffic signals to slow down drivers.

As a test last year, the city put in a "pedestrian median refuge"  – a safe place to stand between the northbound and southbound lanes – between 33rd and 34th streets.

"It provides you a nice, wide, safe refuge area,"  said Lowman. "I've seen people use it effectively, especially if you have a bike or a stroller, you can get halfway and wait."

More will be installed at 10th Street and between 34th and 39th streets.

Also, a rectangular rapid flashing beacon to warn drivers that pedestrians are in the area will be installed north of 32nd Street. It will be the first of its kind in the city, Lowman said.

The temporary speed limit signs will be replaced with permanent variable ones that will be lowered to 25 mph each year on May 15 and go back to 35 mph on Sept. 30.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 10, 2020, 03:45:47 PM
https://twitter.com/vadotnova/status/1270802476862709760?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 10, 2020, 05:33:40 PM
This project is located along US-58 between Hampton Roads and I-95. Likely produced from the recently completed US-58 Arterial Management Study. Asides from single-lane closures, should be no major traffic impacts.

Route 58 and Route 609 Intersection Project to Begin (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton-roads/2020/route-58-and-route-609-intersection-project-to-begin06-09-2020.asp)
QuoteConstruction on safety improvements starting as early as June 12

COURTLAND - A Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) project to improve the intersection at Route 58 (Southampton Highway) and Route 609 (Pope Station Road) in Southampton County is scheduled to begin construction as early as June 12.

Henry S. Branscome, LLC was awarded the $1.2 million construction contract to improve safety at the intersection of Route 58 and Route 609. The project will include the addition of two right turn lanes on Route 58, with one new right turn lane from Route 58 east onto Route 609 south, and one new right turn lane from Route 58 west onto Route 609 north. Route 609 will be widened to accommodate the new turn lanes and adjustments to the roadway elevation will be made to improve safety and drainage.

Throughout the duration of the project, motorists can primarily expect single-lane, weekday lane closures on Route 58 and Route 609, as well as an eventual full closure on Route 609 in both directions with signed detours in place. Night work is also permitted when required.

Motorists will be advised of additional closures and detour information that may occur during the project. The estimated completion date is fall 2020, and all construction work is dependent upon weather conditions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 11, 2020, 10:49:52 AM
https://thenovaauthority.org/fy2024-2025-six-year-program-update/
The Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance recently recommended fully funding 15 (and partially funding an additional 4) transportation projects out of an original 41 candidates for their FY2020-FY2025 six-year program. They will be using $522 million dollars in regional tax revenue. Here is the full list of project candidates, their original rankings, and which ones ended up receiving funding: https://thenovaauthority.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/NVTA-FY2020-2025-SYP-Draft-NVTA-Staff-Recommendations-June-9-2020-List.pdf

Regarding road projects, it appears that US-1 was the big winner as it received funding for much-needed widening projects in both Mt. Vernon and Dumfries. In addition, the currently in-development project of widening the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286) south of US-29 also received funding as did important road extension projects such as Crosstrail Blvd in Loudoun and Summit School Road in Prince William.

Notable road projects that did not receive funding included the highly controversial Van Buren Road extension (would connect VA-234 and Cardinal Drive just west of I-95 and act as an additional relief route), VA-234/Sudley Manor Drive interchange, US-15/Edwards Ferry Road interchange, US-1 BRT, and VA-28 corridor improvements (this last project likely wasn't funded due to it receiving previous funding and because Prince William County has already committed to funding the remaining part of the project through bonds.

Personally believe that this manner in which transportation projects get funded is definitely a step up from VDOT's smart scale, as aside from what appears to be a better ranking system, there also seems to be far more community (although admittingly also political) input that can easily overrule these rankings and IMO brings more voices and debate to the table.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:07:06 PM
Who can tell me what these "T" signs are for?
https://goo.gl/maps/ncHBmH4k9dtGndHK7
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 13, 2020, 02:14:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:07:06 PM
Who can tell me what these "T" signs are for?
https://goo.gl/maps/ncHBmH4k9dtGndHK7

Suggested truck route.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:35:02 PM
Quote from: plain on June 13, 2020, 02:14:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:07:06 PM
Who can tell me what these "T" signs are for?
https://goo.gl/maps/ncHBmH4k9dtGndHK7

Suggested truck route.
It says no trucks! What a terrible setup. And then I saw no other yellow T's anywhere else. Are there others?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mvak36 on June 13, 2020, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:35:02 PM
Quote from: plain on June 13, 2020, 02:14:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:07:06 PM
Who can tell me what these "T" signs are for?
https://goo.gl/maps/ncHBmH4k9dtGndHK7

Suggested truck route.
It says no trucks! What a terrible setup. And then I saw no other yellow T's anywhere else. Are there others?

I saw this further up the street (north and east of the intersection you posted): https://goo.gl/maps/KxogbFEL2B65NZkE9.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 13, 2020, 04:03:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:35:02 PM
Quote from: plain on June 13, 2020, 02:14:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:07:06 PM
Who can tell me what these "T" signs are for?
https://goo.gl/maps/ncHBmH4k9dtGndHK7

Suggested truck route.
It says no trucks! What a terrible setup. And then I saw no other yellow T's anywhere else. Are there others?

The "No Trucks" is for Staples Mill Rd south of (straight through) the intersection, which is why the "T" sign is pointing right. Since there is no numbered route there, Richmond simply put up that T.

Here's one on Brookland Pkwy at Robin Hood Rd

https://maps.app.goo.gl/NF6hUqy62VH5Y1UC9
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on June 13, 2020, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: plain on June 13, 2020, 04:03:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:35:02 PM
Quote from: plain on June 13, 2020, 02:14:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:07:06 PM
Who can tell me what these "T" signs are for?
https://goo.gl/maps/ncHBmH4k9dtGndHK7

Suggested truck route.
It says no trucks! What a terrible setup. And then I saw no other yellow T's anywhere else. Are there others?

The "No Trucks" is for Staples Mill Rd south of (straight through) the intersection, which is why the "T" sign is pointing right. Since there is no numbered route there, Richmond simply put up that T.

Here's one on Brook and Pkwy at Robin Hood Rd

https://maps.app.goo.gl/NF6hUqy62VH5Y1UC9
Thanks to both you and mvak for walking me through it. I'm reacting to the T with right arrow over a no trucks sign with no arrow... mvak's example was perfect because it does have the arrow. That's what I wish they did here!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 13, 2020, 04:31:17 PM
Apparently people forgot it was a bike lane (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5723455,-77.4503296,3a,49.1y,283.5h,73.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDTrE1i_CQ1p2D1HgLcAc7g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). In fairness, it was a lane before a road diet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 13, 2020, 04:56:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 13, 2020, 04:31:17 PM
Apparently people forgot it was a bike lane (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5723455,-77.4503296,3a,49.1y,283.5h,73.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDTrE1i_CQ1p2D1HgLcAc7g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). In fairness, it was a lane before a road diet.

People around here habitually ignore that bike lane for some reason. There's another one on the VA 33 MLK Jr Bridge that often gets ignored as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 13, 2020, 09:57:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 10, 2020, 03:45:47 PM
https://twitter.com/vadotnova/status/1270802476862709760?s=21

I went up to BJ's on Van Dorn Street today to buy propane and decided to take I-395 back to check out the new configuration. The Duke Street and Edsall Road interchanges are much improved with the weave areas gone. The fourth lane didn't make a huge difference at 4 PM on a Saturday. I did notice the new traffic light on westbound Duke Street is in a horrible spot–the existing flyover ramp blocks the view until you're right at the front of the line (there is one lower-mounted signal head on the median prior to the flyover). Of course the existing interchange design limited what they could do as to that traffic light, but I wonder how many accidents there might be in the short term with people not being used to that light being there.

In the picture above, the lane on the other side of the barrier to the right is the onramp from eastbound Duke to southbound I-395. It merges onto the Turkeycock exit ramp from the HO/T lanes to the mainline right about where that ramp makes its curve to the left to go downhill to join the mainline. The Turkeycock ramp becomes an exit-only lane to Edsall.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 13, 2020, 11:45:06 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: plain on June 13, 2020, 04:03:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:35:02 PM
Quote from: plain on June 13, 2020, 02:14:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:07:06 PM
Who can tell me what these "T" signs are for?
https://goo.gl/maps/ncHBmH4k9dtGndHK7

Suggested truck route.
It says no trucks! What a terrible setup. And then I saw no other yellow T's anywhere else. Are there others?

The "No Trucks" is for Staples Mill Rd south of (straight through) the intersection, which is why the "T" sign is pointing right. Since there is no numbered route there, Richmond simply put up that T.

Here's one on Brook and Pkwy at Robin Hood Rd

https://maps.app.goo.gl/NF6hUqy62VH5Y1UC9
Thanks to both you and mvak for walking me through it. I'm reacting to the T with right arrow over a no trucks sign with no arrow... mvak's example was perfect because it does have the arrow. That's what I wish they did here!

They use a green T with a white background to denote the same thing in South Boston. Part of the truck route for US 501 involves a city street.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 14, 2020, 10:25:12 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2020, 11:45:06 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: plain on June 13, 2020, 04:03:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:35:02 PM
Quote from: plain on June 13, 2020, 02:14:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2020, 02:07:06 PM
Who can tell me what these "T" signs are for?
https://goo.gl/maps/ncHBmH4k9dtGndHK7

Suggested truck route.
It says no trucks! What a terrible setup. And then I saw no other yellow T's anywhere else. Are there others?

The "No Trucks" is for Staples Mill Rd south of (straight through) the intersection, which is why the "T" sign is pointing right. Since there is no numbered route there, Richmond simply put up that T.

Here's one on Brook and Pkwy at Robin Hood Rd

https://maps.app.goo.gl/NF6hUqy62VH5Y1UC9
Thanks to both you and mvak for walking me through it. I'm reacting to the T with right arrow over a no trucks sign with no arrow... mvak's example was perfect because it does have the arrow. That's what I wish they did here!

They use a green T with a white background to denote the same thing in South Boston. Part of the truck route for US 501 involves a city street.

I forgot all about the South Boston ones, it's been a while since I've been there. They even have some US 501 postings with a "TRUCKS" banner to go along with the T signs. Here's one on US 360 at Hamilton Blvd. Image from GSV

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200614/ba30345cb4374e07a8b3f52036e1892d.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 14, 2020, 10:41:08 AM
Gordonsville used to have black-on-white "T" signs of that sort, with signs on the approaches to town telling truckers to follow the "T" signs. They've since been replaced with "Truck Route" banners, I assume under the theory that a trucker unfamiliar with the area might not notice the sign saying to follow the "T"?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 15, 2020, 04:24:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 13, 2020, 11:45:06 PM
They use a green T with a white background to denote the same thing in South Boston. Part of the truck route for US 501 involves a city street.

Bedford also uses the green T to route trucks on and around downtown via U.S. 460 bypass to reach VA 122 at the east end of town, which gets trucks to the industrial park and U.S. 221 east.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 17, 2020, 07:17:07 PM
Update on plans to improve VA-28 in Manassas: https://www.insidenova.com/news/transportation/prince_william/prince-william-county-staff-back-route-28-bypass-public-hearing-planned-in-july/article_7535ad6a-b046-11ea-9a78-ef6ae924398d.html
QuotePrince William County residents will have a chance next month to weigh in on a $300 million project to improve commuter traffic in the Va. Route 28 corridor. Transportation officials recommend constructing a bypass, which could require the purchase of up to 70 homes for right of way. 

Transportation Director Ric Canizales told the board that staff supports a bypass project that would extend Godwin Drive as a four-lane divided road with a shared-use path. The bypass would run parallel to Flat Branch and Bull Run streams and connect with Route 28 at an intersection north of Bull Run stream, according to the county.

An environmental study is still in progress on whether to widen Route 28 or select one of two possible bypass routes.

While the environmental study is not yet complete, its technical and executive committees – which include 67 staff, leaders and elected officials at federal, state, regional and local levels – have recommended the bypass route, according to the county.

The bypass option was "determined to have the lowest cost, highest traffic impacts, lowest impacts to existing development and communities, and low impact to the environment,"  according to the county.

At a public meeting in October, officials said adding two lanes to Route 28 would impact about 90 businesses due to right of way acquisition while selecting either of two proposed routes for a four-lane bypass would require the purchase of up to 70 homes.

At that time, Canizales said the proposed bypass options would have a larger impact on commuter traffic than widening the existing road. All three projects are estimated to cost about $300 million.

Transportation officials have long sought ways to improve the busy commuter route between Manassas and Centreville. More than 57,000 vehicles travel daily on Va. 28, according to the Route 28 Corridor Feasibility Study released in December 2017.

I plan to try and attend this upcoming public hearing and suspect that it will be extremely contentious as knocking out 70 homes and a large amount of wooded area vs. knocking out 90 businesses is no easy choice. What it comes down to IMO is which one has the most significant traffic impact and right now I am having a hard time believing that the bypass option will be a viable alternative to a majority of VA-28 users who seemingly come from the southern and eastern areas of Manassas. The bypass option appears to only be a viable alternative to the northern and western parts of Manassas (and Bristow area) that already have adequate access to I-66 via VA-234 and VA-234 business. Will be interesting to hear/see their reasoning. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 19, 2020, 05:49:23 PM
WTF! Watch the whole video.

https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1274067562368819200?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 19, 2020, 07:04:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 19, 2020, 05:49:23 PM
WTF! Watch the whole video.

https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1274067562368819200?s=21
Toll must've been under $5 and they had to make sure their eyes weren't playing tricks on them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 20, 2020, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 19, 2020, 05:49:23 PM
WTF! Watch the whole video.

https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1274067562368819200?s=21

Let me start out by saying I do not encourage or endorse any kind of road rage.

With that said, if this would've caused a wreck, I would completely understand why someone would want to beat their muthafuckin ass
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on June 21, 2020, 04:59:33 PM
Fuck me. That's China-level nuttiness. I can only hope that's the one time they've ever done that. Well done DC drivers for A) just letting it happen, and B) not crashing in the process.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Stephane Dumas on June 23, 2020, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 21, 2020, 04:59:33 PM
Fuck me. That's China-level nuttiness. I can only hope that's the one time they've ever done that. Well done DC drivers for A) just letting it happen, and B) not crashing in the process.

And C) lucky to not being hit by a 18-wheels truck.

Speaking of China-level nuttiness.  That reminds me of that accident who happened in 2018. Unfortunately there was no survivors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Chongqing_bus_crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avI9-KnvHqU

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on June 24, 2020, 03:40:10 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on June 23, 2020, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 21, 2020, 04:59:33 PM
Fuck me. That's China-level nuttiness. I can only hope that's the one time they've ever done that. Well done DC drivers for A) just letting it happen, and B) not crashing in the process.

And C) lucky to not being hit by a 18-wheels truck.

I was kind of getting at that with 'B', but yes. Honestly, any 'HGV' or bus could have trouble stopping for that. But the drivers just let it happen, and no one crashed, hence why I'm trying to give credit to everyone involved (even the fool in Lexus for somehow not crashing).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 24, 2020, 04:47:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 24, 2020, 03:40:10 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on June 23, 2020, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 21, 2020, 04:59:33 PM
Fuck me. That's China-level nuttiness. I can only hope that's the one time they've ever done that. Well done DC drivers for A) just letting it happen, and B) not crashing in the process.

And C) lucky to not being hit by a 18-wheels truck.

I was kind of getting at that with 'B', but yes. Honestly, any 'HGV' or bus could have trouble stopping for that. But the drivers just let it happen, and no one crashed, hence why I'm trying to give credit to everyone involved (even the fool in Lexus for somehow not crashing).

Given where that was, I suspect the usual backup was visible ahead approaching the 14th Street Bridge such that drivers were already well slowed down for that. Otherwise there would almost certainly have been a crash. Note the time stamp on the tweet–3:52 on a Friday afternoon. The backup for the inbound bridge tends to form earlier on Friday than it does on other afternoons.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 24, 2020, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 24, 2020, 04:47:38 PM
Given where that was, I suspect the usual backup was visible ahead approaching the 14th Street Bridge such that drivers were already well slowed down for that. Otherwise there would almost certainly have been a crash. Note the time stamp on the tweet–3:52 on a Friday afternoon. The backup for the inbound bridge tends to form earlier on Friday than it does on other afternoons.

Had VSP caught that, it would have been a slam-dunk reckless driving ticket as well - and maybe a trip in handcuffs to the nearest magistrate (Arlington County Jail, perhaps?) and an impound of the vehicle.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 28, 2020, 08:31:28 AM
This new law has not been well-publicized at all. I wonder how many rear-endings this is going to cause.

https://twitter.com/vadotnova/status/1277211419730161667?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 28, 2020, 11:03:58 AM
Probably not as many as you think, but I wonder how many pedestrian collisions this is going to prevent.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 28, 2020, 11:07:20 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 28, 2020, 11:03:58 AM
Probably not as many as you think, but I wonder how many pedestrian collisions this is going to prevent.
Assuming anyone actually follows the law.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 28, 2020, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 28, 2020, 11:07:20 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 28, 2020, 11:03:58 AM
Probably not as many as you think, but I wonder how many pedestrian collisions this is going to prevent.
Assuming anyone actually follows the law.

That's what law enforcement is for :)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 28, 2020, 12:52:11 PM
I looked up the new law. Link is below. Interesting aspects: (1) It applies to unmarked crosswalks, although I'd wager 99% or more of Virginia residents have no idea what an unmarked crosswalk is. (2) It does not require you to remain stopped until the pedestrian clears the crosswalk–you only have to wait until he clears your lane. Of course, I'd apply a rule of reasonableness. It's obnoxious to gun it as soon as he steps out of your lane, and it's downright stupid to do so if the pedestrian has a little kid in tow. I'd certainly wait longer for a little kid to be further away than I would for a solo adult, assuming the adult is able-bodied. Little kids are unpredictable.

Ultimately, if it comes down to it, if I have a choice of risking a ticket by not stopping for a pedestrian who's still a couple of lanes to one side of mine or getting rear-ended by the guy behind me who's clearly not planning to stop, I'll risk the ticket for obvious reasons (assuming, as I say, the pedestrian is not in a position where I might hit him).

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+CHAP1031+pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on June 28, 2020, 12:55:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 28, 2020, 12:52:11 PM
I looked up the new law. Link is below. Interesting aspects: (1) It applies to unmarked crosswalks, although I'd wager 99% or more of Virginia residents have no idea what an unmarked crosswalk is. (2) It does not require you to remain stopped until the pedestrian clears the crosswalk–you only have to wait until he clears your lane. Of course, I'd apply a rule of reasonableness. It's obnoxious to gun it as soon as he steps out of your lane, and it's downright stupid to do so if the pedestrian has a little kid in tow. I'd certainly wait longer for a little kid to be further away than I would for a solo adult, assuming the adult is able-bodied. Little kids are unpredictable.

Ultimately, if it comes down to it, if I have a choice of risking a ticket by not stopping for a pedestrian who's still a couple of lanes to one side of mine or getting rear-ended by the guy behind me who's clearly not planning to stop, I'll risk the ticket for obvious reasons (assuming, as I say, the pedestrian is not in a position where I might hit him).

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+CHAP1031+pdf
This post to be used as evidence against you when the time comes
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 29, 2020, 09:20:35 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 28, 2020, 12:52:11 PM
I looked up the new law. Link is below. Interesting aspects: (1) It applies to unmarked crosswalks, although I'd wager 99% or more of Virginia residents have no idea what an unmarked crosswalk is. (2) It does not require you to remain stopped until the pedestrian clears the crosswalk–you only have to wait until he clears your lane. Of course, I'd apply a rule of reasonableness. It's obnoxious to gun it as soon as he steps out of your lane, and it's downright stupid to do so if the pedestrian has a little kid in tow. I'd certainly wait longer for a little kid to be further away than I would for a solo adult, assuming the adult is able-bodied. Little kids are unpredictable.

College students even more so. One thing one learns about driving in Blacksburg anywhere on or near the Virginia Tech campus is to always watch for a student preoccupied with his or her phone stepping out in front of your moving vehicle -- crosswalk or not. It doesn't take people long to figure this out, so there aren't as many vehicle/pedestrian incidents as there could be. For a number of years, there was a campaign on campus and in town urging drivers to "Yield to Pedestrians!" Left off of the message was the other half, that pedestrians had an equal responsibility to yield to oncoming traffic. About two years ago a new campain was launched, "Heads up Hokies!" to remind pedestrians to look up from their phone and do what they learned in kindergarten -- "Look both ways before crossing the street." There is still frustration, though, with students who will step into a crosswalk, requiring a driver to stop, even though there isn't another car coming for several blocks behind the stopped car. There are also drivers who stop (sometimes short) for a potential pedestrian standing on the sidewalk.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 10:22:15 AM
I might argue little kids and college students are unpredictable for different reasons. College students have a sense for traffic safety but often just choose to disregard it (similar to high school kids, for that matter). Little kids usually don't have that sense yet. School bus design has changed since I was a kid in large part because of accidents involving little kids who did unsafe things because they didn't know any better–for example, I remember seeing news coverage of an accident where some little girl dropped her art assignment as she was crossing in front of the bus and she ran back to get it right as the bus started moving. The bus driver couldn't see her due to the hood. That's why a lot of buses now have the flat front and that metal bar that swings out to block pedestrian passage too close to the front of the bus. (I think that incident may have been used in safety videos as well.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jmacswimmer on June 29, 2020, 10:33:24 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 10:22:15 AM
I might argue little kids and college students are unpredictable for different reasons. College students have a sense for traffic safety but often just choose to disregard it (similar to high school kids, for that matter). Little kids usually don't have that sense yet. School bus design has changed since I was a kid in large part because of accidents involving little kids who did unsafe things because they didn't know any better–for example, I remember seeing news coverage of an accident where some little girl dropped her art assignment as she was crossing in front of the bus and she ran back to get it right as the bus started moving. The bus driver couldn't see her due to the hood. That's why a lot of buses now have the flat front and that metal bar that swings out to block pedestrian passage too close to the front of the bus. (I think that incident may have been used in safety videos as well.)

When I was doing my undergrad in Worcester MA, we had a running joke when crossing streets of "Go ahead and hit me, pay my tuition!!!"

At least with my friend group this was merely a joke and we were, in fact, careful crossing streets (especially with Masshole drivers), but it's entirely possible this could be a carefree attitude held by college students at various campuses.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 29, 2020, 11:29:36 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 29, 2020, 09:20:35 AM
There is still frustration, though, with students who will step into a crosswalk, requiring a driver to stop, even though there isn't another car coming for several blocks behind the stopped car.

Bruce in Blacksburg

Yeah, you can never really get back those lost 30 seconds.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 11:48:55 AM
The Virginia statute does provide that "No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic." It already said that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on June 29, 2020, 12:01:23 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 29, 2020, 11:29:36 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 29, 2020, 09:20:35 AM
There is still frustration, though, with students who will step into a crosswalk, requiring a driver to stop, even though there isn't another car coming for several blocks behind the stopped car.

Bruce in Blacksburg

Yeah, you can never really get back those lost 30 seconds.  :rolleyes:
Tell that to the pedestrian who couldn't be arsed to lose 5 seconds.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 29, 2020, 12:06:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 11:48:55 AM
The Virginia statute does provide that "No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic." It already said that.

Yes, but makes you wonder what the meaning of "disregard" truly is (maybe it's been subject to interpretation over the years?).

For instance, if the weather is really bad (rain storm, very hot day), the brief delay that the driver faces is disproportionately less inconvenient than the one that the pedestrian would suffer by waiting.

My own take on that rule is that you cannot jump out into a crosswalk so soon that a driver doesn't have a reasonable chance to stop and avoid collision. However, if the argument is simply that "the driver was inconvenienced because the pedestrian didn't let the driver proceed before crossing", then I have a hard time buying it. Yielding to pedestrians is just that, based on a lower priority on the right-of-way.

Otherwise, right-of-way means nothing. Pedestrians can always waive that right (I occasionally do, in that very circumstance).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 12:16:20 PM
I've always interpreted it the way you suggest–the pedestrian must act with due care and must consider the conditions and the nature of the approaching vehicle. Thus, on a rainy or snowy day a vehicle might need a little more space to stop safely, and a big truck cannot stop as easily as a small car.

The full hard-copy Code of Virginia you can find in a library will have annotations following a statute that will tell if any reported opinions interpret that clause. The online copy available through the LIS doesn't have the annotations. I suspect Michie's (a legal publisher) may hold the copyright to the annotations.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 29, 2020, 01:34:10 PM
Interestingly enough, I find myself slowing down at crosswalks in more crowded neighborhoods even if there's no speed bumps/signs around. Basically, in anticipation of spotting a crossing pedestrian (whom often are obscured from view due to cars parked on the street).

I still think there's a tricky grey area with respect to the pedestrian *being* in the crosswalk. I know that many (myself included) may feel uncomfortable walking into a crosswalk of a multi-lane high-speed road (perhaps like this part of Little River Turnpike in Annandale) https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8233341,-77.1663203,3a,75y,316.11h,77.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slfeDtHptAoOfbbzhYyt_sQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8233341,-77.1663203,3a,75y,316.11h,77.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slfeDtHptAoOfbbzhYyt_sQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)). Ideally, there would be a place between the sidewalk and the open roadway, where, if a pedestrian was standing, would signal to driver that he/she intended to cross the road (whereas a person standing on a sidewalk waiting for traffic to clear does not currently rise to that level).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 02:42:59 PM
More fun on I-395.

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1277623344582594567?s=20
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jmacswimmer on June 29, 2020, 02:53:41 PM
Maybe VDOT should consider extending the concrete barrier further west or putting up some bollards where the express ramp diverges on the left.  With the way its currently striped (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8657383,-77.0527646,113m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en), seems like it'd relatively easy to pull off.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 02:58:15 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 29, 2020, 02:53:41 PM
Maybe VDOT should consider extending the concrete barrier further west or putting up some bollards where the express ramp diverges on the left.  With the way its currently striped (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8657383,-77.0527646,113m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en), seems like it'd relatively easy to pull off.

I'd also like to see a barrier extend further east where that on-ramp joins the highway. I haven't commuted via I-395 on a regular basis in a long time, but when I did, every single morning I'd see people already on the highway cutting over to the right to use the merge lane as a passing lane.

(For those unfamiliar with the area, here is a Street View image from October 2019: https://goo.gl/maps/JJD11v1B2pDhjM1p6  The on-ramp is where that white car is to the right and the ramp the people in that video were trying to reach is to the left where the construction barriers and such are. If you click ahead a ways, you'll the the lane to the right coming from the on-ramp is an ordinary acceleration lane that ends as you pass under that overpass ahead.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 29, 2020, 02:58:45 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 02:42:59 PM
More fun on I-395.

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1277623344582594567
It's even better that there's already a direct express lane ramp from VA-110 South for those who wish to use it - it's not like doing that dangerous maneuver on the I-395 general purpose lanes is the -only- way in. Granted though, it does require exiting the VA-110 freeway, going through a few traffic lights, then re-entering I-395. Either way, far safer and doesn't put your life and others in danger. Pure stupidity at its finest.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/38.8648086,-77.0518456/38.8663434,-77.0508036/@38.8654109,-77.0526034,366m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e0?hl=en 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 29, 2020, 05:03:31 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 29, 2020, 12:01:23 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 29, 2020, 11:29:36 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 29, 2020, 09:20:35 AM
There is still frustration, though, with students who will step into a crosswalk, requiring a driver to stop, even though there isn't another car coming for several blocks behind the stopped car.

Bruce in Blacksburg

Yeah, you can never really get back those lost 30 seconds.  :rolleyes:
Tell that to the pedestrian who couldn't be arsed to lose 5 seconds.

That's pretty much the point -- the vehicle will be gone and the pedestrian can crawl across the street if so desired because there is no traffic close by. It's not such a big deal now, but when driving with a clutch it was an annoyance to give up that momentum.

It is situational though -- if it is raining and a pedestrian doesn't have an umbrella, they get a pass and chance to get out of the rain a little sooner.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 05:38:58 PM
Looks like the police have taken note of the I-395 situation:

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1277714400598724609?s=20
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on June 29, 2020, 08:14:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 05:38:58 PM
Looks like the police have taken note of the I-395 situation:

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1277714400598724609?s=20
Why do you think this is happening all of a sudden?  Do you think this has to do with the express lanes having toll all the way to the bridge?  was this a common phenomenon before the opening of the express lanes?

Nexus 5X

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 29, 2020, 09:11:33 PM
I'm just glad it's got VSP's attention now. These idiots obviously don't care about anyone's safety or even their own for that matter trying to pull that maneuver.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 09:21:18 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 29, 2020, 08:14:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 05:38:58 PM
Looks like the police have taken note of the I-395 situation:

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1277714400598724609?s=20
Why do you think this is happening all of a sudden?  Do you think this has to do with the express lanes having toll all the way to the bridge?  was this a common phenomenon before the opening of the express lanes?

Nexus 5X



Well, that's what doesn't make sense. You'd think this would have been more common back before the tolls took effect. But I don't remember this being an issue in the past.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 29, 2020, 09:30:03 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 05:38:58 PM
Looks like the police have taken note of the I-395 situation:

"To find a fix (which will take a little time)"
How about dropping some Jersey barriers in the gore area to prevent cutting straight across, and signs warning the ramp is monitored by camera and tickets will be issued.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on June 30, 2020, 01:46:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 09:21:18 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 29, 2020, 08:14:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 05:38:58 PM
Looks like the police have taken note of the I-395 situation:

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1277714400598724609?s=20
Why do you think this is happening all of a sudden?  Do you think this has to do with the express lanes having toll all the way to the bridge?  was this a common phenomenon before the opening of the express lanes?

Nexus 5X



Well, that's what doesn't make sense. You'd think this would have been more common back before the tolls took effect. But I don't remember this being an issue in the past.
I can see a link.  With tolls now on this stretch, including up to the bridge, the general lanes are that much worse.  Before tolls the traffic would even itself out better.  In afternoons, you would actually had a net increase in lanes as you head to the bridge and the backups would occur closer to the bridge.  But now, fewer people are in the express lanes and only decide to take them when traffic is really bad.

I think it was a mistake to allow tolls north of the Pentagon, a stretch where transurban did not make any improvement.

Nexus 5X

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 30, 2020, 03:05:31 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 30, 2020, 01:46:56 AM
I think it was a mistake to allow tolls north of the Pentagon, a stretch where transurban did not make any improvement.
It was a mistake to allow tolls on any of the I-95 and I-395 HO/T lanes outside of peak hours. They've proven themselves to make traffic worse in areas outside peak hours where they could be previously used as additional general purpose capacity, notable examples being the aforementioned I-395 bridge and also 4 to 3 lane drop at the Occuquan River on I-95 southbound.

I-495 and the future I-66 lanes are more understandable as those are new facilities, though arguably those should also be toll free outside peak hours to provide maximum capacity when traffic volumes are lower and incentive to pay a toll is lower.

All of this would make sense from a traffic standpoint, however sense we are dealing with a private company who has a financial agenda, this would never happen as it would only hurt revenue streams. That, along with any sort of general purpose lane widening (besides auxiliary lanes) along I-95 or I-395 that would help improve overall traffic flow.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on June 30, 2020, 07:34:39 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 30, 2020, 03:05:31 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 30, 2020, 01:46:56 AM
I think it was a mistake to allow tolls north of the Pentagon, a stretch where transurban did not make any improvement.
It was a mistake to allow tolls on any of the I-95 and I-395 HO/T lanes outside of peak hours. They've proven themselves to make traffic worse in areas outside peak hours where they could be previously used as additional general purpose capacity, notable examples being the aforementioned I-395 bridge and also 4 to 3 lane drop at the Occuquan River on I-95 southbound.

I-495 and the future I-66 lanes are more understandable as those are new facilities, though arguably those should also be toll free outside peak hours to provide maximum capacity when traffic volumes are lower and incentive to pay a toll is lower.

All of this would make sense from a traffic standpoint, however sense we are dealing with a private company who has a financial agenda, this would never happen as it would only hurt revenue streams. That, along with any sort of general purpose lane widening (besides auxiliary lanes) along I-95 or I-395 that would help improve overall traffic flow.

All of what you are saying is totally true.  And I agree.  The I-95/395 express lanes should only be toll during the peak hours as a way of adding vehicles in an area that was once only available to HOV traffic.  The only thing moderately acceptable would have been a SLIGHT expansion of the definition of peak.

The insult to injury on I-395 is that in the afternoons, most of the 95/395 express lanes are southbound only to account for the dominant direction of traffic.  The stretch from Pentagon to the bridge always had a two-way portion of express lanes that were open to all traffic, even during rush hours.  In the morning, some northbound regular traffic would be able to merge in with the HOV lane traffic into those lanes.  But in the afternoon, as the express lanes south of the Pentagon were not open in the northbound direction, those lanes effectively were a pure expansion of northbound capacity.  The express lanes only had traffic coming in from Eads Street and this ramp from the general lanes.  Also, any of Transurban' work in the area did not amount to any capacity increase here, as there still are the same number of lanes as before.

Effectively, before the 395 toll project, this stretch of the express lanes was open to all vehicles 24/7.  During the times the northbound express lanes south of the Pentagon were open, general traffic would have to merge in with other traffic to use this facility [rush hours this was HOV, other times even the reversible lanes were open to all].  During times when the reversible lanes were closed in the northbound direction, this facility was available to all merging in to nearly empty lanes.

So while I agree with spjurs4 on a policy that would restrict toll implementation during the old restricted hours and locations only for the entire 95/395, at the very minimum it seems totally unfair to allow for a northbound toll on the Pentagon-Bridge section, when the rest of the 395/95 express lanes aren't even operating in the northbound direction.  [I believe that the decision to do so was at DDOT's request.]
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 30, 2020, 10:07:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 12:16:20 PM
I've always interpreted it the way you suggest–the pedestrian must act with due care and must consider the conditions and the nature of the approaching vehicle. Thus, on a rainy or snowy day a vehicle might need a little more space to stop safely, and a big truck cannot stop as easily as a small car.

The full hard-copy Code of Virginia you can find in a library will have annotations following a statute that will tell if any reported opinions interpret that clause. The online copy available through the LIS doesn't have the annotations. I suspect Michie's (a legal publisher) may hold the copyright to the annotations.

Maryland is the same way.  The current Maryland statutes are on the Web site of the General Assembly, but there are no annotations to discuss opinions by the Court of Special Appeals (that's the intermediate appellate court in Maryland, which can and sometimes does issue "reported" opinions) and the Court of Appeals (that's the highest Maryland court, and most of the cases it hears are after the court grants a writ of certiorari). 

Last time I checked, Michie's was also the publisher for Maryland. 

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 30, 2020, 10:14:40 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 30, 2020, 03:05:31 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 30, 2020, 01:46:56 AM
I think it was a mistake to allow tolls north of the Pentagon, a stretch where transurban did not make any improvement.
It was a mistake to allow tolls on any of the I-95 and I-395 HO/T lanes outside of peak hours. They've proven themselves to make traffic worse in areas outside peak hours where they could be previously used as additional general purpose capacity, notable examples being the aforementioned I-395 bridge and also 4 to 3 lane drop at the Occuquan River on I-95 southbound.


I strongly disagree.  There was a decision made to allow these lanes to be run by a private concession holder (Transurban), and that meant that concession had to allow HOV-3+ traffic and buses to use the lanes at no charge, but that they could collect tolls (set high enough to assure free-flow conditions at all times except in the event of a crash) from other traffic.  That's a pretty clear and reasonable policy.

The case can be made that the lanes should have remained "free" and open to all drivers (regardless of occupancy) outside of the HOV-restricted times, as had been the case for many years.

But VDOT decided to go with the private concession on a  long-term basis, and that is the way it is going to be, unless the concession owner were to go bankrupt or the Commonwealth were to decide to buy-out Transurban.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 30, 2020, 10:29:00 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 30, 2020, 01:46:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 09:21:18 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 29, 2020, 08:14:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 29, 2020, 05:38:58 PM
Looks like the police have taken note of the I-395 situation:

[tweet removed]
Why do you think this is happening all of a sudden?  Do you think this has to do with the express lanes having toll all the way to the bridge?  was this a common phenomenon before the opening of the express lanes?

Nexus 5X



Well, that's what doesn't make sense. You'd think this would have been more common back before the tolls took effect. But I don't remember this being an issue in the past.
I can see a link.  With tolls now on this stretch, including up to the bridge, the general lanes are that much worse.  Before tolls the traffic would even itself out better.  In afternoons, you would actually had a net increase in lanes as you head to the bridge and the backups would occur closer to the bridge.  But now, fewer people are in the express lanes and only decide to take them when traffic is really bad.

I think it was a mistake to allow tolls north of the Pentagon, a stretch where transurban did not make any improvement.

Could be. What I was thinking is that there are some people who are just very much against the idea of paying a toll, so I was mildly surprised to see people trying to reach the lanes where they'd have to pay. (I tend to assume if those vehicles we see making that maneuver qualified for free passage under the current rules, they'd be more likely just to enter the express lanes legally via the route sprjus4 noted in an earlier reply because they'd have been headed to the express lanes all along.) BTW, Dave Statter also tweeted out video of a Metrobus making that maneuver, though he didn't say whether the bus was carrying passengers at the time. You can see that video in this article: https://www.arlnow.com/2020/06/29/video-people-keep-cutting-across-i-395-to-get-to-the-hov-bridge/

I'm not going to get bent out of shape about the approach to the bridge being tolled for a simple reason: Once upon a time, those lanes were subject to an HOV restriction at all times. The HOV hours gradually got shorter over the years, and in the late 1980s the restriction was removed from the approach to the bridge because of construction underway in the District. The restriction was never reinstated, but surely it could have been reinstated had VDOT deemed it appropriate to do so. Essentially, I view the current toll between the Pentagon and the bridge as being similar to doing that–a somewhat more lenient version of an HOV restriction was imposed, and I say "somewhat more lenient" because the old rules didn't contain any provision for SOVs or HOV-2s, whereas the current one allows those people access if they pay for it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 30, 2020, 02:16:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2020, 10:29:00 AM
BTW, Dave Statter also tweeted out video of a Metrobus making that maneuver, though he didn't say whether the bus was carrying passengers at the time.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was a deadhead maneuver. I'm thinking back down to the new garage in Springfield off of Cinder Bed Rd...obviously a local run would be out of the question in the middle carriageway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 30, 2020, 03:10:53 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 30, 2020, 02:16:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2020, 10:29:00 AM
BTW, Dave Statter also tweeted out video of a Metrobus making that maneuver, though he didn't say whether the bus was carrying passengers at the time.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was a deadhead maneuver. I'm thinking back down to the new garage in Springfield off of Cinder Bed Rd...obviously a local run would be out of the question in the middle carriageway.

What would be the point of the maneuver, though? The maneuver seen in those videos gets you into the northbound express lanes, that is, towards DC. If you were deadheading to Springfield, it wouldn't make much sense to go that way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 30, 2020, 04:19:47 PM
Ok good point. For some reason I was thinking soutbound.

Maybe a 5A going from Rosslyn to L'Enfant?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 30, 2020, 10:56:45 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2020, 03:10:53 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 30, 2020, 02:16:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2020, 10:29:00 AM
BTW, Dave Statter also tweeted out video of a Metrobus making that maneuver, though he didn't say whether the bus was carrying passengers at the time.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was a deadhead maneuver. I'm thinking back down to the new garage in Springfield off of Cinder Bed Rd...obviously a local run would be out of the question in the middle carriageway.

What would be the point of the maneuver, though? The maneuver seen in those videos gets you into the northbound express lanes, that is, towards DC. If you were deadheading to Springfield, it wouldn't make much sense to go that way.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that bus operator gets fired for that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 01, 2020, 07:45:26 AM
Quote from: plain on June 30, 2020, 10:56:45 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2020, 03:10:53 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 30, 2020, 02:16:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2020, 10:29:00 AM
BTW, Dave Statter also tweeted out video of a Metrobus making that maneuver, though he didn't say whether the bus was carrying passengers at the time.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was a deadhead maneuver. I'm thinking back down to the new garage in Springfield off of Cinder Bed Rd...obviously a local run would be out of the question in the middle carriageway.

What would be the point of the maneuver, though? The maneuver seen in those videos gets you into the northbound express lanes, that is, towards DC. If you were deadheading to Springfield, it wouldn't make much sense to go that way.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that bus operator gets fired for that.

I believe he said WMATA said the driver would be "disciplined." May not result in a firing. WMATA is intimidated by the transit workers' union and they've wound up allowing some Metrorail operators to remain on the job after some appallingly bad actions, so I won't be surprised if the same happened here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on July 04, 2020, 09:24:00 AM
I heard now the diamond in Fredericksburg at I-95 and VA 3 is no longer.  It is not  now a DDI is it?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 04, 2020, 10:35:31 AM
I-95/VA 3 was never a diamond.  It was a cloverleaf.  And they're only taking out one of the cloverleaf loops...EB 3 to NB 95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 04, 2020, 12:55:13 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 04, 2020, 10:35:31 AM
I-95/VA 3 was never a diamond.  It was a cloverleaf.  And they're only taking out one of the cloverleaf loops...EB 3 to NB 95.

If I'm not mistaken, that loop ramp has been gone for a while now. I seem to recall it was closed by sometime in the fall of 2018. Route 3 to either I-95 or US-1 is our normal route home from Charlottesville, but since my reunion this year was postponed and since we didn't make it to any football games in 2019, I know we haven't been that way since the 2018 football season and I remember the ramp being closed already by then.

The diamond that was replaced by a DDI was ten miles north of there at Exit 140 for Stafford.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 04, 2020, 01:43:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 04, 2020, 12:55:13 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 04, 2020, 10:35:31 AM
I-95/VA 3 was never a diamond.  It was a cloverleaf.  And they're only taking out one of the cloverleaf loops...EB 3 to NB 95.

If I'm not mistaken, that loop ramp has been gone for a while now. I seem to recall it was closed by sometime in the fall of 2018. Route 3 to either I-95 or US-1 is our normal route home from Charlottesville, but since my reunion this year was postponed and since we didn't make it to any football games in 2019, I know we haven't been that way since the 2018 football season and I remember the ramp being closed already by then.

The diamond that was replaced by a DDI was ten miles north of there at Exit 140 for Stafford.

VA 3 went from a diamond interchange to a cloverleaf in 1984.

The work (per VDOT) to remove one of the clover ramps (VA 3 EB to I-95 NB) was completed along with some other safety upgrades in Dec. 2018.  Per GMSV the ramp was still open in June 2018.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 04, 2020, 01:56:46 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 04, 2020, 01:43:49 PM
VA 3 went from a diamond interchange to a cloverleaf in 1984.
US-17 was also a diamond interchange in the 1980s before converted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 04, 2020, 03:38:48 PM
Even on a holiday:

https://twitter.com/vadotnova/status/1279496991156973574?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 04, 2020, 04:24:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 04, 2020, 01:43:49 PM
The work (per VDOT) to remove one of the clover ramps (VA 3 EB to I-95 NB) was completed along with some other safety upgrades in Dec. 2018.  Per GMSV the ramp was still open in June 2018.
It doesn't make that much sense to me to take any of them out if you're going to bring the risk that comes with crossing oncoming traffic back. This isn't the parkways of Long Island you're dealing with here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ixnay on July 04, 2020, 04:34:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 04, 2020, 03:38:48 PM
Even on a holiday:

https://twitter.com/vadotnova/status/1279496991156973574?s=21

Amateur drivers.  Open course.  Nevertheless, do not attempt.

ixnay
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 04, 2020, 05:18:14 PM
There's not much you can do if a driver is going to flagrantly opt to do something both illegal and dangerous...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 04, 2020, 05:55:48 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 04, 2020, 04:24:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 04, 2020, 01:43:49 PM
The work (per VDOT) to remove one of the clover ramps (VA 3 EB to I-95 NB) was completed along with some other safety upgrades in Dec. 2018.  Per GMSV the ramp was still open in June 2018.
It doesn't make that much sense to me to take any of them out if you're going to bring the risk that comes with crossing oncoming traffic back. This isn't the parkways of Long Island you're dealing with here.


By cross traffic do you mean the new left turn on VA 3 EB across the WB VA 3 lanes?  It is a triple left turn lane stoplight controlled intersection.

They are now building C/D lanes in both directions on I-95.  Had they known that project was definitely happening they might not needed to have removed that clover ramp, which was causing safety issues on I-95 IIRC.  The now-removed loop ramp had an AADT of 19,000.  By comparison, the VA 3 WB loop to I-95 SB has an AADT of 3,000.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on July 04, 2020, 10:04:05 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2020, 01:56:46 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 04, 2020, 01:43:49 PM
VA 3 went from a diamond interchange to a cloverleaf in 1984.
US-17 was also a diamond interchange in the 1980s before converted.
US 17 also was signed differently.  It was signed for Fredericksburg and not Warrenton going SB.  The northbound is weird now signed as US 17 Business is on a supplemental sign with the main guide for US 17 North and Warrenton going NB.
  The 1984 widening changed a lot of interchanges besides signs as well.  I remember when all north of VA 54 was four lanes to many different places in the DC area.  As a child going to Florida it got choked near the Marine Corps Base Quantico.   Considering some went to cloverleafs, when nowadays they are deemed unsafe do to high traffic volumes they are like the 8 tracks of music and the VHS of videos.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on July 04, 2020, 11:51:27 PM
If you don't want people to cut across 3 lanes, pull your barrier back to make it impossible. This was not thought through in design.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 05, 2020, 12:10:26 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 04, 2020, 03:38:48 PM
Even on a holiday:

(Video of stupid drivers)
Even putting up some cones or flexible delineators could help somewhat.  Cones mostly stopped the morons from cutting across into the express lanes just north of the Asbury Park tolls on the Garden State Parkway.

What would really help is some steady enforcement.  If there was a really good possibility of the VSP stalking that ramp on any given day (or photo enforcement) it would drop off a lot.  That coupled with reckless driving tickets.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 05, 2020, 12:31:38 AM
Even with an extended barrier, as seen in the video, some people will still try to backup and get in, which could be more dangerous than the current situation.

I still don't understand it that much, considering a direct Express Lanes entrance is provided from that on-ramp just south of the where the camera shows, and a motorist can safely enter.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 05, 2020, 08:19:33 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 05, 2020, 12:31:38 AM
Even with an extended barrier, as seen in the video, some people will still try to backup and get in, which could be more dangerous than the current situation.

I still don't understand it that much, considering a direct Express Lanes entrance is provided from that on-ramp just south of the where the camera shows, and a motorist can safely enter.

It looked to me like the guy who was backing up in the latest video may already have been on the highway, rather than coming from that on-ramp, so he wouldn't have used the ramp from Eads Street that you mention. I think they need to extend the barriers on both sides. One of VDOT's reply tweets said they'll be making some changes soon.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on July 05, 2020, 11:58:14 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 05, 2020, 08:19:33 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 05, 2020, 12:31:38 AM
Even with an extended barrier, as seen in the video, some people will still try to backup and get in, which could be more dangerous than the current situation.

I still don't understand it that much, considering a direct Express Lanes entrance is provided from that on-ramp just south of the where the camera shows, and a motorist can safely enter.

It looked to me like the guy who was backing up in the latest video may already have been on the highway, rather than coming from that on-ramp, so he wouldn't have used the ramp from Eads Street that you mention. I think they need to extend the barriers on both sides. One of VDOT's reply tweets said they'll be making some changes soon.

Are there any electronic variable message signs in this area that denote the estimated time to reach DC if you take the regular lanes vs if you take the express lanes?  I believe this would be one element that could be helpful so that people who are concerned with the delay can take the toll route.

To fix this, as I said earlier, the best thing to do would be to remove the toll on the express lanes between the Pentagon and DC.  This will allow the bridge backup to be distributed more evenly among all the lanes.  Until recently this stretch was open to all traffic without restriction at all times.

If that's not feasible, they should do the following:

Lengthen the barrier so that it is simply infeasible for ramp traffic to get on at this express ramp
Electronic signs to display the delay so that drivers can make up their mind earlier.  This should be done on mainline 395 and on VA-110 before the off ramp to 395.
Better signage on the ramps from VA-110 to get to the express lane on-ramps on Eads street.

One of the best signs to denote time, that I have seen in the NY area on the Cross Island Pkwy that tells people whether the whitestone or throgs neck bridge would be faster.  Something equivalent should be done to compare the times for general lanes and express lanes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7784049,-73.7680705,3a,75y,351.51h,81.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5EWZ14EiSYpKWpuUmb2Vlg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 05, 2020, 12:04:38 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 05, 2020, 11:58:14 AM
To fix this, as I said earlier, the best thing to do would be to remove the toll on the express lanes between the Pentagon and DC.  This will allow the bridge backup to be distributed more evenly among all the lanes.  Until recently this stretch was open to all traffic without restriction at all times.
Probably the best long-term solution, but Transurban would never agree to that. They're a private company in for a profit and that would mean revenue loss, even if traffic flow would be improved.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 05, 2020, 12:38:38 PM
A couple reckless driving citations with heavy fines might be a sufficient deterrent.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on July 05, 2020, 04:55:32 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 05, 2020, 12:10:26 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 04, 2020, 03:38:48 PM
Even on a holiday:

(Video of stupid drivers)
Even putting up some cones or flexible delineators could help somewhat.  Cones mostly stopped the morons from cutting across into the express lanes just north of the Asbury Park tolls on the Garden State Parkway.

What would really help is some steady enforcement.  If there was a really good possibility of the VSP stalking that ramp on any given day (or photo enforcement) it would drop off a lot.  That coupled with reckless driving tickets.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 05, 2020, 12:38:38 PM
A couple reckless driving citations with heavy fines might be a sufficient deterrent.
Advocating for more traffic enforcement? In Virginia? On this forum? :bigass:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 06, 2020, 08:25:43 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 05, 2020, 12:38:38 PM
A couple reckless driving citations with heavy fines might be a sufficient deterrent.

Apparently not on I-81 in Botetourt County, where VSP cited someone for 124 MPH (!) over the July 4 holiday weekend (posted limit there is 70 MPH according to the charging document).  Copy of document (with name redacted) on Facebook here (https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/106901641_10158875228905101_1207931711412619329_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_oc=AQm1rEU8R6vKfTbNDOO-vTPDQW7I8JlGl6eFbvnndRHlEsb1Lf_h0VeMvdOf5F9a_DQ&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=905876ef4a9b30756abab5e9ea80ffac&oe=5F2A25BD).


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 06, 2020, 10:22:18 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 06, 2020, 08:25:43 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 05, 2020, 12:38:38 PM
A couple reckless driving citations with heavy fines might be a sufficient deterrent.

Apparently not on I-81 in Botetourt County, where VSP cited someone for 124 MPH (!) over the July 4 holiday weekend (posted limit there is 70 MPH according to the charging document).  Copy of document (with name redacted) on Facebook here (https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/106901641_10158875228905101_1207931711412619329_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_oc=AQm1rEU8R6vKfTbNDOO-vTPDQW7I8JlGl6eFbvnndRHlEsb1Lf_h0VeMvdOf5F9a_DQ&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=905876ef4a9b30756abab5e9ea80ffac&oe=5F2A25BD).




Must've been a bit light on the truck traffic for once...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 07, 2020, 10:02:11 AM
The stoplight at the south end of the Warrenton Bypass has been removed. Movements are all via ramps at the not-quite-finished interchange.

Once this project is wrapped up this will eliminate heavy back ups on southbound traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 07, 2020, 10:18:18 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 07, 2020, 10:02:11 AM
The stoplight at the south end of the Warrenton Bypass has been removed. Movements are all via ramps at the not-quite-finished interchange.

Once this project is wrapped up this will eliminate heavy back ups on southbound traffic.

Well this will make my next trip to my parents' house a little quicker (whenever that happens).  Odlly, I have had few issues at the light recently even going SB.

Anyway, I recommend recentering the point at the new interchange in the HB as part of your next round of Travel Mapping Updates.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 07, 2020, 11:18:21 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.686584,-77.7866994,17.21z

Looks like Google Maps already has two roundabouts on its map (although the satellite view still has the intersection). I like the use of roundabouts for highway interchanges in a rural area - reminds me a bit of Europe.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 08, 2020, 10:36:47 PM
Seems like this planned project has kinda flown under the radar here in Northern Virginia likely due to the numerous other mega projects either currently under construction or on the horizon but big changes are planned in the vicinity of the VA-28/VA-267 interchange near Dulles Airport: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/rt_28_dtr_greenway_study.asp
Seems like the key goal of the project is to alleviate the common backups resulting from heavy southbound VA-28 to eastbound VA-267 and westbound VA-267 to northbound VA-28 movements (likely due to many commuters wishing to avoid the expensive tolls on the Greenway). The multiple tightly spaced interchanges on VA-28 certainly doesn't help matters either.     

Here is the recommended preferred alternative as well as a comparison of all the alternatives:
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/Rt28DTRGreenway/Preferred_Alternative.pdf
http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/Rt28DTRGreenway/Alternative_Matrix.pdf

In addition to the improvements to the VA-28/VA-267 interchange, the VA-28/Innovation Avenue and VA-28/Old Ox Road interchanges would be greatly modified with potential interchange modifications also proposed in some alternatives at VA-28/Frying Pan Road and VA-267(DTR)/Centreville Road. While the cost estimate for the recommended preferred alternative is in the ballpark of $394 to $495 million (2020 estimate), I suspect that due to VDOT's limited funding, budget, and smart scale, we'll most likely get something closer to far cheaper Alternative 1 ($165 to $224 ballpark). However, it is possible that if a variety of additional funding sources (NVTA, Dulles Airport, Dulles Greenway Owners, private companies, local and federal government, etc.) come together, then the preferred alternative could indeed become reality. Didn't see a project time table, but regardless wouldn't expect to see major construction for at least 5-10 years.   
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on July 10, 2020, 01:55:17 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 29, 2020, 12:01:23 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 29, 2020, 11:29:36 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 29, 2020, 09:20:35 AM
There is still frustration, though, with students who will step into a crosswalk, requiring a driver to stop, even though there isn't another car coming for several blocks behind the stopped car.

Bruce in Blacksburg

Yeah, you can never really get back those lost 30 seconds.  :rolleyes:
Tell that to the pedestrian who couldn't be arsed to lose 5 seconds.

I'd bargain the delay is equal for both. Though I usually wait for cars to pass. I don't see any reason for them to stop for me when there might not be anyone else around.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 10, 2020, 06:53:32 PM
https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1281672444600885249?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on July 10, 2020, 07:22:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 10, 2020, 06:53:32 PM
https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1281672444600885249?s=21

I wonder how long it will be before some dumbass either tries to drive between the barrels or just knocks 'em over.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 10, 2020, 08:28:57 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 10, 2020, 07:22:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 10, 2020, 06:53:32 PM
https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1281672444600885249?s=21

I wonder how long it will be before some dumbass either tries to drive between the barrels or just knocks 'em over.
It's worked well here for awhile...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2518329,-74.0818623,3a,75y,29.06h,87.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svPORJjUkX6VCGdECg80R-w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2518329,-74.0818623,3a,75y,29.06h,87.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svPORJjUkX6VCGdECg80R-w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 10, 2020, 08:30:06 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 10, 2020, 07:22:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 10, 2020, 06:53:32 PM
(Tweet omitted)

I wonder how long it will be before some dumbass either tries to drive between the barrels or just knocks 'em over.

I assume it's happened already.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 14, 2020, 08:51:29 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 10, 2020, 07:22:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 10, 2020, 06:53:32 PM
https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1281672444600885249?s=21

I wonder how long it will be before some dumbass either tries to drive between the barrels or just knocks 'em over.

https://twitter.com/adamtuss/status/1283193620749848576?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on July 15, 2020, 04:32:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 14, 2020, 08:51:29 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 10, 2020, 07:22:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 10, 2020, 06:53:32 PM
https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1281672444600885249?s=21

I wonder how long it will be before some dumbass either tries to drive between the barrels or just knocks 'em over.

https://twitter.com/adamtuss/status/1283193620749848576?s=21

"Challenge accepted", I guess. :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 15, 2020, 09:35:58 PM
All of this really says something about the patience (or impatience) of some drivers. These fools are risking everyone's safety to save 10 minutes MAX. It's not like this is at Springfield or beyond...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 16, 2020, 01:04:51 AM
I-64 / 664 Corridor Improvement Plan (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/projects/major_projects/i-64_study.asp)
QuoteWhat's Happening

The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), supported by the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment (OIPI), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), will study Interstate 64 and I-664 from the West Virginia state line to the Hampton Roads Region to initiate a data-driven analysis for the development of the 64 / 664 Corridor Improvement Plan, which will:

* Identify key problem areas along the corridor, and
* Identify potential solutions and areas for additional review and study

As directed by the CTB, the study team will identify targeted improvements and incident management strategies for the corridor.
As a follow up to the recently completed I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan, the CTB has begun efforts for an I-64 Corridor Improvement Plan that also includes I-664 in Chesapeake, Suffolk, Newport News, and Hampton, which functions as the western portion of the Hampton Roads Beltway and an alternate routing for I-64 through Norfolk and the HRBT.

A survey is available to provide input: https://va64corridor.metroquest.com/
Project Website: https://www.i-64-664publicinfo.com/
CTB Page: http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/projects/major_projects/i-64_study.asp




My opinion on some major investments that are needed along the corridors:
* Widening to 6 lanes between 1 mile west of Exit 234 (VA-199) and Exit 205 (VA-249).
* Climbing lane on uphill segments through Afton Mountain west of Charlottesville.
* Widening I-664 to 8 to 10 lanes throughout, to include three general purpose lanes and 1 or 2 HO/T lanes in each direction.
* Widening to 8 lanes along the I-95 / I-64 overlap through Downtown Richmond, along with west of I-95 towards Short Pump.
* In the long term, eventual widening to 6 lanes through Charlottesville as traffic volumes grow and begin exceeding 50,000 - 60,000 AADT, possibly 15-20 years from now.
* Expansion of Exit 299 (I-64 / I-664 / I-264 / US-58 Bowers Hill) interchange.
* Expansion of Exit 291 (I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 / US-17 Oak Grove) interchange to include flyovers to/from VA-168 / US-17 to the south and braided ramp movements between Exit 291 and Exit 290 (VA-168 Business).
* Expansion of Exit 282 (US-13) interchange in Norfolk.
* Expansion of Exit 276 - 277 (I-564 / VA-168) interchange complex in Norfolk to include right-hand entrances and exits, eliminating the current VA-168 North left entrance and I-564 left exit and to properly accommodate proposed two-way HO/T lane continuity through the area.
* Expansion of Exit 250 (VA-105) interchange in Newport News.
* Expansion of Exit 190 (I-95 / I-64 eastern split) interchange in Downtown Richmond. More through lanes, better geometry, braided ramps, etc.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 16, 2020, 01:15:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2020, 01:04:51 AM
My opinion on some major investments that are needed along the corridors:
* Widening to 6 lanes between 1 mile west of Exit 234 (VA-199) and Exit 205 (VA-249).
* Climbing lane on uphill segments through Afton Mountain west of Charlottesville.
* Widening I-664 to 8 to 10 lanes throughout, to include three general purpose lanes and 1 or 2 HO/T lanes in each direction.
* Widening to 8 lanes along the I-95 / I-64 overlap through Downtown Richmond, along with west of I-95 towards Short Pump.
* In the long term, eventual widening to 6 lanes through Charlottesville as traffic volumes grow and begin exceeding 50,000 - 60,000 AADT, possibly 15-20 years from now.
* Expansion of Exit 299 (I-64 / I-664 / I-264 / US-58 Bowers Hill) interchange.
* Expansion of Exit 291 (I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 / US-17 Oak Grove) interchange to include flyovers to/from VA-168 / US-17 to the south and braided ramp movements between Exit 291 and Exit 290 (VA-168 Business).
* Expansion of Exit 282 (US-13) interchange in Norfolk.
* Expansion of Exit 276 - 277 (I-564 / VA-168) interchange complex in Norfolk to include right-hand entrances and exits, eliminating the current VA-168 North left entrance and I-564 left exit and to properly accommodate proposed two-way HO/T lane continuity through the area.
* Expansion of Exit 250 (VA-105) interchange in Newport News.
* Expansion of Exit 190 (I-95 / I-64 eastern split) interchange in Downtown Richmond. More through lanes, better geometry, braided ramps, etc.

I agree with all of this and in addition, would recommend new interchanges at Gayton Road (serving Short Pump) and somewhere between Exits 250 and 255 serving the Newport News area (at the new Atkinson Blvd or Denbigh Blvd or Bland Blvd).

However, after seeing the project recommendations of the recently completed I-95 and I-81 studies, I suspect the state will be more likely to recommend things such as acceleration/de-acceleration lane extensions, more buses, commuter lots, HOT lanes up I-664, etc. The recommendation of climbing lanes on I-81 gives me hope that maybe Afton mountain could finally get some too. I could possibly see another phase or two of I-64 widening between Richmond and Williamsburg being recommended but I doubt all of it. Having additional money coming in from the HRTAC and newly created CVTA (Richmond) certainly helps so its possible that we could see projects like phase 2 of the I-64 high rise bridge or additional phases of the I-64/I-264 interchage area improvements as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 16, 2020, 02:21:30 PM
VDOT tweeted this afternoon that they and Transurban will install bollards in the gore area seen in the various tweets in this thread.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 17, 2020, 12:09:46 PM
Nice then-and-now picture.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1284155668912578561?s=20
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 21, 2020, 09:45:55 AM
In this video, you can see the new pylons they erected at Ramp G in response to the issue seen in earlier posts. I've seen some suggestions that they ought to put more of them on the near side to stop people already on the highway from cutting to the right to use the acceleration lane as a passing lane (like the guy in the red pickup 24 seconds into this video), but I don't expect to see that happen.

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1285214895500333064?s=20


(BTW, ethanman62187 is one of the people who replied to that tweet.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dougtone on July 22, 2020, 06:43:11 PM
Come take a virtual trip down US 211 in Virginia! Spend the morning driving across US 211 in Virginia. From small towns to valley floors to the Piedmont to Blue Ridge Mountain gaps, there is a lot to see and do along one of the shortest U.S. highways around. Leaves plenty of time for brunch!

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 22, 2020, 06:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougtone on July 22, 2020, 06:43:11 PM
Come take a virtual trip down US 211 in Virginia! Spend the morning driving across US 211 in Virginia. From small towns to valley floors to the Piedmont to Blue Ridge Mountain gaps, there is a lot to see and do along one of the shortest U.S. highways around. Leaves plenty of time for brunch!

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html)

I am surprised that you did not mention Washington, VA.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: odditude on July 22, 2020, 07:40:03 PM
scratch one more traffic light on SR 7 in Loudoun County.

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/northern-virginia/2020/battlefield-parkway-closure-at-route-7-in-leesburg-scheduled-to-begin-sunday-night-july-2607-15-2020.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 22, 2020, 08:27:51 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 22, 2020, 06:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougtone on July 22, 2020, 06:43:11 PM
Come take a virtual trip down US 211 in Virginia! Spend the morning driving across US 211 in Virginia. From small towns to valley floors to the Piedmont to Blue Ridge Mountain gaps, there is a lot to see and do along one of the shortest U.S. highways around. Leaves plenty of time for brunch!

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html)

I am surprised that you did not mention Washington, VA.

I'll be heading to said town on Saturday. Anything you'd like pictures of?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dougtone on July 22, 2020, 08:47:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 22, 2020, 08:27:51 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 22, 2020, 06:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougtone on July 22, 2020, 06:43:11 PM
Come take a virtual trip down US 211 in Virginia! Spend the morning driving across US 211 in Virginia. From small towns to valley floors to the Piedmont to Blue Ridge Mountain gaps, there is a lot to see and do along one of the shortest U.S. highways around. Leaves plenty of time for brunch!

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html)

I am surprised that you did not mention Washington, VA.

I'll be heading to said town on Saturday. Anything you'd like pictures of?

I actually have photos from Washington, VA from a previous trip in the area. Fortunately, it will be easy enough to add them to the blog post.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 23, 2020, 08:39:06 AM
Quote from: Dougtone on July 22, 2020, 08:47:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 22, 2020, 08:27:51 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 22, 2020, 06:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougtone on July 22, 2020, 06:43:11 PM
Come take a virtual trip down US 211 in Virginia! Spend the morning driving across US 211 in Virginia. From small towns to valley floors to the Piedmont to Blue Ridge Mountain gaps, there is a lot to see and do along one of the shortest U.S. highways around. Leaves plenty of time for brunch!

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html)

I am surprised that you did not mention Washington, VA.

I'll be heading to said town on Saturday. Anything you'd like pictures of?

I actually have photos from Washington, VA from a previous trip in the area. Fortunately, it will be easy enough to add them to the blog post.

Thank you.  I was just surprised to not see it included as part of the post.

I clinched the US 211 BUS and the unsigned US 522 BUS routes there one time coming back to PA from my parents' house.  I had been using I-64 to US 15 to VA 231 to US 522 (including the US 211 and US 340 concurrencies) to get to I-81 in Winchester.  It is obviously better on a Sunday than I-95 south of Fredericksburg, and the Thanksgiving congestion on I-81 has never affected me between Winchester and Harrisburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 26, 2020, 10:10:35 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 22, 2020, 06:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougtone on July 22, 2020, 06:43:11 PM
Come take a virtual trip down US 211 in Virginia! Spend the morning driving across US 211 in Virginia. From small towns to valley floors to the Piedmont to Blue Ridge Mountain gaps, there is a lot to see and do along one of the shortest U.S. highways around. Leaves plenty of time for brunch!

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html)

I am surprised that you did not mention Washington, VA.

Spiffy street signs out front here (well, really across the street).

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200726/1b73b9d343e33f3afc06e089b627e54d.jpg)


US-211 Business comes from the right in the picture below, makes a left at the stop sign, and heads back down to US-211 south of town. If instead you turn right, north of town it becomes Fodderstack Road and takes you to US-522 in Flint Hill.

US-211 Business is signed on the main road but not here in town.

The building in the picture, for those unfamiliar, is the famous Inn at Little Washington.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200726/86236fd40fefdebf5468c3a0e7728dfa.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 26, 2020, 03:33:01 PM
I was in Washington VA a few weeks ago on the way back from Shenandoah national Park...the Inn (which is basically the only thing in town) has mannequins in the dining room. You can see them from the window in front.

The proprietor wanted to stay open with limited dining room capacity, but without the dining room seeming too vacant, hence the use of mannequins.
Title: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 26, 2020, 04:58:15 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 26, 2020, 03:33:01 PM
I was in Washington VA a few weeks ago on the way back from Shenandoah national Park...the Inn (which is basically the only thing in town) has mannequins in the dining room. You can see them from the window in front.

The proprietor wanted to stay open with limited dining room capacity, but without the dining room seeming too vacant, hence the use of mannequins.
Here you go. The dining room is at roughly half capacity now. When it was busy last night (our dinner reservation was at 8:15), the mannequins didn't look all that weird. If you look closely, though, you can see the man kneeling in the second picture to propose to the woman who looks sort of like Taylor Swift has a leg that is in a stranger position than Joe Theismann's or Alex Smith's were when they broke them playing for the Redskins.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200726/f25fcefd37f6b93ff714e3ca46df60e2.jpg)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200726/5a9740c1db702f78392476dbe703ea85.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200726/fc9ae9ca4922f153ef90a968150ea970.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on July 26, 2020, 08:04:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2020, 10:10:35 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 22, 2020, 06:58:27 PM
Quote from: Dougtone on July 22, 2020, 06:43:11 PM
Come take a virtual trip down US 211 in Virginia! Spend the morning driving across US 211 in Virginia. From small towns to valley floors to the Piedmont to Blue Ridge Mountain gaps, there is a lot to see and do along one of the shortest U.S. highways around. Leaves plenty of time for brunch!

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/07/a-morning-on-virginias-us-route-211.html)

I am surprised that you did not mention Washington, VA.

Spiffy street signs out front here (well, really across the street).

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200726/1b73b9d343e33f3afc06e089b627e54d.jpg)


US-211 Business comes from the right in the picture below, makes a left at the stop sign, and heads back down to US-211 south of town. If instead you turn right, north of town it becomes Fodderstack Road and takes you to US-522 in Flint Hill.

US-211 Business is signed on the main road but not here in town.

Completely unsigned but noted on VDOT documents, Bus US 211 is also Bus US 522.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dougtone on July 26, 2020, 09:45:57 PM
I had some photos from Washington. VA from an earlier trip I took in 2011 (which involved clinching US 522) and decided to insert a few photos from that trip to the post, which I've updated.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 26, 2020, 11:57:04 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2020, 04:58:15 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 26, 2020, 03:33:01 PM
I was in Washington VA a few weeks ago on the way back from Shenandoah national Park...the Inn (which is basically the only thing in town) has mannequins in the dining room. You can see them from the window in front.

The proprietor wanted to stay open with limited dining room capacity, but without the dining room seeming too vacant, hence the use of mannequins.
Here you go. The dining room is at roughly half capacity now. When it was busy last night (our dinner reservation was at 8:15), the mannequins didn't look all that weird. If you look closely, though, you can see the man kneeling in the second picture to propose to the woman who looks sort of like Taylor Swift has a leg that is in a stranger position than Joe Theismann's or Alex Smith's were when they broke them playing for the Redskins.

(Creepy photos removed)
I think that would make for a pretty unsettling experience.  As you will find at the end of your dinner, the mannequins were once actually other diners like you.....just out for a night on the town.....in the twilight zone.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 27, 2020, 12:38:51 AM
At the price that patrons are spending at this place, nothing's going to faze them.

The restaurateur was quoted as saying they constantly have wedding proposals in the dining room, hence the depicted scene.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 27, 2020, 12:48:30 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 27, 2020, 12:38:51 AM
At the price that patrons are spending at this place, nothing's going to faze them.
Just looked it up....you're not kidding.

I'd be like this guy in that place...


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 01, 2020, 08:08:53 PM
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2020/07/commuters-on-busy-us-15-may-get-safety-improvements-in-loudoun-county/:
QuoteLoudoun County is studying a 12-mile stretch of southbound U.S. 15 – from Leesburg to the Prince William County line – to determine whether traffic pattern or road configuration improvements could make travel safer.

A virtual public input meeting is being held Thursday evening.

The county is planning to build a roundabout on U.S. 15, at what is currently an intersection with Braddock Road.

In the past decade, several roundabouts have been built in Loudoun County on the highway to replace traffic lights and stop lights, including where U.S. 15 meets U.S. 50 at Gilberts Corner.

The county is already in the midst of acquiring land and designing a project to widen U.S. 15, from two lanes to four in a 5-mile stretch from Battlefield Parkway, north of Leesburg, to Montressor Road, near the town of Lucketts.

Recommendations about roadway and intersection safety, roadway design and traffic will be considered by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, while preserving the context of the historical highway.

The county expects the safety study will be completed by summer 2021.

Regardless of widening or reconfiguration contemplated by Loudoun County, changes to U.S. 15 in Prince William County seem less certain.

After years of discussion about a bicounty parkway to increase north-south capacity between Prince William and Loudoun, Prince William County removed the project from its Comprehensive Plan. Last month, an economic recovery task force recommended re-including the project.

I suspect Loudoun decided to study this particular portion of US 15 due to Prince William deciding to once again ax the Bicounty Parkway, which would have extended four lane VA 234 to meet up with Loudouns' future four lane Northstar Blvd corridor. US 15 runs about four miles west of this corridor in Loudoun's Rural zoning area. While I highly doubt we'll see any widening recommendations whether its warrented or not (this stretch of US 15 gets around 15,000 AADT) I suspect instead we'll see more roundabout recommendations at Braddock and Harmony Chruch Road. The current roundabouts at Gilbert's Corner can occasionally get overwhelmed during rush hour periods from what I've seen but I'm not sure if anything will be done about that. Would like to see Prince William do a similar study on their portion (Light at Logmill Road is a problem) because I think better connectivity between Virginia's 2nd and 4th most populous localities is definitely something worth closely looking at. Very pretty road though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2020, 09:47:33 PM
QuoteIn the past decade, several roundabouts have been built in Loudoun County on the highway to replace traffic lights and stop lights, including where U.S. 15 meets U.S. 50 at Gilberts Corner.

What am I missing here? Is there a difference? (I personally avoid the term "stop light" because if the light is green, you don't have to stop, but I know many people are not that cautious with their words.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on August 01, 2020, 11:33:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2020, 09:47:33 PM
QuoteIn the past decade, several roundabouts have been built in Loudoun County on the highway to replace traffic lights and stop lights, including where U.S. 15 meets U.S. 50 at Gilberts Corner.

What am I missing here? Is there a difference? (I personally avoid the term "stop light" because if the light is green, you don't have to stop, but I know many people are not that cautious with their words.)
Maybe a red flashing blinker?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 02, 2020, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 01, 2020, 11:33:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2020, 09:47:33 PM
QuoteIn the past decade, several roundabouts have been built in Loudoun County on the highway to replace traffic lights and stop lights, including where U.S. 15 meets U.S. 50 at Gilberts Corner.

What am I missing here? Is there a difference? (I personally avoid the term "stop light" because if the light is green, you don't have to stop, but I know many people are not that cautious with their words.)
Maybe a red flashing blinker?

I can't think of any such lights along that road, but maybe one was introduced in the past year or two.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 02, 2020, 05:24:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2020, 11:09:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 01, 2020, 11:33:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2020, 09:47:33 PM
QuoteIn the past decade, several roundabouts have been built in Loudoun County on the highway to replace traffic lights and stop lights, including where U.S. 15 meets U.S. 50 at Gilberts Corner.

What am I missing here? Is there a difference? (I personally avoid the term "stop light" because if the light is green, you don't have to stop, but I know many people are not that cautious with their words.)
Maybe a red flashing blinker?
I can't think of any such lights along that road, but maybe one was introduced in the past year or two.
Weren't any on the road when I last traveled on it back in July. My guess is that to the general public, stop light and traffic light mean the same thing and yet many people only refer to them by one or the other. The article was probably trying to avoid confusion but ironically did exactly the opposite by including both terms.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 07, 2020, 07:42:58 PM
Looks like the 28 bypass (Godwin Drive Extension) is dead (for now...) and that VA-28 from the Bull Run to Liberia Avenue will be widened to six lanes:
https://www.insidenova.com/news/transportation/prince_william/prince-william-county-supervisors-reject-route-28-bypass/article_79fea08a-d662-11ea-bf98-b329beaba1d4.html
QuoteAfter securing $300 million and spending years developing a bypass for busy Va. Route 28, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors rejected the proposal Tuesday night, leaving any fix for Manassas-area commuters in limbo.
The Prince William Board of County Supervisors voted 8-0 at its meeting to deny staff's recommendation to move to the design phase of the project.

In a subsequent vote, the board voted 8-0 to endorse widening Route 28. County staff estimate that widening the road from four to six lanes would require an additional $100 million.

Supervisor Yesli Vega, who represents the Coles District that is home to the road, announced Monday she doesn't support the proposed bypass due to its impacts on residents and the environment, among other reasons.

"This option will not alleviate traffic congestion on 28 from where it is today,"  Vega said in an email to InsideNoVa. "Due to the negligible traffic impact, combined with the environmental, fiscal and human impact my constituents will face by being forcefully removed from their homes, I cannot support this proposal."  

County staff had backed the bypass, saying it would reduce congestion in the busy commuter corridor between Manassas and Centreville, improve access to transit and provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Property Impacts   Bypass Route   Widening
Total Impacted                72               185
Residential Displaced        54                7
Commercial Displaced      5                       79
Total Cost                 $300 million   $400 million

County staff estimate Va. Route 28 will see an increase from the 50,500 daily traffic count in 2018. Without any project build, Route 28 from Liberia Avenue to Orchard Bridge Dr. will see an estimated 75,000 daily traffic count. Staff estimated traffic count on that stretch of Route 28 with the proposed extension project would see about 62,500 daily traffic count in 2040, while widening the road is estimated to increase daily traffic count to 85,000, according to the county.

While the massive number of residential impacts were likely the nail in the coffin, in my opinion those traffic estimates also contributed because even with the bypass, things on VA-28 were only gonna get worse. Was never convinced that the bypass was actually going to take current traffic off of VA-28. Still however, an 85,000 daily traffic count by 2040 doesn't look too good either so in addition to widening VA-28, if I were VDOT, PWCDOT, NVTA, etc, I would also seriously consider adding interchanges at both New Braddock Road and Comption Road, prioritization of the Sudley Manor interchange on the VA-234 bypass with the possibility of six lane widening there, and finally, dare I say, traffic improvements on Yates Ford Road and Henderson Road through Clifton (Don't worry no widening, only straightening out some curves and some roundabouts). Still, wouldn't be surpised if even that idea is opposed by the NIMBYS there though.

Also, it was brought to my attention that $400 million for the widening might be a bit of an overestimation due to the portion of VA-28 through Manassas Park already being six lanes divided. Not clear to me if that section had been accounted for. Will also be interesting to see where that extra funding comes from ($300 million was what they had saved up). Either way, I think this was ultimately the right decision and just hope that other improvements are also made in addition by 2040.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 13, 2020, 02:48:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 05:55:48 PM
There is also other discussion (not in these recommendations) about immediately implementing a HO/T shoulder on the High Rise Bridge during peak hours, so immediately upon the Phase #1 completion, there would be 8-lanes (2 + 2 each way) during peak hours. The only issue I see with this is the existing High Rise Bridge can only handle 4-lanes, and they are already planning on making the right lane a -general purpose- shoulder lane during peak hours between I-464 and US-17 / US-17 Business, meaning 1 HO/T + 2 GP + 1 Shoulder during peak hours. The only thing they could realistically do is eliminate that GP shoulder lane and make it HO/T to the left side, but I'm sure that would only get more opposition to the project.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) is planned to officially adopt the "Master Agreement for Development and Tolling of Hampton Roads Express Lanes Network" during tomorrow's meeting.

Document - http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2020/august/ctb_action_meeting_aug_14_2020.pdf

Buried deep in the document in Exhibit 5-2 is the proposed final configuration of the Express Lanes network, and sure enough, they are planning to go forth with silently eliminating the promised 3rd general purpose lane in each direction between I-464 (Exit 291) and US-17 / US-17 Business (Exit 296) in order to re-purpose the current project to handle 8 lanes (2 HO/T + 2 GP each way) during peak hours immediately upon completion in 2021 - 2022. This was supposed to help relieve a major bottleneck at the High Rise Bridge caused by both the 3rd lane drop and the I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 / US-17 interchange (Exit 291) by allowing that 3rd lane to continue over the High Rise Bridge. Instead, this will be sacrificed to allow a second HO/T lane which was not apart of the original project.

I'm not necessarily against having 2 HO/T lanes in each direction and in fact think it could help open up more capacity in this corridor and encourage more traffic to use the HO/T lanes, though I think it's a mistake to eliminate the promised 3rd lane. A project that was to add HO/T lanes additionally had a general purpose component to relieve one of the worst choke points, and it was removed silently, with no public input or notice, to have more HO/T lanes. It could be possible to have both 2 HO/T lanes each way plus that 3rd general purpose lane by shifting the "shoulder" HO/T lane heading eastbound (west towards Bowers Hill) onto the new bridge facing against traffic (separated by a barrier) then rejoin once the bridge ends in order to fit 1 HO/T + 3 GP on the existing bridge, but I don't believe this is the plan.

Interestingly enough, they also silently updated the FAQ page on the I-64 High Rise Bridge project website to omit a section under the "Aside from adding an Express Lane, how else will this project help my commute?" that read "The exterior shoulders between Route 17 and Great Bridge Boulevard will be constructed for use as a non-tolled, managed lane that general traffic can use during periods of peak congestion. That means drivers will have three non-tolled lanes in this stretch of I-64 during heavy congestion, plus one managed HOT lane."

From archive.org

December 2018 (https://web.archive.org/web/20180831054358/http://www.64highrise.org/questions/default.asp#) -
QuoteThe exterior shoulders between Route 17 and Great Bridge Boulevard will be constructed for use as a non-tolled, managed lane that general traffic can use during periods of peak congestion. That means drivers will have three non-tolled lanes in this stretch of I-64 during heavy congestion, plus one managed HOT lane.

The existing travel lanes will also receive an asphalt overlay during construction.

In addition, the new High Rise Bridge, which will be used exclusively for westbound I-64 traffic (toward Virginia Beach), will feature a fixed span because of its height, eliminating bridge lifts for motorists traveling in this direction.

August 2020 (http://www.64highrise.org/questions/default.asp) -
QuoteThe existing travel lanes will also receive an asphalt overlay during construction.

In addition, the new High Rise Bridge, which will be used exclusively for westbound I-64 traffic (toward Virginia Beach), will feature a fixed span because of its height, eliminating bridge lifts for motorists traveling in this direction.


In addition to them removing the third lane, looking at this from a system perspective, it's easy to notice there's inconsistencies in the proposed network. Some areas will have 2 HO/T lanes in each direction, others will only have 1. They are constructing projects in certain areas to increase capacity to 2 HO/T lanes (by way of 1 full time + 1 part time shoulder), but not in other areas. Effectively, areas that already have a left HOV lane will not be reconstructed to have 2 HO/T lanes, it will merely only be one. Wouldn't it be logical to provide a consistent 2 HO/T lane each way network? Areas with 1 HO/T lane will make it virtually impossible to pass slower vehicles. Additionally, if traffic demand for the HO/T lane in an area where it's only 1 each way is high, that means prices will increase and the system will quickly lose capacity.

Here's the plan -
Jefferson Ave to I-664 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-664 to LaSalle Ave - 1 HO/T + 2 GP each way (which will eliminate an existing general purpose lane, currently a 3+3)
LaSalle Ave to I-564 (includes HRBT) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way
I-564 to I-264 - 2 HO/T + 3 GP each way in peak direction, 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way in off-peak direction
I-264 to I-464 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-464 to Bowers Hill (includes High Rise Bridge) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 13, 2020, 10:58:04 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 13, 2020, 02:48:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 05:55:48 PM
There is also other discussion (not in these recommendations) about immediately implementing a HO/T shoulder on the High Rise Bridge during peak hours, so immediately upon the Phase #1 completion, there would be 8-lanes (2 + 2 each way) during peak hours. The only issue I see with this is the existing High Rise Bridge can only handle 4-lanes, and they are already planning on making the right lane a -general purpose- shoulder lane during peak hours between I-464 and US-17 / US-17 Business, meaning 1 HO/T + 2 GP + 1 Shoulder during peak hours. The only thing they could realistically do is eliminate that GP shoulder lane and make it HO/T to the left side, but I'm sure that would only get more opposition to the project.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) is planned to officially adopt the "Master Agreement for Development and Tolling of Hampton Roads Express Lanes Network" during tomorrow's meeting.

Document - http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2020/august/ctb_action_meeting_aug_14_2020.pdf

Buried deep in the document in Exhibit 5-2 is the proposed final configuration of the Express Lanes network, and sure enough, they are planning to go forth with silently eliminating the promised 3rd general purpose lane in each direction between I-464 (Exit 291) and US-17 / US-17 Business (Exit 296) in order to re-purpose the current project to handle 8 lanes (2 HO/T + 2 GP each way) during peak hours immediately upon completion in 2021 - 2022. This was supposed to help relieve a major bottleneck at the High Rise Bridge caused by both the 3rd lane drop and the I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 / US-17 interchange (Exit 291) by allowing that 3rd lane to continue over the High Rise Bridge. Instead, this will be sacrificed to allow a second HO/T lane which was not apart of the original project.

I'm not necessarily against having 2 HO/T lanes in each direction and in fact think it could help open up more capacity in this corridor and encourage more traffic to use the HO/T lanes, though I think it's a mistake to eliminate the promised 3rd lane. A project that was to add HO/T lanes additionally had a general purpose component to relieve one of the worst choke points, and it was removed silently, with no public input or notice, to have more HO/T lanes. It could be possible to have both 2 HO/T lanes each way plus that 3rd general purpose lane by shifting the "shoulder" HO/T lane heading eastbound (west towards Bowers Hill) onto the new bridge facing against traffic (separated by a barrier) then rejoin once the bridge ends in order to fit 1 HO/T + 3 GP on the existing bridge, but I don't believe this is the plan.

Interestingly enough, they also silently updated the FAQ page on the I-64 High Rise Bridge project website to omit a section under the "Aside from adding an Express Lane, how else will this project help my commute?" that read "The exterior shoulders between Route 17 and Great Bridge Boulevard will be constructed for use as a non-tolled, managed lane that general traffic can use during periods of peak congestion. That means drivers will have three non-tolled lanes in this stretch of I-64 during heavy congestion, plus one managed HOT lane."

From archive.org

December 2018 (https://web.archive.org/web/20180831054358/http://www.64highrise.org/questions/default.asp#) -
QuoteThe exterior shoulders between Route 17 and Great Bridge Boulevard will be constructed for use as a non-tolled, managed lane that general traffic can use during periods of peak congestion. That means drivers will have three non-tolled lanes in this stretch of I-64 during heavy congestion, plus one managed HOT lane.

The existing travel lanes will also receive an asphalt overlay during construction.

In addition, the new High Rise Bridge, which will be used exclusively for westbound I-64 traffic (toward Virginia Beach), will feature a fixed span because of its height, eliminating bridge lifts for motorists traveling in this direction.

August 2020 (http://www.64highrise.org/questions/default.asp) -
QuoteThe existing travel lanes will also receive an asphalt overlay during construction.

In addition, the new High Rise Bridge, which will be used exclusively for westbound I-64 traffic (toward Virginia Beach), will feature a fixed span because of its height, eliminating bridge lifts for motorists traveling in this direction.


In addition to them removing the third lane, looking at this from a system perspective, it's easy to notice there's inconsistencies in the proposed network. Some areas will have 2 HO/T lanes in each direction, others will only have 1. They are constructing projects in certain areas to increase capacity to 2 HO/T lanes (by way of 1 full time + 1 part time shoulder), but not in other areas. Effectively, areas that already have a left HOV lane will not be reconstructed to have 2 HO/T lanes, it will merely only be one. Wouldn't it be logical to provide a consistent 2 HO/T lane each way network? Areas with 1 HO/T lane will make it virtually impossible to pass slower vehicles. Additionally, if traffic demand for the HO/T lane in an area where it's only 1 each way is high, that means prices will increase and the system will quickly lose capacity.

Here's the plan -
Jefferson Ave to I-664 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-664 to LaSalle Ave - 1 HO/T + 2 GP each way (which will eliminate an existing general purpose lane, currently a 3+3)
LaSalle Ave to I-564 (includes HRBT) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way
I-564 to I-264 - 2 HO/T + 3 GP each way in peak direction, 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way in off-peak direction
I-264 to I-464 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-464 to Bowers Hill (includes High Rise Bridge) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way

So first off, I totally agree that Hampton Road's HO/T lane network would benefit tremendously from better lane consistency. However, where we disagree is my preference that any road getting HO/T lanes should have at least 3 GP first. I would take 3 GP and 1 HO/T over 2 GP and 2 HO/T any day. So while ideally I-64 would have 3 GP and 2 HO/T lanes in each direction, I'm not sure how feasible that would be ROW wise on the soon to be widened I-664 to I-264 section (going clockwise) and would settle for 3 GP and 1 HO/T in each direction. Will be interesting though to see how 2 GP and 2 HO/T works out though on the both the HRBT and High Rise Bridge.

Speaking of the High Rise Bridge, is there still a phase 2 project in the works to demolish the existing bridge (eastbound towards Suffolk) and a build new one in addition to the one they're currently constructing? I ask because if that were to happen maybe adding a 3rd GP through there would be possible after all.

Also, how exactly do they plan to implement the I-564 to I-264 HO/T lane section where there will be 2 lanes going in the peak direction and 1 lane going in the off peak? There is currently only 2 reversible HO/T lanes there and my guess is that they'll probably do something similar to what Transburban did on I-395 and both slightly narrow the lanes while also mostly getting rid of the left shoulder. Basically, how will that second lane be switched? A reversible barrier or something?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Roadsguy on August 13, 2020, 11:08:49 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 13, 2020, 10:58:04 PM
...However, where we disagree is my preference that any road getting HO/T lanes should have at least 3 GP first. I would take 3 GP and 1 HO/T over 2 GP and 2 HO/T any day.

I agree. Having only two GP lanes with any number of HO/T just seems... wrong.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 14, 2020, 12:35:08 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 13, 2020, 10:58:04 PM
However, where we disagree is my preference that any road getting HO/T lanes should have at least 3 GP first. I would take 3 GP and 1 HO/T over 2 GP and 2 HO/T any day.
I agree, but at this point they is little interest in adding new general purpose capacity at this point in time, so this is the next best thing. The original plans called for 2 general purpose + 1 HO/T lane in each direction for both the High Rise Bridge and HRBT expansion projects. They were later revised to include a "HO/T lane part time running shoulder" that would activate as a second HO/T lane in each direction during peak hours. This was done last year on the HRBT, and more recently (albeit silently) on the HRB. IMO, they might as well open up that second lane full time to allow passing during off peak periods as well. The shoulder may be reduced, but it's not like this hasn't happened anywhere else in the country. I can name areas where they cram just one HO/T lane against a barrier wall with no breakdown lane.

In the interim, I would like to see as much as the network possible built out to have at least 2 general purpose lanes and 2 HO/T lanes in each direction. At no point should only 1 HO/T lane be in each direction, IMO, based on how much demand exists on the existing HO/T lanes where only one lane would fail during peak hours. In areas that are currently proposed to be 3+1 (and already are but with HOV lanes), they should expand the left shoulder to accommodate 3 general purpose lanes + 2 HO/T lanes each way. In the future, any remaining 2+2 each way sections (with the exception of the HRBT) should be widened to 3+2 each way.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 13, 2020, 10:58:04 PM
Will be interesting though to see how 2 GP and 2 HO/T works out though on the both the HRBT and High Rise Bridge.
If demand on the current HO/T lanes is any indication, I'd say they will be successful. The HRBT should see significant congestion relief with new capacity, especially if filled up during peak hours, that's a lot of cars on the new lanes and off the general purpose lanes.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 13, 2020, 10:58:04 PM
Speaking of the High Rise Bridge, is there still a phase 2 project in the works to demolish the existing bridge (eastbound towards Suffolk) and a build new one in addition to the one they're currently constructing? I ask because if that were to happen maybe adding a 3rd GP through there would be possible after all.
It's planned for the future, but no funding identified. The current plan called for Phase One adding one HO/T lane each way (to be 2+1 each way), and Phase 2 would add a second HO/T lane each way (to be 2+2 each way). Now that this "shoulder" method is being implemented that will allow a 2+2 immediately upon completion of Phase 1 in 2021 - 2022, hopefully a Phase 2 would add a -general purpose- lane each way, opening the corridor up to 3+2 each way, 10 lanes overall. There is no need or demand for 3 HO/T lanes each way that Northern Virginia has. That project also calls for a major overhaul of the I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 / US-17 interchange (which was needed when the Oak Grove Connector was built in 1999), and the other local road interchanges on the corridor.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 13, 2020, 10:58:04 PM
Also, how exactly do they plan to implement the I-564 to I-264 HO/T lane section where there will be 2 lanes going in the peak direction and 1 lane going in the off peak? There is currently only 2 reversible HO/T lanes there and my guess is that they'll probably do something similar to what Transburban did on I-395 and both slightly narrow the lanes while also mostly getting rid of the left shoulder. Basically, how will that second lane be switched? A reversible barrier or something?
The plan is widen the left shoulder on the general purpose lanes to 14 ft (which will require outside widening and shifting lanes over), and utilize it as 1 HO/T lane / hard running shoulder in the off peak direction, while the reversible roadway (2 lanes) will continue to carry peak direction traffic.


Another thing I think is missing from this project are direct connectors. There is a major peak direction traffic flow that follows I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) to VA-168 / US-17 South that, if using HO/T lanes, will be forced to exit a couple miles, try to merge 3-4 lanes to the right, into what's usually stopped / backed up traffic for the substandard interchange. Having a direct connector would assist that flow, and potentially incentivize people to use the lanes in order to bypass the interchange backup (because usually the rest of the segment is free-flowing at rush hour). It would also relieve general purpose congestion to -some- extent. Direct connectors could also be built for VA-168 / US-17 North to I-64 East for those coming from the south towards I-664 North / US-58 West.

The HO/T lanes project has a lot to offer, but is, in my opinion, incomplete. Lack of lane consistency (needs to be 2 HO/T lanes each way), no direct connectors, etc.

I-664 is now planned to be apart of the network in the future after 2025. No detailed plans have been developed, but my guess is they will aim for a similar 2+2 concept, which should ultimately be 3+2 IMO. The only section of the ultimate network that should be less than 3+2 should be the HRBT due to obvious reasons, unless they plan to build -another- tunnel in the future. But unfortunately, I think there's little incentive to add more general purpose lanes anymore.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 14, 2020, 01:45:37 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 14, 2020, 12:35:08 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 13, 2020, 10:58:04 PM
However, where we disagree is my preference that any road getting HO/T lanes should have at least 3 GP first. I would take 3 GP and 1 HO/T over 2 GP and 2 HO/T any day.
I agree, but at this point they is little interest in adding new general purpose capacity at this point in time, so this is the next best thing. The original plans called for 2 general purpose + 1 HO/T lane in each direction for both the High Rise Bridge and HRBT expansion projects. They were later revised to include a "HO/T lane part time running shoulder" that would activate as a second HO/T lane in each direction during peak hours. This was done last year on the HRBT, and more recently (albeit silently) on the HRB. IMO, they might as well open up that second lane full time to allow passing during off peak periods as well. The shoulder may be reduced, but it's not like this hasn't happened anywhere else in the country. I can name areas where they cram just one HO/T lane against a barrier wall with no breakdown lane.

In the interim, I would like to see as much as the network possible built out to have at least 2 general purpose lanes and 2 HO/T lanes in each direction. At no point should only 1 HO/T lane be in each direction, IMO, based on how much demand exists on the existing HO/T lanes where only one lane would fail during peak hours. In areas that are currently proposed to be 3+1 (and already are but with HOV lanes), they should expand the left shoulder to accommodate 3 general purpose lanes + 2 HO/T lanes each way. In the future, any remaining 2+2 each way sections (with the exception of the HRBT) should be widened to 3+2 each way.
I can see the logic in that and would only add that if they don't want to do 3+2 at least in the near term, then hopefully that results in more priority on redoing some of those substandard interchanges (Oak Grove Connector, Bowers Hill, doing additional I-264 interchange phases, I-564, possibly others, etc.)

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 14, 2020, 12:35:08 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 13, 2020, 10:58:04 PM
Speaking of the High Rise Bridge, is there still a phase 2 project in the works to demolish the existing bridge (eastbound towards Suffolk) and a build new one in addition to the one they're currently constructing? I ask because if that were to happen maybe adding a 3rd GP through there would be possible after all.
It's planned for the future, but no funding identified. The current plan called for Phase One adding one HO/T lane each way (to be 2+1 each way), and Phase 2 would add a second HO/T lane each way (to be 2+2 each way). Now that this "shoulder" method is being implemented that will allow a 2+2 immediately upon completion of Phase 1 in 2021 - 2022, hopefully a Phase 2 would add a -general purpose- lane each way, opening the corridor up to 3+2 each way, 10 lanes overall. There is no need or demand for 3 HO/T lanes each way that Northern Virginia has. That project also calls for a major overhaul of the I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 / US-17 interchange (which was needed when the Oak Grove Connector was built in 1999), and the other local road interchanges on the corridor.
Unless the exisitng HRB is in absolute dire need of being replaced, then I'd support overhauling the Oak Grove interchange first.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 14, 2020, 12:35:08 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 13, 2020, 10:58:04 PM
Also, how exactly do they plan to implement the I-564 to I-264 HO/T lane section where there will be 2 lanes going in the peak direction and 1 lane going in the off peak? There is currently only 2 reversible HO/T lanes there and my guess is that they'll probably do something similar to what Transburban did on I-395 and both slightly narrow the lanes while also mostly getting rid of the left shoulder. Basically, how will that second lane be switched? A reversible barrier or something?
The plan is widen the left shoulder on the general purpose lanes to 14 ft (which will require outside widening and shifting lanes over), and utilize it as 1 HO/T lane / hard running shoulder in the off peak direction, while the reversible roadway (2 lanes) will continue to carry peak direction traffic.


Ah I see. Interesting. Sounds very similar to an idea that I believe Beltway once recommended on the I-95 corridor which was to have an ETL or HO/T lane built in both directions on one of the shoulders that would operate in the opposite direction of wherever the existing reversible HO/T lanes were facing in order to not get caught up in messy compensation event issue. However since they obviously have the space (or pretty close to it) for 2 HO/T lanes in each direction here, I wonder why they don't just do a 3+2 here from the get go. There would then be more pressure to upgrade the I-264 to I-464 section from a planned 3+1 to a 3+2 and then presto you have at least 2 HO/T lanes on the entire southside portion of I-64.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 14, 2020, 12:35:08 AM
Another thing I think is missing from this project are direct connectors. There is a major peak direction traffic flow that follows I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) to VA-168 / US-17 South that, if using HO/T lanes, will be forced to exit a couple miles, try to merge 3-4 lanes to the right, into what's usually stopped / backed up traffic for the substandard interchange. Having a direct connector would assist that flow, and potentially incentivize people to use the lanes in order to bypass the interchange backup (because usually the rest of the segment is free-flowing at rush hour). It would also relieve general purpose congestion to -some- extent. Direct connectors could also be built for VA-168 / US-17 North to I-64 East for those coming from the south towards I-664 North / US-58 West.
Agreed. While were on the subject of access though, any idea if the HO/T lanes will have a barrier like the I-495 and current I-64 ones or be more like the double white line Atlanta area ones on I-85 (with indirect access coming from an occasional break in the double white lines that turns into a weave lane)?
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9177712,-84.1978746,3a,75y,56.7h,93.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s80LQupF3xwEPoZ9oARywbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 14, 2020, 02:11:12 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 14, 2020, 01:45:37 AM
I can see the logic in that and would only add that if they don't want to do 3+2 at least in the near term, then hopefully that results in more priority on redoing some of those substandard interchanges (Oak Grove Connector, Bowers Hill, doing additional I-264 interchange phases, I-564, possibly others, etc.)
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 14, 2020, 01:45:37 AM
Unless the exisitng HRB is in absolute dire need of being replaced, then I'd support overhauling the Oak Grove interchange first.
IMO, the Oak Grove Interchange needs to be separate project and should be a higher priority than Phase 2, especially considering we're now going to get 8 lanes instead of 6 lanes when the current project is complete, double the current capacity, which if the HO/T lanes get decent usage, should relieve the congestion issues on that corridor. From my experience, the traffic is at the point that if you added even just one HO/T lane, that would be enough to resume free-flowing conditions between I-464 and Bowers Hill. The need for a 3+2 will be pushed out at least another 10-15 years with the current 2+2 build, as unfavorable that may sound only having 2 general purpose lanes. From a system perspective, it should help enough to allow free-flowing conditions across all lanes. If this is the case, the HO/T lanes will also likely have a low toll (the current HO/T segment is usually only $0.50, maybe $0.95 or $1.00 for the 7 mile segment during peak hours and all HO/T and GP lanes are usually free-flowing and well filled) and get significant usage. Not to mention, HOV-2 is free and the lanes will likely be toll free outside peak hours (though reduced to 1 each direction unless they (and should) make the "part time shoulder" a 24/7 lane.

Oak Grove Interchange is a bottleneck today, and will only get worse. Significant growth happening south of I-64 and into North Carolina, traffic volumes are only increasing, and if Interstate 87 is ever constructed between Raleigh and Norfolk along US-17, that interchange will serve as a transfer point for traffic in all the cities (at least Norfolk, Chesapeake, and Virginia Beach) heading south, which alone could be an additional 5,000 - 10,000+ AADT added into the mix. Flyovers from I-64 East to VA-168 / US-17 South and from VA-168 / US-17 North to I-64 East for both general purpose and HO/T traffic are needed along with 8 lane widening of VA-168 between the interchange and -at least- VA-168 Business, though ultimately south to VA-165 over the Intracoastal Waterway. The recently completed US-17 Dominion Blvd freeway will likely be adequate for the next 20 years reaching peak capacity by then though 6 lane widening may be needed in the future, and I-464 is perfectly adequate today with 6 lanes and 50,000 AADT and will likely be nearing peak capacity by then.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 14, 2020, 01:45:37 AM
However since they obviously have the space (or pretty close to it) for 2 HO/T lanes in each direction here, I wonder why they don't just do a 3+2 here from the get go. There would then be more pressure to upgrade the I-264 to I-464 section from a planned 3+1 to a 3+2 and then presto you have at least 2 HO/T lanes on the entire southside portion of I-64.
Would be nice to have, but that would likely require tearing up the entire reversible roadway to construct a standard 2+2 HO/T system. Keep in mind the reversible lanes were built what was previously a 60 foot grassy median, and are at times at a different elevation than the GP lanes. The cost estimate for the current proposal is currently over $300 million, and that's still going cheap keeping older bridges in place by reducing the outside shoulder across them. IMO, all the mainline bridges need to be replaced given they're from the 1960s, and this project would be a perfect opportunity to do such. Only 1 or 2 are set to be replaced, and they also want to keep the left exits and entrances near Tidewater Dr and I-564 which will only interrupt free-flow on the HO/T lanes and cause more issues especially with the truck traffic using Tidewater Dr and I-564 and the left lanes to exit / enter. That whole corridor needs a major overhaul (not lane capacity necessarily, but bridges, ramps, etc.) and they want to go cheap. Going to hurt them 15-20 years when they have to go back and replace bridges and redo exits once again since they failed to do it now.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 14, 2020, 01:45:37 AM
Agreed. While were on the subject of access though, any idea if the HO/T lanes will have a barrier like the I-495 and current I-64 ones or be more like the double white line Atlanta area ones on I-85 (with indirect access coming from an occasional break in the double white lines that turns into a weave lane)?
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9177712,-84.1978746,3a,75y,56.7h,93.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s80LQupF3xwEPoZ9oARywbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
I believe it's to be a hybrid of both, the style of barrier on I-495 along with weaving areas. IIRC, they may add a second lane where weaving occurs to/from the lanes in order to not interrupt through HO/T traffic. Again, I still feel they need direct connectors at the major areas, notably Oak Grove Interchange. The expanded HO/T network to be built beyond 2025 along I-664 has not been studied in detail, though there was mention of direct connectors from I-64 to I-664 potentially being incorporated into a Bowers Hill Interchange overhaul, which is a must to maintain seamless flow. Now, whether they will also lead to US-58 West is another story, and which they should.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on August 14, 2020, 10:30:13 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 13, 2020, 02:48:30 PM
Here's the plan -
Jefferson Ave to I-664 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-664 to LaSalle Ave - 1 HO/T + 2 GP each way (which will eliminate an existing general purpose lane, currently a 3+3)
LaSalle Ave to I-564 (includes HRBT) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way
I-564 to I-264 - 2 HO/T + 3 GP each way in peak direction, 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way in off-peak direction
I-264 to I-464 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-464 to Bowers Hill (includes High Rise Bridge) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way

This plan is, in my opinion, terrible.

All this will do is push the typical HRBT backup back to the I-664 / Mercury Blvd area, which is a major merge zone and is prone to accidents. I don't forsee the HOT lanes reducing traffic pressure on the GP lanes enough to offset the loss of an entire lane. Unless you can afford to pay the HOT fee, I forsee crossings of the HRBT getting worse on average, not better.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 14, 2020, 10:41:02 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 14, 2020, 02:11:12 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 14, 2020, 01:45:37 AM
I can see the logic in that and would only add that if they don't want to do 3+2 at least in the near term, then hopefully that results in more priority on redoing some of those substandard interchanges (Oak Grove Connector, Bowers Hill, doing additional I-264 interchange phases, I-564, possibly others, etc.)
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 14, 2020, 01:45:37 AM
Unless the exisitng HRB is in absolute dire need of being replaced, then I'd support overhauling the Oak Grove interchange first.
Oak Grove Interchange is a bottleneck today, and will only get worse. Significant growth happening south of I-64 and into North Carolina, traffic volumes are only increasing, and if Interstate 87 is ever constructed between Raleigh and Norfolk along US-17, that interchange will serve as a transfer point for traffic in all the cities (at least Norfolk, Chesapeake, and Virginia Beach) heading south, which alone could be an additional 5,000 - 10,000+ AADT added into the mix. Flyovers from I-64 East to VA-168 / US-17 South and from VA-168 / US-17 North to I-64 East for both general purpose and HO/T traffic are needed along with 8 lane widening of VA-168 between the interchange and -at least- VA-168 Business, though ultimately south to VA-165 over the Intracoastal Waterway.
VA-168 widening to just past VA-168 buinsess should be included in any eventual Oak Grove interchange overhaul project.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 14, 2020, 02:11:12 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 14, 2020, 01:45:37 AM
However since they obviously have the space (or pretty close to it) for 2 HO/T lanes in each direction here, I wonder why they don't just do a 3+2 here from the get go. There would then be more pressure to upgrade the I-264 to I-464 section from a planned 3+1 to a 3+2 and then presto you have at least 2 HO/T lanes on the entire southside portion of I-64.
Would be nice to have, but that would likely require tearing up the entire reversible roadway to construct a standard 2+2 HO/T system. Keep in mind the reversible lanes were built what was previously a 60 foot grassy median, and are at times at a different elevation than the GP lanes. The cost estimate for the current proposal is currently over $300 million, and that's still going cheap keeping older bridges in place by reducing the outside shoulder across them. IMO, all the mainline bridges need to be replaced given they're from the 1960s, and this project would be a perfect opportunity to do such. Only 1 or 2 are set to be replaced, and they also want to keep the left exits and entrances near Tidewater Dr and I-564 which will only interrupt free-flow on the HO/T lanes and cause more issues especially with the truck traffic using Tidewater Dr and I-564 and the left lanes to exit / enter. That whole corridor needs a major overhaul (not lane capacity necessarily, but bridges, ramps, etc.) and they want to go cheap. Going to hurt them 15-20 years when they have to go back and replace bridges and redo exits once again since they failed to do it now.
Lol lately when haven't they gone cheap?  :-D

In all seriousness though wow $300 million for the bare minimum seems like a lot. Guess that means that a full overhaul might cost north of a $1 billion. However just to spitball ideas here, if tearing up the existing reversible roadway in the middle is too expensive, then it might be at worth at least looking into doing what Georgia did with the I-75 HO/T lanes north of Atlanta and build the lanes elevated and on the outside of the exisitng roadway. Would probably be cheaper. Would likely be very difficult to squeeze ROW wise(especially in the 4 mile tight and mostly residential stretch between exits 277 and 281), but at least IMO is a potential alternative/solution to reconstructing the entire roadway. 

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 14, 2020, 02:11:12 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 14, 2020, 01:45:37 AM
Agreed. While were on the subject of access though, any idea if the HO/T lanes will have a barrier like the I-495 and current I-64 ones or be more like the double white line Atlanta area ones on I-85 (with indirect access coming from an occasional break in the double white lines that turns into a weave lane)?
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9177712,-84.1978746,3a,75y,56.7h,93.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s80LQupF3xwEPoZ9oARywbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
I believe it's to be a hybrid of both, the style of barrier on I-495 along with weaving areas. IIRC, they may add a second lane where weaving occurs to/from the lanes in order to not interrupt through HO/T traffic. Again, I still feel they need direct connectors at the major areas, notably Oak Grove Interchange. The expanded HO/T network to be built beyond 2025 along I-664 has not been studied in detail, though there was mention of direct connectors from I-64 to I-664 potentially being incorporated into a Bowers Hill Interchange overhaul, which is a must to maintain seamless flow. Now, whether they will also lead to US-58 West is another story, and which they should.
A second lane where weaving would occur would be awesome and if thats the case then I guess this particular stretch of HO/T lanes would be exactly like the controversial ones on I-77 north of Charlotte (an existing 2+2 that I forgot about).

Regarding the planned Hampton Roads HO/T lane network as a whole though, surely there are plans to at some point convert the existing I-264 HOV lanes (that appear to go up until the Rosmont Road exit) to HO/T right? While by using that extra sholder lane this stretch would easily be 3+2, I also wouldn't be surpised if they made it a 3+1 thereby providing even more inconsistency to the already inconsistent HO/T lane network.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 14, 2020, 01:00:34 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 14, 2020, 10:30:13 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 13, 2020, 02:48:30 PM
Here's the plan -
Jefferson Ave to I-664 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-664 to LaSalle Ave - 1 HO/T + 2 GP each way (which will eliminate an existing general purpose lane, currently a 3+3)
LaSalle Ave to I-564 (includes HRBT) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way
I-564 to I-264 - 2 HO/T + 3 GP each way in peak direction, 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way in off-peak direction
I-264 to I-464 - 1 HO/T + 3 GP each way
I-464 to Bowers Hill (includes High Rise Bridge) - 2 HO/T + 2 GP each way

This plan is, in my opinion, terrible.

All this will do is push the typical HRBT backup back to the I-664 / Mercury Blvd area, which is a major merge zone and is prone to accidents. I don't forsee the HOT lanes reducing traffic pressure on the GP lanes enough to offset the loss of an entire lane. Unless you can afford to pay the HOT fee, I forsee crossings of the HRBT getting worse on average, not better.
If the existing HO/T lanes are any indication, I'd estimate there will be a fair amount of usage. Keep the tolls on the lower end, keep it HOV-2, and tolled only during peak hours.

If the lanes are decently filled, that will simply open up more capacity on the general purpose lanes that weren't there before. Any new capacity helps, tolled or general purpose.

Current projections show it will significant help things, and I'm hopeful of such. Of course, we won't know for sure until after 2025.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2020, 06:22:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2020, 09:47:33 PM
QuoteIn the past decade, several roundabouts have been built in Loudoun County on the highway to replace traffic lights and stop lights, including where U.S. 15 meets U.S. 50 at Gilberts Corner.

What am I missing here? Is there a difference? (I personally avoid the term "stop light" because if the light is green, you don't have to stop, but I know many people are not that cautious with their words.)

In some places (District of Columbia and the City of Fairfax, at least along U.S. 29/U.S. 50), signals are deliberately timed to maximize the amount of time spent at a red traffic signal, so the words "stop light" are probably accurate.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 18, 2020, 03:31:20 PM
Hey, why is this ROW along the railroad crossing on VA 139 wide enough for a four lane divided highway?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EB_VA_139;_Big_ROW_@_Virginian_Rwy_Xing.jpg
Was there some proposed road improvement project I didn't know about?



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 18, 2020, 05:46:05 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 18, 2020, 03:31:20 PM
Hey, why is this ROW along the railroad crossing on VA 139 wide enough for a four lane divided highway?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EB_VA_139;_Big_ROW_@_Virginian_Rwy_Xing.jpg
Was there some proposed road improvement project I didn't know about?

Just where a track has been removed...at the next crossing west SR 608 there is no railway left at all and it has the same look as that photo with the gate and bollards.

Fixed quote.  -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 19, 2020, 11:42:15 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 07, 2020, 07:42:58 PM
Looks like the 28 bypass (Godwin Drive Extension) is dead (for now...) and that VA-28 from the Bull Run to Liberia Avenue will be widened to six lanes:
https://www.insidenova.com/news/transportation/prince_william/prince-william-county-supervisors-reject-route-28-bypass/article_79fea08a-d662-11ea-bf98-b329beaba1d4.html
QuoteAfter securing $300 million and spending years developing a bypass for busy Va. Route 28, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors rejected the proposal Tuesday night, leaving any fix for Manassas-area commuters in limbo.
The Prince William Board of County Supervisors voted 8-0 at its meeting to deny staff's recommendation to move to the design phase of the project.

In a subsequent vote, the board voted 8-0 to endorse widening Route 28. County staff estimate that widening the road from four to six lanes would require an additional $100 million.

Supervisor Yesli Vega, who represents the Coles District that is home to the road, announced Monday she doesn't support the proposed bypass due to its impacts on residents and the environment, among other reasons.

"This option will not alleviate traffic congestion on 28 from where it is today,"  Vega said in an email to InsideNoVa. "Due to the negligible traffic impact, combined with the environmental, fiscal and human impact my constituents will face by being forcefully removed from their homes, I cannot support this proposal."  

County staff had backed the bypass, saying it would reduce congestion in the busy commuter corridor between Manassas and Centreville, improve access to transit and provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Property Impacts   Bypass Route   Widening
Total Impacted                72               185
Residential Displaced        54                7
Commercial Displaced      5                       79
Total Cost                 $300 million   $400 million

County staff estimate Va. Route 28 will see an increase from the 50,500 daily traffic count in 2018. Without any project build, Route 28 from Liberia Avenue to Orchard Bridge Dr. will see an estimated 75,000 daily traffic count. Staff estimated traffic count on that stretch of Route 28 with the proposed extension project would see about 62,500 daily traffic count in 2040, while widening the road is estimated to increase daily traffic count to 85,000, according to the county.

While the massive number of residential impacts were likely the nail in the coffin, in my opinion those traffic estimates also contributed because even with the bypass, things on VA-28 were only gonna get worse. Was never convinced that the bypass was actually going to take current traffic off of VA-28. Still however, an 85,000 daily traffic count by 2040 doesn't look too good either so in addition to widening VA-28, if I were VDOT, PWCDOT, NVTA, etc, I would also seriously consider adding interchanges at both New Braddock Road and Comption Road, prioritization of the Sudley Manor interchange on the VA-234 bypass with the possibility of six lane widening there, and finally, dare I say, traffic improvements on Yates Ford Road and Henderson Road through Clifton (Don't worry no widening, only straightening out some curves and some roundabouts). Still, wouldn't be surpised if even that idea is opposed by the NIMBYS there though.

Also, it was brought to my attention that $400 million for the widening might be a bit of an overestimation due to the portion of VA-28 through Manassas Park already being six lanes divided. Not clear to me if that section had been accounted for. Will also be interesting to see where that extra funding comes from ($300 million was what they had saved up). Either way, I think this was ultimately the right decision and just hope that other improvements are also made in addition by 2040.
This was a horrible decision by the PWC BOS.  I used to work locally at the county DOT on this project, it was BADLY needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 20, 2020, 10:05:56 AM
A bunch of great old pictures from the Lynchburg area:

https://newsadvance.com/news/local/history/from-the-archives-roads-and-highways/collection_cccdb0f4-dd86-11e6-8a52-b7b47d1f5324.html#37
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 20, 2020, 12:18:06 PM
Has anyone been on the Hampton Roads Center Parkway lately?  For work purposes, I was looking to see if delineators were added to the concrete separator between the Hampton Roads Center Pkwy WB and the VA 134 acceleration lane as early as late last year?  GSV was last there in May 2019. (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0602038,-76.4074471,3a,75y,306.68h,84.97t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBf7K33B1lNMFGuiy9xVAMg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DBf7K33B1lNMFGuiy9xVAMg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D66.73693%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 28, 2020, 08:15:38 AM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1299312774674251776?s=20
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 31, 2020, 02:08:08 PM
North Landing Bridge replacement project clears major hurdle (https://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Stories/Article/2327423/north-landing-bridge-replacement-project-clears-major-hurdle/)
QuoteNORFOLK, Va. — A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project aimed at replacing North Landing Bridge took a crucial step forward this week.

Lt. Gen. Todd Semonite, chief of engineers and USACE commanding general, signed a Chief's Report on Tuesday, recommending the North Landing Bridge Replacement Study's findings for authorization by Congress. This also initiates start of the Preconstruction Engineering and Design phase, or PED, which covers project design and typically lasts up to three years.

"Authorization is a very important step toward project construction,"  said Col. Patrick Kinsman, Norfolk District commander. "This is a tremendous achievement for USACE and our local partners. More importantly, our collective team has worked diligently on this critical project for the community. We are dedicated to the construction of a new bridge as local traffic over this crossing has continued to grow in recent years.

"North Landing Bridge not only services vehicle traffic on Route 165 between the cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, it's also a key navigation corridor for maritime interests on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The cargo-transportation industry relies heavily on the AIWW as a freight-transportation system, which improves commerce flow into the area and helps our economy."

Tuesday's signing culminates a three-year study that reviewed the existing bridge's operation and maintenance, examined alternatives and targeted a feasible plan for replacement of the aging bridge.

Built in 1951 to serve rural traffic, North Landing Bridge is a federally owned and operated two-lane, double-swing drawbridge crossing the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal. It's considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete, carrying far more than its 8,000-vehicle-per-day design capacity.

USACE's recommended replacement plan features a high-rise, two-lane fixed bridge measuring 3,360 feet long and 46 feet 4 inches wide — with a minimum vertical clearance of nearly 70 feet, structure depth of 8 feet and roadway elevation of 78 feet. It would be built just east of the current bridge.

"The North Landing Bridge replacement is a great project for our local citizens here in Hampton Roads,"  said Susan Layton, Norfolk District's Planning and Policy Branch chief. "The new proposed high-rise bridge will solve the existing problem with repeated traffic delays throughout the day as the bridge opens. It will allow safer and more efficient travel by both vehicles and vessels."

The project, estimated at $98.5 million, includes upgrades to meet current Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Transportation design guidelines.

USACE would cover all first costs of construction, according to the Chief's Report. The city of Chesapeake, its nonfederal sponsor, will assume ownership and responsibility for operation and maintenance of the bridge after completion, projected at $185,000 per year.

Layton said the primary objectives are to reduce vehicle and vessel delays, improve roadway and navigation safety, and lessen USACE's infrastructure inventory by turning the new bridge over to Chesapeake for long-term management and upkeep.

"The bridge will provide a large decrease in traffic delays, including elimination of the issue of the bridge being shut down due to high-water events and vessel incidents,"  she said. "It will also have wide shoulders, allowing for safe pedestrian and bicycle passage over the waterway. There is currently a load limit on the bridge, so heavy vehicles will no longer have to travel a longer route to cross the waterway.

"These benefits to the local community will be immediate once the bridge is constructed."

The Chief's Report will undergo further review by the assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works and Office of Management and Budget before formal submittal to Congress, Layton said. After authorization, it would be eligible for construction appropriations.

"This entire process can take five to 10 years or more,"  she added, "so it is difficult to say when a new bridge would be constructed."

Chesapeake officials said the Chief's Report signing is a significant move toward enduring solutions for area residents, motorists and boaters.

"As nonfederal sponsor for the replacement of North Landing Bridge, the city of Chesapeake is pleased to see the Chief of Engineers Report completed,"  said Chesapeake Mayor Rick West. "We know there is still much work ahead in designing and funding a replacement bridge to connect the cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, but applaud USACE's efforts in getting this important milestone completed. We look forward to working with our federal partners to bring this project to fruition."

The recommended plan — which considered public comments, along with input from other federal, state and local agencies — is "technically sound, environmentally and socially acceptable, and economically justified,"  the report states.

"The Corps appreciates the opportunity to partner with the city of Chesapeake to provide this improvement to our local citizens and looks forward to continuing to move this project forward to authorization, appropriations and eventual construction,"  she said.

To learn more about the project, visit www.nao.usace.army.mil/NorthLandingBridge/.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 01, 2020, 10:44:15 PM
What's the deal with Braddock Road?
I thought SR620 was the historic route of General Braddock, but after reading the book, it seems Braddock's road followed more closely Rt 7.
So is Rt 620 and then Rt 705 improperly named?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 03, 2020, 09:01:42 PM
General Braddock didn't serve in Congress in the 20th century.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 08, 2020, 12:14:54 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 03, 2020, 09:01:42 PM
General Braddock didn't serve in Congress in the 20th century.
Didn't answer my question...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 08, 2020, 12:42:21 PM
Per the map at this entry, Braddock's expedition appears not to have followed VA 7...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braddock_Expedition

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on September 08, 2020, 02:20:31 PM
Heres an article that makes me highly doubtful that we'll see any significant projects or widenings recommedned by VDOT's ongoing I-64 study (aside from probably more HO/T lanes on I-664):
https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/09/08/could-i-64-prove-vdots-highway-management-is-on-the-road-to-reform/
Quote"The General Assembly is now on record telling VDOT the new direction they want to travel in by prioritizing transportation demand management, safety and increases to rail and transit service,"  said Trip Pollard, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. "We need to connect more jobs to less expensive and more sustainable forms of transportation than having to always get into your car and drive. This is the first corridor study taking place after this new statutory language is in effect, so it's a significant opportunity to establish that vision."

From purely paving to smart planning
Whereas past transportation officials have focused on congestion as an engineering problem – and consequently deployed road widening as their sole solution, a gradual cultural shift within VDOT, strengthened by the governor's omnibus, has emphasized the importance of transportation demand management. A TDM lens takes a comprehensive, cost-effective approach to congestion by trying to help people better use existing infrastructure and providing alternatives to driving, such as mass transit, micromobility and more.

"We begin by looking at the least expensive options available which are typically operations upgrades and changes,"  said Ben Mannell, assistant director of planning at VDOT and the project manager for the I-64 corridor study. Operations improvements typically entail minor tweaks to existing infrastructure such as faster towing of disabled vehicles, clearer signage and better lighting, for example – all relatively low-cost upgrades that can reduce the occurrence and severity of backups.

"Next we turn to multimodal solutions such as additional rail and transit service, adding park and rides and vanpools,"  Mannell said. "It's not just about your single occupant vehicle. Capital improvements on the highway side like interstate widening are always our last choice. We can move more people in a bus so we should do it. That's why we look first to multimodal solutions because they provide a wider range of travel options for folks that don't have a vehicle and help better connect folks to jobs."

Data-based decisions
Perhaps the greatest potential effect of the Interstate Operations and Enhancement Program – the official name of the new TDM provision in the omnibus – will be its centering of data in VDOT's decision-making processes.

Although the IOEP wasn't the law of the land until this summer, VDOT began experimenting with data-driven highway management with its I-81 and I-95 corridor studies of the past several years. "VDOT has done a much better job of gathering the data to show people what the true problems are,"  said Pollard. "When we finally got the analysis on I-81 we saw that there were geometric deficiencies, more freight trucks than expected and excessive local traffic as people hop on the interstate for short distances to avoid surface roads."

The goal of the public input phase of VDOT's current I-64 analysis is to identify the top 25 percent of problematic areas resulting in severe injuries and fatalities, delays of an hour or more and equivalent property damage only  – a jargony way to describe a metric for car crashes with a monetary value. After the public input period on the I-64 corridor closed last month, VDOT had logged more than 3,800 interactions with over 6,000 points dropped on the map study area. That represents a treasure trove of highlighted issues and possible solutions crowdsourced by the public ahead of the study's second phase: presenting proposed fixes later this month.

For the sake of the forests and sensitive wetlands along I-64, Pollard hopes that further widening of the highway won't make the list. "Thanks to this much better data we can accurately assess what is creating the safety, traffic and reliability problems with our existing transportation network,"  he said. "Knowing the true causes of traffic helps us get away from the past thinking of "˜We just need more lanes.' Experience has shown that we have thrown a ton of money at adding lanes and we have nothing to show for it in terms of congestion reduction."

Conservation advocates may prove pleased with the results of the study according to Mannell: "Additional pavement is not going to provide a solution. We're looking at how we can do the absolute minimum widening possible and, when we can, to widen to the inside to avoid issues with right of way and protected wetlands."  

That's not to say that the study won't result in major changes to the corridor. A network of roughly 45 miles of express lanes around Hampton Roads – similar to the HOT lanes found across Northern Virginia – appears to be a done deal. "We're really trying to put forward the most cost effective solutions,"  said Mannell. "With the potential for express lanes we see, those are definitely going to come online in the region."

While adding rail and transit service within major metro areas is fine, I'm not sure how they're expecting thru and beach traffic to use it, especially on the heavily travelled rural stretch of I-64 between Richmond and Williamsburg (over 60,000 ADDT). Will be interesting to see what the proposed projects are and whether or not the public will subsequently support. Do not think that is wise to automatically rule out widening between Richmond and Williamsburg. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 08, 2020, 07:17:15 PM
I really wouldn't read too much into that article to be honest.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 08, 2020, 09:08:04 PM
Regardless of what happens with the remainder of the I-64 corridor west of Richmond (which IMO, outside of potentially Charlottesville, doesn't need widening), the segment from I-295 to Williamsburg is going to get widened. It has had a full Environmental Impact Statement already complete and is a high priority for the Hampton Roads and Richmond districts. It's far more than a proposal at this point, and 25 miles of the project have already been complete or are under construction (3 phases Hampton Roads, 1 phase Richmond), with an additional 9 miles to the New Kent County line that HRTPO is currently working to secure funding for.

Other than that, the only other hotspot that needs additional lanes would be Afton Mountain, climbing lanes in each direction. I-64 between I-81 and Richmond carries around 40,000 AADT, similar to I-81, but doesn't carry nearly as much truck traffic as I-81 does, which significantly cuts down widening needs. That stretch usually flows, while full during peak travel periods, at a consistent 75 - 80 mph with very little interruption. Obviously, there's the I-81 overlap as well, but that would fall in with the I-81 corridor as a whole that needs widening. I-64 west of I-81 is perfectly adequate with 4 lanes, only reaching around 20,000 AADT for "high" volumes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 09, 2020, 11:22:18 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 08, 2020, 12:42:21 PM
Per the map at this entry, Braddock's expedition appears not to have followed VA 7...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braddock_Expedition
Right but he still doesn't follow VA 620/705; so why are they called Braddock Road?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 09, 2020, 01:49:17 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 09, 2020, 11:22:18 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 08, 2020, 12:42:21 PM
Per the map at this entry, Braddock's expedition appears not to have followed VA 7...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braddock_Expedition
Right but he still doesn't follow VA 620/705; so why are they called Braddock Road?

Because the people who named the roads that became the modern road thought that was the route he had followed. What difference does it make? Van Dorn Street is named for General Earl Van Dorn, who was from Mississippi and apparently never served in Northern Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on September 09, 2020, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2020, 01:49:17 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 09, 2020, 11:22:18 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 08, 2020, 12:42:21 PM
Per the map at this entry, Braddock's expedition appears not to have followed VA 7...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braddock_Expedition
Right but he still doesn't follow VA 620/705; so why are they called Braddock Road?

Because the people who named the roads that became the modern road thought that was the route he had followed. What difference does it make? Van Dorn Street is named for General Earl Van Dorn, who was from Mississippi and apparently never served in Northern Virginia.
I don't understand. George Washington never crossed the George Washington bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: DeaconG on September 09, 2020, 09:41:18 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 09, 2020, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2020, 01:49:17 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 09, 2020, 11:22:18 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 08, 2020, 12:42:21 PM
Per the map at this entry, Braddock's expedition appears not to have followed VA 7...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braddock_Expedition
Right but he still doesn't follow VA 620/705; so why are they called Braddock Road?

Because the people who named the roads that became the modern road thought that was the route he had followed. What difference does it make? Van Dorn Street is named for General Earl Van Dorn, who was from Mississippi and apparently never served in Northern Virginia.
I don't understand. George Washington never crossed the George Washington bridge.
But Billie Joe McAllister jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge! :rolleyes: :pan: :sombrero:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 18, 2020, 03:05:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2020, 01:49:17 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 09, 2020, 11:22:18 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 08, 2020, 12:42:21 PM
Per the map at this entry, Braddock's expedition appears not to have followed VA 7...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braddock_Expedition
Right but he still doesn't follow VA 620/705; so why are they called Braddock Road?

Because the people who named the roads that became the modern road thought that was the route he had followed. What difference does it make? Van Dorn Street is named for General Earl Van Dorn, who was from Mississippi and apparently never served in Northern Virginia.
I always thought Braddock Road, 620, WAS Braddock's road.  Guess not.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 18, 2020, 03:08:04 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on August 07, 2020, 07:42:58 PM
Looks like the 28 bypass (Godwin Drive Extension) is dead (for now...) and that VA-28 from the Bull Run to Liberia Avenue will be widened to six lanes:
https://www.insidenova.com/news/transportation/prince_william/prince-william-county-supervisors-reject-route-28-bypass/article_79fea08a-d662-11ea-bf98-b329beaba1d4.html
QuoteAfter securing $300 million and spending years developing a bypass for busy Va. Route 28, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors rejected the proposal Tuesday night, leaving any fix for Manassas-area commuters in limbo.
The Prince William Board of County Supervisors voted 8-0 at its meeting to deny staff's recommendation to move to the design phase of the project.

In a subsequent vote, the board voted 8-0 to endorse widening Route 28. County staff estimate that widening the road from four to six lanes would require an additional $100 million.

Supervisor Yesli Vega, who represents the Coles District that is home to the road, announced Monday she doesn't support the proposed bypass due to its impacts on residents and the environment, among other reasons.

"This option will not alleviate traffic congestion on 28 from where it is today,"  Vega said in an email to InsideNoVa. "Due to the negligible traffic impact, combined with the environmental, fiscal and human impact my constituents will face by being forcefully removed from their homes, I cannot support this proposal."  

County staff had backed the bypass, saying it would reduce congestion in the busy commuter corridor between Manassas and Centreville, improve access to transit and provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Property Impacts   Bypass Route   Widening
Total Impacted                72               185
Residential Displaced        54                7
Commercial Displaced      5                       79
Total Cost                 $300 million   $400 million

County staff estimate Va. Route 28 will see an increase from the 50,500 daily traffic count in 2018. Without any project build, Route 28 from Liberia Avenue to Orchard Bridge Dr. will see an estimated 75,000 daily traffic count. Staff estimated traffic count on that stretch of Route 28 with the proposed extension project would see about 62,500 daily traffic count in 2040, while widening the road is estimated to increase daily traffic count to 85,000, according to the county.

While the massive number of residential impacts were likely the nail in the coffin, in my opinion those traffic estimates also contributed because even with the bypass, things on VA-28 were only gonna get worse. Was never convinced that the bypass was actually going to take current traffic off of VA-28. Still however, an 85,000 daily traffic count by 2040 doesn't look too good either so in addition to widening VA-28, if I were VDOT, PWCDOT, NVTA, etc, I would also seriously consider adding interchanges at both New Braddock Road and Comption Road, prioritization of the Sudley Manor interchange on the VA-234 bypass with the possibility of six lane widening there, and finally, dare I say, traffic improvements on Yates Ford Road and Henderson Road through Clifton (Don't worry no widening, only straightening out some curves and some roundabouts). Still, wouldn't be surpised if even that idea is opposed by the NIMBYS there though.

Also, it was brought to my attention that $400 million for the widening might be a bit of an overestimation due to the portion of VA-28 through Manassas Park already being six lanes divided. Not clear to me if that section had been accounted for. Will also be interesting to see where that extra funding comes from ($300 million was what they had saved up). Either way, I think this was ultimately the right decision and just hope that other improvements are also made in addition by 2040.
PHEW!
Common sense prevailed, bypass will happen:

https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/breaking-county-board-reverses-course-votes-along-party-lines-to-endorse-proposed-va-28-bypass/article_268e2fd2-f21f-11ea-bbda-ab1f50e7ca4c.html (https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/breaking-county-board-reverses-course-votes-along-party-lines-to-endorse-proposed-va-28-bypass/article_268e2fd2-f21f-11ea-bbda-ab1f50e7ca4c.html)

QuoteThe Prince William Board of County Supervisors voted last week to keep the Va. 28 bypass alive, reversing course after unanimously rejecting the $300 million road project Aug. 4. All five Democrats on the board voted to endorse the project, while all three Republicans voted against it.

The move allows the county to begin designing the new road. The board will have to take another vote on whether to proceed with the construction of the bypass once the design is near completion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on September 19, 2020, 12:49:51 PM
^based off of the public backlash seen at the latest Prince William BOCS meeting, I think that this saga is far from over. There are significant problems with both the bypass and the widening alternatives and that's assuming the army corps of engineers even ends up approving the bypass in the first place. Definitely do not believe that the bypass is the "common sense" option traffic wise. If anything, its the "we don't lose out on $89 million in NVTA funding" option. Will be interesting to see what happens ahead.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on September 20, 2020, 08:39:28 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 18, 2020, 03:08:04 PM
PHEW!
Common sense prevailed, bypass will happen:

How do you prefer the bypass? I'm just curious and I would like a quick debate.

Honestly, I used to appreciate it but now oppose it quite so. Come to think - the 28 corridor past Manassas is hardly going to benefit from such a bypass, with no local configuration pouring money into the communities and providing for revitalization. There are also risks of pollution being next to Bull Run, and noise levels increasing in adjacent communities. I've even found a few sources that suggest that this bypass will struggle with traffic issues later on - the 6-lane segment in Fairfax will create a bottleneck between the two roadbeds (original and bypass), the intersections along the way are scheduled to operate at a weak LoS, and even overpasses will be needed down the line (along existing Godwin Dr.). I'm hoping there's still time for them to reconsider and finally get things going.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on September 20, 2020, 11:01:31 PM
Here's an interesting idea that I could potentially support: https://sites.google.com/view/novatransportationsolutions/rethinking-route-28-yorkshire?authuser=0
Essentially, a new 4-lane roadway would be built about a block west of current VA-28 through Yorkshire and would feature one general purpose lane and one HOV or transit lane in each direction. This would be done in conjunction with the current Route 28 STARS improvement recommendations for the existing VA-28 roadway. While I personally believe that a better option would be to simply make these new lanes all southbound and convert the current VA-28 to northbound only, I'm not sure whether or not that would garner business support. This may have been the original version of the idea but either way, VA-28 would (essentially) be three lanes in each direction with a fourth one dedicated to transit or HOV. There would also appear to be far less business and residential impacts than both the bypass and regular widening proposals. While I would love for this idea to get more serious consideration, I unfortunately doubt it will.

The NOVA Transporation Solutions website is very interesting and there a bunch of neat ideas for a variety of DC-area transportation needs in which some I agree with and others I don't. Definitely recommend taking a look.
https://sites.google.com/view/novatransportationsolutions/home?authuser=0
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on September 21, 2020, 04:37:03 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on September 20, 2020, 11:01:31 PM
Here's an interesting idea that I could potentially support: https://sites.google.com/view/novatransportationsolutions/rethinking-route-28-yorkshire?authuser=0 (https://sites.google.com/view/novatransportationsolutions/rethinking-route-28-yorkshire?authuser=0)
Essentially, a new 4-lane roadway would be built about a block west of current VA-28 through Yorkshire and would feature one general purpose lane and one HOV or transit lane in each direction. This would be done in conjunction with the current Route 28 STARS improvement recommendations for the existing VA-28 roadway. While I personally believe that a better option would be to simply make these new lanes all southbound and convert the current VA-28 to northbound only, I'm not sure whether or not that would garner business support. This may have been the original version of the idea but either way, VA-28 would (essentially) be three lanes in each direction with a fourth one dedicated to transit or HOV. There would also appear to be far less business and residential impacts than both the bypass and regular widening proposals. While I would love for this idea to get more serious consideration, I unfortunately doubt it will.

The NOVA Transporation Solutions website is very interesting and there a bunch of neat ideas for a variety of DC-area transportation needs in which some I agree with and others I don't. Definitely recommend taking a look.
https://sites.google.com/view/novatransportationsolutions/home?authuser=0 (https://sites.google.com/view/novatransportationsolutions/home?authuser=0)


That would be a nice alternative, alongside simply widening 28 through the corridor. Said area could certainly use some good redevelopment. I'm definitely going to campaign for this one if I can.

Other than that, those are all solid ideas for the most part. I don't really understand why the PW Parkway (the 234 portion) is to keep some of those signalized intersections. Some other bypass highways (Leesburg, Culpeper) have continuous highway portions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 21, 2020, 05:09:55 PM
New Speed Limit Posted on Route 3, Route 301 in King George County (http://virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2020/new-speed-limit-posted-on-route-3-route-301--in-king-george-county9-18-2020.asp)
QuoteFREDERICKSBURG, Va. — The speed limit is increasing from 55 mph to 60 mph on several sections of Route 3 and Route 301 in King George County.

New 60 mph speed limit signs are posted today on several sections of Route 301, and new signs will be installed on Route 3 on Monday, Sept. 21, weather permitting.

The speed limit is increasing to 60 mph at the following locations:

* Route 3, from just east of Route 665 (Birchwood Creek Lane) to just west of Route 206 (Dahlgren Road)
* Route 301, from just north of the Rappahannock River to just south of Route 3
* Route 301, from just north of Route 205 (Ridge Road) to just south of Route 206 (Dahlgren Road)

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) conducted a study of these segments of Route 3 and Route 301 following legislation passed by the Virginia General Assembly. Following VDOT's review of vehicle speeds, crash data, and the physical characteristics of these roadways, these locations were recommended to have the speed limit increased to 60 mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on September 21, 2020, 08:06:25 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on September 21, 2020, 04:37:03 PM
I don't really understand why the PW Parkway (the 234 portion) is to keep some of those signalized intersections. Some other bypass highways (Leesburg, Culpeper) have continuous highway portions.

Combination of poor planning and lack of funding. Ideally, VA-234 north of VA-294 would have gotten the same treatment that VA-7 and VA-28 got and would have gradually become a full freeway. IMO this would have been a far smarter investment that a VA-28 bypass (because both would likely serve Bristow area residents with the difference being an improved VA-234 takes some of those commuters off of VA-28). However, it now looks like it'll be more or less similar to VA-286 (Fairfax County Parkway) with a mix of both lights and occasional interchanges. The upcoming plan for a quadrant intersection at University Blvd is of particular annoyance to me. I can only hope that an interchange is eventually built at Sudley Manor Drive/Wellington Road (although the chances of that decrease every year as inflation gradually makes it more and more expensive).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 21, 2020, 08:42:41 PM
^

The VA-234 Manassas Bypass should've been built as a full freeway when it was constructed, or at least with a master plan and reserved right of way for eventual build out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on September 21, 2020, 09:14:34 PM
That I can understand - at least, these will be improvements that make movements down the line faster. The rest of the parkway seems strongly at-grade, so I can understand that too.


Quote from: sprjus4 on September 21, 2020, 08:42:41 PM^

The VA-234 Manassas Bypass should've been built as a full freeway when it was constructed, or at least with a master plan and reserved right of way for eventual build out.

At the very least, I know the Dumfries/Brentsville intersection complex has ROW reserved for an interchange (that's actually coming soon). It was originally planned as a modified cloverleaf, but has as of late been modified into a hybrid interchange. It certainly fits better with each maneuver, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 21, 2020, 09:29:05 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 21, 2020, 08:42:41 PM
^

The VA-234 Manassas Bypass should've been built as a full freeway when it was constructed, or at least with a master plan and reserved right of way for eventual build out.

I do not know if they have land at the at-grade intersections purchased or at least reserved for highway use.  I do know that VDOT (in some cases [much of VA-286, f/k/a VA-7100] the county government) has designed and built many of the post-1990 parkways in Northern Virginia as expressways and not as freeways for one big reason - cost.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Old Dominionite on October 07, 2020, 03:41:09 AM
Yesterday I drove US 17 from Newport News to Fredericksburg for the first time. I wanted a change of scenery and I had some extra time on my hands. The drive only took about two hours; that included following the business routes through Gloucester C.H. and Saluda. Aside from some expected minor congestion around Yorktown, Gloucester, and Tappahannock, I was amazed by how empty the roadway was. I found it far more scenic and less stressful than 64 and 95. I wished the dual carriageway continued beyond Port Royal, but we can't have everything in life, right?

Anyway, I found my new preferred route outside of rush hour between Hampton Roads and northern Virginia. Granted, it might take a little more time overall, but it's worth it to me.

What are your thoughts about this stretch of road? While I know it would be both costly and disruptive in places, I wonder if more could be done to promote 17 as a viable alternative to 64 and 95...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 07, 2020, 07:04:55 AM
^

I've taken it a few times to avoid congestion on I-64 / I-95, it's a nice stretch of road, and with the rural areas mostly 60 mph, easy to maintain around 70 mph the whole way.

The reason I don't take it more - congestion closer to Newport News, and the fact it crosses the tunnels, specifically since I'm heading to the Southside. In that case, to avoid congestion, I'll usually take US-460.

VA-105 is a nice 55 mph cutover from Yorktown to I-64 to avoid the commercialization / congestion of US-17 between Yorktown and I-64 in lower Newport News.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 07, 2020, 01:05:57 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on October 07, 2020, 03:41:09 AM
I wished the dual carriageway continued beyond Port Royal, but we can't have everything in life, right?

I've always found it interesting that the only part of US-17 between Yorktown and Fredericksburg that is not 4 lanes is the part just south of Fredericksburg through the moderately populated Spotsylvania area. Perhaps this could be because parallel VA-3 in 4 lanes right on the other side of the Rappahannock River? While the bridge over I-95 will soon be widened, it doesn't appear that there any plans to extend this any further south (east). However, with continued housing development and sprawl, it's possible that we could see 4 lanes at least all the way to New Post.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 07, 2020, 01:52:20 PM
Pretty sure US 17 is not 4-laned between Port Royal and Fredericksburg because it is the hardest segment to do that and there isn't sufficient traffic to force it.  There are some terrain issues in addition to being right on the Fort AP Hill boundary in places.  Terrain is also likely why the segment from Port Royal to Essex County took a lot longer to get 4-laned than south of there.

AADT of US 17 between VA 2 and US 301 tops out at 7300 (2019) while VA 3 is over 20k for most spots between Fredericksburg and US 301.

US 301's AADT does rise by 5400 north leaving US 17 but the AADT before and after VA 3 is unchanged.  A couple thousand AADT appear to be cutting over to VA 3 via SR 607 which I assume is local and not through travelers.  There is a fair amount of traffic using US 17 to US 301 to Maryland, especially trucks.

I used to use US 17 exclusively going to anywhere in the Tidewater region but now that the sprawl has reached to Gloucester it doesn't matter as much to use VA 105 or VA 134 to get to I-64.

I tend to use VA 30 (by way of VA 2) if I am heading to somewhere on the north side of Hampton Roads or the Little Creek area (Not much traffic but it is 2-lane throughout.  Only real town is West Point.) but use US 460 to go most other parts of Tidewater or are heading to the Outer Banks. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 08, 2020, 12:24:11 AM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on October 07, 2020, 03:41:09 AM
What are your thoughts about this stretch of road? While I know it would be both costly and disruptive in places, I wonder if more could be done to promote 17 as a viable alternative to 64 and 95...

I love U.S. 17 between I-64 in Newport News and the junction of U.S. 17 and U.S. 301 in Port Royal.  Been driving it somewhat regularly since the early 1980's and it is one of my favorites in Virginia. Back then there was a fairly long two-lane undivided section between Tappahannock and Port Royal. 

Just watch out for speed limit enforcement by the municipal police in the Town of Tappahannock, and sometimes the VSP has enforcement out on the "open road" parts of the corridor. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 08, 2020, 09:53:59 AM
^

Those "open road" stretches ought to be at least 65 mph, but state law that refuses to get updated...

They did increase the speed limit between Saluda and Gloucester last year from 55 mph to 60 mph, which is a nice improvement, but could go more.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Old Dominionite on October 08, 2020, 06:00:05 PM
I appreciate the perspectives, everyone. Thanks!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on October 09, 2020, 01:36:09 PM
60/65 MPH arterials? That is something I don't recall seeing anywhere around here. I didn't even know of any non-highway roads in the U.S. that were over 55 MPH for a while.

Quite awesome to hear anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 09, 2020, 01:47:12 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on October 09, 2020, 01:36:09 PM
60/65 MPH arterials? That is something I don't recall seeing anywhere around here. I didn't even know of any non-highway roads in the U.S. that were over 55 MPH for a while.

Quite awesome to hear anyway.

You don't head southwest out of Prince William County very often, I take it. US-29 has been posted at 60 mph for most of the stretch between Opal and Ruckersville (with a short exception near Madison that's posted at 55) for probably at least ten years now. The segment of US-17 they're discussing is a lot quieter than US-29.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on October 09, 2020, 02:02:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 09, 2020, 01:47:12 PM
You don't head southwest out of Prince William County very often, I take it. US-29 has been posted at 60 mph for most of the stretch between Opal and Ruckersville (with a short exception near Madison that's posted at 55) for probably at least ten years now. The segment of US-17 they're discussing is a lot quieter than US-29.

Hehe. But yes, I've mostly traveled out west into the Shenandoah Valley, rather than across the Piedmont/Coastal Plain. With curvier and narrower roads being more plentiful there, I can understand the lack of higher posted speeds. That being said, I do hope to see such roads one day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 09, 2020, 02:09:26 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on October 09, 2020, 02:02:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 09, 2020, 01:47:12 PM
You don't head southwest out of Prince William County very often, I take it. US-29 has been posted at 60 mph for most of the stretch between Opal and Ruckersville (with a short exception near Madison that's posted at 55) for probably at least ten years now. The segment of US-17 they're discussing is a lot quieter than US-29.

Hehe. But yes, I've mostly traveled out west into the Shenandoah Valley, rather than across the Piedmont/Coastal Plain. With curvier and narrower roads being more plentiful there, I can understand the lack of higher posted speeds. That being said, I do hope to see such roads one day.

No wonder you haven't encountered it yet. The list of roads with at-grade intersections in Virginia that are posted above 55 mph is pretty short and is prescribed by statute:

QuoteThe maximum speed limit shall be 60 miles per hour where indicated by lawfully placed signs, erected subsequent to a traffic engineering study and analysis of available and appropriate accident and law-enforcement data, on U.S. Route 17, U.S. Route 23, U.S. Route 29, U.S. Route 58, U.S. Alternate Route 58, U.S. Route 301, U.S. Route 360, U.S. Route 460, U.S. Route 501 between the Town of South Boston and the North Carolina state line, State Route 3, and State Route 207 where such routes are nonlimited access, multilane, divided highways.

Here's the full text of that section, if you're interested (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-870/). The main thing is that any road with at-grade intersections can't legally be posted above 55 mph except for the ones for which an exception has been codified, and even for roads for which higher speed limits are permitted, a speed limit above 55 is not automatic due to the requirement for traffic engineering studies and accident analysis.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 09, 2020, 04:27:49 PM
^

The list is short, but Virginia is quite liberal at posting 60 mph when it's legally allowed.

For instance, most divided segments of US-58 are 60 mph, most divided segments of US-460 are 60 mph, most divided segments of US-29 are 60 mph, etc.

US-17 has mostly 60 mph south of Fredericksburg, though north of there, it still remains 55 mph due to local opposition to increasing it due to "safety reasons".

US-301 and VA-207 were recently approved to be included in the list, and now most of VA-207 / US-301 has been increased from 55 mph to 60 mph between Maryland and I-95.

60 mph segments are limited by route, but extend hundreds of miles throughout the state. To the south, North Carolina is quite conservative at posting 60 mph even though there's technically no limits on where it can be posted, but has been recently increasing more and more areas. The same holds true with their freeway system, where 70 mph is the maximum allowed, but a lot still remain at 65 mph (interesting enough, also was one of the only states on the East Coast besides West Virginia and Florida to once propose 75 mph limits in the last decade. Virginia proposed 75 mph interstate speed limits in the 90s, though never passed). South Carolina legally cannot go above 60 mph, but pretty much any divided road or 5-lane road for that matter is posted at 60 mph. West Virginia posts up to 65 mph on divided highways, as does Tennessee and Kentucky (though not the eastern part of the state).

Outside of the Northeast and Virginia/North Carolina/Maryland, 65 mph and 70 mph limits, even up to 75 mph in states such as Texas, is common occurrence on 2 and 4 lane divided highways.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on October 11, 2020, 06:58:00 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on September 20, 2020, 08:39:28 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 18, 2020, 03:08:04 PM
PHEW!
Common sense prevailed, bypass will happen:

How do you prefer the bypass? I'm just curious and I would like a quick debate.

Honestly, I used to appreciate it but now oppose it quite so. Come to think - the 28 corridor past Manassas is hardly going to benefit from such a bypass, with no local configuration pouring money into the communities and providing for revitalization. There are also risks of pollution being next to Bull Run, and noise levels increasing in adjacent communities. I've even found a few sources that suggest that this bypass will struggle with traffic issues later on - the 6-lane segment in Fairfax will create a bottleneck between the two roadbeds (original and bypass), the intersections along the way are scheduled to operate at a weak LoS, and even overpasses will be needed down the line (along existing Godwin Dr.). I'm hoping there's still time for them to reconsider and finally get things going.

Because Rt 28 traffic is way to big for the current roadway.  It needs to continue with the freeway or near freeway like design until 234/Manassas, that is why.
West of the bypass, it is rural and things will be fine but currently Rt 28 is way way too small.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on October 12, 2020, 03:40:29 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 11, 2020, 06:58:00 PM
Because Rt 28 traffic is way to big for the current roadway.  It needs to continue with the freeway or near freeway like design until 234/Manassas, that is why.
West of the bypass, it is rural and things will be fine but currently Rt 28 is way way too small.

While I have agreed to this idea in the past, I am more in favor of widening the road in town - especially with a new finding of mine. Some have found the 28 bypass to be a tad bit redundant, with the 234 bypass existing. I'll agree as the latter road is due for new interchanges and alternative-design intersections. What are your thoughts on this statement?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 12, 2020, 05:58:07 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 11, 2020, 06:58:00 PM
Because Rt 28 traffic is way to big for the current roadway.  It needs to continue with the freeway or near freeway like design until 234/Manassas, that is why.
West of the bypass, it is rural and things will be fine but currently Rt 28 is way way too small.

Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on October 12, 2020, 03:40:29 PMWhile I have agreed to this idea in the past, I am more in favor of widening the road in town - especially with a new finding of mine. Some have found the 28 bypass to be a tad bit redundant, with the 234 bypass existing. I'll agree as the latter road is due for new interchanges and alternative-design intersections. What are your thoughts on this statement?

I'm assuming you mean an eastern bypass for Manassas/Centreville, as opposed to the western bypass (Prince Bill VA-234).  Back 25 years ago, Manassas had a great eastern bypass that got very little usage (Liberia Avenue), but that only worked for traffic between VA-28 and VA-234 (Centreville to Dumfries).  After the initial Prince Bill opened up some sections, Liberia got connected to Hastings and the route was marked "To VA-28 South" and Liberia "To VA-28 North".  However, this route never worked as a true bypass of downtown Manassas since Hastings was winding and both Hastings/Liberia were fairly slow.  The only time I used both of them together was once traveling Dulles to Fredericksburg when WTOP was reporting bad traffic on I-95 through Lorton and there was a huge accident somewhere in Manassas on Church Street.  Of course none of this helps with the mess between Manassas and Centreville.

It's going to be tough to push an eastern bypass through since it will disturb the lower sections of both Cedar Run and Bull Run.  But it has been needed for at least three decades.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 13, 2020, 12:11:25 AM
A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...

There was a proposal for the Monticello Freeway, from the east side of Manassas vicinity to the Beltway at Braddock Rd.  The 1969 regional plan had it continuing further inside the Beltway to other proposed and never built facilities, while at least one 1960s era regional plan suggested tying it into Route 28 southwest of Manassas.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 13, 2020, 07:35:49 AM
The maps in the Northern Virginia Thoroughfare Plan show the Monticello Freeway extending inside the Beltway. The public library in Fairfax City has the plan. I have a copy of some of the maps I scanned using an iPad, but the only online copy of my scans is in Photobucket. If I can figure out where it is on my PC, I'll upload it, but I don't want to make any promises as to when that might be.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on October 13, 2020, 05:00:48 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 12, 2020, 05:58:07 PM
I'm assuming you mean an eastern bypass for Manassas/Centreville, as opposed to the western bypass (Prince Bill VA-234).  Back 25 years ago, Manassas had a great eastern bypass that got very little usage (Liberia Avenue), but that only worked for traffic between VA-28 and VA-234 (Centreville to Dumfries).  After the initial Prince Bill opened up some sections, Liberia got connected to Hastings and the route was marked "To VA-28 South" and Liberia "To VA-28 North".  However, this route never worked as a true bypass of downtown Manassas since Hastings was winding and both Hastings/Liberia were fairly slow.  The only time I used both of them together was once traveling Dulles to Fredericksburg when WTOP was reporting bad traffic on I-95 through Lorton and there was a huge accident somewhere in Manassas on Church Street.  Of course none of this helps with the mess between Manassas and Centreville.

It's going to be tough to push an eastern bypass through since it will disturb the lower sections of both Cedar Run and Bull Run.  But it has been needed for at least three decades.
Well, the planned bypass is the eastern one here - it is clearly oriented towards 28 and Centreville. It'd be a route that's more laterally aligned with city commuters, though the 234 bypass is an overall faster way to a true highway in I-66, versus the arterial 28 in Fairfax.

Liberia has certainly been built up with retail, making it less of a bypass than previously believed. It's a tad shame development patterns and natural features have prohibited construction of easy connectors like those in the area.

Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2020, 12:11:25 AM
A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...

There was a proposal for the Monticello Freeway, from the east side of Manassas vicinity to the Beltway at Braddock Rd.  The 1969 regional plan had it continuing further inside the Beltway to other proposed and never built facilities, while at least one 1960s era regional plan suggested tying it into Route 28 southwest of Manassas.
I do believe it would have been a benefit to traffic early on, and could perhaps work today. Though with a lot of highways dotting the area, imagine what the development situation might have been!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on October 13, 2020, 05:11:51 PM
If you look at Fairfax County tax maps, you can see that VODT still has a pretty handsome unused right-of-way buffering Braddock Road in a number of areas, particularly outside the Beltway as far west as Guinea. Presumably left over from the unbuilt freeway. I've heard rumors of a Braddock Rd HOT lane in recent years...don't know how that would work with the grade-level crossings such as Burke Lake Rd, Wakefield Chapel, etc.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 13, 2020, 09:41:12 PM
https://twitter.com/vadotnova/status/1316137137725726728?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 13, 2020, 09:48:58 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 13, 2020, 05:11:51 PM
If you look at Fairfax County tax maps, you can see that VODT still has a pretty handsome unused right-of-way buffering Braddock Road in a number of areas, particularly outside the Beltway as far west as Guinea. Presumably left over from the unbuilt freeway. I've heard rumors of a Braddock Rd HOT lane in recent years...don't know how that would work with the grade-level crossings such as Burke Lake Rd, Wakefield Chapel, etc.

I believe that would be the Monticello Freeway.  Short Wikipedia article here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello_Freeway)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on October 14, 2020, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on October 12, 2020, 03:40:29 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 11, 2020, 06:58:00 PM
Because Rt 28 traffic is way to big for the current roadway.  It needs to continue with the freeway or near freeway like design until 234/Manassas, that is why.
West of the bypass, it is rural and things will be fine but currently Rt 28 is way way too small.

While I have agreed to this idea in the past, I am more in favor of widening the road in town - especially with a new finding of mine. Some have found the 28 bypass to be a tad bit redundant, with the 234 bypass existing. I'll agree as the latter road is due for new interchanges and alternative-design intersections. What are your thoughts on this statement?

I couldn't disagree more.
1) The 234 bypass stinks, it needs to be limited access.  Moreover it is N-S directionally.

2) Rt 28 is the major corridor from the Dulles area/Dulles Toll Road/I-66/and central FFX-Tysons-even inner Arl and DC to points west in PW and south in PW and Stafford.  It is appropriately becoming a limited access road from Bull Run to Rt 7 before it becomes a gridlocked stop and go local business route in town that is completely inadequate.  This is not just a rush hour issue, think weekend getaways to I-95; West FFX and PWC lack a needed freeway to connect them to I-95.  28 is being used as this and the result is immense suffering (and safety) issues.
-The bypass is SOLEY needed as this is a thru route and a continuation of an existing freeway.  The bypass as planned will take existing traffic already there and move it smoothly through Manassas (where it can exit) to Bristow (where it can exit) to 234 (where it can also exit in route to 95).  This is SO so needed and will not induce as the demand is there NOW.
-In fact it will give the business and residents of Manassas on 28 a needed breather and improve their quality of life.

3) The other bypass to the south of 28, I was with DOT, we already studied it, bad choice.
-It costs more, it has many more wetland, parkland, and green space takings.
-It reduces 28 traffic less as it focuses more on routing people to 234-95 as opposed to Manassas, Bristow, as well as 234-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on October 14, 2020, 03:50:36 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2020, 12:11:25 AM
A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...

There was a proposal for the Monticello Freeway, from the east side of Manassas vicinity to the Beltway at Braddock Rd.  The 1969 regional plan had it continuing further inside the Beltway to other proposed and never built facilities, while at least one 1960s era regional plan suggested tying it into Route 28 southwest of Manassas.

My dream would be for Braddock Road to become a limited access parkway west of Shirley Gate.
-Braddock would have an interchange @ Shirley Gate and all points west...it would be renamed 'Braddock Parkway'
-It would extend over I-66, dumping traffic on I-66 before connecting with Stone Road.
-This would allow US 29 in Centreville to become a more walkable revitalized village.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 15, 2020, 01:44:36 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 14, 2020, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on October 12, 2020, 03:40:29 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 11, 2020, 06:58:00 PM
Because Rt 28 traffic is way to big for the current roadway.  It needs to continue with the freeway or near freeway like design until 234/Manassas, that is why.
West of the bypass, it is rural and things will be fine but currently Rt 28 is way way too small.

While I have agreed to this idea in the past, I am more in favor of widening the road in town - especially with a new finding of mine. Some have found the 28 bypass to be a tad bit redundant, with the 234 bypass existing. I'll agree as the latter road is due for new interchanges and alternative-design intersections. What are your thoughts on this statement?

I couldn't disagree more.
1) The 234 bypass stinks, it needs to be limited access.  Moreover it is N-S directionally.

2) Rt 28 is the major corridor from the Dulles area/Dulles Toll Road/I-66/and central FFX-Tysons-even inner Arl and DC to points west in PW and south in PW and Stafford.  It is appropriately becoming a limited access road from Bull Run to Rt 7 before it becomes a gridlocked stop and go local business route in town that is completely inadequate.  This is not just a rush hour issue, think weekend getaways to I-95; West FFX and PWC lack a needed freeway to connect them to I-95.  28 is being used as this and the result is immense suffering (and safety) issues.
-The bypass is SOLEY needed as this is a thru route and a continuation of an existing freeway.  The bypass as planned will take existing traffic already there and move it smoothly through Manassas (where it can exit) to Bristow (where it can exit) to 234 (where it can also exit in route to 95).  This is SO so needed and will not induce as the demand is there NOW.
-In fact it will give the business and residents of Manassas on 28 a needed breather and improve their quality of life.

While I agree that the VA-234 bypass stinks and should be light free north of VA-294/Brentsville Road, the notion that VA-28 will be limited access between the Bull Run and US-29 is basically nonexistent since there doesn't appear to be any plans to remove any of the lights through Centreville due to it being a more 'residential" area. Do I agree with this plan or lack thereof? No. Is it unfortunately tough reality? Yes. Next, to be clear, the bypass will not be a freeway and will have at grade intersections on both the planned part and the existing one (Godwin Drive) will no current plans to change this. Finally, I am still not convinced that this bypass will take much if any existing traffic off of VA-28 and will instead take the traffic off of VA-234 and make VA-28 north of the bull run even worse (and the soon to be constructed 3rd lane obsolete) when the bypass and regular VA-28 meet back up. All this does is entice commuters in Bristow to take the bypass/VA-28 all the way to I-66 instead of first using VA-234. If this bypass is built, current VA-28 in Manassas will still have problems. As I've said before, I believe that the best option here is the one not currently on the table that is to construct a new southbound only roadway a block west of current VA-28 and make this part northbound only with 3 lanes in each direction and an additional BRT/HOT lane. Improvements should then also be made to VA-234 such as constructing interchanges at Sudley Manor Drive and University Blvd...oh wait :banghead:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Stephane Dumas on October 15, 2020, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2020, 09:41:12 PM
https://twitter.com/vadotnova/status/1316137137725726728?s=21

They could have convert US-50 as a mini-freeway with the adjacents streets being turned into one-way streets but I can already hear the Nimbys saying "how dare you?".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on October 18, 2020, 11:16:03 PM
My god I love the roads in the Shenandoah Valley. Drove VA 259, VA 42 north of Harrisonburg, US 211 - all so much fun. I did go EB on 211 so I got stuck on the older, narrower highway which was harrowing thanks to Luray Caverns tourists (the type who inexplicably speed up when they're being overtaken...then there's a curve). The climb and descent to Sperryville also felt like forever.

Anyways, first remarks over a daytrip to Harrisonburg (went to Bar-B-Q Ranch for lunch, along with walking around James Madison University). Instead of I-81, took US 48 to WV/VA 259 instead - lot more fun. Went around and took pictures of fall foliage and wanted to go to Luray Caverns. Decided against it due to price and looked like a tourist trap - drove on to Washington VA and toured around the town (looks gorgeous in fall colors). Sadly, the Inn at Little Washington covered the windows, and so the famed mannequins are no longer visible. Did buy some chocolates, spices, bread, and jam there.

Are there any caves in Virginia worth visiting? I guess I have to visit Luray at some point to say I've been, but I prefer less touristy, more natural caves (I liked the Smoke Hole Caves at Seneca Rocks).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex4897 on October 18, 2020, 11:44:52 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 18, 2020, 11:16:03 PM
Are there any caves in Virginia worth visiting? I guess I have to visit Luray at some point to say I've been, but I prefer less touristy, more natural caves (I liked the Smoke Hole Caves at Seneca Rocks).
This isn't so much a cave as it is another massive geological formation, but Natural Bridge, VA is worth a visit. The whole park consists of a trail leading up a river valley, through the natural bridge (which is massive), and past a small cave that you can wander around in and some other neat features. Making that a stop along a Blue Ridge Parkway / Skyline Drive trip is definitely worth it, the whole area is beautiful.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on October 19, 2020, 01:40:58 AM
Luray has always been expensive.  Went there fifteen years ago.  Hit on my wallet still smarts.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 19, 2020, 07:34:46 AM
Luray Caverns is expensive, but it's the largest one and is generally agreed to be about the best of the bunch.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on October 19, 2020, 08:46:20 AM
Grand Caverns wasn’t bad. It’s in Grottoes, a bit southeast of Harrisonburg just off US 340. Taking VA 253 out of Harrisonburg will put you right there.

There are a few more caverns, but other than Dixie Caverns no names come to mind. I’ve only been to Luray and Grand.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on October 19, 2020, 09:52:44 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 14, 2020, 03:48:18 PM
I couldn't disagree more.
1) The 234 bypass stinks, it needs to be limited access.  Moreover it is N-S directionally.

2) Rt 28 is the major corridor from the Dulles area/Dulles Toll Road/I-66/and central FFX-Tysons-even inner Arl and DC to points west in PW and south in PW and Stafford.  It is appropriately becoming a limited access road from Bull Run to Rt 7 before it becomes a gridlocked stop and go local business route in town that is completely inadequate.  This is not just a rush hour issue, think weekend getaways to I-95; West FFX and PWC lack a needed freeway to connect them to I-95.  28 is being used as this and the result is immense suffering (and safety) issues.
-The bypass is SOLEY needed as this is a thru route and a continuation of an existing freeway.  The bypass as planned will take existing traffic already there and move it smoothly through Manassas (where it can exit) to Bristow (where it can exit) to 234 (where it can also exit in route to 95).  This is SO so needed and will not induce as the demand is there NOW.
-In fact it will give the business and residents of Manassas on 28 a needed breather and improve their quality of life.

3) The other bypass to the south of 28, I was with DOT, we already studied it, bad choice.
-It costs more, it has many more wetland, parkland, and green space takings.
-It reduces 28 traffic less as it focuses more on routing people to 234-95 as opposed to Manassas, Bristow, as well as 234-95.

I can see, as I also disagree. I am hoping that we're doing this in a friendly manner, that's for sure.

The 234 bypass is certainly a nice road and all, but as mentioned earlier I do lament how they're not planning for the entire route (at least through the 294/234 Bus. intersection complex) to be completely grade-separated. At the very least, we are getting a few new interchanges. Orientation-wise, I can presume this was the only convenient corridor for such - things do happen for a reason.

I do agree that 28 is a major corridor - that point I do support. It is a shame how it isn't being upgraded thoroughly through Fairfax, and that the other problems add weight to it. I'll certainly take it as a last resort option though. Wouldn't want sprawl to increase out in Nokesville/Catlett (though from sprawl, I'd certainly like to see new retail centers  :-D )
As for the third option, are you speaking of the Alt 9 (1/2) plan presented a while back? I'll admit that one was a very mediocre idea. On top of skirting close to Bull Run for longer and becoming host to some eminent domain problems, the routing for it just didn't make that much sense. Even Alt 4 has a partial bypass (Godwin Dr) and a clear strip of land going for it.

Quote from: bluecountry on October 14, 2020, 03:50:36 PM
My dream would be for Braddock Road to become a limited access parkway west of Shirley Gate.
-Braddock would have an interchange @ Shirley Gate and all points west...it would be renamed 'Braddock Parkway'
-It would extend over I-66, dumping traffic on I-66 before connecting with Stone Road.
-This would allow US 29 in Centreville to become a more walkable revitalized village.
I'm not sure about that one. There are points where it's pretty entrenched within development. Though it's past overdue for an overpass over 66, that I know.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on October 15, 2020, 01:44:36 PM
While I agree that the VA-234 bypass stinks and should be light free north of VA-294/Brentsville Road, the notion that VA-28 will be limited access between the Bull Run and US-29 is basically nonexistent since there doesn't appear to be any plans to remove any of the lights through Centreville due to it being a more 'residential" area. Do I agree with this plan or lack thereof? No. Is it unfortunately tough reality? Yes. Next, to be clear, the bypass will not be a freeway and will have at grade intersections on both the planned part and the existing one (Godwin Drive) will no current plans to change this. Finally, I am still not convinced that this bypass will take much if any existing traffic off of VA-28 and will instead take the traffic off of VA-234 and make VA-28 north of the bull run even worse (and the soon to be constructed 3rd lane obsolete) when the bypass and regular VA-28 meet back up. All this does is entice commuters in Bristow to take the bypass/VA-28 all the way to I-66 instead of first using VA-234. If this bypass is built, current VA-28 in Manassas will still have problems. As I've said before, I believe that the best option here is the one not currently on the table that is to construct a new southbound only roadway a block west of current VA-28 and make this part northbound only with 3 lanes in each direction and an additional BRT/HOT lane. Improvements should then also be made to VA-234 such as constructing interchanges at Sudley Manor Drive and University Blvd...oh wait :banghead:
There have been a few proposals for alternative intersections up the corridor, as well as even interchanges such as at New Braddock. I don't believe they'll come to fruition with the current 6-8-lane widening plan. Those I will argue to be necessary if the traffic light backup starts around there. Other than that, good points and it's what I expected of the bypass. I'm definitely counting on this one to bring improvements to the current area.

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on October 15, 2020, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2020, 09:41:12 PM
[tweet]1316137137725726728[/tweet]?s=21

They could have convert US-50 as a mini-freeway with the adjacents streets being turned into one-way streets but I can already hear the Nimbys saying "how dare you?".

Actually, it already is somewhat of an expressway over in Arlington. There are a few interchanges dotted along the road, with a sizable frontage road network also included. I argue that it would work well in Falls Church, albeit sinking 50 may be a challenge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 19, 2020, 11:31:42 AM
A potential problem with making Route 50 a higher-speed limited-access road in that area is preventing pedestrians from trying to cross. That's been a huge problem in the Seven Corners area over the years, to the point where they wound up putting up chain-link fences (https://goo.gl/maps/nfMHR1fQ92ucGwqW9) even after building a pedestrian overpass because people were still trying to run across the road instead of using the bridge. VDOT's study cited the substantial immigrant population in that area–they suspected that people used to traffic patterns in other countries (in the case of Seven Corners, predominantly Vietnam) may be unfamiliar with US traffic patterns and driver behavior such that they don't appreciate how dangerous it is to try to run across that sort of highway. The area further west to which that tweet refers is, as the tweet itself indicates, another area with a large immigrant population, so if VDOT is correct about that being a factor, they'll have to plan for the same sort of considerations.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on October 19, 2020, 05:58:04 PM
Heh.  I used to live by Seven Corners...a long time ago, I suppose.  I don't remember the pedestrian bridge. :D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 19, 2020, 06:30:56 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 19, 2020, 05:58:04 PM
Heh.  I used to live by Seven Corners...a long time ago, I suppose.  I don't remember the pedestrian bridge. :D
It was still under construction in 2007 - 2008 Street View imagery, so it wasn't there before then.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 19, 2020, 06:40:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 19, 2020, 05:58:04 PM
Heh.  I used to live by Seven Corners...a long time ago, I suppose.  I don't remember the pedestrian bridge. :D

Heh, I've lived in this area long enough to remember when the Seven Corners mall wasn't a has-been. Woodies and Garfinckel's were the two anchors there and Lord & Taylor were across Route 7.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 19, 2020, 07:36:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 19, 2020, 06:40:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 19, 2020, 05:58:04 PM
Heh.  I used to live by Seven Corners...a long time ago, I suppose.  I don't remember the pedestrian bridge. :D

Heh, I've lived in this area long enough to remember when the Seven Corners mall wasn't a has-been. Woodies and Garfinckel's were the two anchors there and Lord & Taylor were across Route 7.

There was a great (IMO) restaurant that served "Chinese" cuisine called the Inn of the Seven Immortals in Seven Corners (I think it was in a stand-alone building on the property).  It has been gone for a long time now. 

I think the same people also owned the Moon Palace on Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. near Macomb Street in the District of Columbia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 19, 2020, 08:36:13 PM
For those that might be planning a trip on the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia, you might want to be aware that a section of the motor road is closed south of Roanoke due to a large slope failure that has made the parkway impassible.   

It is currently closed from U.S. 220 (milepost 121) south to Adney Gap (milepost 136), and has been closed since May 2020.

Details here (https://theroanokestar.com/2020/09/28/blue-ridge-parkway-begins-repairs-in-roanoke-area/) (this is from September).

The National Park Service says that a total closure for the next 12 to 18 months will be required for repairs (details here (https://www.nps.gov/blri/learn/news/roanoke_repair_oct7.htm)).

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 20, 2020, 02:13:41 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 19, 2020, 07:36:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 19, 2020, 06:40:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 19, 2020, 05:58:04 PM
Heh.  I used to live by Seven Corners...a long time ago, I suppose.  I don't remember the pedestrian bridge. :D

Heh, I've lived in this area long enough to remember when the Seven Corners mall wasn't a has-been. Woodies and Garfinckel's were the two anchors there and Lord & Taylor were across Route 7.

There was a great (IMO) restaurant that served "Chinese" cuisine called the Inn of the Seven Immortals in Seven Corners (I think it was in a stand-alone building on the property).  It has been gone for a long time now. 

I think the same people also owned the Moon Palace on Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. near Macomb Street in the District of Columbia.

That name sounds familiar, but it's not a place I would ever have eaten. The only Chinese restaurant to which my parents ever took us was Duck Chang's on John Marr Drive in Annandale. It's still there, but the last time I went there a few years ago it was disappointing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 20, 2020, 04:27:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 20, 2020, 02:13:41 PM
That name sounds familiar, but it's not a place I would ever have eaten. The only Chinese restaurant to which my parents ever took us was Duck Chang's on John Marr Drive in Annandale. It's still there, but the last time I went there a few years ago it was disappointing.

It was a place that made "Chinese" food made for North Americans, well before we heard of (for example) Sichuan cuisine or Cantonese cuisine (I think "Chinese" food here is largely based on Cantonese). 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on October 20, 2020, 09:48:45 PM
Duck Chang's allegedly pioneered a type of quick-service Peking duck; rather than the 1-2 days needed to fully prep it, he could somehow do it in time for customer's orders (presumably with his own prepping of the duck).

I'll note that Peking (AKA Beijing) Duck is very much a Beijing-style cuisine, specifically imperial cuisine.

Previous commenter is correct that *most* Chinese restaurants in the US have a heavily (and I mean *heavily*) adapted Catonese influence, which dates all the way back to railroad workers coming into San Francisco.

Modern restaurants cover a much wider range of cuisines - Peter Chang's in Northern VA and Richmond specializes in Sichuan (which is nothing like Cantonese).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 21, 2020, 10:15:59 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 20, 2020, 09:48:45 PM
Modern restaurants cover a much wider range of cuisines - Peter Chang's in Northern VA and Richmond specializes in Sichuan (which is nothing like Cantonese).

Sichuan is great - for those that like spicy food (which I do).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on October 22, 2020, 09:35:41 AM
I'll drop this in here since it is a Smart Road/VDOT project with some pretty neat aspects:

https://video.vt.edu/media/t/1_8dt0dudr/91886671

"The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute is working with the Virginia Department of Transportation to develop the work zone of the future, improving work zone safety through new technology."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 23, 2020, 11:23:57 AM
VDOT's Twitter account comes up with some nice old pictures.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1319660128912756736?s=20
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 24, 2020, 01:31:11 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 23, 2020, 11:23:57 AM
VDOT's Twitter account comes up with some nice old pictures.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1319660128912756736?s=20

U.S. 250 between Staunton and Monterey has plenty of sharp curves and switchbacks.  I read someplace that this dates back to the early days in the 19th Century, when the road was engineered and built as the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike with relatively gentle grades but lots of those curves (there are plenty more of them west of here across Highland County).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on October 24, 2020, 09:35:20 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 24, 2020, 01:31:11 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 23, 2020, 11:23:57 AM
VDOT's Twitter account comes up with some nice old pictures.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1319660128912756736?s=20

U.S. 250 between Staunton and Monterey has plenty of sharp curves and switchbacks.  I read someplace that this dates back the its early days in the 19th Century, when the road was engineered and built as the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike with relatively gentle grades but lots of those curves (there are plenty more of them west here across Highland County).

My impression is that US 250 basically picks up the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike alignment around West Augusta, VA. (VA 254 is named Parkersburg Turnpike coming out of Staunton.) From there to the WV state line, US 250 follows the Turnpike's alignment with minimal changes such as the bypass around part of McDowell.

In West Virginia, US 250 follows an upgraded and/or realigned Turnpike west to Beverly where they permanently split. (The Turnpike follows CR 37/8 west out of town.) Some notes:
1. Between the VA line and Bartow, Pocahontas CR 3 is the original Turnpike. US 250 was built on a new alignment in the 1930s at a lower elevation along Little River.
2. US 250 follows the Turnpike west to Durbin.
3. The Turnpike followed CR 250/13, CR 250/11, and CR 1 west out of Durbin. The current route out of Durbin dates to the 1950s.
4. The Turnpike and US 250 reconnect at the top of the climb out of the West Fork Greenbrier River Valley and are synonymous over Back Allegheny Mountain into Randolph County. They split just shy of Shavers Fork, where the Turnpike followed CR 250/4 across the river at Cheat Bridge, over White Top, and back to the current US 250 along Red Run. US 250 was rebuilt along a longer route but much flatter route beside Shavers Fork in the 1930s.
5. US 250 and the Turnpike follow each other down Cheat Mountain, through Huttonsville, and up to Beverly with a couple minor realignments to straighten out curves here and there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on October 26, 2020, 02:16:49 PM
While we are talking history . . .  The Library of Virginia has a great online archive of Virginia newspapers (https://virginiachronicle.com/)that I have mined for several years for historical data. While looking for something else, I happened on this story about a new highway from Washington, D.C. to Bristol.

Bruce in Blacksburg

--------

Tazewell Republican, Volume 20, Number 31, 3 August 1911, pg. 1

PROPOSED HIGHWAY

Will Extend From the National Capital to Bristol, Tennessee.

At the meeting of the Memphis-to-Bristol Highway Commissioners in Bristol last Friday night steps were taken to organize an association whose purpose will be to promote the building of a great national highway between Bristol and Washington, connecting at Bristol with the highway which is now to be built across the entire State of Tennessee. The extension of this highway to Washington will make one stretch of stone highway a thousand miles long. Secretary Runnels, of the Bristol Board of Trade, offered the resolution, which started this movement, and the people of all the Virginia counties are asked to join in the work. Secretary Gilbert, of the Memphis-to-Bristol Commission, visited Washington recently, and he states that he was then given assurances by government authorities that the government would lend hearty cooperation to such a movement. In view of the fact that many Virginia counties are now constructing stone roads, there is every reason to believe that the time is not distant when there will be a great highway between Washington and Memphis, extending through the entire State of Virginia via Richmond, Lynchburg, Roanoke and Bristol.

As a result of the adoption of the resolution looking to the organization of the Bristol-to-Washington Highway Association, the secretary of the Bristol Board of Trade has begun correspondence with boards of trade, chambers of commerce and other commercial organizations throughout Virginia, with a view to have large delegations in Bristol from all the towns and cities on the 11th of August, when the association will be organized. A special invitation has been sent to P. St. J. Wilson, State Highway Commissioner of Virginia, to be in attendance.

It is believed that this will mark the beginning of a whirlwind campaign to put Virginia in condition to extend the great highway to the gates of the National Capital without delay.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 26, 2020, 09:49:39 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on October 26, 2020, 02:16:49 PM
While we are talking history . . .  The Library of Virginia has a great online archive of Virginia newspapers (https://virginiachronicle.com/)that I have mined for several years for historical data. While looking for something else, I happened on this story about a new highway from Washington, D.C. to Bristol.

Bruce in Blacksburg

--------

Tazewell Republican, Volume 20, Number 31, 3 August 1911, pg. 1

PROPOSED HIGHWAY

Will Extend From the National Capital to Bristol, Tennessee.

At the meeting of the Memphis-to-Bristol Highway Commissioners in Bristol last Friday night steps were taken to organize an association whose purpose will be to promote the building of a great national highway between Bristol and Washington, connecting at Bristol with the highway which is now to be built across the entire State of Tennessee. The extension of this highway to Washington will make one stretch of stone highway a thousand miles long. Secretary Runnels, of the Bristol Board of Trade, offered the resolution, which started this movement, and the people of all the Virginia counties are asked to join in the work. Secretary Gilbert, of the Memphis-to-Bristol Commission, visited Washington recently, and he states that he was then given assurances by government authorities that the government would lend hearty cooperation to such a movement. In view of the fact that many Virginia counties are now constructing stone roads, there is every reason to believe that the time is not distant when there will be a great highway between Washington and Memphis, extending through the entire State of Virginia via Richmond, Lynchburg, Roanoke and Bristol.

As a result of the adoption of the resolution looking to the organization of the Bristol-to-Washington Highway Association, the secretary of the Bristol Board of Trade has begun correspondence with boards of trade, chambers of commerce and other commercial organizations throughout Virginia, with a view to have large delegations in Bristol from all the towns and cities on the 11th of August, when the association will be organized. A special invitation has been sent to P. St. J. Wilson, State Highway Commissioner of Virginia, to be in attendance.

It is believed that this will mark the beginning of a whirlwind campaign to put Virginia in condition to extend the great highway to the gates of the National Capital without delay.

Ah, the early vision for what became the Lee Highway.  But alas, the Valley of Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley were easier to negotiate than crossing the Blue Ridge and snaking through the foothills.  I'm always amazed how easy the US-460 crossing is at aptly named Blue Ridge, Virginia (used both by the N&W and the Virginian), at an elevation of only about 1250 feet.  But getting from Bedford/Lynchburg to Charlottesville was certainly no piece of cake (think US-221 and US-29).  The US-211 crossing at New Market Gap at just over 1800 feet was not the easiest point to cross, but definitely worked out for less terrain over the entire route.  Snickers Gap on VA-7, with an elevation of about 1050, and the adjacent Ashby's Gap on US-50 with an elevation of about 1025 were probably the easiest of all of the Blue Ridge crossings (but too far north for a road from Bristol to D.C.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 12:27:41 AM
VDOT and the CTB have released their initial recommendations for the I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study which covers the entire length of I-64 from the West Virginia line to Hampton Roads, along the entirety of I-664.

Recommended largely were spot interchange improvements such as acceleration / deceleration lane extensions, curve advisories (specifically west of I-81), along with a few truck climbing lanes and general purpose widening.

Some of the most notable proposals include:
* MM 26-28 - Construct Truck Climbing Lane (westbound only)
* MM 44-48 - Construct Truck Climbing Lane (westbound only)
* I-81 / I-64 Staunton Interchange - Re-purpose the I-64 East merge to have the left lane drop, and one lane each from I-81 North and I-81 South continue as thru lanes. The current situation has both lanes from I-81 South continue as thru lanes, with the one lane from I-81 North dropping.
* MM 100-105 - Construct Truck Climbing Lane (westbound only) (Afton Mountain)
* MM 184-186 - Widen to 8 lanes
* MM 205-211 - Segment VII - Widen to 6 lanes
* MM 211-218 - Segment VI - Widen to 6 lanes
* MM 218-224 - Segment V - Widen to 6 lanes
* MM 224-233 - Segment IV - Widen to 6 lanes
* I-64 / US-13 Interchange - Widen I-64 East to 5 lanes between US-13 and I-264, widen US-13 South to I-64 East ramp to 2 lanes, raise I-64 bridges over VA-165 & US-58
* I-64 / I-464 Interchange - Construct flyover from I-64 East to I-464 South (VA-168 / US-17)

As far as I-664 projects, a couple acceleration / deceleration proposals plus a couple auxiliary lanes on the Peninsula - that's about it.


Thoughts overall...
I'm surprised with some of the truck climbing lane proposals west of I-81... I will grant there are steeper grades that slow trucks, but the traffic volumes are so low they usually don't present issues - at least not enough to warrant widening. Good to see some continued push for Afton Mountain truck climbing lanes - where traffic volumes are high enough that slow trucks do cause a hazard - though this should be definitely be in both directions on the inclines - it's not a one direction issue, it's both.

As far as Richmond to Williamsburg goes, I'm surprised, given the nature of these "Corridor Improvement Studies" that didn't recommend much in the way of lane widening for I-81 and even I-95 north of Fredericksburg - but pleased that they did include full six lane widening for this stretch which is desperately needed.

In the Hampton Roads are in particular, not much recommendations in particular, largely given the planned Express Lane network which will overhaul many of these substandard highway segments - though will not add any general purpose capacity. A couple notable features in particular would be the I-64 East 5 lane widening between US-13 and I-264, and the I-64 East to I-464 South (VA-168 / US-17) flyover. Both of these are major bottlenecks during the afternoon rush hour, and have gotten significantly worse over the last decade. I'm slightly disappointed with the I-64 to I-464 flyover proposal, which they included a graphic of in a CTB presentation, which would create a left entrance / merge scenario for traffic bound to VA-168 South, while retaining the existing loop ramp for US-17 South traffic. Such a project would help relieve congestion to some extent at the interchange - though would fail to address it in many other areas (particularly the weave of I-464 North to I-64 and I-64 to I-464 South traffic - which will only continue to increase as growth along the US-17 corridor does, and especially in the long term of I-87 to NC is constructed) and implement a low speed, tight flyover into the left lane of high-speed traffic on I-464 South. In my opinion, this interchange is due for a massive overhaul, with both bridges over I-64 being fully replaced, at least two flyovers constructed from I-64 East to I-464 South, tying to both US-17 and VA-168 South (fully eliminating the loop ramp), and from I-464 North to I-64 East, and at least some sort of braided ramp system similar to Greenbrier between the I-464 and VA-168 Business interchange. It would be more expensive, though would be much better set for the long-term than the current proposal, and address all of the problematic areas. Below is a diagram provided in the CTB presentation of the proposal.

(https://i.ibb.co/Mcv2g7B/I64-I464-Interchange-Recommendation.png)

The study offers no recommendations for the I-264 interchange, Bowers Hill Interchange, or practically any of I-664, though I imagine this is because they are all currently being studied as individual projects - something that needs to eventually happen to the Oak Grove (I-464) interchange as a whole.

Website: https://www.i-64-664publicinfo.com/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on October 27, 2020, 12:40:27 AM
I spy a US 168 shield.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 08:11:36 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 27, 2020, 12:40:27 AM
I spy a US 168 shield.
Oddly enough, they recently installed a new one in Norfolk on I-264 last year.

That diagram also appears to reference "Rt 17 WB"  / "Rt 168 EB"  and has "I-64 EB"  on what is actually I-64 West.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 27, 2020, 10:35:14 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 12:27:41 AM
VDOT and the CTB have released their initial recommendations for the I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study which covers the entire length of I-64 from the West Virginia line to Hampton Roads, along the entirety of I-664.

Recommended largely were spot interchange improvements such as acceleration / deceleration lane extensions, curve advisories (specifically west of I-81), along with a few truck climbing lanes and general purpose widening.

Some of the most notable proposals include:
* MM 26-28 - Construct Truck Climbing Lane (westbound only)
* MM 44-48 - Construct Truck Climbing Lane (westbound only)
* I-81 / I-64 Staunton Interchange - Re-purpose the I-64 East merge to have the left lane drop, and one lane each from I-81 North and I-81 South continue as thru lanes. The current situation has both lanes from I-81 South continue as thru lanes, with the one lane from I-81 North dropping.
* MM 100-105 - Construct Truck Climbing Lane (westbound only) (Afton Mountain)
* MM 184-186 - Widen to 8 lanes
* MM 205-211 - Segment VII - Widen to 6 lanes
* MM 211-218 - Segment VI - Widen to 6 lanes
* MM 218-224 - Segment V - Widen to 6 lanes
* MM 224-233 - Segment IV - Widen to 6 lanes
* I-64 / US-13 Interchange - Widen I-64 East to 5 lanes between US-13 and I-264, widen US-13 South to I-64 East ramp to 2 lanes, raise I-64 bridges over VA-165 & US-58
* I-64 / I-464 Interchange - Construct flyover from I-64 East to I-464 South (VA-168 / US-17)

As far as I-664 projects, a couple acceleration / deceleration proposals plus a couple auxiliary lanes on the Peninsula - that's about it.


Thoughts overall...
I'm surprised with some of the truck climbing lane proposals west of I-81... I will grant there are steeper grades that slow trucks, but the traffic volumes are so low they usually don't present issues - at least not enough to warrant widening. Good to see some continued push for Afton Mountain truck climbing lanes - where traffic volumes are high enough that slow trucks do cause a hazard - though this should be definitely be in both directions on the inclines - it's not a one direction issue, it's both.

As far as Richmond to Williamsburg goes, I'm surprised, given the nature of these "Corridor Improvement Studies" that didn't recommend much in the way of lane widening for I-81 and even I-95 north of Fredericksburg - but pleased that they did include full six lane widening for this stretch which is desperately needed.

In the Hampton Roads are in particular, not much recommendations in particular, largely given the planned Express Lane network which will overhaul many of these substandard highway segments - though will not add any general purpose capacity. A couple notable features in particular would be the I-64 East 5 lane widening between US-13 and I-264, and the I-64 East to I-464 South (VA-168 / US-17) flyover. Both of these are major bottlenecks during the afternoon rush hour, and have gotten significantly worse over the last decade. I'm slightly disappointed with the I-64 to I-464 flyover proposal, which they included a graphic of in a CTB presentation, which would create a left entrance / merge scenario for traffic bound to VA-168 South, while retaining the existing loop ramp for US-17 South traffic. Such a project would help relieve congestion to some extent at the interchange - though would fail to address it in many other areas (particularly the weave of I-464 North to I-64 and I-64 to I-464 South traffic - which will only continue to increase as growth along the US-17 corridor does, and especially in the long term of I-87 to NC is constructed) and implement a low speed, tight flyover into the left lane of high-speed traffic on I-464 South. In my opinion, this interchange is due for a massive overhaul, with both bridges over I-64 being fully replaced, at least two flyovers constructed from I-64 East to I-464 South, tying to both US-17 and VA-168 South (fully eliminating the loop ramp), and from I-464 North to I-64 East, and at least some sort of braided ramp system similar to Greenbrier between the I-464 and VA-168 Business interchange. It would be more expensive, though would be much better set for the long-term than the current proposal, and address all of the problematic areas. Below is a diagram provided in the CTB presentation of the proposal.

(https://i.ibb.co/Mcv2g7B/I64-I464-Interchange-Recommendation.png)

The study offers no recommendations for the I-264 interchange, Bowers Hill Interchange, or practically any of I-664, though I imagine this is because they are all currently being studied as individual projects - something that needs to eventually happen to the Oak Grove (I-464) interchange as a whole.

Website: https://www.i-64-664publicinfo.com/

Overall fairly pleased with these initial study recommendations with my only complaints being the lack of improvements on I-664 (barely any) and the lack of a recommendation for phase 2 of the high-rise bridge project. Surprised that the Oak Grove interchange isn't getting a bigger overhaul (although I'd prefer the state be cheap there than on I-64 widening between Richmond and Williamsburg) and hopefully the Bowers Hill and I-264 interchanges will continue to be improved as planned. Regarding the truck climbing lanes west of I-81, I would also agree that these probably aren't necessary and would instead like to see that funding redirected for an eastbound truck climbing lane up both Afton Mountain and up Ragged Mountain (just after Exit 114). Also, I would add to the notable proposals list that I-64 near Richmond will be getting auxiliary lanes between pretty much every exit between US-250 (Short Pump) and the I-95 interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on October 27, 2020, 11:04:50 AM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on October 19, 2020, 09:52:44 AM

Quote
I can see, as I also disagree. I am hoping that we're doing this in a friendly manner, that's for sure.

The 234 bypass is certainly a nice road and all, but as mentioned earlier I do lament how they're not planning for the entire route (at least through the 294/234 Bus. intersection complex) to be completely grade-separated. At the very least, we are getting a few new interchanges. Orientation-wise, I can presume this was the only convenient corridor for such - things do happen for a reason.

I do agree that 28 is a major corridor - that point I do support. It is a shame how it isn't being upgraded thoroughly through Fairfax, and that the other problems add weight to it. I'll certainly take it as a last resort option though. Wouldn't want sprawl to increase out in Nokesville/Catlett (though from sprawl, I'd certainly like to see new retail centers  :-D )
As for the third option, are you speaking of the Alt 9 (1/2) plan presented a while back? I'll admit that one was a very mediocre idea. On top of skirting close to Bull Run for longer and becoming host to some eminent domain problems, the routing for it just didn't make that much sense. Even Alt 4 has a partial bypass (Godwin Dr) and a clear strip of land going for it.


I think they DO want to upgrade the whole 234/294 intersection.
Also, FFX IS upgrading all of RT 28 from Bull Run to Loudoun.

Fixed quote.  -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 27, 2020, 03:36:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 12:27:41 AM
VDOT and the CTB have released their initial recommendations for the I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study which covers the entire length of I-64 from the West Virginia line to Hampton Roads, along the entirety of I-664.

Forgot to mention this earlier but according to the recent I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study video, VDOT plans to conduct similar corridor improvement studies on I-77, I-85, I-295, and I-66. I obviously don't expect these to be done for quite a while but it will be interesting to see what type of improvements are recommended. Will probably be small things like traffic management, acceleration/deacceleration lane extensions, and possibly some truck climbing lanes, but we shall see.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 03:50:39 PM
I feel like I-77 will involve some sort of widening and truck climbing lanes in area.

Can't see virtually anything for I-85 or I-295 - those highways are perfectly adequate.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 27, 2020, 05:30:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 03:50:39 PM
I feel like I-77 will involve some sort of widening and truck climbing lanes in area.

Can't see virtually anything for I-85 or I-295 - those highways are perfectly adequate.

Agreed although I wouldn't be surprised if some recommendations were made for the portion of I-85 through Petersburg since this stretch was once part of the old RPT and has by far the highest AADT (60,000). Probably just safety improvements though.

For I-66, since I doubt much will be recommended east of Haymarket (although I'd still like to see the completion of 3 westbound gp lanes from Exit 71 (VA-120) to Exit 67 (VA-267), my guess is that fixing the current left lane merge at Exit 23 (very dangerous IMO) and adding auxiliary lanes between Exits 27 and 28 will be the biggest/most expensive improvement recommendations.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 28, 2020, 09:56:50 PM
https://twitter.com/ChesapeakeRoads/status/1321529218279288832
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 28, 2020, 11:05:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 12:27:41 AM
VDOT and the CTB have released their initial recommendations for the I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study which covers the entire length of I-64 from the West Virginia line to Hampton Roads, along the entirety of I-664.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on October 27, 2020, 03:36:47 PM
Forgot to mention this earlier but according to the recent I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study video, VDOT plans to conduct similar corridor improvement studies on I-77, I-85, I-295, and I-66. I obviously don't expect these to be done for quite a while but it will be interesting to see what type of improvements are recommended. Will probably be small things like traffic management, acceleration/deacceleration lane extensions, and possibly some truck climbing lanes, but we shall see.

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 03:50:39 PM
Can't see virtually anything for I-85 or I-295 - those highways are perfectly adequate.

Thinking of I-85 and I-295 as a single rural corridor bypassing Petersburg, speed improvements are still needed (say increasing everything to at least 65 mph).  I-85 from Northern Dinwiddie to I-95 still has poor onramps and merge areas and needs other improvements to increase speeds.  Also, I think that some of the connection from I-85 to I-295 (along I-95 southbound) was still posted at 55 mph.  The slower zig-zag ramps from I-85 to I-95 threading in the collector/distributor for US-301 is probably OK, as is the weird cloverleaf ramp from I-95 northbound to I-85 southbound (leftover from the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike).  How sad that I-795 never got completed, but remnant Wagner Road has never panned out as a viable shortcut.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on October 29, 2020, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 28, 2020, 11:05:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 12:27:41 AM
VDOT and the CTB have released their initial recommendations for the I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study which covers the entire length of I-64 from the West Virginia line to Hampton Roads, along the entirety of I-664.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on October 27, 2020, 03:36:47 PM
Forgot to mention this earlier but according to the recent I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study video, VDOT plans to conduct similar corridor improvement studies on I-77, I-85, I-295, and I-66. I obviously don't expect these to be done for quite a while but it will be interesting to see what type of improvements are recommended. Will probably be small things like traffic management, acceleration/deacceleration lane extensions, and possibly some truck climbing lanes, but we shall see.

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 03:50:39 PM
Can't see virtually anything for I-85 or I-295 - those highways are perfectly adequate.

Thinking of I-85 and I-295 as a single rural corridor bypassing Petersburg, speed improvements are still needed (say increasing everything to at least 65 mph).  I-85 from Northern Dinwiddie to I-95 still has poor onramps and merge areas and needs other improvements to increase speeds.  Also, I think that some of the connection from I-85 to I-295 (along I-95 southbound) was still posted at 55 mph.  The slower zig-zag ramps from I-85 to I-95 threading in the collector/distributor for US-301 is probably OK, as is the weird cloverleaf ramp from I-95 northbound to I-85 southbound (leftover from the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike).  How sad that I-795 never got completed, but remnant Wagner Road has never panned out as a viable shortcut.
From my experience, I-85 warrants a connection to I-295. The northern few miles do get congested, and there's no reason traffic shouldn't be using the bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 29, 2020, 08:20:53 AM
^

A lot of through traffic on I-85 North usually just defaults onto I-95 North through Petersburg and Richmond because to get to I-295, it involves a good bit of backtracking, which unless I-95 is congested, is not viable.

VA-895 serves as a connector to I-295 between the cities, but again, is still out of the way and not viable unless there's congestion.

VA-895 has better usage for traffic from I-85 and I-95 North to I-64 East to points such as Williamsburg and parts of the Peninsula, which isn't a whole lot, plus considering the $4+ toll for the short roadway that can easily be avoided.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 29, 2020, 08:23:47 AM
It's actually only four miles south from I-85 to I-295. There's really not a ton of reason not to go that way. I remember the first time I did so was because I was moving my stuff from Durham back to Fairfax County and my car was so crammed full of stuff that I had trouble seeing out of my mirrors, so I thought the lower traffic volumes on I-295 meant that road would be the safer route (especially compared to the twisty stretch through Richmond).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 29, 2020, 08:30:28 AM
^

Assuming free flow travel conditions, Google Maps estimates an additional 10 minutes and 14 miles to follow I-295 vs. I-95. It takes about 10-12 minutes to reach I-295 at the same horizontal position around Fort Lee that I-85 meets I-95 in Petersburg.

That's extending a trip from 30 minutes to 40 minutes. During heavy traffic? Might be desirable. Middle of the day? At night? Probably not.

There's a sign on I-95 South north of I-295 that tells long distance traffic to I-85 South Atlanta to follow I-95 South.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 29, 2020, 08:32:51 AM
From a time standpoint there is nothing wrong with using US 460 Business between I-85/95 and I-295 vs. taking 95 south to 295. 

Unless you have trouble keeping it at the speed limit of 40.

But this is the way I always make this connection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 29, 2020, 08:36:13 AM
I've taken US-460 Business a couple times recently coming from either I-95 South, US-460 West, and I-85 North, and despite the artificially low limit, traffic is usually flowing around 50-55 mph so it usually isn't a problem. Just watch for police.

If I wasn't heading to US-460 East, but to I-295 North, I'd probably just stay on the interstate.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 29, 2020, 08:45:45 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 29, 2020, 08:30:28 AM
^

Assuming free flow travel conditions, Google Maps estimates an additional 10 minutes and 14 miles to follow I-295 vs. I-95. It takes about 10-12 minutes to reach I-295 at the same horizontal position around Fort Lee that I-85 meets I-95 in Petersburg.

That's extending a trip from 30 minutes to 40 minutes. During heavy traffic? Might be desirable. Middle of the day? At night? Probably not.

There's a sign on I-95 South north of I-295 that tells long distance traffic to I-85 South Atlanta to follow I-95 South.

I guess in the scheme of things, whether that 10-minute difference matters depends on the context of your overall trip. If it's a relatively local trip, that might be a big difference. In my case, if I'm going through there it's always part of a longer overall drive–back in the 1990s it was between Fairfax County and my apartment on Duke's Central Campus, or nowadays it would be more likely to be a longer trip such as to or from Charlotte or Atlanta (if I even used I-95 and I-85 at all for that drive). The last time I drove through there, we were coming back from Columbia, where we had stopped for the night on the way home from Florida. In the circumstances of a drive of that length, 10 minutes is trivial compared to the overall length of the trip. I think I did indeed loop south to I-295 on that drive, mainly just because I didn't want to put up with the lower speed limits on I-95.

But then, this IS a forum full of people who will think nothing of going 100 miles out of the way just to drive on a different road, so surely you will understand why going four miles out of the way is no big deal to someone here! Certainly, though, I understand why to many average drivers out there it would be deemed unacceptable to connect via I-95 because "you're going the wrong way." I used to work with a guy who wouldn't walk to the Metro stop nearest to our office on his trip home (unless he had to make another stop in that direction) because it was in the "wrong direction" relative to where he lived and he said mentally it made the commute feel longer.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 29, 2020, 09:08:50 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 12:27:41 AM
VDOT and the CTB have released their initial recommendations for the I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study which covers the entire length of I-64 from the West Virginia line to Hampton Roads, along the entirety of I-664.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on October 27, 2020, 03:36:47 PM
Forgot to mention this earlier but according to the recent I-64 / I-664 Corridor Improvement Study video, VDOT plans to conduct similar corridor improvement studies on I-77, I-85, I-295, and I-66. I obviously don't expect these to be done for quite a while but it will be interesting to see what type of improvements are recommended. Will probably be small things like traffic management, acceleration/deacceleration lane extensions, and possibly some truck climbing lanes, but we shall see.

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 27, 2020, 03:50:39 PM
Can't see virtually anything for I-85 or I-295 - those highways are perfectly adequate.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 28, 2020, 11:05:15 PM
Thinking of I-85 and I-295 as a single rural corridor bypassing Petersburg, speed improvements are still needed (say increasing everything to at least 65 mph).  I-85 from Northern Dinwiddie to I-95 still has poor onramps and merge areas and needs other improvements to increase speeds.  Also, I think that some of the connection from I-85 to I-295 (along I-95 southbound) was still posted at 55 mph.  The slower zig-zag ramps from I-85 to I-95 threading in the collector/distributor for US-301 is probably OK, as is the weird cloverleaf ramp from I-95 northbound to I-85 southbound (leftover from the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike).  How sad that I-795 never got completed, but remnant Wagner Road has never panned out as a viable shortcut.

I commuted regularly between Central NC and Northern Virginia for more than 10 years.  Tried all of these tricks multiple times at various times of the day, and still use I-95 through downtown when traffic permits.  Not intending to offend sprjus4, but my post was to refute the comment that I-85 doesn't need improvements by pointing out some areas on both I-85 and I-295 that could benefit from smaller projects that would permit the increase of speed limits.  Totally agree that both I-85 and I-295 are adequate most of the time, albeit marginally so.

Quote from: Alps on October 29, 2020, 12:34:27 AM
From my experience, I-85 warrants a connection to I-295. The northern few miles do get congested, and there's no reason traffic shouldn't be using the bypass.

I agree.  However, I think that the primary justification is not the volume of long-distance traffic but rather to divert any traffic that is adding to local rush hour congestion.  But since I've never seen I-85 north of Exit 63 (US-1 Boydton Plank Road) get to Level D congestion or worse, I'm sure that VDOT has more important fish to fry.  But a more direct connection to I-285 should be a preferred alternative as compared to an expensive widening of I-85.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 29, 2020, 11:38:30 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 29, 2020, 09:08:50 AM
Not intending to offend sprjus4, but my post was to refute the comment that I-85 doesn't need improvements by pointing out some areas on both I-85 and I-295 that could benefit from smaller projects that would permit the increase of speed limits.  Totally agree that both I-85 and I-295 are adequate most of the time, albeit marginally so.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 28, 2020, 11:05:15 PM
Thinking of I-85 and I-295 as a single rural corridor bypassing Petersburg, speed improvements are still needed (say increasing everything to at least 65 mph).  I-85 from Northern Dinwiddie to I-95 still has poor onramps and merge areas and needs other improvements to increase speeds.  Also, I think that some of the connection from I-85 to I-295 (along I-95 southbound) was still posted at 55 mph.  The slower zig-zag ramps from I-85 to I-95 threading in the collector/distributor for US-301 is probably OK, as is the weird cloverleaf ramp from I-95 northbound to I-85 southbound (leftover from the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike).  How sad that I-795 never got completed, but remnant Wagner Road has never panned out as a viable shortcut.
The only improvements I could think of for I-85 would be acceleration lane / deceleration lane extensions at the Squirrel Level Rd interchange, and a potentially more extensive reconstruction / reconfiguration of the I-95 interchange.

When looking at the scope of the Corridor Improvement Studies and improvements recommended for I-95, I-81, and now I-64, large scale improvements seem to not be the picture in many cases, except when sorely needed - which they did recommend 6 lane widening of I-64 between Richmond and Williamsburg, but not 8 lane widening on I-95 at least north of Fredericksburg -

Given the few times I've driven I-85 between I-95 and US-301 (the Turnpike segment), I'd argue the speed limit could be raised to 65 mph even now. Traffic seems to move at 70 - 75 mph, even pushed 80 mph once going with a group of other cars, without any issues, and increasing it would bring it closer to reality. Wouldn't necessarily recommend 70 mph as an official limit there due to curvature, narrow alignment, etc.

Going back to the I-64 discussion, one place I'd certainly like to see a speed limit increase is along I-664 in Chesapeake and Suffolk to at least 65 mph, along with potentially I-64 between Bowers Hill and Indian River Rd once the High Rise Bridge / I-64 widening is completed in that area. The speed limit east of I-464, and along the High Rise Bridge corridor before construction began is / was 60 mph. Before the 1974 55 mph reduction, the speed limit was posted at 65 mph both along that stretch of I-64 and along I-264 / then VA-44 east of I-64 to the Oceanfront. VDOT recently increased the speed limit on a busy, urban 8 lane segment of I-64 in Newport News from 60 mph to 65 mph, and has hardly made a difference as far as increasing driving speeds - it's simply closer to the reality (70 - 75 mph). I was hoping this would be the start of more increases, but ever since that one in 2018, there has not been any others in the region.

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 29, 2020, 08:45:45 AM
I think I did indeed loop south to I-295 on that drive, mainly just because I didn't want to put up with the lower speed limits on I-95.
That could also indeed be a factor. 55 / 60 mph along I-95 vs. 70 mph on I-295. I'm not ruling out I-295 as an alternative, I'm just indicating that the majority following a GPS and guide signage are likely going to follow I-95 North through Petersburg and Richmond.

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 29, 2020, 08:45:45 AM
But then, this IS a forum full of people who will think nothing of going 100 miles out of the way just to drive on a different road, so surely you will understand why going four miles out of the way is no big deal to someone here! Certainly, though, I understand why to many average drivers out there it would be deemed unacceptable to connect via I-95 because "you're going the wrong way." I used to work with a guy who wouldn't walk to the Metro stop nearest to our office on his trip home (unless he had to make another stop in that direction) because it was in the "wrong direction" relative to where he lived and he said mentally it made the commute feel longer.
Agreed. I'm not one who does out of the way drives a lot, though have done some pretty recently, including taking I-95, I-295, and I-64 as opposed to US-58 coming from the south, mainly to clinch I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg, and to see the recently complete / on-going construction on the Peninsula and outside Richmond, and recently taking I-85 North to US-460 to clinch I-85 between South Hill and Petersburg. Frankly, the I-85 to US-460 route isn't a terrible alternative - it's only about 15 minutes longer over a 90 minute trip, and only has around 50 miles of arterial highway vs. nearly 100 on US-58. The trade-off though is 50 miles of undivided highway, towns, etc. Usually, if it's outside of peak hours and I'm coming from I-85 in central NC, I'll usually just take I-40 and US-64 over to I-95 to connect to US-58 at Emporia - or keep going to US-17, to avoid that 55 mph 30 mile stretch between South Hill and Emporia on US-58.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 29, 2020, 12:06:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 29, 2020, 08:45:45 AM
I think I did indeed loop south to I-295 on that drive, mainly just because I didn't want to put up with the lower speed limits on I-95.

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 29, 2020, 11:38:30 AM
That could also indeed be a factor. 55 / 60 mph along I-95 vs. 70 mph on I-295. I'm not ruling out I-295 as an alternative, I'm just indicating that the majority following a GPS and guide signage are likely going to follow I-95 North through Petersburg and Richmond.

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 29, 2020, 08:45:45 AM
But then, this IS a forum full of people who will think nothing of going 100 miles out of the way just to drive on a different road, so surely you will understand why going four miles out of the way is no big deal to someone here! Certainly, though, I understand why to many average drivers out there it would be deemed unacceptable to connect via I-95 because "you're going the wrong way." I used to work with a guy who wouldn't walk to the Metro stop nearest to our office on his trip home (unless he had to make another stop in that direction) because it was in the "wrong direction" relative to where he lived and he said mentally it made the commute feel longer.

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 29, 2020, 11:38:30 AM
Agreed. I'm not one who does out of the way drives a lot, though have done some pretty recently, including taking I-95, I-295, and I-64 as opposed to US-58 coming from the south, mainly to clinch I-95 between Emporia and Petersburg, and to see the recently complete / on-going construction on the Peninsula and outside Richmond, and recently taking I-85 North to US-460 to clinch I-85 between South Hill and Petersburg. Frankly, the I-85 to US-460 route isn't a terrible alternative - it's only about 15 minutes longer over a 90 minute trip, and only has around 50 miles of arterial highway vs. nearly 100 on US-58. The trade-off though is 50 miles of undivided highway, towns, etc. Usually, if it's outside of peak hours and I'm coming from I-85 in central NC, I'll usually just take I-40 and US-64 over to I-95 to connect to US-58 at Emporia - or keep going to US-17, to avoid that 55 mph 30 mile stretch between South Hill and Emporia on US-58.

All of which reminds me that most of my hard-core roadtripping was done during the 1980s while covering railroad projects all over the place.  I could justify out-of-the-way roadtrips because in most cases the distances were much shorter, and travel times were compared to congested four-lane Interstates posted at 55 mph.  Back then, I would never go and backtrack the 4 miles just to hop on I-295, because it surely took 20 to 25 minutes longer than the Chippenham (VA-150) or even using Belt Boulevard (VA-161) through town to get around rush hour.   That was all before the Chippenham and the Powhite Parkway (Toll VA-76) got extended for more options.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 29, 2020, 02:37:09 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 29, 2020, 08:20:53 AM
^

A lot of through traffic on I-85 North usually just defaults onto I-95 North through Petersburg and Richmond because to get to I-295, it involves a good bit of backtracking, which unless I-95 is congested, is not viable.

VA-895 serves as a connector to I-295 between the cities, but again, is still out of the way and not viable unless there's congestion.

VA-895 has better usage for traffic from I-85 and I-95 North to I-64 East to points such as Williamsburg and parts of the Peninsula, which isn't a whole lot, plus considering the $4+ toll for the short roadway that can easily be avoided.

While it is true that VA-895 is a path between I-95 and I-295, it is not cheap, and was not really built for that purpose.

Having a connection of some kind between I-85 and I-295 is a good idea for a few reasons:

1. Network redundancy
2. Might encourage some drivers headed south on I-95 to I-85 to avoid the former Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike section of I-95 through Richmond (that is the one section of highway in metropolitan Richmond that showed significant recurring congestion when I looked at it a few years ago)
3. Reduces the need for major improvements in the interchange where I-85 terminates at I-95
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2020, 04:10:19 PM
My cut across between I-85 and I-295 is usually via VA-10. Its a decent enough divided roadway and it hasn't been too busy the times I've used it. It doesn't avoid the sometimes crowded part of I-95 thru Colonial Heights though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 03, 2020, 08:47:05 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2020, 04:10:19 PM
My cut across between I-85 and I-295 is usually via VA-10. Its a decent enough divided roadway and it hasn't been too busy the times I've used it. It doesn't avoid the sometimes crowded part of I-95 thru Colonial Heights though.

I used to do this for many years until the area around the Sheetz at Rivers Bend started to get congested.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on November 03, 2020, 09:03:09 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 03, 2020, 08:47:05 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2020, 04:10:19 PM
My cut across between I-85 and I-295 is usually via VA-10. Its a decent enough divided roadway and it hasn't been too busy the times I've used it. It doesn't avoid the sometimes crowded part of I-95 thru Colonial Heights though.

I used to do this for many years until the area around the Sheetz at Rivers Bend started to get congested.
There's also construction on quite a bit of that stretch of VA 10 now, along with the nearby Amazon distribution center thriving, making things even worse.

Having to drive I-95 up to Richmond every day now for work, it typically isn't that bad south of I-64 east (exit 75). The only part where traffic regularly slows down is the mess that is the merge area between West Broad and 64. Coming home on 64 westbound approaching 95 is also occasionally backed up due to frequent accidents.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on November 04, 2020, 09:04:44 AM
As a side note: the I-95/I-64 overlap as well as I-64 a couple miles west of it finally has lighting (well it's been lit for a month now). Hooray!!!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 04, 2020, 03:17:14 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTNOVA/status/1324079471113211915?s=20
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 04, 2020, 07:09:31 PM
Looks good!

Can anyone explain the extra lane (https://goo.gl/maps/ZmGJvuAMYnuLrRpaA) eastbound on 395 that is painted off? It starts right as the exit for Reagan Airport and Boundary Channel Drive leaves 395.

Sleuthing around on Street View, it looks like it might be a parking bay for WMATA employees to descend into the Metro tunnel, but then that lane was built back when the eastbound bridge was originally constructed around 1950? And well before the Metro came into existence. I guess its purpose could have changed.

EDIT: actually, the tunnel looks to go beneath 395 and has nothing to do with the Metro tunnel. I can see from historic aerials (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/38.871460271167884/-77.04364099055356/1951/18) that it connected to a building that was originally between the two carriageways. But still, that tunnel also came well after construction of the 395's eastbound bridge.

There is a path that once connected it to this parking bay (https://goo.gl/maps/HCkndTZvwdvsGSGb7) along the GW Parkway. I also don't know the purpose of this parking bay.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 04, 2020, 08:38:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 04, 2020, 07:09:31 PM
Looks good!

Can anyone explain the extra lane (https://goo.gl/maps/ZmGJvuAMYnuLrRpaA) eastbound on 395 that is painted off? It starts right as the exit for Reagan Airport and Boundary Channel Drive leaves 395.

Sleuthing around on Street View, it looks like it might be a parking bay for WMATA employees to descend into the Metro tunnel, but then that lane was built back when the eastbound bridge was originally constructed around 1950? And well before the Metro came into existence. I guess its purpose could have changed.

EDIT: actually, the tunnel looks to go beneath 395 and has nothing to do with the Metro tunnel. I can see from historic aerials (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/38.871460271167884/-77.04364099055356/1951/18) that it connected to a building that was originally between the two carriageways. But still, that tunnel also came well after construction of the 395's eastbound bridge.

There is a path that once connected it to this parking bay (https://goo.gl/maps/HCkndTZvwdvsGSGb7) along the GW Parkway. I also don't know the purpose of this parking bay.

I believe everything you are asking can be answered by reading replies 1791-1809 of this thread (pages 72-73).  It is fascinating.  Major credit goes to CP Zilliacus for the background on this topic,

There used to be 3 bus stops around this area and your GMSV links are to 2 of them.  The 3rd one is here (bus stop is to the left of barrels and the tunnel entrance to the right)  - https://goo.gl/maps/X5yP4LfU1anPzsRz6

They formed a pedestrian tunnel/walkway system to connect the building between the median you found (old Hot Shoppes) and also the Marriott Hotel that used to be at the very east end of Boundary Channel Dr.

The bus stops go back to about 1950 for the Hot Shoppes and the tunnels didn't come until later (by 1963) when the road network expanded and the Marriott also appeared.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 04, 2020, 10:01:08 PM
^^^^

It's also funny to look back at those posts from over four years ago and to see that in post 1800 I mentioned a proposal to rebuild that area using roundabouts, given the tweet I linked to earlier today!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 04, 2020, 11:09:39 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 04, 2020, 08:38:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 04, 2020, 07:09:31 PM
Looks good!

Can anyone explain the extra lane (https://goo.gl/maps/ZmGJvuAMYnuLrRpaA) eastbound on 395 that is painted off? It starts right as the exit for Reagan Airport and Boundary Channel Drive leaves 395.

Sleuthing around on Street View, it looks like it might be a parking bay for WMATA employees to descend into the Metro tunnel, but then that lane was built back when the eastbound bridge was originally constructed around 1950? And well before the Metro came into existence. I guess its purpose could have changed.

EDIT: actually, the tunnel looks to go beneath 395 and has nothing to do with the Metro tunnel. I can see from historic aerials (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/38.871460271167884/-77.04364099055356/1951/18) that it connected to a building that was originally between the two carriageways. But still, that tunnel also came well after construction of the 395's eastbound bridge.

There is a path that once connected it to this parking bay (https://goo.gl/maps/HCkndTZvwdvsGSGb7) along the GW Parkway. I also don't know the purpose of this parking bay.

I believe everything you are asking can be answered by reading replies 1791-1809 of this thread (pages 72-73).  It is fascinating.  Major credit goes to CP Zilliacus for the background on this topic,

There used to be 3 bus stops around this area and your GMSV links are to 2 of them.  The 3rd one is here (bus stop is to the left of barrels and the tunnel entrance to the right)  - https://goo.gl/maps/X5yP4LfU1anPzsRz6

They formed a pedestrian tunnel/walkway system to connect the building between the median you found (old Hot Shoppes) and also the Marriott Hotel that used to be at the very east end of Boundary Channel Dr.

The bus stops go back to about 1950 for the Hot Shoppes and the tunnels didn't come until later (by 1963) when the road network expanded and the Marriott also appeared.

A great read!! Thank you for mentioning those posts. I tried to do some searching but wasn't quite sure what to search exactly. I tried 395 + layby and other terms that roughly describe what they are...no results.

It is rather interesting that the bus stops were built almost exclusively for that restaurant and Marriott facility. Transit remains a very popular way to get around DC, but it seems like quite a lot of construction for two facilities that already had ample parking and likely didn't much care for the transit-goer. Unless I'm underestimating the importance of transit access in 50s DC...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on November 05, 2020, 10:58:37 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 04, 2020, 11:09:39 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 04, 2020, 08:38:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 04, 2020, 07:09:31 PM
Looks good!

Can anyone explain the extra lane (https://goo.gl/maps/ZmGJvuAMYnuLrRpaA) eastbound on 395 that is painted off? It starts right as the exit for Reagan Airport and Boundary Channel Drive leaves 395.

Sleuthing around on Street View, it looks like it might be a parking bay for WMATA employees to descend into the Metro tunnel, but then that lane was built back when the eastbound bridge was originally constructed around 1950? And well before the Metro came into existence. I guess its purpose could have changed.

EDIT: actually, the tunnel looks to go beneath 395 and has nothing to do with the Metro tunnel. I can see from historic aerials (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/38.871460271167884/-77.04364099055356/1951/18) that it connected to a building that was originally between the two carriageways. But still, that tunnel also came well after construction of the 395's eastbound bridge.

There is a path that once connected it to this parking bay (https://goo.gl/maps/HCkndTZvwdvsGSGb7) along the GW Parkway. I also don't know the purpose of this parking bay.

I believe everything you are asking can be answered by reading replies 1791-1809 of this thread (pages 72-73).  It is fascinating.  Major credit goes to CP Zilliacus for the background on this topic,

There used to be 3 bus stops around this area and your GMSV links are to 2 of them.  The 3rd one is here (bus stop is to the left of barrels and the tunnel entrance to the right)  - https://goo.gl/maps/X5yP4LfU1anPzsRz6

They formed a pedestrian tunnel/walkway system to connect the building between the median you found (old Hot Shoppes) and also the Marriott Hotel that used to be at the very east end of Boundary Channel Dr.

The bus stops go back to about 1950 for the Hot Shoppes and the tunnels didn't come until later (by 1963) when the road network expanded and the Marriott also appeared.

A great read!! Thank you for mentioning those posts. I tried to do some searching but wasn't quite sure what to search exactly. I tried 395 + layby and other terms that roughly describe what they are...no results.

It is rather interesting that the bus stops were built almost exclusively for that restaurant and Marriott facility. Transit remains a very popular way to get around DC, but it seems like quite a lot of construction for two facilities that already had ample parking and likely didn't much care for the transit-goer. Unless I'm underestimating the importance of transit access in 50s DC...

Similar freeway bus stop facilities exist in the L.A. area.  Here's one at US 101 @ Vermont Ave.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0799602,-118.2907413,3a,37.5y,298.33h,84.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdGzNO6WWW9sfj5srLfGoTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Here's a view from the street (which runs above the freeway) to the stairs that one would take to get to the bus stop.  As the stops are not used any more, they are now gated off.  The freeway express buses that stopped here were removed when L.A.'s subway was built in the area.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0792858,-118.2917322,3a,15y,65.77h,83.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYscY-BmWjxNt8tpwq5V6PQ!2e0!5s20190301T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 05, 2020, 01:36:00 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 05, 2020, 10:58:37 AM
Similar freeway bus stop facilities exist in the L.A. area.  Here's one at US 101 @ Vermont Ave.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0799602,-118.2907413,3a,37.5y,298.33h,84.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdGzNO6WWW9sfj5srLfGoTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Here's a view from the street (which runs above the freeway) to the stairs that one would take to get to the bus stop.  As the stops are not used any more, they are now gated off.  The freeway express buses that stopped here were removed when L.A.'s subway was built in the area.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0792858,-118.2917322,3a,15y,65.77h,83.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYscY-BmWjxNt8tpwq5V6PQ!2e0!5s20190301T000000!7i16384!8i8192

It looks like the outer stops are still used. Commuter Express 422? Looks like that route has more than a few freeway stops. Nearby Western Ave has a couple more.

That inside stop is definitely long closed, though (what was that used for anyways?). These (https://goo.gl/maps/U4HVnpqsXrnKj2628) stairs (https://goo.gl/maps/4EBFEaXrgjwqXHHE6) being open suggest that outer stops are still in use, although certainly not by anyone in a wheelchair!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 05, 2020, 02:40:54 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 04, 2020, 08:38:53 PM
I believe everything you are asking can be answered by reading replies 1791-1809 of this thread (pages 72-73).  It is fascinating.  Major credit goes to CP Zilliacus for the background on this topic,

There used to be 3 bus stops around this area and your GMSV links are to 2 of them.  The 3rd one is here (bus stop is to the left of barrels and the tunnel entrance to the right)  - https://goo.gl/maps/X5yP4LfU1anPzsRz6

They formed a pedestrian tunnel/walkway system to connect the building between the median you found (old Hot Shoppes) and also the Marriott Hotel that used to be at the very east end of Boundary Channel Dr.

The bus stops go back to about 1950 for the Hot Shoppes and the tunnels didn't come until later (by 1963) when the road network expanded and the Marriott also appeared.

Thanks for the kind words.

Regarding the bus stops on the I-395 mainline near Boundary Channel Drive, I think the use went down to zero after the Metrorail line to National Airport (which included a stop at the Pentagon) opened, and many (most?) WMATA Metrobus trips were turned back at the Pentagon or Crystal City instead of running to downtown D.C. (some of the Virginia bus trips went to Farragut Square, which if I recall correctly meant 19th Street, N.W. between I Street and K Street), others went to S W Mall (L'Enfant Plaza bus terminal) and others to Federal Triangle (for the buses from Virginia that meant 12th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.) and still others went to 11th Street and E Street, N.W. There was also a loop bus line that went from the Pentagon across the 14th Street Bridge to downtown D.C., looping around the National Mall and then back to Pentagon by way of the Arlington Memorial Bridge (and vice versa), which has been taken away and only recently partially replaced by the D.C. Circulator which does not run to the Pentagon (though IMO it should go to Pentagon or Pentagon City). 

In my cynical opinion, the bus turnbacks from the late 1970's and early 1980's were done for one reason only - so that WMATA could claim added trips on the then-new Metrorail system by forcing its patrons from Virginia to transfer to rail to get to their jobs in D.C.  Given that the Blue Line was the only one running (in those early days of Metrorail, some of the trips were signed Orange Line), that made for an inconvenient, long and slow Metrorail trip from Virginia to destinations in Federal Triangle or the near the National Mall, especially in the Southwest quadrant.

I believe this drove some people (maybe especially in the I-395 corridor) to abandon transit and start slugging (informal car-pooling), but I know of no studies of slugging that date back that far.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on November 05, 2020, 07:01:03 PM
^^^
Interesting take with regard to Metrorail and bus turn-backs.

If a metro area built a metro train system, it makes sense that they might want to eliminate certain redundant routes. Vancouver does this with SkyTrain, eliminating their "B-line" services simultaneous with the opening of SkyTrain lines. Most recent was the 98 B-line that was replaced by the Canada Line, and the 99 B-line will be replaced by the Broadway SkyTrain line. The 98 had 20k daily riders; 99 about 56k daily riders. The Canada Line now has ridership about 700% of the BRT line it replaced, thanks to additional development and other connections.

Now, that said, if the overlap was only for a short segment, it does seem odd to force all transfers. Those early Metrorail trains were not long, and I have hard time believing they could keep up with the demand. Eliminating a route that basically overlapped the entire rail segment makes sense, but clipping a bus line at the point where it overlaps is really not wise that close to the ultimate terminus.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 05, 2020, 07:16:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2020, 07:01:03 PM
^^^
Interesting take with regard to Metrorail and bus turn-backs.

If a metro area built a metro train system, it makes sense that they might want to eliminate certain redundant routes. Vancouver does this with SkyTrain, eliminating their "B-line" services simultaneous with the opening of SkyTrain lines. Most recent was the 98 B-line that was replaced by the Canada Line, and the 99 B-line will be replaced by the Broadway SkyTrain line. The 98 had 20k daily riders; 99 about 56k daily riders. The Canada Line now has ridership about 700% of the BRT line it replaced, thanks to additional development and other connections.

Now, that said, if the overlap was only for a short segment, it does seem odd to force all transfers. Those early Metrorail trains were not long, and I have hard time believing they could keep up with the demand. Eliminating a route that basically overlapped the entire rail segment makes sense, but clipping a bus line at the point where it overlaps is really not wise that close to the ultimate terminus.

Keep in mind that the late-1970s were very difficult financial times for Washington DC and other large cities.  The original Metrorail plans included a number of cutbacks in Metrobus services, and most certainly WMATA couldn't afford any extra services.  However, both bus and rail costs are related to headways (round trip time divided by operating fleet size), so it is not always obvious that a short cutback will cause a significant reduction in costs.  In general, agencies to minimize the operating fleet size in both modes by making certain adjustments to round trip time during the system design.  In those days, it was difficult to get good estimates of round trip times since computer simulations were still very labor intensive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 05, 2020, 07:55:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2020, 07:01:03 PM
^^^
Interesting take with regard to Metrorail and bus turn-backs.

Thank you.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2020, 07:01:03 PM
If a metro area built a metro train system, it makes sense that they might want to eliminate certain redundant routes. Vancouver does this with SkyTrain, eliminating their "B-line" services simultaneous with the opening of SkyTrain lines. Most recent was the 98 B-line that was replaced by the Canada Line, and the 99 B-line will be replaced by the Broadway SkyTrain line. The 98 had 20k daily riders; 99 about 56k daily riders. The Canada Line now has ridership about 700% of the BRT line it replaced, thanks to additional development and other connections.

I agree, and it has long been WMATA policy not to run too much parallel bus and rail service (ideally none, though they have long run bus and rail service between downtown D.C. and area east of the Anacostia River at the behest of D.C. municipal elected officials). 

But in the instance of forcing people off the buses at the Pentagon and on to Metro, I disagree for these reasons:

(1) The Pentagon is (and has always been) in the regional core, and making people transfer when they are already downtown by transit seems a way to discourage them from using transit, especially when they had to pay an entirely new fare to board the Metro.  Even now, with the SmarTrip card, there is still poor fare integration between WMATA bus and WMATA rail.

(2) Once the Metro was built further out, to City of Alexandria and then to Fairfax County, it made sense to turn a lot of the bus trips back at Metro stations. 

(3) To this day, several of the commuter bus operators (most of which originate beyond the counties and cities that belong to the WMATA interstate compact) run one-seat service to downtown D.C., though some of them also offer stops at suburban Metrorail stations for patrons who prefer to take rail (maybe because their trip is not taking them all the way to the downtown area).

Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2020, 07:01:03 PM
Now, that said, if the overlap was only for a short segment, it does seem odd to force all transfers. Those early Metrorail trains were not long, and I have hard time believing they could keep up with the demand. Eliminating a route that basically overlapped the entire rail segment makes sense, but clipping a bus line at the point where it overlaps is really not wise that close to the ultimate terminus.

Agreed about short trains.  Many were four railcar consists well after the completion of the Adopted Regional System in 2001 (it has since had two extensions added, one to Largo Town Center and then the line to Dulles Airport, which is supposed to open next year (2021) or maybe next after that (2022) - there are some pretty bad construction defects that must be corrected).  Only with the scrapping of the 1000-series (Rohr) units and the 4000-series units (Breda - these never got a midlife overhaul and it showed in terms of reliability) and the arrival of hundreds of new 7000-series Kawasaki units, and the upgrading of the traction power system to support eight car consists (it was deliberately undersized to "save money" when the system was being built) on two minute headways has it started to live up to the promises about peak-hour and peak-period ridership that were made in the 1960's and early 1970's when it was being designed and planned.

While COVID19 has turned everything about WMATA upside down and crashed its patronage (as it has in many other cities in the U.S. and elsewhere), in the past, providing good service to its customers was never very high on the list of its priorities.  This was (in my opinion) an especially bad example of that. 

The unfortunate thing is that the current WMATA General Manager, Paul Wiedefeld, has made great strides in getting the system to run better and has insisted on a safety culture (for far too long, safety at WMATA has been for show and lip service and demanding more tax dollars from the agencies that fund it).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on November 06, 2020, 08:19:31 AM
Another thing, and perhaps those with more knowledge of local history can opine, it seems that with the curtailing of the bus routes to the Pentagon, they also curtailed the HOV lanes to the Pentagon as well.  The section of 395 between Pentagon and DC used to have reserved 2-2 lanes for buses, then for buses and HOV, then only restricting during rush hours, but then for a long while (until recently with the Transurban HOT project) those lanes were open to all, even during rush hours.

So the curtailing of the buses to Pentagon led to the 395 express lanes being open to all (until last year) north of the Pentagon, even during rush hours.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 06, 2020, 09:04:25 AM
Quote from: mrsman on November 06, 2020, 08:19:31 AM
Another thing, and perhaps those with more knowledge of local history can opine, it seems that with the curtailing of the bus routes to the Pentagon, they also curtailed the HOV lanes to the Pentagon as well.  The section of 395 between Pentagon and DC used to have reserved 2-2 lanes for buses, then for buses and HOV, then only restricting during rush hours, but then for a long while (until recently with the Transurban HOT project) those lanes were open to all, even during rush hours.

So the curtailing of the buses to Pentagon led to the 395 express lanes being open to all (until last year) north of the Pentagon, even during rush hours.

The original reason why they allowed all traffic into the HOV lanes north of the Pentagon had to do with road construction in the District in the late 1980s. When I was a kid, "Ramp G," which is VDOT's internal designation for that slip ramp from northbound I-395 into the express lanes just east of where Macy's is today, was never open to traffic. It was there, it was just never open. Around 1988, I think it was (I can confirm later today), the District was doing roadwork and they feared it would cause the 14th Street Bridge to backup bigtime with delays spilling down I-395 and US-1 in Virginia, so with federal approval (apparently required at that time to modify the HOV rule), Ramp G was opened to all traffic and the "HOV bridge" was de-restricted. Coming the other way, the right-side slip ramp that now exists just before the Crystal City mainline exit didn't exist back then, and non-HOVs were allowed into the express lanes as far as the old slip ramp that was on the right just past the Pentagon ramps (adjacent to where the reversible roadway begins heading southbound; that slip ramp is now demolished).

The construction project in DC ended, but the HOV restriction was never re-imposed on the 14th Street Bridge in part due to fear of a driver revolt, plus traffic got substantially worse over the years anyway. When the HO/T restrictions were imposed, they imposed those over the bridge out of concern that if they didn't do so, it would provide a disincentive for paying traffic to use the HO/T lanes. Naturally, some people have been bleating and crying about it being "unfair" or "illegal" to do that. "Illegal" is clearly nonsense–VDOT could have re-imposed the old HOV restriction at any time (and I believe in 1988 it was still HOV-4 on I-395), so essentially imposing the HO/T restriction there is doing just that except that the new restriction is less strict than what used to be in place.

I know we had some discussion about that particular ramp and the circumstances behind it sometime in the past and in the course of that discussion I found some contemporaneous media coverage. I'll try to look for it later today.


Edited to add: A Google search for "Ramp G" Pentagon I-395 found the Washington Post coverage from the original Dr. Gridlock (Ron Shaffer) and the links are below in chronological order.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1988/12/09/gifts/6b88cbf7-dbee-4e57-9442-f467171a7e87/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1991/08/01/hov-lanes-revisited/a7fbb33a-d9d4-4f41-adc7-5aae6d12752a/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 06, 2020, 10:21:58 AM
Quote from: mrsman on November 06, 2020, 08:19:31 AM
Another thing, and perhaps those with more knowledge of local history can opine, it seems that with the curtailing of the bus routes to the Pentagon, they also curtailed the HOV lanes to the Pentagon as well.  The section of 395 between Pentagon and DC used to have reserved 2-2 lanes for buses, then for buses and HOV, then only restricting during rush hours, but then for a long while (until recently with the Transurban HOT project) those lanes were open to all, even during rush hours.

So the curtailing of the buses to Pentagon led to the 395 express lanes being open to all (until last year) north of the Pentagon, even during rush hours.

The HOV restrictions on I-395 north of the Pentagon were ended at the request of the predecessor agency to DDOT in about 1989, due to bridge work in D.C. on the northbound span of the conventional lanes of the I-395 14th Street Bridge and at the Case Bridge (next span on I-395 beyond the 14th Street Bridge and at the ramps with 12th Street, S.W.; Maine Avenue, S.W.; and 7th Street, S.W.). 

Southbound, the restrictions were also lifted coming out of D.C. (VDOT built the so-called "Temp" ramp at roughly Boundary Channel Drive southbound - this is effectively the mirror of Ramp G on the northbound side) to allow non-HOV traffic to exit the express lane roadway, and that was where the HOV-3 restriction began afternoons.

After the project(s) in D.C. were completed, the HOV-3 restrictions were never put back for reasons not clear to me. IMO that was a mistake.

Regarding the bus traffic, even with nearly all WMATA bus (Metrobus) service turned-back at the Pentagon, there has still been plenty of bus traffic coming north into D.C. from providers like PRTC OmniRide (Prince William County) and National Coach (now Martz) from Fredericksburg and nearby areas.  And of course some Greyhounds, Megabuses and at least one Chinatown operator (formerly white buses with a panda, these are now using the green and orange Flixbus livery).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 07, 2020, 05:17:55 PM
Well, the pylons didn't stop them for long....

https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1325191785463812096?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2020, 12:57:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 07, 2020, 05:17:55 PM
Well, the pylons didn't stop them for long....

This would seem to be low-hanging fruit for VSP and Arlington PD to deal with.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 09, 2020, 12:16:16 AM
The pylons deter some people from cutting over, but those who still attempt it are making an even more dangerous maneuver. It's still dumb knowing the fact there's a direct HO/T entrance they can use as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 16, 2020, 04:55:59 PM
Time for round two...

Centerville Turnpike Bridge could be closed for months, Chesapeake says (https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/vp-nw-centerville-turnpike-bridge-closed-20201116-z5skvwd2n5c4ddmt4mn24ypnkq-story.html?fbclid=IwAR1gM6g4u_egoe6q45qLxKVKrNWZmvCnicyumEzqM4Lu8gUGPKQhVQqnTzk)
QuoteThe Centerville Turnpike Bridge in Chesapeake could be closed to traffic for months after it was hit by a barge early Saturday morning.

In a tweet Monday, the city said engineers and inspectors were conducting an assessment to determine the scope and extent of the damage.

"There is no timeline for how long the bridge will be closed to traffic, but preliminary estimates indicate it is likely to be closed for months,"  the tweet said.

Approximately 16,000 vehicles cross the two-lane bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway each day.

The span was closed in August 2019 for several months to repair the mechanism that allows it to pivot horizontally. At the time of the repairs, Earl Sorey, public works director, told a Virginian-Pilot reporter that the project was a revitalization that would give the bridge about 15 more years before it would need to be replaced.

While crews assess and repair the damage, motorists are advised to use the Va. 168 Expressway detour.

The Coast Guard and National Transportation Safety Board are handling the crash investigation. Anyone with information about the incident is asked to call the Sector Virginia Command Center at (757) 483-8567.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 21, 2020, 02:04:00 PM
I've been looking for specific information on a little town called The Plains, Virginia, because I wanted to find out if an old hotel they have there (the Carter Hotel) is specifically a railroad hotel. I found no info on that, but while searching through their history on the town's official website (http://theplainsvirginia.org/about-us), I noticed there was a lot of coverage of the excessive numbers of trucks that were running through VA 55 and all the problems they caused until I-66 was built nearby. Chief among them was a 1967 accident between a fuel oil truck and a Southern Railway freight train that nearly destroyed a good portion of the town:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkuih795fnk&feature=youtu.be

Just imagine if they had built I-66 earlier. That accident wouldn't have occurred.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 21, 2020, 03:31:25 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 21, 2020, 02:04:00 PM
I've been looking for specific information on a little town called The Plains, Virginia, because I wanted to find out if an old hotel they have there (the Carter Hotel) is specifically a railroad hotel. I found no info on that, but while searching through their history on the town's official website (http://theplainsvirginia.org/about-us), I noticed there was a lot of coverage of the excessive numbers of trucks that were running through VA 55 and all the problems they caused until I-66 was built nearby. Chief among them was a 1967 accident between a fuel oil truck and a Southern Railway freight train that nearly destroyed a good portion of the town:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkuih795fnk&feature=youtu.be

Just imagine if they had built I-66 earlier. That accident wouldn't have occurred.

I do not remember this, though I think it had to have gotten coverage on TV and in the Washington, D.C. newspapers (including especially the Washington Post).

But yes, there were probably a lot of HAZMAT loads that used VA-55 back then (and the grade crossing on VA-55 at the Norfolk Southern Manassass Gap line in The Plains is still there).  Tank farms in Manassas and in Fairfax served much of Virginia, and even today, there are a fair number of tank trucks carrying product that can be observed on I-66 in Fauquier County, where The Plains is located.  I-66 between Gainesville and I-81 was not to be completed until the early 1980's, though there was a short isolated section that bypassed Marshall (but not The Plains) that opened years earlier.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 21, 2020, 09:42:30 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 21, 2020, 02:04:00 PM
I've been looking for specific information on a little town called The Plains, Virginia, because I wanted to find out if an old hotel they have there (the Carter Hotel) is specifically a railroad hotel. I found no info on that


The original name of the hotel is Chinn's
https://greenmont.blog/2017/02/11/the-flemings-the-plains-va/
https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/VLR_to_transfer/PDFNoms/311-5001_ThePlainsHD_2014_NRHP_Final.pdf

It did have its own railroad platform and was listed in a 1917 railroad brochure (under a different name). Neither source outright says it was built by the railroad, though...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 24, 2020, 09:57:46 PM
Oh, another recent deer alert. Just like in 2018:
https://twitter.com/VaDOTNOVA/status/1330839808772624384

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 30, 2020, 12:38:31 PM
Another segment of US 1 - in Prince William County - has been renamed. (https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/prince-william-county-renaming-stretch-of-jefferson-davis-highway/) The segment of US 1 from Arlington County to the Prince William-Stafford County line is now Richmond Highway.

The segment in the City of Richmond is likely to also be renamed at a city council meeting in a couple of weeks. The only segments of US 1 still called Jefferson Davis Highway will be located in Stafford, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, and Chesterfield.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on December 02, 2020, 10:52:58 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 30, 2020, 12:38:31 PM
Another segment of US 1 - in Prince William County - has been renamed. (https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/prince-william-county-renaming-stretch-of-jefferson-davis-highway/) The segment of US 1 from Arlington County to the Prince William-Stafford County line is now Richmond Highway.

The segment in the City of Richmond is likely to also be renamed at a city council meeting in a couple of weeks. The only segments of US 1 still called Jefferson Davis Highway will be located in Stafford, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, and Chesterfield.
Good, about time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 06, 2020, 07:53:50 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 30, 2020, 12:38:31 PM
Another segment of US 1 - in Prince William County - has been renamed. (https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/prince-william-county-renaming-stretch-of-jefferson-davis-highway/) The segment of US 1 from Arlington County to the Prince William-Stafford County line is now Richmond Highway.

The segment in the City of Richmond is likely to also be renamed at a city council meeting in a couple of weeks. The only segments of US 1 still called Jefferson Davis Highway will be located in Stafford, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, and Chesterfield.
Any idea what it'll be renamed to? Maybe just an extension of Cowardin Avenue?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 06, 2020, 09:24:48 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 06, 2020, 07:53:50 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 30, 2020, 12:38:31 PM
Another segment of US 1 - in Prince William County - has been renamed. (https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/prince-william-county-renaming-stretch-of-jefferson-davis-highway/) The segment of US 1 from Arlington County to the Prince William-Stafford County line is now Richmond Highway.

The segment in the City of Richmond is likely to also be renamed at a city council meeting in a couple of weeks. The only segments of US 1 still called Jefferson Davis Highway will be located in Stafford, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, and Chesterfield.
Any idea what it'll be renamed to? Maybe just an extension of Cowardin Avenue?

Strangely enough, Richmond Highway. (https://richmond.com/news/local/richmond-committee-recommends-renaming-jefferson-davis-highway-to-richmond-highway/article_2b3b6cb0-02fc-5c2d-8d86-b5b76a390708.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 06, 2020, 11:17:53 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 06, 2020, 07:53:50 PM
Any idea what it'll be renamed to? Maybe just an extension of Cowardin Avenue?

Howe dare yoo youze an old Manchester street name.  Dat juss wouldn't bee proper (snobbish Richmond accent intended).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 08, 2020, 04:49:35 PM
Fun stuff from the Peedmont: VDOT to Convert Downtown Expressway into Closed Loop (https://thepeedmont.com/2017/09/27/vdot-to-convert-downtown-expressway-into-closed-loop/).

Quote
"The enclosed loop will alleviate traffic congestion throughout the city,"  explained Millerson. "By preventing these drivers from exiting the expressway, they cannot reach our downtown streets to clog them up. Additionally, since they can never exit, it will reduce the overall number of drivers on the road in the long run."

In all seriousness–the photo attached to that article looks familiar. Is that the I-587 roundabout in New York when it was under construction to convert it from a traffic circle? It sure looks like it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 08, 2020, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 08, 2020, 04:49:35 PM
Fun stuff from the Peedmont: VDOT to Convert Downtown Expressway into Closed Loop (https://thepeedmont.com/2017/09/27/vdot-to-convert-downtown-expressway-into-closed-loop/).

Quote
"The enclosed loop will alleviate traffic congestion throughout the city,"  explained Millerson. "By preventing these drivers from exiting the expressway, they cannot reach our downtown streets to clog them up. Additionally, since they can never exit, it will reduce the overall number of drivers on the road in the long run."

In all seriousness–the photo attached to that article looks familiar. Is that the I-587 roundabout in New York when it was under construction to convert it from a traffic circle? It sure looks like it.

Lmao if VDOT was to even talk/think/dream about something that dumb then they would completely deserve a foot in their asses. Paul Bunyan's foot.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on December 11, 2020, 12:19:24 AM
Effective next year (January 1), the Dulles Toll Road will be going to cashless tolling permanently.

https://patch.com/virginia/vienna/dulles-toll-road-start-electronic-only-tolling-2021
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 11, 2020, 08:07:38 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 11, 2020, 12:19:24 AM
Effective next year (January 1), the Dulles Toll Road will be going to cashless tolling permanently.

https://patch.com/virginia/vienna/dulles-toll-road-start-electronic-only-tolling-2021

Blast from the past:  I accidentally exited the Greenway at Old Ox Road eastbound on the first day that the manned toll booth there was permanently closed.  I was fumbling for a credit card to pay the toll (which I think had been recently reduced to $1.65 there and $1.80 at the mainline toll just ahead).  To this day, it is the lowest amount that I have ever run up on a credit card.  By the way, closing the manned toll booth allowed more offramps to be constructed there and also paved the way for the newer Loudoun County Parkway exit.  Prior to then, every exit of the Greenway was carefully spaced to be manned toll or free. 

One of my craziest Roadgeek efforts was to figure out how to drive as much of the Greenway as possible with no tolls in one trip (hint, you can go backwards).  Getting around Goose Creek Lake was not easy when no maps were involved.

(which allowed a bunch of new offramps to be constructed there).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 11, 2020, 08:29:21 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on December 11, 2020, 08:07:38 AM
....  To this day, it is the lowest amount that I have ever run up on a credit card.  ....

That almost sounds like a topic for the off-topic side, though it also sounds like something bandit957 would post, so I won't start the thread. I know for me the answer is that I had a 4¢ charge on my Discover card one time during the summer of 1997. I pulled into a gas station moments before it was due to close, inserted my card, started to pump gas, and the attendant immediately shut off the pumps right as I did that, so I got 4¢ of gas and a 4¢ charge on my card. I remember the whole thing just because of how bizarre the number was.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 13, 2020, 01:24:09 PM
After more than 3 years of construction, Atkinson Boulevard is open in Newport News (https://www.dailypress.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-atkinson-boulevard-opening-20201208-2h3zajt7wvbkpmyvwdwlw673ii-story.html)
QuoteIn the late 1980s, Newport News had the idea to extend Atkinson Way to create another connection between Jefferson Avenue and Warwick Boulevard. After years of planning, saving and construction, Atkinson Boulevard opened Tuesday.

Construction on the four-lane road began in August 2017. The 1.2-mile roadway also features a 1,740-foot bridge over Interstate 64 and the CSX Railway and a path for pedestrians and cyclists.

Project manager Vincent Urbano previously told the Daily Press it's the biggest construction project Newport News has ever managed. It was a joint venture between Bryant Contracting, Inc. and Basic Construction Company, LLC.

The city secured $69 million in funding for the project, but the actual cost ended up around $66 million with the city paying $5 million of the total, according to city spokesperson Kim Lee. The other funding came from state and federal sources.

The new road should make traveling around in the north end of the city easier and reduce commuter travel times by alleviating congestion on two of the city's major roads.

Newport News celebrated the opening with a drive-thru ribbon cutting Tuesday afternoon that allowed community members to be the first to drive the new road. Atkinson Boulevard opened in both directions to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians after the event.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 13, 2020, 05:53:32 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 13, 2020, 01:24:09 PM
After more than 3 years of construction, Atkinson Boulevard is open in Newport News (https://www.dailypress.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-atkinson-boulevard-opening-20201208-2h3zajt7wvbkpmyvwdwlw673ii-story.html)
QuoteIn the late 1980s, Newport News had the idea to extend Atkinson Way to create another connection between Jefferson Avenue and Warwick Boulevard. After years of planning, saving and construction, Atkinson Boulevard opened Tuesday.

Construction on the four-lane road began in August 2017. The 1.2-mile roadway also features a 1,740-foot bridge over Interstate 64 and the CSX Railway and a path for pedestrians and cyclists.

Project manager Vincent Urbano previously told the Daily Press it's the biggest construction project Newport News has ever managed. It was a joint venture between Bryant Contracting, Inc. and Basic Construction Company, LLC.

The city secured $69 million in funding for the project, but the actual cost ended up around $66 million with the city paying $5 million of the total, according to city spokesperson Kim Lee. The other funding came from state and federal sources.

The new road should make traveling around in the north end of the city easier and reduce commuter travel times by alleviating congestion on two of the city's major roads.

Newport News celebrated the opening with a drive-thru ribbon cutting Tuesday afternoon that allowed community members to be the first to drive the new road. Atkinson Boulevard opened in both directions to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians after the event.

Pfft.

Newport News is by far the SLOWEST agency in VA. Projects that would normally be completed in a year tops takes this city years to complete, like the Jefferson Ave rehab in the southeastern part of the city. They're currently rebuilding the VA 105 bridge over the reservoir. There's no telling how long that's going to take.

When US 60 was 6-laned from VA 312 to Nettles Dr, that project took a ridiculously long time to complete.

Neighboring Hampton completed the 4-laning of Saunders Rd from the intersection of Big Bethel Rd & VA 172 to the NN/Hampton line in just over a year's time. I don't think Newport News even have a timetable for there portion to US 17 yet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on December 18, 2020, 12:45:06 AM
Just out of curiosity, when did Norfolk rid US 58 of its Service Roads near Military Circle Mall? Even at Newtown Road the service roads is gone as the former Shoney's used to have the road in front that was two ways as we used to enter the restaurant from Newtown.

I am guessing the restaurant was where Captain D's is now situated where VA Beach Blvd is now frontage road less.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 18, 2020, 08:51:16 AM
Aerial imagery shows they were gone in front of the mall by 1990.  By Newtown Rd was no later than 1994.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 18, 2020, 11:41:48 AM
This is the only Virginia primary route I have yet to clinch in the immediate Northern Virginia area east of the mountains.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1339970078524256261
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 18, 2020, 01:19:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 18, 2020, 11:41:48 AM
This is the only Virginia primary route I have yet to clinch in the immediate Northern Virginia area east of the mountains.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1339970078524256261

Great pictures.  That is a pretty ride, but beware (as usual in Virginia) of speed limit
enforcement by LCSO and VSP along the VA-287 corridor.  Nice and scenic ride.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 18, 2020, 03:59:30 PM
I was a regular through this location 1988-91.  IIRC, the house in the background is the old toll House for the previous bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: seicer on December 18, 2020, 04:20:23 PM
You'd not even know a bridge was there judging from the streetview today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 18, 2020, 09:02:42 PM
The old 1890s toll Bridge was lower and narrower, made a 90 degree bend on the MD side and touched down near the EB MARC platform and at the surface, made another 90 degree bend to become Maple Str.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on December 22, 2020, 11:25:17 AM
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer
I was going through Historic Aerials website and found the old flyover that allowed NB US 258 to NB Coliseum Driven in Hampton, VA back in 1982, but was there in 2007, but in 2008 gone. 

I know road improvements are essential but how is removing a flyover that improves flow at a busy intersection helpful.  Unless the flyover failed inspection with Hampton not having money to replace, would be the only issue that this would be done.

Then again NJDOT rid an interchange for an intersection.  Also FDOT just eliminated a diamond interchange for an intersection that US 258 at Coliseum Drive used to have.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 22, 2020, 02:33:08 PM
That flyover was taken out in part because it was no longer needed.  The city of Hampton tore down and redeveloped the old Coliseum Mall that the flyover used to serve.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on December 22, 2020, 09:45:26 PM
It's also because the flyover fed cars into another left turn off of Coliseum Dr into the Mall, whereas the current intersection lets drivers directly into PTC on Kilgore Dr. The flyover was also pretty much useless for traffic coming off of I-64 after the Exit 263 project finished up in ~2006. Add in what I think were some structural deficiencies and it made sense to knock it down and replace with with a two-phase signal. The intersection currently flows pretty much the same to how it did back in 2007.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 23, 2020, 01:50:02 PM
A new twist!

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1341815073967382528
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 23, 2020, 06:59:03 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 23, 2020, 01:50:02 PM
A new twist!

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1341815073967382528

Driver saw the jam and was like "I ain't about this life"! :rofl:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 23, 2020, 10:44:35 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 23, 2020, 06:59:03 PM
Driver saw the jam and was like "I ain't about this life"! got stupid. :rofl:

FTFY
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 23, 2020, 11:26:42 PM
https://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/articles/supervisors-approve-funding-for-powhite-parkway-extension/
QuoteThe extension of Powhite Parkway from its current terminus to Hull Street Road will require only 10 to 12 miles of pavement, but its projected cost — upward of $500 million — has for many years prevented Chesterfield County from making it anything more than a dotted line on a long-range transportation map.

Thanks to a dedicated funding source created earlier this year by the General Assembly, that's slowly beginning to change.

Following a public hearing last Wednesday, the Board of Supervisors approved a $117.2 million plan for spending the county's anticipated share of sales and gasoline tax revenue to be collected over the next six years by the new Central Virginia Transportation Authority.

That includes $27.7 million, or about half of the estimated cost for the initial phase of the long-awaited Powhite Parkway project: widening the last existing section of roadway from two to four lanes, extending it from Little Tomahawk Creek to Woolridge Road, creating a grade separation at its intersection with Charter Colony Parkway and constructing an overpass on Brandermill Parkway.

"This is a fantastic day in Chesterfield County because we are putting lots of investment into [transportation] infrastructure and that's one of the things every member of this board has heard about,"  said Clover Hill District Supervisor Chris Winslow, who has advocated for the Powhite extension since being elected in 2015 and sees it as a vital element of the county's plan to relieve congestion in the fast-growing western Hull Street Road corridor. "It's a big, big win for the county."

County transportation officials contend that connecting Powhite Parkway and Hull Street Road will significantly reduce daily traffic volume in the Route 360/288 interchange by allowing motorists to bypass that area, particularly during the morning and late afternoon rush hours.

With new single-family homes going up by the day in Magnolia Green and other western Chesterfield communities, and demand for housing in the county reaching unprecedented levels, alleviating peak-hour backups on eight-lane Hull Street Road has become the top local transportation priority.

The plan approved by the Board of Supervisors last week allocates $20.7 million for several transportation priorities over the final six months of fiscal year 2021: $5 million for the extension of Nash Road from Beach Road to state Route 10; $3.9 million to extend Woolridge Road from Old Hundred Road to state Route 288; $3.2 million for the Powhite Parkway extension; and $2.5 million to widen Woolridge Road from two to four lanes between Genito Road and Watermill Parkway

Doesn't appear to be a timetable yet on when this first phase of the Powhite Parkway extension (or future phases) will be completed. However, it's worth noting that the Chesterfield Economic Development Authority recently acquired 2,057 acres of upper Magnolia Green property in which a large section of the right of way needed for the extension of the Powhite Parkway to Hull Street Road and several important intersections currently exists. Not one hundred percent clear to me either yet whether or not this extension will be tolled (although my guess is that it won't be).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 23, 2020, 11:55:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 05, 2020, 01:36:00 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 05, 2020, 10:58:37 AM
Similar freeway bus stop facilities exist in the L.A. area.  Here's one at US 101 @ Vermont Ave.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0799602,-118.2907413,3a,37.5y,298.33h,84.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdGzNO6WWW9sfj5srLfGoTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Here's a view from the street (which runs above the freeway) to the stairs that one would take to get to the bus stop.  As the stops are not used any more, they are now gated off.  The freeway express buses that stopped here were removed when L.A.'s subway was built in the area.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0792858,-118.2917322,3a,15y,65.77h,83.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYscY-BmWjxNt8tpwq5V6PQ!2e0!5s20190301T000000!7i16384!8i8192

It looks like the outer stops are still used. Commuter Express 422? Looks like that route has more than a few freeway stops. Nearby Western Ave has a couple more.

That inside stop is definitely long closed, though (what was that used for anyways?). These (https://goo.gl/maps/U4HVnpqsXrnKj2628) stairs (https://goo.gl/maps/4EBFEaXrgjwqXHHE6) being open suggest that outer stops are still in use, although certainly not by anyone in a wheelchair!
Got another shot of them here (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0799577,-118.2913139,3a,15y,337.01h,90.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR7-z_-lgj5bxRmcTMP3hKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

When I saw some of you discussing this, I thought you were talking about the LACMTA Orange or Silver Lines.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 25, 2020, 12:13:00 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 23, 2020, 11:26:42 PM
https://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/articles/supervisors-approve-funding-for-powhite-parkway-extension/
QuoteThe extension of Powhite Parkway from its current terminus to Hull Street Road will require only 10 to 12 miles of pavement, but its projected cost — upward of $500 million — has for many years prevented Chesterfield County from making it anything more than a dotted line on a long-range transportation map.

Thanks to a dedicated funding source created earlier this year by the General Assembly, that's slowly beginning to change.

Following a public hearing last Wednesday, the Board of Supervisors approved a $117.2 million plan for spending the county's anticipated share of sales and gasoline tax revenue to be collected over the next six years by the new Central Virginia Transportation Authority.

That includes $27.7 million, or about half of the estimated cost for the initial phase of the long-awaited Powhite Parkway project: widening the last existing section of roadway from two to four lanes, extending it from Little Tomahawk Creek to Woolridge Road, creating a grade separation at its intersection with Charter Colony Parkway and constructing an overpass on Brandermill Parkway.

"This is a fantastic day in Chesterfield County because we are putting lots of investment into [transportation] infrastructure and that's one of the things every member of this board has heard about,"  said Clover Hill District Supervisor Chris Winslow, who has advocated for the Powhite extension since being elected in 2015 and sees it as a vital element of the county's plan to relieve congestion in the fast-growing western Hull Street Road corridor. "It's a big, big win for the county."

County transportation officials contend that connecting Powhite Parkway and Hull Street Road will significantly reduce daily traffic volume in the Route 360/288 interchange by allowing motorists to bypass that area, particularly during the morning and late afternoon rush hours.

With new single-family homes going up by the day in Magnolia Green and other western Chesterfield communities, and demand for housing in the county reaching unprecedented levels, alleviating peak-hour backups on eight-lane Hull Street Road has become the top local transportation priority.

The plan approved by the Board of Supervisors last week allocates $20.7 million for several transportation priorities over the final six months of fiscal year 2021: $5 million for the extension of Nash Road from Beach Road to state Route 10; $3.9 million to extend Woolridge Road from Old Hundred Road to state Route 288; $3.2 million for the Powhite Parkway extension; and $2.5 million to widen Woolridge Road from two to four lanes between Genito Road and Watermill Parkway

Doesn't appear to be a timetable yet on when this first phase of the Powhite Parkway extension (or future phases) will be completed. However, it's worth noting that the Chesterfield Economic Development Authority recently acquired 2,057 acres of upper Magnolia Green property in which a large section of the right of way needed for the extension of the Powhite Parkway to Hull Street Road and several important intersections currently exists. Not one hundred percent clear to me either yet whether or not this extension will be tolled (although my guess is that it won't be).

As long as it gets built. That area desperately needs a freeway-grade relief route. Traffic along the Hull Street Road corridor between Courthouse Road and Magnolia Green is absolutely out of control, and that segment is an 8-lane facility for most of its length.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 25, 2020, 02:13:13 PM
^ Perhaps Chesterfield County should have worked with VDOT to make the Hull St Rd corridor more limited-access and less commercial-hell.  Traffic lanes are more effective when you don't have side roads and driveways every 5 feet.  They (and the state of Virginia in general) have only themselves to blame.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 25, 2020, 02:19:22 PM
^

Not to mention, the continuous development that is still being built out there, thousands of new homes, only more and more cars on the road.

Either way, at the current rate, a new freeway facility extending westward from VA-288 is needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 25, 2020, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 23, 2020, 11:26:42 PM
https://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/articles/supervisors-approve-funding-for-powhite-parkway-extension/
QuoteThe extension of Powhite Parkway from its current terminus to Hull Street Road will require only 10 to 12 miles of pavement, but its projected cost — upward of $500 million — has for many years prevented Chesterfield County from making it anything more than a dotted line on a long-range transportation map.

Thanks to a dedicated funding source created earlier this year by the General Assembly, that's slowly beginning to change.

Following a public hearing last Wednesday, the Board of Supervisors approved a $117.2 million plan for spending the county's anticipated share of sales and gasoline tax revenue to be collected over the next six years by the new Central Virginia Transportation Authority.

That includes $27.7 million, or about half of the estimated cost for the initial phase of the long-awaited Powhite Parkway project: widening the last existing section of roadway from two to four lanes, extending it from Little Tomahawk Creek to Woolridge Road, creating a grade separation at its intersection with Charter Colony Parkway and constructing an overpass on Brandermill Parkway.

"This is a fantastic day in Chesterfield County because we are putting lots of investment into [transportation] infrastructure and that's one of the things every member of this board has heard about,"  said Clover Hill District Supervisor Chris Winslow, who has advocated for the Powhite extension since being elected in 2015 and sees it as a vital element of the county's plan to relieve congestion in the fast-growing western Hull Street Road corridor. "It's a big, big win for the county."

County transportation officials contend that connecting Powhite Parkway and Hull Street Road will significantly reduce daily traffic volume in the Route 360/288 interchange by allowing motorists to bypass that area, particularly during the morning and late afternoon rush hours.

With new single-family homes going up by the day in Magnolia Green and other western Chesterfield communities, and demand for housing in the county reaching unprecedented levels, alleviating peak-hour backups on eight-lane Hull Street Road has become the top local transportation priority.

The plan approved by the Board of Supervisors last week allocates $20.7 million for several transportation priorities over the final six months of fiscal year 2021: $5 million for the extension of Nash Road from Beach Road to state Route 10; $3.9 million to extend Woolridge Road from Old Hundred Road to state Route 288; $3.2 million for the Powhite Parkway extension; and $2.5 million to widen Woolridge Road from two to four lanes between Genito Road and Watermill Parkway

Doesn't appear to be a timetable yet on when this first phase of the Powhite Parkway extension (or future phases) will be completed. However, it's worth noting that the Chesterfield Economic Development Authority recently acquired 2,057 acres of upper Magnolia Green property in which a large section of the right of way needed for the extension of the Powhite Parkway to Hull Street Road and several important intersections currently exists. Not one hundred percent clear to me either yet whether or not this extension will be tolled (although my guess is that it won't be).

Probably will be tolled when completed all the way to US 360.

Either way this extension was needed like 20 years ago. At least they're finally making some traction with it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 25, 2020, 06:29:24 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 25, 2020, 02:13:13 PM
^ Perhaps Chesterfield County should have worked with VDOT to make the Hull St Rd corridor more limited-access and less commercial-hell.  Traffic lanes are more effective when you don't have side roads and driveways every 5 feet.  They (and the state of Virginia in general) have only themselves to blame.


Pretty much.

There are some plans to convert portions of Hull Street Rd to a superstreet, but honestly it's too little, too late at this point. I think the plans have stalled anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 26, 2020, 01:40:25 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 25, 2020, 06:29:24 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 25, 2020, 02:13:13 PM
^ Perhaps Chesterfield County should have worked with VDOT to make the Hull St Rd corridor more limited-access and less commercial-hell.  Traffic lanes are more effective when you don't have side roads and driveways every 5 feet.  They (and the state of Virginia in general) have only themselves to blame.


Pretty much.

There are some plans to convert portions of Hull Street Rd to a superstreet, but honestly it's too little, too late at this point. I think the plans have stalled anyway.

There are also plans to build a Bailey Bridge Road connector (probably should have have had its own interchange with VA-288 to begin with) via the Commonwealth Centre Pkwy. This should hopefully help relieve the Hull Street corridor as well by taking off at least some of the cars heading to the sprawling communities south of US-360. Speaking of sprawl, it will be very interesting to see how this area continues to develop especially around where the Powhite extension is supposed to go through. At the moment, the abrupt change from suburban hell to rural nothingness on US-360 is IMO on the same level as I-66 west of Haymarket and I-64 west of Short Pump. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 26, 2020, 11:01:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 23, 2020, 01:50:02 PM
A new twist!

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1341815073967382528

I've actually done that move before, but the ramp was from a local 2-lane road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 27, 2020, 12:10:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 25, 2020, 02:19:22 PM
^

Not to mention, the continuous development that is still being built out there, thousands of new homes, only more and more cars on the road.

Either way, at the current rate, a new freeway facility extending westward from VA-288 is needed.
I recently started thinking I-295 should've been extended to VA 288 and merge with it as a wye interchange south of US 250, but too much development in Short Pump and vicinity got in the way of that.



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on December 27, 2020, 04:30:11 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 25, 2020, 06:29:24 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 25, 2020, 02:13:13 PM
^ Perhaps Chesterfield County should have worked with VDOT to make the Hull St Rd corridor more limited-access and less commercial-hell.  Traffic lanes are more effective when you don't have side roads and driveways every 5 feet.  They (and the state of Virginia in general) have only themselves to blame.


Pretty much.

There are some plans to convert portions of Hull Street Rd to a superstreet, but honestly it's too little, too late at this point. I think the plans have stalled anyway.

There's a corridor preservation study currently being run by VDOT that's still ongoing as of this month: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/amelia-chesterfield_-_us_360_arterial_preservation_plan.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 28, 2020, 11:15:51 AM
Meanwhile, in a completely different part of the state, White's Ferry is no more. (https://www.facebook.com/WhitesFerry/posts/10158156727288661)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 28, 2020, 11:31:25 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 28, 2020, 11:15:51 AM
Meanwhile, in a completely different part of the state, White's Ferry is no more. (https://www.facebook.com/WhitesFerry/posts/10158156727288661)

I just came here to post WTOP's story (https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2020/12/whites-ferry-river-crossing-in-montgomery-co-ceases-operations-after-court-decision). It's notable that appeals in Virginia's court system are rather limited and there is no guarantee the state supreme court would hear the case if the ferry operators petition for review.

I'd be interested in seeing the court's order, but of course it wasn't linked. If I find it, I'll edit this post. Virginia circuit courts don't always release opinions in the same way federal courts do–oftentimes the opinion may be issued via a letter to counsel.

Edited to add: It's not on the court's website. No idea when it'll be readily available, though I assume the local media will manage to get a copy.

Edited again: WTOP obtained a copy. As I expected, it's a letter ruling. (https://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/107CL00056672-01PO-195_whitesferry.pdf)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 29, 2020, 10:44:10 AM
Does everybody see this sign at the Exit 176A off-ramp on I-95/495? It's at the split in the ramp between VA 241 and VSR 611 and Huntington Avenue. (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8007034,-77.085145,3a,75y,116.86h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1l_qAInlzmncbO2T0Rrzag!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) I think there should be a big banner for the Huntington Avenue Washington Metro station underneath the Huntington Avenue (Kathryn Street) sign. At least big enough to fit under the Huntington Avenue sign.

And since this is my 2,700th post, and once again I forgot to place any emphasis on it, let me remedy that now.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/NY-27.svg/240px-NY-27.svg.png)

My other choice was to celebrate with the US 27 sign, but I thought I'd stick with something closer to home.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 29, 2020, 02:57:16 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 28, 2020, 11:15:51 AM
Meanwhile, in a completely different part of the state, White's Ferry is no more. (https://www.facebook.com/WhitesFerry/posts/10158156727288661)

Guarantee that the need for a new Potomac River crossing between Point of Rocks and the American Legion Bridge will be brought up again because of this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 29, 2020, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 28, 2020, 11:15:51 AM
Meanwhile, in a completely different part of the state, White's Ferry is no more. (https://www.facebook.com/WhitesFerry/posts/10158156727288661)
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 29, 2020, 02:57:16 PM
Guarantee that the need for a new Potomac River crossing between Point of Rocks and the American Legion Bridge will be brought up again because of this.

And in a twist of fate, don't be surprised if Rockland Farm loses a huge amount of land to the construction of a new bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 30, 2020, 07:29:20 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 29, 2020, 02:57:16 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 28, 2020, 11:15:51 AM
Meanwhile, in a completely different part of the state, White's Ferry is no more. (https://www.facebook.com/WhitesFerry/posts/10158156727288661)

Guarantee that the need for a new Potomac River crossing between Point of Rocks and the American Legion Bridge will be brought up again because of this.

The volume of traffic carried by the ferry is small compared to even what a two-lane undivided bridge would handle.  But it will probably cause some people to bring up the need for more road capacity crossing the Potomac, no matter what Montgomery County's activist class says.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on December 31, 2020, 06:05:33 PM
Wow... shame I never got to ride the ferry. Lots of BS when it comes to all these regulations.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dlsterner on December 31, 2020, 06:49:14 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 28, 2020, 11:15:51 AM
Meanwhile, in a completely different part of the state, White's Ferry is no more. (https://www.facebook.com/WhitesFerry/posts/10158156727288661)

Such a shame, as White's Ferry was on my bucket list.  Kicking myself especially since I was in Poolesville last August and didn't make the short trek to the ferry.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on January 03, 2021, 01:50:12 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 29, 2020, 02:57:16 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 28, 2020, 11:15:51 AM
Meanwhile, in a completely different part of the state, White's Ferry is no more. (https://www.facebook.com/WhitesFerry/posts/10158156727288661)

Guarantee that the need for a new Potomac River crossing between Point of Rocks and the American Legion Bridge will be brought up again because of this.
Hopefully this generates momentum to FINALLY end the ridiculous 35 mile gap between the Legion Bridge and Route 15.
Finally connect 28/FFXCO PKWY to the ICC.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 04, 2021, 01:10:03 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on January 03, 2021, 01:50:12 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 29, 2020, 02:57:16 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 28, 2020, 11:15:51 AM
Meanwhile, in a completely different part of the state, White's Ferry is no more. (https://www.facebook.com/WhitesFerry/posts/10158156727288661)

Guarantee that the need for a new Potomac River crossing between Point of Rocks and the American Legion Bridge will be brought up again because of this.
Hopefully this generates momentum to FINALLY end the ridiculous 35 mile gap between the Legion Bridge and Route 15.
Finally connect 28/FFXCO PKWY to the ICC.

Do not hold your breath.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 04, 2021, 01:27:19 PM
A little heads up for those that may be heading down US-29 near my neck of the woods and into NC in the next few months. NCDOT awarded a contract for improvements to all 6 miles of US-29 in Caswell County. The work includes resurfacing the ramps at the US-58 interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-01-04-us-29-caswell-county-resurfacing.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-01-04-us-29-caswell-county-resurfacing.aspx)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jmacswimmer on January 04, 2021, 03:33:27 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 04, 2021, 01:10:03 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on January 03, 2021, 01:50:12 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 29, 2020, 02:57:16 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 28, 2020, 11:15:51 AM
Meanwhile, in a completely different part of the state, White's Ferry is no more. (https://www.facebook.com/WhitesFerry/posts/10158156727288661)

Guarantee that the need for a new Potomac River crossing between Point of Rocks and the American Legion Bridge will be brought up again because of this.
Hopefully this generates momentum to FINALLY end the ridiculous 35 mile gap between the Legion Bridge and Route 15.
Finally connect 28/FFXCO PKWY to the ICC.

Do not hold your breath.

As much as I would love to see a new crossing linking VA 28 to I-370/MD 200, I too agree that it probably won't happen courtesy of the immense political & financial clout in that area of Montgomery County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 04, 2021, 05:13:05 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 04, 2021, 01:27:19 PM
A little heads up for those that may be heading down US-29 near my neck of the woods and into NC in the next few months. NCDOT awarded a contract for improvements to all 6 miles of US-29 in Caswell County. The work includes resurfacing the ramps at the US-58 interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-01-04-us-29-caswell-county-resurfacing.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-01-04-us-29-caswell-county-resurfacing.aspx)

What's the status of the non-freeway US 29 just north of the Greensboro Loop? Is there a timeline for it yet? A bypass maybe?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 04, 2021, 06:53:10 PM
Quote from: plain on January 04, 2021, 05:13:05 PM
What's the status of the non-freeway US 29 just north of the Greensboro Loop? Is there a timeline for it yet? A bypass maybe?
Currently unfunded, but any project would upgrade the existing route. It already has a few interchanges and some level of access control. It wouldn't be a hard job, and certainly not worthy of constructing a new terrain routing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on January 04, 2021, 07:52:24 PM
US 17 is a lightly trafficked, 4 lane corridor from Winchester to Fredericksburg - barring the multiplexes with US 15/29 and US 50. Returning home from Fredericksburg, I chose this over I-95 and the Beltway for my return trip. Overall a great road through the Virginia countryside, though the trees get a little monotonous.

However, two gripes stick out:

1. A poorly designed intersection in Opal - US 17 NB traffic is not favored, though this makes sense given that US 15/29 is much busier. Except, why does US 17 SB get a ramp while NB gets a stoplight?

2. Two lane section from I-66 to US 50 - If you're gonna promote this as THE way from Winchester to Fredericksburg and beyond, this is unacceptable. To be fair, VDOT reports this segment with an AADT of 9000; not too bad and certainly lower than the rest of the route. Still though - this segment is only 8 miles long. It can't be that hard to twin.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 04, 2021, 08:08:57 PM
The intersection of Routes 17 and 29 used to be an ordinary crossroads with southbound traffic on Route 17 going left at the light in Opal. The ramp is a recent addition, and even after it opened, a lot of people persisted in making the old left turn until VDOT blocked off access to prevent the use of that route.

Also, what gives you the idea that Virginia promotes US-17 between I-66 at Delaplane and US-50 at Paris as "THE way" between Fredericksburg and Winchester? Certainly if you're westbound on I-66, the sign as you approach Exit 23 recommends that Winchester-bound traffic use I-66 to I-81.


(Edited to add the second paragraph)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 04, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote1. A poorly designed intersection in Opal - US 17 NB traffic is not favored, though this makes sense given that US 15/29 is much busier. Except, why does US 17 SB get a ramp while NB gets a stoplight?

Agreed.  The ramp being put south of the existing intersection instead of north of the existing intersection messed everything up.

Quote2. Two lane section from I-66 to US 50 - If you're gonna promote this as THE way from Winchester to Fredericksburg and beyond, this is unacceptable. To be fair, VDOT reports this segment with an AADT of 9000; not too bad and certainly lower than the rest of the route. Still though - this segment is only 8 miles long. It can't be that hard to twin.

I'll defer to mapmikey or froggie on this one, but I believe that the strict 45 mph speed limit is there due to lobbyists wanting traffic to follow I-66 to I-81 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8900985,-77.908278,3a,75y,321.19h,88.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgwmTUExgpIrIBsSL5WQgzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  Having said that, I actually still prefer that section over spending 13 more miles on I-81.  Even with an at-grade railroad crossing, I think that the time going either way is usually about the same. 

I am surprised that you did not mention the six-lane section near I-95 with all the stoplights.  Hopefully, the US 17 SB ramp to I-95 SB will not be as congested once it becomes two lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 04, 2021, 08:22:08 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 04, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote1. A poorly designed intersection in Opal - US 17 NB traffic is not favored, though this makes sense given that US 15/29 is much busier. Except, why does US 17 SB get a ramp while NB gets a stoplight?

Agreed.  The ramp being put south of the existing intersection instead of north of the existing intersection messed everything up.

....

Eminent domain would have made it costlier because there are more businesses, and then residences, on both sides of Route 29 north of that intersection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on January 04, 2021, 08:36:24 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 04, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
I am surprised that you did not mention the six-lane section near I-95 with all the stoplights.  Hopefully, the US 17 SB ramp to I-95 SB will not be as congested once it becomes two lanes.
IMO, the entire western side of Fredericksburg is a mess. Too much commercial sprawl out there.

Still - whether I'm lucky or not - I managed to get past the stoplight-laden section relatively swiftly. Overall I'd take the fairly short (<3 miles) commercial section of US 17 over I-95 south of the Beltway any day - at least that has enough lanes to support both through and turning traffic.

Agree that the US 17/I-95 interchange is a mess; cloverleafs in an urban area?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 04, 2021, 09:24:23 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 04, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
I'll defer to mapmikey or froggie on this one, but I believe that the strict 45 mph speed limit is there due to lobbyists wanting traffic to follow I-66 to I-81 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8900985,-77.908278,3a,75y,321.19h,88.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgwmTUExgpIrIBsSL5WQgzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
9/17/2000 - VDOT Takes Steps to Reduce Truck Traffic on Rte. 17 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2000/09/17/vdot-takes-steps-to-reduce-truck-traffic-on-rte-17/998c7e34-8ab9-4b12-8ddd-9bc09c94aca4/)
QuoteIn an effort to stanch the flow of tractor-trailer traffic on Route 17, the Virginia Department of Transportation plans to build a $4 million weigh station outside Warrenton and lower the speed limit on a 7.8-mile stretch of the road just north of Interstate 66, officials announced Friday.

The two moves are among several steps that were announced in the wake of citizen complaints about the increasing number of trucks rumbling through the affluent and scenic Delaplane and Paris areas on a two-lane stretch between I-66 and Route 50.

Officials in southern Fauquier also have expressed concern in recent months about Route 17 truck traffic, which appears to have grown as truckers, along with other motorists, have looked for ways to avoid the congestion at Springfield, where massive construction is snarling the so-called Mixing Bowl interchange.

"We have serious safety problems along the [Route] 17 corridor," said Charles D. "Chip" Nottingham, commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation.

He cited Transportation Department statistics showing that trucks make up about 30 percent of all traffic on the stretch between Route 50 and I-66, when the desired average for a two-lane primary road is about 10 percent or 15 percent.

Other state statistics showed nine accidents on that segment since the beginning of the year, with six of them involving trucks. In all but one of those six accidents, the trucker was alleged to be at fault, according to the state figures. None of the accidents was fatal.

Nottingham said he thinks that lowering the speed limit from 55 mph to 45 mph, effective Oct. 1, will reduce the number of accidents along the road.

For years, local activists have advocated measures to improve safety on Route 17. Their efforts seemed to pick up steam after Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) became involved in the issue this year. Nottingham said Wolf is securing federal funds for some of the initiatives announced Friday.

"We don't want to have to wait until there's a fatality," said Josephine F. "Jolly" deGive, director of planning services for the Piedmont Environmental Council. She lives near Route 17 and has been active in efforts to secure new safety measures.

Nottingham said VDOT decided not to take one measure supported by some local activists: a ban on trucks along that route.

"It's not a corridor that we think needs to be a high-speed, congestion-filled, interstate-type road," he said. "But we believe that the road is well designed and that legal, safe truck traffic is too important to the economy" to ban outright.

Some local residents allege that truckers have been using that leg of Route 17 to do an end-around at a weigh station on Interstate 81. Route 50 intersects I-81 at Winchester.

Nottingham said the newly announced weigh station in Warrenton will be a way to capture not only the traffic headed north on Route 17, but also the heavy truck traffic on Routes 15 and 29. All three roads merge outside Warrenton, and a recent mobile weigh station on the combined route found a "surprising" amount of illegal traffic, including oversize loads, Nottingham said. Stopping that illegal traffic would increase the roads' life span, he said.

The so-called rolling weigh station planned for Warrenton, on the Eastern Bypass just after the Meetze Road exit from Route 15/29, would use sensors under the main roadway to take readings and would not require truckers whose rigs are under the 80,000-pound limit to stop. Nottingham said the station is expected to be finished by 2002 and would be the first weigh station on the Route 29 corridor, which runs the length of the state.

"We want to discourage illegal trucking in Virginia," he said.

Truckers whose business takes them along the several arteries that run through the vast county have grumbled that they are being singled out as the cause of traffic problems, even as all kinds of traffic have increased.

"In today's world of getting on the Internet and ordering it and wanting it tomorrow, how does it get to these people? By trucks," said David Newman, co-owner of J.D. Newman Inc., a Bealeton-based trucking company. "Everybody's wanting to be anti-truck, but on the other hand, they sure do want to enjoy the benefits they bring."

Newman said he is glad the speed-limit change in northern Fauquier will apply to all motorists, not just truckers.

In addition to the weigh station and the speed-limit change, Nottingham said VDOT is coordinating with local authorities to increase enforcement along certain stretches of roadway where the surprise inspections found truckers with illegal loads and other safety violations.

And, Nottingham said, at its meeting later this week, the Commonwealth Transportation Board is set to remove the northern Fauquier portion of Route 17 as a designated route for interstate commerce. The gesture is largely symbolic, he said, but some out-of-state trucking companies that rely on official maps would reconfigure their routes and avoid Fauquier.

1/4/2001 - Virginia Wants Fewer Trucks on Route 17 (https://www.truckinginfo.com/88910/virginia-wants-fewer-trucks-on-route-17)
QuoteThe Virginia Department of Transportation has recently made several changes regarding truck traffic on Route 17 because of requests from local citizens and public officials.

The changes were made in Fauquier County, Va., between I-66 at Delaplane and Route 50 at Paris, and on Route 50 between Paris and Route 340 in Clarke County, Va.

In September, Route 17 between I-66 and Route 50 between Route 17 and I-81 was removed from the state's designated system of routes for STAA-authorized vehicles, meaning rigs longer than 65 feet and twin trailer combinations are prohibited from using these routes. Warning signs are now in place, and officials will be issuing citations, which could result in the assessment of 3 points on a driver's record.

The new designated alternate routes for STAA-authorized vehicles are I-66 and
I-81; or I-66, Route 522, Route 277 and I-81; or I-66, Route 522 and Route 340.

In addition, the speed limit on Route 17 between I-66 and Route 50 has been reduced from 55 to 45 mph and the speed limit on the east and westbound lanes of Route 50 as it approaches the Route 17 intersection at Paris will be lowered from 55 to 45 mph.

The Virginia State Police are also increasing motor carrier safety inspections of trucks on Routes 17 and 50.

The VDOT has also announced that legislation will be introduced in the 2001 Virginia General Assembly to ban all through trucks from this portion of Route 17.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on January 04, 2021, 10:36:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2021, 08:08:57 PM
Also, what gives you the idea that Virginia promotes US-17 between I-66 at Delaplane and US-50 at Paris as "THE way" between Fredericksburg and Winchester? Certainly if you're westbound on I-66, the sign as you approach Exit 23 recommends that Winchester-bound traffic use I-66 to I-81.

(Edited to add the second paragraph)
Winchester (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9055165,-77.9173178,3a,75y,356.68h,78.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjTGUi0wcJdaGBEFYYQ-Q4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is used just north of I-66 - this is at VA 55. Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9358647,-77.9339151,3a,31.4y,171.53h,86.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLlYtn7kskqVV_vRTmUZ4Jw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) an example of Fredericksburg being used on this segment.

If VDOT really tried, they could change US 17's control cities to something benign like Warrenton or Marshall. Using these cities as a control city implies that VDOT wants you to take US 17 between these cities.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on January 05, 2021, 02:28:49 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 04, 2021, 08:19:27 PM
Quote1. A poorly designed intersection in Opal - US 17 NB traffic is not favored, though this makes sense given that US 15/29 is much busier. Except, why does US 17 SB get a ramp while NB gets a stoplight?

Agreed.  The ramp being put south of the existing intersection instead of north of the existing intersection messed everything up.

Quote2. Two lane section from I-66 to US 50 - If you're gonna promote this as THE way from Winchester to Fredericksburg and beyond, this is unacceptable. To be fair, VDOT reports this segment with an AADT of 9000; not too bad and certainly lower than the rest of the route. Still though - this segment is only 8 miles long. It can't be that hard to twin.

I'll defer to mapmikey or froggie on this one, but I believe that the strict 45 mph speed limit is there due to lobbyists wanting traffic to follow I-66 to I-81 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8900985,-77.908278,3a,75y,321.19h,88.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgwmTUExgpIrIBsSL5WQgzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  Having said that, I actually still prefer that section over spending 13 more miles on I-81.  Even with an at-grade railroad crossing, I think that the time going either way is usually about the same. 

I am surprised that you did not mention the six-lane section near I-95 with all the stoplights.  Hopefully, the US 17 SB ramp to I-95 SB will not be as congested once it becomes two lanes.
The two lane section of US 17 between I-66 and US 50 is never going to be widened.  It is a way to keep tractor trailers off that section between Delaplane and Winchester--and for the trucks to go through the scales near Stephens City.

https://goo.gl/maps/gxyAMt53gL9qsBWG9
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 05, 2021, 06:59:57 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 04, 2021, 10:36:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2021, 08:08:57 PM
Also, what gives you the idea that Virginia promotes US-17 between I-66 at Delaplane and US-50 at Paris as "THE way" between Fredericksburg and Winchester? Certainly if you're westbound on I-66, the sign as you approach Exit 23 recommends that Winchester-bound traffic use I-66 to I-81.

(Edited to add the second paragraph)
Winchester (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9055165,-77.9173178,3a,75y,356.68h,78.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjTGUi0wcJdaGBEFYYQ-Q4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is used just north of I-66 - this is at VA 55. Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9358647,-77.9339151,3a,31.4y,171.53h,86.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLlYtn7kskqVV_vRTmUZ4Jw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) an example of Fredericksburg being used on this segment.

If VDOT really tried, they could change US 17's control cities to something benign like Warrenton or Marshall. Using these cities as a control city implies that VDOT wants you to take US 17 between these cities.

From I-66 west - https://goo.gl/maps/SZHqrtgaWZAfFGBaA
The control cities at this exit are Delaplane and Paris

VDOT is definitely not promoting US 17 to reach Winchester from I-66.  VDOT could go a step further and have US 17 end at Marshall and renumber US 17 from I-66 to US 50 as VA 248.  But in the days of GPS this would be less effective than say 20 years ago.

AFAIK Fredericksburg is not mentioned at all on I-81 at Winchester and in fact there is no control city for the westbound ramp at Exit 313, which was true even when I-66 wasn't finished yet.

The 45 mph limit is difficult to observe and heavily enforced as I do believe the through-trucks prohibition is too.

The Opal intersection works way better for US 17 SB traffic than it used to and improves safety on 15-29 because there are no longer lines of cars (plus a fain number of semis) waiting to turn left that spill out into the non-turning lanes.  Yes it is weird but 17 NB works the same as before and Froggie is correct there wasn't room to do an interchange at the stoplight.

When the US 17 interchange with I-95 was turned into a clover in the early 1980s there was almost nothing on the west side of the interchange.  They are currently rebuilding this interchange to be a C/D interchange with VA 3 (in addition to tying in the south end of extended express lanes) and some of the clover movements are going away.  VDOT has already partly de-clovered the VA 3 interchange
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 05, 2021, 08:15:46 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 05, 2021, 06:59:57 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 04, 2021, 10:36:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2021, 08:08:57 PM
Also, what gives you the idea that Virginia promotes US-17 between I-66 at Delaplane and US-50 at Paris as "THE way" between Fredericksburg and Winchester? Certainly if you're westbound on I-66, the sign as you approach Exit 23 recommends that Winchester-bound traffic use I-66 to I-81.

(Edited to add the second paragraph)
Winchester (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9055165,-77.9173178,3a,75y,356.68h,78.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjTGUi0wcJdaGBEFYYQ-Q4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is used just north of I-66 - this is at VA 55. Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9358647,-77.9339151,3a,31.4y,171.53h,86.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLlYtn7kskqVV_vRTmUZ4Jw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) an example of Fredericksburg being used on this segment.

If VDOT really tried, they could change US 17's control cities to something benign like Warrenton or Marshall. Using these cities as a control city implies that VDOT wants you to take US 17 between these cities.

From I-66 west - https://goo.gl/maps/SZHqrtgaWZAfFGBaA
The control cities at this exit are Delaplane and Paris

VDOT is definitely not promoting US 17 to reach Winchester from I-66.  VDOT could go a step further and have US 17 end at Marshall and renumber US 17 from I-66 to US 50 as VA 248.  But in the days of GPS this would be less effective than say 20 years ago.

....

Agreed completely. There's a fundamental difference between the distance signage seen on that segment of Route 17 (which just means the road goes there) and the guidance signs on the roads to which it connects at either end. I would say the guidance signage is the type that should be given more credence in determining what VDOT "promotes" as the prevailing route. The mere fact that a city is listed on a distance sign doesn't mean a whole lot–if it did, then taking US-50 west all the way from the Beltway would be the "promoted" route to Winchester from Fairfax County due to this sign just west of Gallows Road (https://goo.gl/maps/PC3d78duwbeURFrf6), but Winchester is not widely signed in Fairfax County (other than on mileage signs) and most people who know the roads would normally opt for I-66 or the Dulles Toll Road and Greenway to avoid dozens of traffic lights.

The sign Mapmikey linked is the one I was thinking of on I-66 (I didn't post a link last night because I was using the Google Maps app).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 05, 2021, 09:17:52 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2021, 08:15:46 AM

Agreed completely. There's a fundamental difference between the distance signage seen on that segment of Route 17 (which just means the road goes there) and the guidance signs on the roads to which it connects at either end. I would say the guidance signage is the type that should be given more credence in determining what VDOT "promotes" as the prevailing route. The mere fact that a city is listed on a distance sign doesn't mean a whole lot–if it did, then taking US-50 west all the way from the Beltway would be the "promoted" route to Winchester from Fairfax County due to this sign just west of Gallows Road (https://goo.gl/maps/PC3d78duwbeURFrf6), but Winchester is not widely signed in Fairfax County (other than on mileage signs) and most people who know the roads would normally opt for I-66 or the Dulles Toll Road and Greenway to avoid dozens of traffic lights.

The sign Mapmikey linked is the one I was thinking of on I-66 (I didn't post a link last night because I was using the Google Maps app).

Winchester is listed as a control city on I-66 WB at US 50 Fairfax as well as from VA 28. 

A little surprising given US 50 west of US 15 is not exactly welcomed as the through route.  Especially from VA 28 I would think Winchester traffic would be directed to use VA 7 (I have often thought that at this point in time VA 7 and US 50 should be swapped).  Seems like Middleburg would be a more appropriate control city.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 05, 2021, 09:27:18 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2021, 08:15:46 AM
Agreed completely. There's a fundamental difference between the distance signage seen on that segment of Route 17 (which just means the road goes there) and the guidance signs on the roads to which it connects at either end. I would say the guidance signage is the type that should be given more credence in determining what VDOT "promotes" as the prevailing route. The mere fact that a city is listed on a distance sign doesn't mean a whole lot–if it did, then taking US-50 west all the way from the Beltway would be the "promoted" route to Winchester from Fairfax County due to this sign just west of Gallows Road (https://goo.gl/maps/PC3d78duwbeURFrf6), but Winchester is not widely signed in Fairfax County (other than on mileage signs) and most people who know the roads would normally opt for I-66 or the Dulles Toll Road and Greenway to avoid dozens of traffic lights.

The sign Mapmikey linked is the one I was thinking of on I-66 (I didn't post a link last night because I was using the Google Maps app).

Another good example would be Mechanicsville on VA 156 just north of US 460 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.156269,-77.2753139,3a,37.5y,35.35h,85.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srBDY6r8WFp8_SVlmWtloww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  How many people these days are going to drive VA 156 all the way from US 460 near Disputanta to Mechanicsville?  Very few especially with I-295 around.

Quote from: Mapmikey on January 05, 2021, 09:17:52 AM
Winchester is listed as a control city on I-66 WB at US 50 Fairfax as well as from VA 28. 

A little surprising given US 50 west of US 15 is not exactly welcomed as the through route.  Especially from VA 28 I would think Winchester traffic would be directed to use VA 7 (I have often thought that at this point in time VA 7 and US 50 should be swapped).  Seems like Middleburg would be a more appropriate control city.

I would still prefer that VA 7 become part of an extended US 48, but that goes into fictional territory.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 05, 2021, 09:38:10 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 05, 2021, 09:17:52 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2021, 08:15:46 AM

Agreed completely. There's a fundamental difference between the distance signage seen on that segment of Route 17 (which just means the road goes there) and the guidance signs on the roads to which it connects at either end. I would say the guidance signage is the type that should be given more credence in determining what VDOT "promotes" as the prevailing route. The mere fact that a city is listed on a distance sign doesn't mean a whole lot–if it did, then taking US-50 west all the way from the Beltway would be the "promoted" route to Winchester from Fairfax County due to this sign just west of Gallows Road (https://goo.gl/maps/PC3d78duwbeURFrf6), but Winchester is not widely signed in Fairfax County (other than on mileage signs) and most people who know the roads would normally opt for I-66 or the Dulles Toll Road and Greenway to avoid dozens of traffic lights.

The sign Mapmikey linked is the one I was thinking of on I-66 (I didn't post a link last night because I was using the Google Maps app).

Winchester is listed as a control city on I-66 WB at US 50 Fairfax as well as from VA 28. 

A little surprising given US 50 west of US 15 is not exactly welcomed as the through route.  Especially from VA 28 I would think Winchester traffic would be directed to use VA 7 (I have often thought that at this point in time VA 7 and US 50 should be swapped).  Seems like Middleburg would be a more appropriate control city.

Right, though that's why I said "not widely signed." If I were to apply noelbotevera's thinking about the significance of the distance signs, for example, I might expect to see Winchester signed as a control city for US-50 on the Beltway (the sign just says Fairfax, which I think is very reasonable). The signs on the Beltway for Route 7 list Tysons Corner for westbound traffic (also reasonable, IMO). In other words, I was trying to address the particular situation he seemed to be suggesting, in which he viewed a distance sign on a particular road as being tantamount to "promoting" that road as "THE" (all-caps his) way to go. That's why I cited the particular distance sign that I did–it's in a location where there aren't any signs for Winchester other than the occasional distance sign. (To be sure, it appears on distance signs as far east as the Fort Myer area (https://goo.gl/maps/6ga3g7e6rHNSnKWFA), but I'd argue that signing it inside the Beltway like that is more reasonable than outside the Beltway due to the former rush-hour HOV restrictions, and current HO/T operations, on I-66, such that Route 50 there is arguably a more important bypass of I-66 than it is between the Beltway and Fair Oaks.)

I'm sure part of not signing Middleburg is political–the people there most likely don't want it signed–and part of it is due to it being such a small place. Either way, I've long thought that sign at Fair Oaks is odd in that if I wanted to take US-50 to Winchester, I'd probably continue to Route 28 and then go north to Route 50 just to avoid all those darn traffic lights through Chantilly. I don't go out Route 50 through that area as often as I used to (I grew up near WT Woodson High School), but on a couple of occasions when I've needed to go to Pohanka Acura out there, it's always been clear that while there really isn't any great way to get there coming from Fairfax, Route 28 has usually been faster (maybe more so in the future due to the elimination of further traffic lights due to the current construction).

I keep looking for a good new route west to Linden to visit our favorite winery, though I've pretty much given up. I think we've used just about everything of any significance such that any new routes would involve lots of back roads that would simply take so long that we wouldn't have much time at the winery.


(Edited to fix a bare URL that didn't appear as a link.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: TheGrassGuy on January 05, 2021, 09:41:57 AM
What determines a county route's signage status on Google Maps? I see some county routes marked as ellipses, but others as rectangles. And from what I've been able to gather, I doubt it has anything to do with signage status in real life.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 05, 2021, 10:38:12 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 05, 2021, 09:41:57 AM
What determines a county route's signage status on Google Maps? I see some county routes marked as ellipses, but others as rectangles. And from what I've been able to gather, I doubt it has anything to do with signage status in real life.

I do not know what determines them being marked on Google.  However, in real life, they are usually signed as circles (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2416445,-77.2469966,3a,37.5y,272.12h,87.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEwRQJ7WRELYJG2Hsqjz90g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) or are marked in rectangles (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2414647,-77.247368,3a,75y,55.62h,88.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5hhvZhEB7pbVr3jJrOCtVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). (You also get to see a bonus error as this route is actually VA 106...)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 05, 2021, 12:47:02 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 05, 2021, 09:17:52 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2021, 08:15:46 AM

Agreed completely. There's a fundamental difference between the distance signage seen on that segment of Route 17 (which just means the road goes there) and the guidance signs on the roads to which it connects at either end. I would say the guidance signage is the type that should be given more credence in determining what VDOT "promotes" as the prevailing route. The mere fact that a city is listed on a distance sign doesn't mean a whole lot–if it did, then taking US-50 west all the way from the Beltway would be the "promoted" route to Winchester from Fairfax County due to this sign just west of Gallows Road (https://goo.gl/maps/PC3d78duwbeURFrf6), but Winchester is not widely signed in Fairfax County (other than on mileage signs) and most people who know the roads would normally opt for I-66 or the Dulles Toll Road and Greenway to avoid dozens of traffic lights.

The sign Mapmikey linked is the one I was thinking of on I-66 (I didn't post a link last night because I was using the Google Maps app).

Winchester is listed as a control city on I-66 WB at US 50 Fairfax as well as from VA 28. 

A little surprising given US 50 west of US 15 is not exactly welcomed as the through route.  Especially from VA 28 I would think Winchester traffic would be directed to use VA 7 (I have often thought that at this point in time VA 7 and US 50 should be swapped).  Seems like Middleburg would be a more appropriate control city.

At least on I-66, I think this dates back to the earliest years (mid-1960's) of I-66 in Fairfax County and Prince William County, when it ran from I-495 to U.S. 29 and VA-55 at Gainesville (a short "orphan" section of I-66 bypassing Marshall (I think it is the part that is now multiplexed with U.S. 17) dates back almost that far).

If you think about it from the perspective of VDH engineers then (long before anyone heard of the Piedmont Environmental Council) it makes sense that the signage for U.S. 50 west on I-66 westbound would mention Winchester (I offer no opinion on changing Winchester to something else now).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 05, 2021, 12:57:39 PM
A few thoughts on US-17 inspired from earlier posts:

1. While I believe there are plans down the road to complete the Opal interchange (although not sure a ramp from US-17 northbound to US-29/US-15 southbound is necessary due to nearby VA-28) it's hard to say whether or not this would really be much of an improvement since all of the businesses (and their access points) just north of interchange (including probably the traffic light) would still all likely be left intact.

2. While the I-95 interchange improvements should largely fix the frequent southbound US-17 backups near Fredericksburg, it will be interesting to see what if/any impact the planned Berea Parkway (a western extension of the Centreport Pkwy from I-95 (Exit 136) to US-17 somewhere around Popular Road) would have on US-17 traffic through the area. Even though it would take traffic three miles north, it would bypass a ton of existing traffic lights and the time saved would maybe make up for the extra distance. Unless of course, Stafford plans to use the road as a stepping stone for more neighborhoods and development.

3. Lastly I wonder what exactly the difference in traffic volumes would be if VDOT did promote US-17 north of I-66 as the route to Winchester, both on US-17 and I-66/I-81. While admittedly this stretch of road is IMO one of the most scenic stretches in the entire state, I do think that had the road been widened years ago, it would still be very scenic and rural similar to the current four-lane stretch of US-17 between I-66 and Warrenton.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 05, 2021, 01:03:55 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 05, 2021, 09:17:52 AM
Winchester is listed as a control city on I-66 WB at US 50 Fairfax as well as from VA 28. 

A little surprising given US 50 west of US 15 is not exactly welcomed as the through route.  Especially from VA 28 I would think Winchester traffic would be directed to use VA 7 (I have often thought that at this point in time VA 7 and US 50 should be swapped).  Seems like Middleburg would be a more appropriate control city.

At the I-66 interchange, I'd have the control cities for US-50 west be Fair Oaks/Chantilly while at the VA-28 interchange I'd have it be either South Riding, Dulles South, or Aldie. If Middleburg doesn't want the attention then so be it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 05, 2021, 03:19:41 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 05, 2021, 12:47:02 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 05, 2021, 09:17:52 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2021, 08:15:46 AM

Agreed completely. There's a fundamental difference between the distance signage seen on that segment of Route 17 (which just means the road goes there) and the guidance signs on the roads to which it connects at either end. I would say the guidance signage is the type that should be given more credence in determining what VDOT "promotes" as the prevailing route. The mere fact that a city is listed on a distance sign doesn't mean a whole lot–if it did, then taking US-50 west all the way from the Beltway would be the "promoted" route to Winchester from Fairfax County due to this sign just west of Gallows Road (https://goo.gl/maps/PC3d78duwbeURFrf6), but Winchester is not widely signed in Fairfax County (other than on mileage signs) and most people who know the roads would normally opt for I-66 or the Dulles Toll Road and Greenway to avoid dozens of traffic lights.

The sign Mapmikey linked is the one I was thinking of on I-66 (I didn't post a link last night because I was using the Google Maps app).

Winchester is listed as a control city on I-66 WB at US 50 Fairfax as well as from VA 28. 

A little surprising given US 50 west of US 15 is not exactly welcomed as the through route.  Especially from VA 28 I would think Winchester traffic would be directed to use VA 7 (I have often thought that at this point in time VA 7 and US 50 should be swapped).  Seems like Middleburg would be a more appropriate control city.

At least on I-66, I think this dates back to the earliest years (mid-1960's) of I-66 in Fairfax County and Prince William County, when it ran from I-495 to U.S. 29 and VA-55 at Gainesville (a short "orphan" section of I-66 bypassing Marshall (I think it is the part that is now multiplexed with U.S. 17) dates back almost that far).

If you think about it from the perspective of VDH engineers then (long before anyone heard of the Piedmont Environmental Council) it makes sense that the signage for U.S. 50 west on I-66 westbound would mention Winchester (I offer no opinion on changing Winchester to something else now).

This is an excellent historical point. I don't really remember when I-66 ended at Gainesville, though I'm aware it did, and I'm almost positive I never travelled on that "orphan" piece back then, but I do remember when I-66 first opened out to I-81 there were LGSs along the side of the road advising of the fact. Route 50 was almost certainly the better thru route from Fairfax to Winchester than heading out to Gainesville and then taking VA-55 to US-17.

Also, regarding the point Jmiles32 makes, Fair Oaks didn't exist back then (the shopping mall opened in 1980) and Chantilly and Centreville were generally considered to be out in the sticks. That's probably why they were not included back then, though certainly nowadays Chantilly (at a minimum) would be a legitimate candidate for inclusion. I have a feeling Aldie likely wouldn't want to be on the sign either–recall that Aldie, Middleburg, and Upperville were very vocally opposed to proposals to widen and realign Route 50.

While there have been some changes to BGSs in Northern Virginia over the years (notably, the addition of Manassas to signs for I-66), it seems like more often than not the signs tend to be relative carbon copies of the old ones, notably on I-395 when the old signs were replaced with identical Clearview versions. (Control cities or neighborhoods is another issue entirely, but I would add something to the BGSs on the Beltway for Braddock Road–most likely Burke for westbound traffic, though I might include Fairfax as well because it can be a faster way to get there than Route 236 due to fewer lights and no 35- and 25-mph zones since it doesn't go through Fairfax City.)


(Edited to add a point to the final paragraph)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 05, 2021, 03:44:28 PM
Speaking of I-66 control cities for a second; does anyone know what the farthest east use of "Strasburg" for I-66 west was? While I know for a fact that it was used at both the Gainesville and Haymarket interchanges about a decade ago, both have now been replaced by Front Royal which is understandable and probably better due to that being the location of Virginia's inland port. I want to say it was once used at the VA-234 Bus exit (Manassas) as well but I'm not sure...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 05, 2021, 04:12:11 PM
I don't ever remember it being used east of Gainesville, but that doesn't mean my memory is not faulty.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 05, 2021, 04:37:36 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 05, 2021, 12:57:39 PM
3. Lastly I wonder what exactly the difference in traffic volumes would be if VDOT did promote US-17 north of I-66 as the route to Winchester, both on US-17 and I-66/I-81. While admittedly this stretch of road is IMO one of the most scenic stretches in the entire state, I do think that had the road been widened years ago, it would still be very scenic and rural similar to the current four-lane stretch of US-17 between I-66 and Warrenton.

Big problem (IMO) here is the railroad grade crossing with NS (formerly the Manassas Gap Railroad) north of I-66 at Delaplane - at the bottom of a long downhill descent southbound and a shorter one northbound.  It's also on a curved section of railroad.

It would need to be replaced with an overpass and that is not cheap, based on the nearby presence of Goose Creek which implies a new bridge over the creek as well, translating into a long and high bridge to clear the creek and the railroad.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 05, 2021, 05:09:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2021, 03:19:41 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 05, 2021, 12:47:02 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 05, 2021, 09:17:52 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2021, 08:15:46 AM

Agreed completely. There's a fundamental difference between the distance signage seen on that segment of Route 17 (which just means the road goes there) and the guidance signs on the roads to which it connects at either end. I would say the guidance signage is the type that should be given more credence in determining what VDOT "promotes" as the prevailing route. The mere fact that a city is listed on a distance sign doesn't mean a whole lot–if it did, then taking US-50 west all the way from the Beltway would be the "promoted" route to Winchester from Fairfax County due to this sign just west of Gallows Road (https://goo.gl/maps/PC3d78duwbeURFrf6), but Winchester is not widely signed in Fairfax County (other than on mileage signs) and most people who know the roads would normally opt for I-66 or the Dulles Toll Road and Greenway to avoid dozens of traffic lights.

The sign Mapmikey linked is the one I was thinking of on I-66 (I didn't post a link last night because I was using the Google Maps app).

Winchester is listed as a control city on I-66 WB at US 50 Fairfax as well as from VA 28. 

A little surprising given US 50 west of US 15 is not exactly welcomed as the through route.  Especially from VA 28 I would think Winchester traffic would be directed to use VA 7 (I have often thought that at this point in time VA 7 and US 50 should be swapped).  Seems like Middleburg would be a more appropriate control city.

At least on I-66, I think this dates back to the earliest years (mid-1960's) of I-66 in Fairfax County and Prince William County, when it ran from I-495 to U.S. 29 and VA-55 at Gainesville (a short "orphan" section of I-66 bypassing Marshall (I think it is the part that is now multiplexed with U.S. 17) dates back almost that far).

If you think about it from the perspective of VDH engineers then (long before anyone heard of the Piedmont Environmental Council) it makes sense that the signage for U.S. 50 west on I-66 westbound would mention Winchester (I offer no opinion on changing Winchester to something else now).

This is an excellent historical point. I don't really remember when I-66 ended at Gainesville, though I'm aware it did, and I'm almost positive I never travelled on that "orphan" piece back then, but I do remember when I-66 first opened out to I-81 there were LGSs along the side of the road advising of the fact. Route 50 was almost certainly the better thru route from Fairfax to Winchester than heading out to Gainesville and then taking VA-55 to US-17.

It was a very simple and rather hazardous affair - the westbound side of I-66 dumped all traffic onto southbound U.S. 29 (and formerly westbound U.S. 211) near that miserable NS grade crossing (blocking that crossing was a real hazard).  The only entrance to I-66 eastbound was from northbound U.S. 29 (eastbound U.S. 211).  Other movements implicitly required U turns, which led to at least some crashes.   The intersection with VA-55 was just south of the railroad at a busy signalized intersection.

I remember being down that way as a high school junior (1975) as a counselor at Camp Glenkirk (now gone) near Lake Manassas on Glenkirk Road (VA-675), which Montgomery County Public Schools leased for outdoor education for grade 6 students.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2021, 08:15:46 AM
Also, regarding the point Jmiles32 makes, Fair Oaks didn't exist back then (the shopping mall opened in 1980) and Chantilly and Centreville were generally considered to be out in the sticks. That's probably why they were not included back then, though certainly nowadays Chantilly (at a minimum) would be a legitimate candidate for inclusion. I have a feeling Aldie likely wouldn't want to be on the sign either–recall that Aldie, Middleburg, and Upperville were very vocally opposed to proposals to widen and realign Route 50.

Agree.  Manassas was even more "in the sticks" back then.  Gainesville?  Only roadgeeks knew about that (I always regarded it as an analog to Breezewood, though I also knew that Virginia was going to finish it out to I-81, which was done in the early 1980's. Yes, Chantilly would be a good destination. 

Agree that the small towns along U.S. 50 in Loudoun County and Fauquier County would likely be very unhappy if they were mentioned on I-66 signs.

This also reminds me that back then, the interchange at VA-243 (Nutley Street) was a bad joke.  I think there were two of the movements accommodated then.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2021, 08:15:46 AM
While there have been some changes to BGSs in Northern Virginia over the years (notably, the addition of Manassas to signs for I-66), it seems like more often than not the signs tend to be relative carbon copies of the old ones, notably on I-395 when the old signs were replaced with identical Clearview versions. (Control cities or neighborhoods is another issue entirely, but I would add something to the BGSs on the Beltway for Braddock Road–most likely Burke for westbound traffic, though I might include Fairfax as well because it can be a faster way to get there than Route 236 due to fewer lights and no 35- and 25-mph zones since it doesn't go through Fairfax City.)

(Edited to add a point to the final paragraph)


Overall correct.  Front Royal was the control city even when I-66 only went as fair as Gainesville!  And there was a sign on westbound I-66 west of I-495 telling drivers that the freeway was only open to Gainesville (truth in freeways?).

I have always suspected that U.S. 50/U.S. 29 (Fairfax Boulevard) has signals timed to discourage bailout traffic from I-66, but I cannot prove that.

The control cities for Inner Loop 495 in Fairfax County was Frederick at the start in 1964 (yes, I was a roadgeek then, and a trip to the Commonwealth (made so much easier by I-495) was an adventure for me before I got my license).

Later it was Rockville, but a former Virginia governor ordered VDOT to change most of them to Tysons Corner.

Outer Loop in Montgomery County, Maryland still has Northern Virginia on the mainline and at several entrance ramps.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 05, 2021, 10:57:48 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 05, 2021, 04:37:36 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 05, 2021, 12:57:39 PM
3. Lastly I wonder what exactly the difference in traffic volumes would be if VDOT did promote US-17 north of I-66 as the route to Winchester, both on US-17 and I-66/I-81. While admittedly this stretch of road is IMO one of the most scenic stretches in the entire state, I do think that had the road been widened years ago, it would still be very scenic and rural similar to the current four-lane stretch of US-17 between I-66 and Warrenton.

Big problem (IMO) here is the railroad grade crossing with NS (formerly the Manassas Gap Railroad) north of I-66 at Delaplane - at the bottom of a long downhill descent southbound and a shorter one northbound.  It's also on a curved section of railroad.

It would need to be replaced with an overpass and that is not cheap, based on the nearby presence of Goose Creek which implies a new bridge over the creek as well, translating into a long and high bridge to clear the creek and the railroad.

Yeah US-15's crossing of the NS in Haymarket presents similar expensive issues that are currently the main culprit behind why the planned project to four-lane this very short stretch of US-15 and build a bridge over the tracks can't seem to find any funding.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8141517,-77.6449025,16z?hl=en&authuser=0
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 06, 2021, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on January 05, 2021, 10:57:48 PM
Yeah US-15's crossing of the NS in Haymarket presents similar expensive issues that are currently the main culprit behind why the planned project to four-lane this very short stretch of US-15 and build a bridge over the tracks can't seem to find any funding.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8141517,-77.6449025,16z?hl=en&authuser=0

Unfortunately, I think you are correct.  I visit that Sheetz in Haymarket sometimes, and for being a single-track railroad, the NS line (f/k/a Manassas Gap Railroad) is very busy with plenty of long freight trains. 

And there have been discussions about extending VRE service to Haymarket, though it is not clear to me where the station might be located, and the project is on hold now anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 06, 2021, 12:18:52 PM
I'd argue that the Haymarket at-grade crossing's proximity to the I-66 interchange makes it arguably more complex, and thus expensive, than the US-17 at-grade crossing in question. The latter would require some sort of access road on the north side to serve the various businesses (including a winery) in the area right around the railroad tracks, but that would be relatively straightforward. The Haymarket one presents significantly greater issues.

cpzilliacus mentioned the old at-grade crossing in Gainesville. I certainly remember that one. I recall several incidents caused when someone exiting the 7-11 parking (which, if memory serves, did not have a railroad crossing gate across one of the exits) didn't bother to look before driving out to cross the tracks. Replacing that at-grade crossing was part of a big project that also created a SPUI at Route 55. (Those of us who remember the early-1980s construction of the SPUI at US-50 and Gallows Road in Fairfax County were struck by the similarities in the Gainesville project.) Annoying thing was, though, that while once upon a time when you got past the light at Route 55 things kind of opened up, now there are so many new traffic lights between there and Route 15 that all the new overpass and SPUI do for Route 29 traffic is to speed your way to the next red light. I guess that's not entirely fair–eliminating that railroad crossing was sorely needed and was a major improvement–but still, a project that once might have seemed like it would expedite passage through Gainesville now just moves the slowdown immediately to the west.

When I was in college, Route 29 was my major route to and from Charlottesville. It makes less sense for me to go that way now, but when I do, if I'm heading southbound (or westbound to Route 211), even with the reconstruction in Gainesville I still often find it faster to use either Route 15 south at Haymarket or Route 245 to Route 17 out at Old Tavern to approach Warrenton from the north. No railroad crossing at all going the latter way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 06, 2021, 12:56:50 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2021, 12:18:52 PM
I'd argue that the Haymarket at-grade crossing's proximity to the I-66 interchange makes it arguably more complex, and thus expensive, than the US-17 at-grade crossing in question. The latter would require some sort of access road on the north side to serve the various businesses (including a winery) in the area right around the railroad tracks, but that would be relatively straightforward. The Haymarket one presents significantly greater issues.

There are changes in grade at Haymarket but I think they are steeper at Delaplane on U.S. 17.

But yes, the grade crossing at Haymarket is complex, and being close to the busy intersection of U.S. 15 and  VA-55 (in front of Sheetz) also makes things more difficult.   That is not the sleepy intersection it once was.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2021, 12:18:52 PM
cpzilliacus mentioned the old at-grade crossing in Gainesville. I certainly remember that one. I recall several incidents caused when someone exiting the 7-11 parking (which, if memory serves, did not have a railroad crossing gate across one of the exits) didn't bother to look before driving out to cross the tracks. Replacing that at-grade crossing was part of a big project that also created a SPUI at Route 55. (Those of us who remember the early-1980s construction of the SPUI at US-50 and Gallows Road in Fairfax County were struck by the similarities in the Gainesville project.) Annoying thing was, though, that while once upon a time when you got past the light at Route 55 things kind of opened up, now there are so many new traffic lights between there and Route 15 that all the new overpass and SPUI do for Route 29 traffic is to speed your way to the next red light. I guess that's not entirely fair–eliminating that railroad crossing was sorely needed and was a major improvement–but still, a project that once might have seemed like it would expedite passage through Gainesville now just moves the slowdown immediately to the west.

Agree.

The Gainesville grade crossing was one of worst in all of Northern Virginia.  It could badly impact westbound I-66 when it was blocked too, which was serious safety problem.

Important to note that the Haymarket municipal cops work speed enforcement along VA-55 west of U.S. 29, often sitting in plain view but they still catch a lot of drivers.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2021, 12:18:52 PM
When I was in college, Route 29 was my major route to and from Charlottesville. It makes less sense for me to go that way now, but when I do, if I'm heading southbound (or westbound to Route 211), even with the reconstruction in Gainesville I still often find it faster to use either Route 15 south at Haymarket or Route 245 to Route 17 out at Old Tavern to approach Warrenton from the north. No railroad crossing at all going the latter way.

That was my choice when I-66 ended at Gainesville.  But since Sheetz opened at Haymarket, I usually go there if I am headed west on the I-66 corridor or to the south along U.S. 29 in the direction of Warrenton.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 06, 2021, 01:20:50 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 06, 2021, 12:18:52 PM
Annoying thing was, though, that while once upon a time when you got past the light at Route 55 things kind of opened up, now there are so many new traffic lights between there and Route 15 that all the new overpass and SPUI do for Route 29 traffic is to speed your way to the next red light. I guess that's not entirely fair–eliminating that railroad crossing was sorely needed and was a major improvement–but still, a project that once might have seemed like it would expedite passage through Gainesville now just moves the slowdown immediately to the west.

Agreed although I will say that in my experience those lights immediately south (or west) of the Gainesville interchange are all fairly timed well and are not the cause for afternoon backups (However, I do think that the later lights at US-15, Broad Run Church Road, and Dumfries Road do cause southbound issues). Instead, I would argue that the backups are primarily caused by the drop of the third lane immediately after the Virginia Oaks light. Thus, traffic exiting onto southbound US-29 from the SPUI have to merge over not one but two lanes, and often times during heavy traffic the easier option at least for me was to simply turn right at the Virginia Oaks light, make a U-turn, and then wait for the light. Furthermore, it absolutely boggles my mind that when the southbound US-29 bridge over the North Fork Broad Run was reconstructed about 10 years ago, no one considered building a bridge with room to handle 3 lanes when 3 lane ROW currently exists both immediately to the north and the south! The light at Somerset Crossing Drive is IMO a far more natural place to end the third lane instead of where it currently ends and would almost certainly improve traffic flow. Absolutely crazy that this improvement didn't happen.

There is also a backup problem (arguably even worse) in the afternoons with VA-55 immediately west of the SPIU. The primary culprits behind this issue are both the merge from 4 to 2 lanes and the lack of a right turn lane at the nearby/busy Catharpin Road light. The easy solution here would be simply to extend the second lane that currently merges and turn that into a right turn lane at Catharpin Road. The reason I say this backup might be worse than the US-29 one is that Prince William County actually offered up a potential bond project in a voter referendum to widen VA-55 to four lanes past Catharpin Road. However in the end the county decided to take the project off of the bond referendum. While it was unclear why exactly the project got taken off of the referendum, it may be at least partly due to costs associated with the presence of a nearby cemetery right off of the road shortly after the current lane drop.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 06, 2021, 07:45:34 PM
A Virginia Tech history professor has received a grant to study the "displacement and environmental destruction" caused by the construction of the Interstate highway system. "LaDale Winling, an associate professor of history at Virginia Tech, is determined to change that. And to help him achieve that goal, the National Endowment for Humanities has provided him with a prestigious grant to kickstart a new project, "Connecting the Interstates."  "Connecting the Interstates"  will illuminate the damaging effects of the highway system through an interactive map, Winling said. The tool can help community leaders, public officials, journalists, and historians along with the general public understand the system's impact on a deeper level." See https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2020/12/destruction-and-displacement--history-professor-earns-grant-to-e.html for details.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 06, 2021, 09:57:39 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 06, 2021, 07:45:34 PM
A Virginia Tech history professor has received a grant to study the "displacement and environmental destruction" caused by the construction of the Interstate highway system. "LaDale Winling, an associate professor of history at Virginia Tech, is determined to change that. And to help him achieve that goal, the National Endowment for Humanities has provided him with a prestigious grant to kickstart a new project, "Connecting the Interstates."  "Connecting the Interstates"  will illuminate the damaging effects of the highway system through an interactive map, Winling said. The tool can help community leaders, public officials, journalists, and historians along with the general public understand the system's impact on a deeper level." See https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2020/12/destruction-and-displacement--history-professor-earns-grant-to-e.html for details.

Thanks for sharing this.

I took a quick look and discovered an issue immediately.

Not about my home state, Maryland, but about our good neighbor across the creek - the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The first page we see has an image of the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike, signed as I-95 (and the southwestern part as I-85).    But the RPT was not built as part of the Interstate system - it was funded with pre-interstate revenue bonds, and might not have been built to VDH Interstate standards (consider that some of the mainline curves and many of the ramps were quite a lot tighter than what I have seen on "old" urban Interstates in Virginia).

I am not disputing the bad impacts of some Interstates across the nation, but fingering the RPT as an Interstate is wrong, even though it clearly had negative impacts through parts of Richmond and maybe Petersburg too (not as sure about Petersburg as I have not read anything about the impact of the RPT on Petersburg.).

Curiously, Brad Plumer, writing in the New York Times, made the exact same mistake not that long ago, and I sent him an e-mail, and he changed his article.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 07, 2021, 11:05:51 AM
^ Petersburg definitely has had problems for decades, but as far as I'm aware, few if any of them have had to do with the RPT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2021, 11:42:15 AM
Quote from: Takumi on January 07, 2021, 11:05:51 AM
^ Petersburg definitely has had problems for decades, but as far as I'm aware, few if any of them have had to do with the RPT.

I defer to your better knowledge.   

I have read that the municipal government of Petersburg has had serious financial problems at least a few times, but I am not sure if that has anything to do with the RPT and I will assume that the answer is no.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 07, 2021, 08:22:46 PM
The RPT claimed some homes in Petersburg but not nearly as many as in Richmond's Jackson Ward. So I would have to agree with Takumi, very little impact to Petersburg, if any. Looking at Historic Aerials, much of the Petersburg segments followed undeveloped plots anyway.

Actually, the I-64 interchange with the RPT led to even more homes being taken in Jackson Ward, on top of what happened 10 years prior.

The big one, however, is the construction of the Downtown Expressway (VA 195), which took hundreds of homes from US 1/301 westward.

Jackson Ward was starting a slow decline in the years preceding construction of the RPT, but the highway definitely help speed that decline up, on top of splitting the neighborhood into two.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 07, 2021, 09:14:25 PM
Yeah, Petersburg's biggest problems came later, culminating in the 80s when the Brown & Williamson cigarette factory downtown closed because they didn't agree with the city council's tax rate imposed on them. The early 90s saw the Southpark Mall development in neighboring Colonial Heights siphon a lot of the remaining businesses.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 08, 2021, 12:15:24 PM
VDOT tweeted another great "Then and Now." Love the old signs in the top photo, and it's striking how little the spot has changed in just over 60 years.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1347591910765035522
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 08, 2021, 12:59:17 PM
^As I grew up in Prince George County, I have driven through this interchange many times over the years even though I lived very close to Hopewell.  I started driving in this area more once my friends in the neighborhood that I grew up with moved to Carson.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 08, 2021, 01:28:27 PM
Quote from: plain on January 07, 2021, 08:22:46 PM
The RPT claimed some homes in Petersburg but not nearly as many as in Richmond's Jackson Ward. So I would have to agree with Takumi, very little impact to Petersburg, if any. Looking at Historic Aerials, much of the Petersburg segments followed undeveloped plots anyway.

Thanks.

Quote from: plain on January 07, 2021, 08:22:46 PM

Actually, the I-64 interchange with the RPT led to even more homes being taken in Jackson Ward, on top of what happened 10 years prior.

The big one, however, is the construction of the Downtown Expressway (VA 195), which took hundreds of homes from US 1/301 westward.

Jackson Ward was starting a slow decline in the years preceding construction of the RPT, but the highway definitely help speed that decline up, on top of splitting the neighborhood into two.

Strange, I am familiar with the Downtown Expressway, but was not aware of its negative impacts at all. 

There has been a fair amount of writing about the racist routing of the RPT by VDH through African American neighborhoods in Richmond, but this is the first time I have seen anything that mentions the Downtown Expressway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 08, 2021, 01:53:41 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 08, 2021, 12:15:24 PM
VDOT tweeted another great "Then and Now." Love the old signs in the top photo, and it's striking how little the spot has changed in just over 60 years.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1347591910765035522

Really interesting. It looks like US 301 was already in the process of becoming I-95 here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 08, 2021, 02:01:17 PM
^

The section of I-95 north of VA-35 was completed around 1961, though US-301 remained a four-lane divided highway south of there until it was finally upgraded to interstate standards around 1980 down towards Jarratt.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 08, 2021, 02:39:19 PM
One of the things I find striking in the 1959 picture is the lack of edge striping. Of course we've all driven on roads that don't have such striping, but off the top of my head I'm not sure I've driven on a road of the sort seen in that picture (as opposed to two-lane roads or similar) that didn't have them (the Colonial Parkway near Williamsburg doesn't count). I'm sure to some degree that's a generational thing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 08, 2021, 09:37:09 PM
Here is a picture from the same view in 1956 (from Virginia Hwys Bulletin):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fold%2Fold35y_st.jpg&hash=51b96c2b716079ee519ab4bf027acac258c72b89)


US 301 had just been 4-laned to this area when this photo was taken.  The road signed as VA 35 was actually VA 35Y and prior to about this time (vahighways project needs updating on this info) was US 301's route.

The exit ramp veers to the right of the VA 35Y road.

Not sure if at this point in 1956 they knew I-95 was coming through here yet or if the plan was going to be twinning US 301 on new alignments from here to Petersburg.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 08, 2021, 09:41:30 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 08, 2021, 01:28:27 PM
Quote from: plain on January 07, 2021, 08:22:46 PM
The RPT claimed some homes in Petersburg but not nearly as many as in Richmond's Jackson Ward. So I would have to agree with Takumi, very little impact to Petersburg, if any. Looking at Historic Aerials, much of the Petersburg segments followed undeveloped plots anyway.

Thanks.

Quote from: plain on January 07, 2021, 08:22:46 PM

Actually, the I-64 interchange with the RPT led to even more homes being taken in Jackson Ward, on top of what happened 10 years prior.

The big one, however, is the construction of the Downtown Expressway (VA 195), which took hundreds of homes from US 1/301 westward.

Jackson Ward was starting a slow decline in the years preceding construction of the RPT, but the highway definitely help speed that decline up, on top of splitting the neighborhood into two.

Strange, I am familiar with the Downtown Expressway, but was not aware of its negative impacts at all. 

There has been a fair amount of writing about the racist routing of the RPT by VDH through African American neighborhoods in Richmond, but this is the first time I have seen anything that mentions the Downtown Expressway.

The neighborhoods affected by VA 195 were Randolph, which was/is primarily black, and Oregon Hill, which was/is primarily white.

I noted this expressway mostly because of the number of homes leveled. Though technically Randolph was more affected due to it being the larger neighborhood of the two, it still sucked (they certainly wasn't about to route it through The Fan..)


_____________________________________

As for that US 301 picture VDOT put out, another good one! I hope they keep them coming. This wasn't the only spot on this road that lacked shoulder striping. I saw a pic of a book cover online that showed US 301 near Stony Creek and it looked very similar: divided with no outside striping to be found. I also saw pics of the Turner Turnpike (OK) from the 1950's that lacked those lines. I guess some states weren't uniform yet with such practices.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 11, 2021, 01:37:15 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 08, 2021, 12:15:24 PM
VDOT tweeted another great "Then and Now." Love the old signs in the top photo, and it's striking how little the spot has changed in just over 60 years.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1347591910765035522
I remember bringing up this interchange in a post.  But I'm up way too late, so I won't go searching for it now.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 11, 2021, 10:52:56 AM
Information regarding a future project along the US-58 / US-13 / US-460 connector between Suffolk and Bowers Hill that would construct a flyover at the SPSA Regional Landfill, will be presented at the HRTPO Transportation Programming Subcommittee meeting on January 15, 2021.

If constructed, this would eliminate one of the few dangerous at-grade crossings along a major corridor that effectively functions as a 60 mph 6 lane freeway.

Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) Flyover Project Phase 1: Update - SPSA (https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/011521%2005%20SPSA%20Flyover%20Project%20Phase%20I%20Update.pdf)
QuoteThe SPSA Flyover — Phase I Project improves the safety and efficiency of the U.S. Route 460/58/13 corridor by removing a hazardous at-grade intersection along the high-speed corridor with a new flyover ramp connecting to the Regional Landfill. The combined 20- year benefit of the project translates to 200 fewer crashes and 325 hours of travel time savings for travelers along the U.S. Route 460/58/13 corridor and users of the SPSA Regional Landfill.

The proposed flyover would direct eastbound traffic destined for the landfill to a new ramp on the right-hand side of the road, carry it over U.S. 460/58/13, and deliver it into a new acceleration/deceleration lane on the right-hand side of westbound U.S. 460/58/13 so that landfill traffic could safely make a right turn into the facility. The crossover currently used for the eastbound left turns into the landfill would be closed, thereby completely eliminating the hazardous maneuver.

Solid waste disposal is well-recognized as a critical public service for local governments. The waste disposal services provided by SPSA are essential to the continued health, welfare, and prosperity of Southeastern Virginia's economic engine.

The Regional Landfill ensures that the SPSA member localities have an environmentally safe and reliable solution to waste disposal. Without the flyover, SPSA will be unable to expand the current landfill and the region would lose that safety and reliability due to the uncertainty of private landfills and their lack of emphasis on environmental stewardship.
(https://i.ibb.co/89mLZw2/SPSA-Interchange.png)


After doing some digging, I came across this resolution given back in May 2020 in regards to applying for a BUILD grant application for the project, which provided a higher resolution conceptual drawing of the "I-58 / SPSA flyover interchange".
(https://i.ibb.co/PYcmCxC/SPSA-Interchange-High-Res.png)
https://spsa.com/application/files/2216/0192/0718/Board_Agenda_-_May_2020.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 11, 2021, 11:10:31 AM
That certainly looks promising, would be a huge improvement. Hope they keep them coming. One cross section eliminated, 5 more to go.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 13, 2021, 10:25:47 PM
From a 1991 video posted in the Old Baltimore Area Signs thread are these screenshots of BGS's on the Richmond-Petersburg Tpk. Not the best quality pics but you should be able to see that most of them had the exit numbers inside the BGS instead of on a separate tab.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210114/0ca9fedd66333e9c9572091333b3128a.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210114/5e84e988367c9e77461bd87ac588fc0c.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210114/8c2a62e96f146ebd30fdafca6c7383b9.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210114/7104bcc11da46b3e074e9cdb8ea9806d.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 13, 2021, 10:38:15 PM
Nice find. Those exit signs look like they adopted Jersey Turnpike style with the exception of the arrows.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 13, 2021, 10:53:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 13, 2021, 10:38:15 PM
Nice find. Those exit signs look like they adopted Jersey Turnpike style with the exception of the arrows.

Yeah the RPT definitely mimicked the NJTP in that regard. I have some more pics somewhere ranging from the late 1950's to the early 80's with the same style signs at other exits, along with some rather unique ones at the exit gores themselves. I'll try to dig those up sometime.

Also, from that same video mentioned, I captured the Belvedere toll plaza and the ramp tolls at 7th St (I-64 EB) and Chamberlayne Pkwy but they didn't come out as clear as I hoped.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 14, 2021, 09:53:26 AM
Quote from: plain on January 13, 2021, 10:25:47 PM
From a 1991 video posted in the Old Baltimore Area Signs thread are these screenshots of BGS's on the Richmond-Petersburg Tpk. Not the best quality pics but you should be able to see that most of them had the exit numbers inside the BGS instead of on a separate tab.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210114/0ca9fedd66333e9c9572091333b3128a.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210114/5e84e988367c9e77461bd87ac588fc0c.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210114/8c2a62e96f146ebd30fdafca6c7383b9.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210114/7104bcc11da46b3e074e9cdb8ea9806d.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)



A couple of those BGSes are actually still around, namely that I-64 sign on the James River Bridge. The "75" patch blew off at one point, revealing the original exit number (11), until the exit tab was replaced.

Also, interesting to see that US 33 was erroneously signed on this portion of Broad Street in 1991. It should just be US 250 (specifically, US 250 west).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 14, 2021, 10:01:26 AM
That sign on the bridge appears to be missing in the most recent Street View image from last March.

Edited to add: The exit number as seen in July 2011 is rather amusing. https://goo.gl/maps/49QmAuEMATV31s9o9
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 14, 2021, 10:28:09 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2021, 10:01:26 AM
That sign on the bridge appears to be missing in the most recent Street View image from last March.

Edited to add: The exit number as seen in July 2011 is rather amusing. https://goo.gl/maps/49QmAuEMATV31s9o9

Yeah, they threw that on after the previous patch blew off. And I was wrong, they didn't replace the tab, they just threw on a bigger "75" patch on top of the tiny one.

I have no idea how I didn't notice that the sign was gone, though, and I live here! VDOT did recently refresh a bunch of overhead signs along I-95 (mainly along the I-64 concurrency), so that might be why this one was removed. I have no idea if it's been replaced.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 14, 2021, 11:01:08 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 14, 2021, 10:28:09 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2021, 10:01:26 AM
That sign on the bridge appears to be missing in the most recent Street View image from last March.

Edited to add: The exit number as seen in July 2011 is rather amusing. https://goo.gl/maps/49QmAuEMATV31s9o9

Yeah, they threw that on after the previous patch blew off. And I was wrong, they didn't replace the tab, they just threw on a bigger "75" patch on top of the tiny one.

I have no idea how I didn't notice that the sign was gone, though, and I live here! VDOT did recently refresh a bunch of overhead signs along I-95 (mainly along the I-64 concurrency), so that might be why this one was removed. I have no idea if it's been replaced.


To some degree, I think when you're familiar with a road and its signs you sometimes see what your mind believes to be there or knows should be there. It's similar to proofreading your own work. Often it's easy to miss your own typos because you know what you meant to say and your mind therefore "sees" what you meant and not what you actually typed.

I haven't been through Richmond on I-95 in several years. We usually opt for I-295 unless it's a time of day when we're getting particularly hungry, in which case we'll take I-95 and stop at the VA-10 exit just because there are a good number of options there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 14, 2021, 11:22:56 AM
The US 33 posting has always annoyed me. Not only hasn't been on that part of Broad St since 1981, it hasn't existed anywhere east of Harrison St, or Hancock, or something, since then. The split on Exit 74C (heading east) leads directly to Oliver Hill Way (17th St/US 360 WB) but really no need to sign that either at that point. It could say TO EAST US 60 or TO EAST VA 33, but given how shitty the city is with signing routes it would be too confusing trying to get to them. Might as well just say Broad St EAST.

I'm almost thinking that I-64 posting on the bridge is gone because VDOT felt there was just too much information there, but then again why now after so many years (that sign was probably put up in 1976)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 16, 2021, 10:14:33 PM
Arcadia publishing has those Images of America books on the New Jersey Turnpike and the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I wonder if anyone ever considered a book on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 17, 2021, 02:17:20 PM
Hey, I've been researching US 23 BUS between Big Stone Gap and Norton, and I noticed in an aerial shot of Appalachia, Virginia, I found a rail trail head in Appalachia that replaced an old Louisville and Nashville Railroad line.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/36%C2%B055'33.5%22N+82%C2%B044'37.5%22W/@36.9000008,-82.788872,361m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d36.925972!4d-82.74375?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/place/36%C2%B055'33.5%22N+82%C2%B044'37.5%22W/@36.9000008,-82.788872,361m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d36.925972!4d-82.74375?hl=en)

The trouble is, I don't see it on Google Street View doesn't have that trailhead yet.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8995024,-82.7884486,3a,75y,325.1h,81.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssxtaGBlBjlIugpo_S707dw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DsxtaGBlBjlIugpo_S707dw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D148.36032%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en
(https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8995024,-82.7884486,3a,75y,325.1h,81.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssxtaGBlBjlIugpo_S707dw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DsxtaGBlBjlIugpo_S707dw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D148.36032%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 17, 2021, 10:15:25 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 14, 2021, 10:28:09 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 14, 2021, 10:01:26 AM
That sign on the bridge appears to be missing in the most recent Street View image from last March.

Edited to add: The exit number as seen in July 2011 is rather amusing. https://goo.gl/maps/49QmAuEMATV31s9o9

Yeah, they threw that on after the previous patch blew off. And I was wrong, they didn't replace the tab, they just threw on a bigger "75" patch on top of the tiny one.

I have no idea how I didn't notice that the sign was gone, though, and I live here! VDOT did recently refresh a bunch of overhead signs along I-95 (mainly along the I-64 concurrency), so that might be why this one was removed. I have no idea if it's been replaced.

Yeah, I've been passing the staged replacements heading to work every morning. Up next is the one before Bells Road with the greenout.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: TheGrassGuy on January 20, 2021, 04:49:19 PM
How did the Cumberland Gap area look like before the tunnel was built?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 20, 2021, 08:33:23 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 20, 2021, 04:49:19 PM
How did the Cumberland Gap area look like before the tunnel was built?

Historicaerials.com has 1950s and 1980s views that show two other US 25E configurations

The Virginia Hwys Page entry for US 25E gives some description of the configurations using Topo maps to illustrate - http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/us025.htm
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 21, 2021, 04:11:52 PM
Here are the draft Smart Scale Round 4 project scores: https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/dailyprogress.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/20/f207f738-5c1e-11eb-86cd-3724f7c459dd/6009d64125101.pdf.pdf

Some projects that scored well and stand out to me are as follows:

1. I-64/Denbigh Blvd Interchange ($46 million). Is there room for this?
2. I-77 northbound truck climbing lane ($16 million) Not exactly sure where this will be though.
3. Hydraulic Road and US-29 ($5 million) I'm assuming that an interchange improvement here has probably been dropped.
4. I-66 Exit 28 Improvements ($16 million and two separate projects).
5. VA-2/US-17 Business Widening south of Fredericksburg ($20 million).
5. Berry Hill Connector between US-311 and the Danville Bypass (US-58) ($38 million).
6. US-1 Widening through Dumfries ($50 million) Thought the NVTA already recently funded this...
7. VA-294 (PW Pkwy) and Old Bridge Road Intersection Improvements ($34 million).
8. Intercity rail service expansion along I-81 and US-29 corridors ($50 million).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 21, 2021, 10:16:23 PM
The proposed interchange on I-64 at VA 173 is needed, but I agree... How are they going to pull this off with very little room? They're in the process of rebuilding the overpass there, if they already had this interchange in mind then they should design the bridge to accommodate a diamond (where the ramps on the western side can squeeze in between the interstate and the railroad).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 23, 2021, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: plain on January 21, 2021, 10:16:23 PM
The proposed interchange on I-64 at VA 173 is needed, but I agree... How are they going to pull this off with very little room? They're in the process of rebuilding the overpass there, if they already had this interchange in mind then they should design the bridge to accommodate a diamond (where the ramps on the western side can squeeze in between the interstate and the railroad).

Interestingly this is all the project does:
QuoteInstall the first phase of a full interchange on I-64 at Denbigh Boulevard Bridge. This project will install the I-64 west off-ramp, widen I-64 to support the off-ramp movement, signalize the off-ramp, and widen Denbigh Boulevard to accommodate the Diamond A
design.

Still unclear to me whether the ongoing Denbigh Boulevard Bridge replacement project is being done in order to accommodate this. $46 million for not even a full interchange seems like a lot and that's not counting the additional $22 million currently being spent on the bridge replacement. Also, whats a diamond A design?
http://vasmartscale.org/documents/fy2022-resource-documents/ss22-scorecards.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 24, 2021, 12:59:16 PM
Two possible reasons why this ramp is being submitted first:
I would guess that this had the highest determined utility and was pulled out to get a better Smart Scale score.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 26, 2021, 06:50:49 AM
On section of I-64, VDOT converting HOV lanes to express lanes (https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/vp-nw--20210125-rlf4qq74tza7bf7n2ldqimmjb4-story.html)
QuoteThe Virginia Department of Transportation is converting 8 miles of high-occupancy vehicle lanes into express lanes on Interstate 64 in Norfolk, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.

The work will extend from the I-64/I-464 interchange in Chesapeake to the I-64/I-264 interchange in Norfolk, and is expected to be done by fall 2022, VDOT said in a news release Friday.

The current HOV lane in each direction will be converted to an express lane, while the three general purpose lanes stay the same.

VDOT said the $19.2 million project will reduce congestion in general, reduce traffic volumes during peak periods, and grant solo drivers access they didn't have before.

Currently, only vehicles with two or more people can travel in the HOV lanes during peak traffic periods. During other times, the lanes are available for all passenger vehicles.

Converting the HOV lanes into express lanes, VDOT said, will allow solo drivers to move out of the congested general purpose lanes into the express lanes, for a fee.

To use the express lanes, vehicles need E-ZPass or E-ZPass Flex.

Drivers with E-ZPass Flex who have two or more people in the vehicle will be able to travel toll-free. Also, motorcycles and transit buses will be allowed to travel toll-free.
If drivers don't have one of these passes, they can expect a violation notice requiring payment of the toll and fees, VDOT said in its statement.

Any money earned from the express lanes will go to VDOT, which plans to use it for "continued improvements of the I-64 corridor, ensuring a smoother commute for years to come,"  a spokeswoman said.

"Tolling revenue collected from the 64 Express Lanes is expected to cover the cost of operating and maintaining the facility and repayment of toll-related obligations,"  VDOT said. "This facility was not designed to raise revenue. It is a demand-based solution to help manage traffic in the corridor."

The first phase of the Hampton Roads Express Lanes kicked into gear between the I-564 interchange and I-264 in Norfolk in early 2018.

The next phase of the expansion is scheduled to start in late 2022, and will extend the Hampton Roads Express Lanes on I-64 from the I-464 interchange, across the High-Rise Bridge, to the I-664/I-264 Interchange at Bowers Hill.

Drivers may have to look out for daytime and nighttime single-lane and shoulder closures in the eastbound and westbound directions of I-64 during off-peak travel times, VDOT said.

To learn more, visit 64expresslanes.org/.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 26, 2021, 04:20:16 PM
I found out this afternoon that US 460/VA 166 was realigned just past VA 246 a few months ago as a result of the opening of the New Poindexter St Bridge replacing the 22nd St Bridge. (https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/chesapeake/new-bridge-in-south-norfolk-opens-to-traffic/)

I also found a video showing shields for US 460/VA 166 staying straight instead of turning for the dogleg to 22nd St it previously took.  I have no idea if there are VA 246 shields here at this time, but I did not see any in this direction.



EDIT:  A map can be shown here. (https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/chesapeake/22nd-bridge-in-chesapeake-to-close-over-safety-concerns/1338192231/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 26, 2021, 07:15:59 PM
The sole remaining VA 246 shield had been at the foot of the now-removed bridge.

My guess is that the backs of the shields visible there are US 460 and VA 166.

I'll be more upset if they removed this nearby sign - https://goo.gl/maps/xnjHVuoEjicvkAV68
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 31, 2021, 05:14:53 PM
I clinched VA 246 yesterday and did not see any shields in the area whatsoever.

Secondly, I drove VA 7 between US 15 and VA 28 on Wednesday, and the only signal left is at Cardinal Run Dr as the Battlefield Pkwy interchange is still under construction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Pink Jazz on February 01, 2021, 03:57:30 PM
I forgot to mention this, but as of July 2020, VDOT has a new contractor for its state logo sign program, Directional Signing Program, LLC.  At this time, Virginia Logos continues to be the contractor for the logo sign programs for the cities of Chesapeake, Suffolk, and Lynchburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 04, 2021, 03:35:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2021, 06:09:30 PM
Draft cost estimates and prioritization scores have been released for all candidate projects apart of the Hampton Roads 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/012621%2006_Handout1%202045%20LRTP%20Roadway%20Candidate%20Projects.pdf

Is there a timetable yet for when some of the highly ranked/prioritized projects in here will be funded?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ahj2000 on February 04, 2021, 03:44:16 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 04, 2021, 03:35:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2021, 06:09:30 PM
Draft cost estimates and prioritization scores have been released for all candidate projects apart of the Hampton Roads 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/012621%2006_Handout1%202045%20LRTP%20Roadway%20Candidate%20Projects.pdf

Is there a timetable yet for when some of the highly ranked/prioritized projects in here will be funded?
Interstate 87 made it! 406m$ is less than I though VA would need to put into it (but my tax dollars are thankful)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 04, 2021, 05:08:33 PM
At the bottom of page 6 there is a project I don't recall seeing anywhere- extending VA 164 to the Suffolk Bypass. No cost estimate is provided.

If they really build this they should move US 58 to it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 04, 2021, 06:20:16 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 04, 2021, 05:08:33 PM
At the bottom of page 6 there is a project I don't recall seeing anywhere- extending VA 164 to the Suffolk Bypass. No cost estimate is provided.

If they really build this they should move US 58 to it.

Interestingly, the project has, by far, the highest economic vitality rating on the table, but the lowest viability rating. Probably because the most direct path from VA 164's current west end is through the swamp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 04, 2021, 09:56:12 PM
If VA 164 were to ever get extended (highly doubtful) I'd rather it get extended to Carrollton or maybe even Smithfield.

I've never heard of any extension either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 05, 2021, 01:24:31 AM
^

A potential project evaluated recently during the Hampton Roads Regional Connectors Study, which is now currently focused on the Third Crossing, I-664, and VA-164 Widening, would have extended the Third Crossing from I-664 to US-17, a new alignment parallel to US-258 to north of Smithfield along VA-10, and a new bridge over the James River tying back into I-64 somewhere near Williamsburg. This project, however, was dropped from further evaluation.

Perhaps, and this may be getting into more fictional territory, but extend VA-164 or the Third Crossing west of US-17 along the VA-10 corridor to meet I-295 south of Hopewell. This would provide a similar corridor what the now-defunct US-460 freeway proposal would have provided, and a viable alternative between Richmond-Petersburg and the Southside that avoids the Peninsula.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 18 wheel warrior on February 05, 2021, 07:48:44 AM
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 04, 2021, 03:44:16 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on February 04, 2021, 03:35:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 28, 2021, 06:09:30 PM
Draft cost estimates and prioritization scores have been released for all candidate projects apart of the Hampton Roads 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/012621%2006_Handout1%202045%20LRTP%20Roadway%20Candidate%20Projects.pdf

Is there a timetable yet for when some of the highly ranked/prioritized projects in here will be funded?
Interstate 87 made it! 406m$ is less than I though VA would need to put into it (but my tax dollars are thankful)
Interesting that Virginia is looking at somehow bringing I-87 into the state via Rte 168. Has NC already proposed routing that way north of the Elizabeth City bypass? Now, as soon as you enter NC on US-17, there is a sign that proclaims "FUTURE I-87 CORRIDOR".

The Chesapeake Expressway to NC border routing I believe that would account for the "low" $406 million. I understand that it would be shorter new construction and minor improvements along the Chesapeake Expressway (assuming the highway is toll free by then, otherwise I-87 would likely end at Battlefield Blvd), but I would have thought I-87 would be continued along the current US-17 corridor into Chesapeake. From there it would continue along the corridor with some at grade intersections upgraded to interchanges (Ballahack Rd, George Washington Hwy, Scenic Pkwy, Grassfield Pkwy). The interstate would then meet I-64 at the same place at the Chesapeake Expressway at the same location as the apparent routing VDOT is going for via the expressway/Oak Grove Connector. My remaining question is whether I-87 would end there or would it replace I-464 into Norfolk?

As an aside, I don't like the I-87 designation as the routing from Raleigh is much more west-east than south-north. I believe the more sensible designation would be I-56 or I-62.   
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 05, 2021, 09:44:00 AM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on February 05, 2021, 07:48:44 AM
Interesting that Virginia is looking at somehow bringing I-87 into the state via Rte 168. Has NC already proposed routing that way north of the Elizabeth City bypass? Now, as soon as you enter NC on US-17, there is a sign that proclaims "FUTURE I-87 CORRIDOR".

The Chesapeake Expressway to NC border routing I believe that would account for the "low" $406 million. I understand that it would be shorter new construction and minor improvements along the Chesapeake Expressway (assuming the highway is toll free by then, otherwise I-87 would likely end at Battlefield Blvd), but I would have thought I-87 would be continued along the current US-17 corridor into Chesapeake. From there it would continue along the corridor with some at grade intersections upgraded to interchanges (Ballahack Rd, George Washington Hwy, Scenic Pkwy, Grassfield Pkwy). The interstate would then meet I-64 at the same place at the Chesapeake Expressway at the same location as the apparent routing VDOT is going for via the expressway/Oak Grove Connector. My remaining question is whether I-87 would end there or would it replace I-464 into Norfolk?

As an aside, I don't like the I-87 designation as the routing from Raleigh is much more west-east than south-north. I believe the more sensible designation would be I-56 or I-62.   
While the VA-168 connector was an alternative, I believe the official plans still have North Carolina putting the corridor along US-17 to the Virginia state line. Additionally, a map productid by the HRTPO showing location for all of the candidate projects months back put the "I-87" project along the US-17 corridor between I-64 and the North Carolina state line.

Upgrades along US-17 would be relatively low cost as well. The highway is already on a limited access right of way, and with construction of about 4 to 5 interchanges and frontage roads in various locations, along with slight upgrades to the mainline to widen the outside shoulders to 10 feet, it wouldn't be too much of a task. The $406 million cost estimate is high though considering it's adjusted for inflation 15 or 20 years out, could be more logical.

As a comparison, another project the HRTPO is evaluating and actually considering a Regional Priority Project for the 2045 round, is widening the Chesapeake Expressway (VA-168) between I-64 and Hillcrest Pkwy from 4 to 6-8 lanes, and is currently estimated to cost $354.7 million. Another project called "I‐64/I‐464 Loop Ramp (I‐64 EB to I‐464 South and I‐464 NB to I‐64 WB)" (which seems to indicate overhaul and removal of the two bottleneck loops on the north side of the I-64 / I-464 interchange) is also being considered as a Regional Priority Project and projected to cost $338.8 million.
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/012621%2006_Handout2%20DRAFT%20Highway%20RPP%20Recommendation.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 05, 2021, 10:00:47 AM
A little news involving VA EZpass

https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/virginia-makes-e-zpass-adjustment-due-to-pandemic
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 05, 2021, 11:21:29 AM
Quote from: plain on February 05, 2021, 10:00:47 AM
A little news involving VA EZpass

https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/virginia-makes-e-zpass-adjustment-due-to-pandemic

I saw this on the news while at my parents' last week.  I was surprised that this really became an issue with the understanding that you just needed to tell VDOT that you were still planning to use it to keep it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 05, 2021, 03:14:12 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 05, 2021, 11:21:29 AM
Quote from: plain on February 05, 2021, 10:00:47 AM
A little news involving VA EZpass

https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/virginia-makes-e-zpass-adjustment-due-to-pandemic

I saw this on the news while at my parents' last week.  I was surprised that this really became an issue with the understanding that you just needed to tell VDOT that you were still planning to use it to keep it.

I believe some Reddit users raised a ruckus and prompted VDOT's response.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on February 06, 2021, 07:25:40 PM
Surely if 164 got extended it would be to the JRB? That section of 17 is busy and needs significant upgrades. Not sure why they proposed adding miles of new freeway when it'd be much easier to upgrade existing 13/58/460.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on February 10, 2021, 10:11:58 PM
I can't find any websites that confirm the defunct US 60 Business along Atlantic Avenue in Virginia Beach. Does that mean it was unofficial when it was signed ( and it was until the early 80's)? Or is it official still, but dis the city forget to tell the state so they should have informed AASHTO?

Even US Ends dot com is confused by the lack of care VA Beach gives its two US routes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 11, 2021, 08:28:14 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 10, 2021, 10:11:58 PM
I can't find any websites that confirm the defunct US 60 Business along Atlantic Avenue in Virginia Beach. Does that mean it was unofficial when it was signed ( and it was until the early 80's)? Or is it official still, but dis the city forget to tell the state so they should have informed AASHTO?

Even US Ends dot com is confused by the lack of care VA Beach gives its two US routes.

US 60 Business was unofficial from VDOH's point of view and no primary routing money was allocated to the city (reaffirmed in 1960 and 1963).  It was a concession to Va Beach who did not like the intended plan to turn Atlantic and Pacific into one-way pairs.

Details at page 10 here - http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-05-1958-01.pdf

It was not posted at all when I lived in the area 1991-93.  I have yet to see a map label US 60 Business there, though there are maps that show US 60 on both Atlantic and Pacific such as this 1963 Princess Anne County map:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2F60b_1963.jpg&hash=6ba9599c992fbf7786de0edfd688f6d01e8360bc)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Henry on February 11, 2021, 10:45:00 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 05, 2021, 09:44:00 AM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on February 05, 2021, 07:48:44 AM
Interesting that Virginia is looking at somehow bringing I-87 into the state via Rte 168. Has NC already proposed routing that way north of the Elizabeth City bypass? Now, as soon as you enter NC on US-17, there is a sign that proclaims "FUTURE I-87 CORRIDOR".

The Chesapeake Expressway to NC border routing I believe that would account for the "low" $406 million. I understand that it would be shorter new construction and minor improvements along the Chesapeake Expressway (assuming the highway is toll free by then, otherwise I-87 would likely end at Battlefield Blvd), but I would have thought I-87 would be continued along the current US-17 corridor into Chesapeake. From there it would continue along the corridor with some at grade intersections upgraded to interchanges (Ballahack Rd, George Washington Hwy, Scenic Pkwy, Grassfield Pkwy). The interstate would then meet I-64 at the same place at the Chesapeake Expressway at the same location as the apparent routing VDOT is going for via the expressway/Oak Grove Connector. My remaining question is whether I-87 would end there or would it replace I-464 into Norfolk?

As an aside, I don't like the I-87 designation as the routing from Raleigh is much more west-east than south-north. I believe the more sensible designation would be I-56 or I-62.   
While the VA-168 connector was an alternative, I believe the official plans still have North Carolina putting the corridor along US-17 to the Virginia state line. Additionally, a map productid by the HRTPO showing location for all of the candidate projects months back put the "I-87" project along the US-17 corridor between I-64 and the North Carolina state line.

Upgrades along US-17 would be relatively low cost as well. The highway is already on a limited access right of way, and with construction of about 4 to 5 interchanges and frontage roads in various locations, along with slight upgrades to the mainline to widen the outside shoulders to 10 feet, it wouldn't be too much of a task. The $406 million cost estimate is high though considering it's adjusted for inflation 15 or 20 years out, could be more logical.

As a comparison, another project the HRTPO is evaluating and actually considering a Regional Priority Project for the 2045 round, is widening the Chesapeake Expressway (VA-168) between I-64 and Hillcrest Pkwy from 4 to 6-8 lanes, and is currently estimated to cost $354.7 million. Another project called "I‐64/I‐464 Loop Ramp (I‐64 EB to I‐464 South and I‐464 NB to I‐64 WB)" (which seems to indicate overhaul and removal of the two bottleneck loops on the north side of the I-64 / I-464 interchange) is also being considered as a Regional Priority Project and projected to cost $338.8 million.
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/012621%2006_Handout2%20DRAFT%20Highway%20RPP%20Recommendation.pdf
If NY, NJ, DE, MD and VA were discussing filling in the gap between new I-87 and the existing one up north, the designation would be more justifiable. But since they're not even looking at it, I agree, an even number would work better, like I-48. Although I've heard lots of I-46 suggestions for this corridor, the main drawback to such a designation would be confusion with I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 13, 2021, 08:21:45 AM
White's Ferry may return soon with a new owner:

https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/owner-of-jk-moving-buys-whites-ferry/article_b3a9ae12-6d96-11eb-b6ab-1709c7fa1d52.html

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 13, 2021, 11:57:46 AM
I'm no lawyer, but my stupid question was this - because of how the road on the Virginia side is configured in using a horseshoe curve to reach the landing, how is the ferry landing not within the ROW of this VDOT-maintained road?  Wouldn't change the fact that the ferry didn't own it, but rather who the ferry should have been dealing with.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 13, 2021, 01:33:38 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 13, 2021, 11:57:46 AM
I'm no lawyer, but my stupid question was this - because of how the road on the Virginia side is configured in using a horseshoe curve to reach the landing, how is the ferry landing not within the ROW of this VDOT-maintained road?  Wouldn't change the fact that the ferry didn't own it, but rather who the ferry should have been dealing with.

The text in boldface was actually a major matter of dispute in the lawsuit. The opinion (31-page letter ruling) is linked in Reply #5427 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.msg2558298#msg2558298) in this thread, if you want to read it. A letter ruling is a fairly standard procedure in Virginia's circuit courts and I'm glad WTOP got hold of a copy so it would be easily available. I don't know whether, or when, it'll be published in the Va. Cir. reporter.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 13, 2021, 02:46:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 13, 2021, 01:33:38 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 13, 2021, 11:57:46 AM
I'm no lawyer, but my stupid question was this - because of how the road on the Virginia side is configured in using a horseshoe curve to reach the landing, how is the ferry landing not within the ROW of this VDOT-maintained road?  Wouldn't change the fact that the ferry didn't own it, but rather who the ferry should have been dealing with.

The text in boldface was actually a major matter of dispute in the lawsuit. The opinion (31-page letter ruling) is linked in Reply #5427 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.msg2558298#msg2558298) in this thread, if you want to read it. A letter ruling is a fairly standard procedure in Virginia's circuit courts and I'm glad WTOP got hold of a copy so it would be easily available. I don't know whether, or when, it'll be published in the Va. Cir. reporter.

Thanks...I read through this.

It appears the defense argument was that the landing has public access due to its location at the end of a state maintained road.  That is different than saying the plaintiff owns it and the defense countering with the idea that VDOT owns it as part of ROW access it has on state maintained roads (meaning plaintiff had no standing to sue since it wouldn't be the owner).

I was also confused about the reference to 1954 Loudon County abandoning some part of SR 655.  The county no longer had control over it after 1932 so all they could do is request that VDOH formally abandon it.

If SR 655 went straight to the landing (no hairpin), then my question is moot since ROW extends to each side of the roadway and not forward past end of maintenance.  But it seemed to me that the landing is pretty close to the edge of roadway as it passes by prior to its hairpin down to the ramp.  The CTB minutes of the 1930s is full of entries about granting access to the ROW of state maintained roads for service station entrances and utility placements.  There was no easy way to search these for what distance from the centerline the ROW exists on a secondary route.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 15, 2021, 10:42:47 AM
WTOP reports that construction to widen Route 28 from roughly Compton Road to Route 29 is set to begin (https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2021/02/widening-of-va-route-28-set-to-begin-in-fairfax-co/).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 21, 2021, 03:52:48 PM
Heard on the radio that Fairfax City plans to install speed cameras. The location that stuck in my mind was on Main Street (VA-236) passing Woodson HS (from which I graduated 30 years ago), which is certainly a location where it's easy to violate the 35-mph speed limit.

I was not aware of any Virginia law allowing speed cameras, though I would not be surprised at all to hear there was a new law since the Democrats got control of both houses in the General Assembly.

Edited to add: Seems they did indeed ram it through last year. School zones and highway work zones....for now. (https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2021/02/photo-speed-cameras-could-be-coming-to-city-of-fairfax/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 22, 2021, 12:00:50 AM
^ Looks like they mostly matched Maryland's speed camera law:  school and work zones only, no tickets unless going more than 10 over (IIRC, Maryland's law is 12 over).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2021, 09:23:45 AM
The City of Richmond has begun putting up "Richmond Highway"  signage along US 1/301 in South Richmond. City Council voted to rename Jeff Davis Highway in December.

https://twitter.com/broadcastben_/status/1364750633006415874?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 25, 2021, 09:32:16 AM
Naming it "Richmond Highway" in Richmond seems weird to me. I assume the idea is consistency with other jurisdictions in Virginia, but normally when you use a city's name, it's because the road goes there. In this case, you're already there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2021, 10:01:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 25, 2021, 09:32:16 AM
Naming it "Richmond Highway" in Richmond seems weird to me. I assume the idea is consistency with other jurisdictions in Virginia, but normally when you use a city's name, it's because the road goes there. In this case, you're already there.

It is weird. City Council could have come up with a different name. Extending the Cowardin Avenue designation would have been a no-go because they'd be replacing one Confederate figure with another (Cowardin Avenue is named after the founder of Cowardin Jewelers, who was a Confederate Army officer).

The only segments of US 1 still actively named Jeff Davis Hwy are located in Stafford, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, Caroline, and Chesterfield. Of course, the entire length of US 1 in Virginia is named Jefferson Davis Highway legislatively.

On another (similar) note, the Virginia Senate passed a House bill on Tuesday that would give any county with the county-manager form of government the power to rename US 29 - in other words, Arlington County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 25, 2021, 01:36:54 PM
I wonder how many of the "rename everything" crowd realize that Arlington County is named for Robert E. Lee's estate.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on February 25, 2021, 02:17:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 25, 2021, 01:36:54 PM
I wonder how many of the "rename everything" crowd realize that Arlington County is named for Robert E. Lee's estate.

But did Lee name it Arlington House himself? I thought it was named by the Custis family. I think association is one thing, but the bigger issue may be those direct connections; at least it's not Robert E Lee Cemetery. But there is Lee County, so....

Here in Washington, the City of Arlington was named after Lord Henry Arlington.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2021, 08:58:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 25, 2021, 02:17:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 25, 2021, 01:36:54 PM
I wonder how many of the "rename everything" crowd realize that Arlington County is named for Robert E. Lee's estate.

But did Lee name it Arlington House himself? I thought it was named by the Custis family. I think association is one thing, but the bigger issue may be those direct connections; at least it's not Robert E Lee Cemetery. But there is Lee County, so....

Here in Washington, the City of Arlington was named after Lord Henry Arlington.

Arlington House was named by the Custis family, yes. Its original name was Mount Washington.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on February 26, 2021, 05:40:09 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2021, 10:01:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 25, 2021, 09:32:16 AM
Naming it "Richmond Highway" in Richmond seems weird to me. I assume the idea is consistency with other jurisdictions in Virginia, but normally when you use a city's name, it's because the road goes there. In this case, you're already there.

It is weird. City Council could have come up with a different name. Extending the Cowardin Avenue designation would have been a no-go because they'd be replacing one Confederate figure with another (Cowardin Avenue is named after the founder of Cowardin Jewelers, who was a Confederate Army officer).

The only segments of US 1 still actively named Jeff Davis Hwy are located in Stafford, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, Caroline, and Chesterfield. Of course, the entire length of US 1 in Virginia is named Jefferson Davis Highway legislatively.

On another (similar) note, the Virginia Senate passed a House bill on Tuesday that would give any county with the county-manager form of government the power to rename US 29 - in other words, Arlington County.

Question... was US 1 in Fairfax County ever named after Jefferson Davis? The "Richmond Highway" designation on that segment has been around long before many of the recent renamings were in effect.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 26, 2021, 10:13:23 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2021, 10:01:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 25, 2021, 09:32:16 AM
Naming it "Richmond Highway" in Richmond seems weird to me. I assume the idea is consistency with other jurisdictions in Virginia, but normally when you use a city's name, it's because the road goes there. In this case, you're already there.

It is weird. City Council could have come up with a different name. Extending the Cowardin Avenue designation would have been a no-go because they'd be replacing one Confederate figure with another (Cowardin Avenue is named after the founder of Cowardin Jewelers, who was a Confederate Army officer).

The only segments of US 1 still actively named Jeff Davis Hwy are located in Stafford, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, Caroline, and Chesterfield. Of course, the entire length of US 1 in Virginia is named Jefferson Davis Highway legislatively.

On another (similar) note, the Virginia Senate passed a House bill on Tuesday that would give any county with the county-manager form of government the power to rename US 29 - in other words, Arlington County.
How about South Belvedere Street?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on February 26, 2021, 11:51:57 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 26, 2021, 05:40:09 PM
Question... was US 1 in Fairfax County ever named after Jefferson Davis? The "Richmond Highway" designation on that segment has been around long before many of the recent renamings were in effect.

Not to my knowledge, aside from the official state designation.  I don't recall whether Mapmikey found it or I did, nor WHERE we found it, but I recall evidence suggesting it was known in Fairfax County as Richmond Hwy before the state law designated all of US 1 in the state as Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 27, 2021, 12:02:38 AM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 26, 2021, 05:40:09 PM
Question... was US 1 in Fairfax County ever named after Jefferson Davis? The "Richmond Highway" designation on that segment has been around long before many of the recent renamings were in effect.

If you go back far enough, US-1 didn't have any street names south of say Telegraph Road (which I believe was US-1 back then).  I do remember seeing an old reassurance assembly (shield, highway name, control city sign) somewhere not far south of Mt. Vernon back in the 1970s.  Those "highway name signs" said "Jefferson Davis Highway" all up and down the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on February 27, 2021, 11:43:38 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 26, 2021, 11:51:57 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 26, 2021, 05:40:09 PM
Question... was US 1 in Fairfax County ever named after Jefferson Davis? The "Richmond Highway" designation on that segment has been around long before many of the recent renamings were in effect.

Not to my knowledge, aside from the official state designation.  I don't recall whether Mapmikey found it or I did, nor WHERE we found it, but I recall evidence suggesting it was known in Fairfax County as Richmond Hwy before the state law designated all of US 1 in the state as Jefferson Davis Hwy.

Interesting story then, for such a major highway to lack a designation. This is common in rural places where addresses will simply read route numbers and whatnot. Wonder if there was any opposition towards the Jefferson Davis name from the county.

...and apparently, everything designated as such is now slated to be decommissioned. https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/lawmakers-vote-to-remove-jefferson-davis-highway-name-from-route-1/article_627615e4-78c7-11eb-9a4e-bfb2619cba72.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 27, 2021, 12:04:16 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 26, 2021, 10:13:23 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 25, 2021, 10:01:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 25, 2021, 09:32:16 AM
Naming it "Richmond Highway" in Richmond seems weird to me. I assume the idea is consistency with other jurisdictions in Virginia, but normally when you use a city's name, it's because the road goes there. In this case, you're already there.

It is weird. City Council could have come up with a different name. Extending the Cowardin Avenue designation would have been a no-go because they'd be replacing one Confederate figure with another (Cowardin Avenue is named after the founder of Cowardin Jewelers, who was a Confederate Army officer).

The only segments of US 1 still actively named Jeff Davis Hwy are located in Stafford, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, Caroline, and Chesterfield. Of course, the entire length of US 1 in Virginia is named Jefferson Davis Highway legislatively.

On another (similar) note, the Virginia Senate passed a House bill on Tuesday that would give any county with the county-manager form of government the power to rename US 29 - in other words, Arlington County.
How about South Belvedere Street?

I'm not sure that would work since South Richmond uses the old Manchester street grid.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 27, 2021, 02:54:07 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 27, 2021, 11:43:38 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 26, 2021, 11:51:57 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 26, 2021, 05:40:09 PM
Question... was US 1 in Fairfax County ever named after Jefferson Davis? The "Richmond Highway" designation on that segment has been around long before many of the recent renamings were in effect.

Not to my knowledge, aside from the official state designation.  I don't recall whether Mapmikey found it or I did, nor WHERE we found it, but I recall evidence suggesting it was known in Fairfax County as Richmond Hwy before the state law designated all of US 1 in the state as Jefferson Davis Hwy.

Interesting story then, for such a major highway to lack a designation. This is common in rural places where addresses will simply read route numbers and whatnot. Wonder if there was any opposition towards the Jefferson Davis name from the county.


Doubtful there was any meaningful opposition to naming then-VA 1 JD Hwy, since the law that did this was in 1922.

I found the e-mail exchange Froggie and I had on this in 2015.  The conclusion was that Richmond Hwy came first.

The 1923 Indian Head MD topo explicitly labels it as this.  Other sources call it the Richmond-Washington Hwy (along with Richmond-Petersburg Pike and Boydton Plank Rd).

Poking around on ebay post cards I found one for a hotel with a Richmond Hwy address postmarked 1951.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 27, 2021, 08:23:28 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 27, 2021, 11:43:38 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 26, 2021, 11:51:57 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 26, 2021, 05:40:09 PM
Question... was US 1 in Fairfax County ever named after Jefferson Davis? The "Richmond Highway" designation on that segment has been around long before many of the recent renamings were in effect.

Not to my knowledge, aside from the official state designation.  I don't recall whether Mapmikey found it or I did, nor WHERE we found it, but I recall evidence suggesting it was known in Fairfax County as Richmond Hwy before the state law designated all of US 1 in the state as Jefferson Davis Hwy.

Interesting story then, for such a major highway to lack a designation. This is common in rural places where addresses will simply read route numbers and whatnot. Wonder if there was any opposition towards the Jefferson Davis name from the county.

...and apparently, everything designated as such is now slated to be decommissioned. https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/lawmakers-vote-to-remove-jefferson-davis-highway-name-from-route-1/article_627615e4-78c7-11eb-9a4e-bfb2619cba72.html
I'd be very surprised if they don't all name it Richmond Highway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 01, 2021, 01:39:45 PM
https://www.dailypress.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-i64-budget-20210226-f6dew77vmfd6hjsf5xdbpjbu7u-story.html
QuoteNegotiators for the House of Delegates and the state Senate agreed to set $93.1 million from federal COVID-19 relief funds for work on I-64. The money is to go to the proposed 44-mile network of express and toll lanes for the region, running from the Jefferson Avenue intersection in Newport News to the Bowers Hill interchange in Chesapeake. It will also go to widening I-64 in James City and New Kent counties, the nearly 30-mile stretch between Bottoms Bridge, at exit 205, and Lightfoot, at exit 234.

The express lanes network includes the expansion of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel, a $3.86 billion project that will be funded with some $3.21 billion from Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability commission debt and tax revenue collections.

In addition, money would come from the projected $345 million in tolls from the High Occupancy/Toll express lanes. The state had committed $308 million for the expansion. The HOT lanes are free for drivers who have passengers, but drivers who are on their own pay a toll that varies depending on how crowded the highway is.

The rest of the network, projected to cost $806 million, includes pricey projects to create new HOT express lane approaches to the HRBT, modify the I-564 interchange to allow for two HOT lanes and set up HOT lanes between Lasalle Avenue and the Mercury Boulevard interchange in Hampton. It would also set up part-time HOT lanes on the shoulders of I-64 in South Hampton Roads and convert existing High Occupancy Vehicle lanes into HOT lanes.

Projections made last month for those portions of the network are for HRTAC funding of $420 million, toll revenue of $266 million and previously promised state funds of $26 million.

That left a projected gap of $93.1 million.

The conference committee's budget amendment "shows the General Assembly is committed to the Hampton Roads express lanes network and to any additional work on the I-64 corridor,"  said Kevin Page, HRTAC's executive director.

The amendment doesn't detail an exact split between the express lanes and project to widen I-64 in the upper Peninsula, but it marks an important start for work in James City and New Kent, said Del. Mike Mullin, D-Newport News, who has been pushing for funding to widen I-64 between Lightfoot and Bottoms Bridge for five years.

"We're finally getting the funding we need to widen I-64 all the way to Richmond,"  he said.

The money is part of $323.4 million of COVID-19 relief funds slated for several transportation projects around the state.

Not really sure if this was news since widening I-64 to Richmond has always been part of the plan. However, hopefully, what this entails is that that these improvements will not be pushed back due to the pandemic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 03, 2021, 11:18:54 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 01, 2021, 01:39:45 PM
https://www.dailypress.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-i64-budget-20210226-f6dew77vmfd6hjsf5xdbpjbu7u-story.html
QuoteNegotiators for the House of Delegates and the state Senate agreed to set $93.1 million from federal COVID-19 relief funds for work on I-64. The money is to go to the proposed 44-mile network of express and toll lanes for the region, running from the Jefferson Avenue intersection in Newport News to the Bowers Hill interchange in Chesapeake. It will also go to widening I-64 in James City and New Kent counties, the nearly 30-mile stretch between Bottoms Bridge, at exit 205, and Lightfoot, at exit 234.

The express lanes network includes the expansion of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel, a $3.86 billion project that will be funded with some $3.21 billion from Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability commission debt and tax revenue collections.

In addition, money would come from the projected $345 million in tolls from the High Occupancy/Toll express lanes. The state had committed $308 million for the expansion. The HOT lanes are free for drivers who have passengers, but drivers who are on their own pay a toll that varies depending on how crowded the highway is.

The rest of the network, projected to cost $806 million, includes pricey projects to create new HOT express lane approaches to the HRBT, modify the I-564 interchange to allow for two HOT lanes and set up HOT lanes between Lasalle Avenue and the Mercury Boulevard interchange in Hampton. It would also set up part-time HOT lanes on the shoulders of I-64 in South Hampton Roads and convert existing High Occupancy Vehicle lanes into HOT lanes.

Projections made last month for those portions of the network are for HRTAC funding of $420 million, toll revenue of $266 million and previously promised state funds of $26 million.

That left a projected gap of $93.1 million.

The conference committee's budget amendment "shows the General Assembly is committed to the Hampton Roads express lanes network and to any additional work on the I-64 corridor,"  said Kevin Page, HRTAC's executive director.

The amendment doesn't detail an exact split between the express lanes and project to widen I-64 in the upper Peninsula, but it marks an important start for work in James City and New Kent, said Del. Mike Mullin, D-Newport News, who has been pushing for funding to widen I-64 between Lightfoot and Bottoms Bridge for five years.

"We're finally getting the funding we need to widen I-64 all the way to Richmond,"  he said.

The money is part of $323.4 million of COVID-19 relief funds slated for several transportation projects around the state.

Not really sure if this was news since widening I-64 to Richmond has always been part of the plan. However, hopefully, what this entails is that that these improvements will not be pushed back due to the pandemic.
Hopefully we can see an accelerated timeline for at least Segment 4, which the HRTPO is actively trying to get funded, which would widen to 6 lanes between the New Kent / James City County line and VA-199, about 8 miles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 03, 2021, 11:20:16 PM
VDOT Announces Phased Opening of Greenwich Road Flyover in Virginia Beach (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/VDOT-ANNOUNCES-PHASED-OPENING-OF-GREENWICH-ROAD-FLYOVER-IN-VIRGINIA-BEACH.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=ajVCI6AI8Vc)
QuoteVIRGINIA BEACH — The new Greenwich Road flyover, which spans I-264 in Virginia Beach and will connect Cleveland Street with Greenwich Road, is opening to traffic as early as March 8 -- a significant milestone in Phase II of VDOT's I-64/I-264 Interchange Improvements Project.

The bridge will initially open to two lanes of traffic, with one lane of traffic in each direction between Greenwich Road and Cleveland Street. This phased opening will allow the project contractor to move forward with its work to improve the five-legged Witchduck intersection, while simultaneously opening up new access for motorists from Cleveland Street to Greenwich Road.

Once the flyover opens to traffic, motorists traveling on Greenwich Road who wish to access Witchduck Road will travel across the flyover to Cleveland Street, reaching Witchduck Road on the north side of I-264 and proceeding to their intended destination. When the new traffic pattern is in place, motorists are encouraged to use caution and plan ahead when traveling through this area.

With the phased opening of the Greenwich Road flyover, crews will implement the planned, permanent closure of a portion of Greenwich Road near the intersection with Witchduck Road, adding a cul-de-sac just east of the former Norfolk Southern railroad tracks. A new I-264 east off-ramp, part of improvements to the I-264 interchange with Witchduck Road (exit 16), will be constructed in place of the recently closed portion of Greenwich Road.

When the flyover opens, turns from both directions of Witchduck Road onto Greenwich Road will be permanently restricted, and motorists on Witchduck Road will utilize Cleveland Street on the north side of the interstate to access Greenwich Road.

Directional signage will be in place throughout the corridor for approximately 90 days to assist motorists in navigating the new traffic pattern.

Ultimately, the flyover will accommodate four lanes of traffic, with two lanes of traffic in each direction. This work is expected to be completed in fall 2021, aligning with the substantial completion date of the interchange project.

The flyover's phased opening is weather-dependent and subject to change based on schedule updates.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on March 04, 2021, 11:19:07 AM
Quote from: Takumi on February 27, 2021, 08:23:28 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 27, 2021, 11:43:38 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 26, 2021, 11:51:57 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 26, 2021, 05:40:09 PM
Question... was US 1 in Fairfax County ever named after Jefferson Davis? The "Richmond Highway" designation on that segment has been around long before many of the recent renamings were in effect.

Not to my knowledge, aside from the official state designation.  I don't recall whether Mapmikey found it or I did, nor WHERE we found it, but I recall evidence suggesting it was known in Fairfax County as Richmond Hwy before the state law designated all of US 1 in the state as Jefferson Davis Hwy.

Interesting story then, for such a major highway to lack a designation. This is common in rural places where addresses will simply read route numbers and whatnot. Wonder if there was any opposition towards the Jefferson Davis name from the county.

...and apparently, everything designated as such is now slated to be decommissioned. https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/lawmakers-vote-to-remove-jefferson-davis-highway-name-from-route-1/article_627615e4-78c7-11eb-9a4e-bfb2619cba72.html (https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/lawmakers-vote-to-remove-jefferson-davis-highway-name-from-route-1/article_627615e4-78c7-11eb-9a4e-bfb2619cba72.html)
I'd be very surprised if they don't all name it Richmond Highway.

Actually. Seems the entire expanse of U.S. 1 in Virginia will now be overlaid with the name "Emancipation Highway". https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/02/bill-would-eliminate-virginias-jefferson-davis-highway-statewide/ (https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/02/bill-would-eliminate-virginias-jefferson-davis-highway-statewide/) I do not know if this will supersede any portions municipalities have opted to designate as Richmond Highway.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 27, 2021, 02:54:07 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 27, 2021, 11:43:38 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 26, 2021, 11:51:57 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on February 26, 2021, 05:40:09 PM
Question... was US 1 in Fairfax County ever named after Jefferson Davis? The "Richmond Highway" designation on that segment has been around long before many of the recent renamings were in effect.

Not to my knowledge, aside from the official state designation.  I don't recall whether Mapmikey found it or I did, nor WHERE we found it, but I recall evidence suggesting it was known in Fairfax County as Richmond Hwy before the state law designated all of US 1 in the state as Jefferson Davis Hwy.


Interesting story then, for such a major highway to lack a designation. This is common in rural places where addresses will simply read route numbers and whatnot. Wonder if there was any opposition towards the Jefferson Davis name from the county.


Doubtful there was any meaningful opposition to naming then-VA 1 JD Hwy, since the law that did this was in 1922.

I found the e-mail exchange Froggie and I had on this in 2015.  The conclusion was that Richmond Hwy came first.

The 1923 Indian Head MD topo explicitly labels it as this.  Other sources call it the Richmond-Washington Hwy (along with Richmond-Petersburg Pike and Boydton Plank Rd).

Poking around on ebay post cards I found one for a hotel with a Richmond Hwy address postmarked 1951.


Ah, figures. I'll just say the rest of these jurisdictions had not given a concrete name prior to Jeff Davis.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 05, 2021, 01:08:43 PM
Quote
I do not know if this will supersede any portions municipalities have opted to designate as Richmond Highway.
Almost certainly not. It'd be no different than if a municipality named it something else over Jefferson Davis Highway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on March 05, 2021, 08:31:48 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 05, 2021, 01:08:43 PM
Almost certainly not. It'd be no different than if a municipality named it something else over Jefferson Davis Highway.
Well then. I'll just assume it'll be publicly signed wherever a new individual name for Jefferson Davis has not been announced (such as in Chesterfield).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 06, 2021, 12:51:38 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on March 05, 2021, 08:31:48 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 05, 2021, 01:08:43 PM
Almost certainly not. It'd be no different than if a municipality named it something else over Jefferson Davis Highway.
Well then. I'll just assume it'll be publicly signed wherever a new individual name for Jefferson Davis has not been announced (such as in Chesterfield).

It's also possible Chesterfield County could do nothing, or just remove all the signs without replacing them. Currently all of US 1 is legislatively named Jefferson Davis Highway, but some counties don't post that name at all, mainly the ones in the southside that don't name any primary routes. Mecklenburg County signs it as "Highway One." US 58 is also legislatively named A.L. Philpott Highway in that county, but is signed as simply "Highway Fifty-Eight".

I personally expect Chesterfield County to do nothing and leave the local name as Jefferson Davis Highway. I'm pretty sure most of the county board of supervisors is opposed to renaming, and Chesterfield is likely to remain a holdout for some time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ahj2000 on March 06, 2021, 06:20:07 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 06, 2021, 12:51:38 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on March 05, 2021, 08:31:48 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 05, 2021, 01:08:43 PM
Almost certainly not. It'd be no different than if a municipality named it something else over Jefferson Davis Highway.
Well then. I'll just assume it'll be publicly signed wherever a new individual name for Jefferson Davis has not been announced (such as in Chesterfield).

It's also possible Chesterfield County could do nothing, or just remove all the signs without replacing them. Currently all of US 1 is legislatively named Jefferson Davis Highway, but some counties don't post that name at all, mainly the ones in the southside that don't name any primary routes. Mecklenburg County signs it as "Highway One." US 58 is also legislatively named A.L. Philpott Highway in that county, but is signed as simply "Highway Fifty-Eight".

I personally expect Chesterfield County to do nothing and leave the local name as Jefferson Davis Highway. I'm pretty sure most of the county board of supervisors is opposed to renaming, and Chesterfield is likely to remain a holdout for some time.
Oh man I forgot that Philpott had a highway. I wonder when the state will turn on that.
Even less of a "historical"  thing and just really not exactly the most non-racist guy.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 06, 2021, 07:29:13 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 06, 2021, 12:51:38 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on March 05, 2021, 08:31:48 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 05, 2021, 01:08:43 PM
Almost certainly not. It'd be no different than if a municipality named it something else over Jefferson Davis Highway.
Well then. I'll just assume it'll be publicly signed wherever a new individual name for Jefferson Davis has not been announced (such as in Chesterfield).

It's also possible Chesterfield County could do nothing, or just remove all the signs without replacing them. Currently all of US 1 is legislatively named Jefferson Davis Highway, but some counties don't post that name at all, mainly the ones in the southside that don't name any primary routes. Mecklenburg County signs it as "Highway One." US 58 is also legislatively named A.L. Philpott Highway in that county, but is signed as simply "Highway Fifty-Eight".

I personally expect Chesterfield County to do nothing and leave the local name as Jefferson Davis Highway. I'm pretty sure most of the county board of supervisors is opposed to renaming, and Chesterfield is likely to remain a holdout for some time.
By the time US 1 reaches Mecklenburg County, the Jefferson Davis Highway legislative designation has left it anyway. That said, I've always wondered why Mecklenburg chose not to use the Boydton Plank Road designation on US 1 and/or 58, only having a "Plank Road"  designation on a lengthy old alignment of the routes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 11, 2021, 04:49:39 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 20, 2021, 08:33:23 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 20, 2021, 04:49:19 PM
How did the Cumberland Gap area look like before the tunnel was built?

Historicaerials.com has 1950s and 1980s views that show two other US 25E configurations

The Virginia Hwys Page entry for US 25E gives some description of the configurations using Topo maps to illustrate - http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/us025.htm

So I knew that Virginia referred to US 25E mostly as US 25 in the historical CTB minutes and on county maps like below.  But I never knew how Virginia posted it early on.  Now I do:  https://digital.tcl.sc.edu/digital/collection/birch/id/1279

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2F100_1932.jpg&hash=0206883ffd3ef606c69db865c91363c1882a6ee8)
1932 Lee County
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 11, 2021, 09:28:49 PM
Given that this is a rather recent install, there is at least one Virginia locality that hasn't given up on red signal housings for emergency signals. They even slapped the yellow reflective borders on the backplates. Combined with the typical green Richmond mast arm, it's really a wild look.

Williamsburg Rd in the Fulton neighborhood just east of the descent into Fulton Bottom

Image from GSV

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210312/bc10e95d09f9b832d25282e9790e97f2.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on March 11, 2021, 09:37:56 PM
Quote from: plain on March 11, 2021, 09:28:49 PM
Given that this is a rather recent install, there is at least one Virginia locality that hasn't given up on red signal housings for emergency signals. They even slapped the yellow reflective borders on the backplates. Combined with the typical green Richmond mast arm, it's really a wild look.

Williamsburg Rd in the Fulton neighborhood just east of the descent into Fulton Bottom

Image from GSV

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210312/bc10e95d09f9b832d25282e9790e97f2.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)


Very African! (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Flag_of_Mali.svg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 11, 2021, 09:42:16 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 11, 2021, 09:37:56 PM
Quote from: plain on March 11, 2021, 09:28:49 PM
Given that this is a rather recent install, there is at least one Virginia locality that hasn't given up on red signal housings for emergency signals. They even slapped the yellow reflective borders on the backplates. Combined with the typical green Richmond mast arm, it's really a wild look.

Williamsburg Rd in the Fulton neighborhood just east of the descent into Fulton Bottom

Image from GSV

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210312/bc10e95d09f9b832d25282e9790e97f2.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)


Very African! (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Flag_of_Mali.svg)

Pretty much lmao
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 12, 2021, 09:18:09 AM
https://twitter.com/LeesburgPolice/status/1370369190964658178
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on March 12, 2021, 08:26:32 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 11, 2021, 04:49:39 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 20, 2021, 08:33:23 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 20, 2021, 04:49:19 PM
How did the Cumberland Gap area look like before the tunnel was built?

Historicaerials.com has 1950s and 1980s views that show two other US 25E configurations

The Virginia Hwys Page entry for US 25E gives some description of the configurations using Topo maps to illustrate - http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/us025.htm

So I knew that Virginia referred to US 25E mostly as US 25 in the historical CTB minutes and on county maps like below.  But I never knew how Virginia posted it early on.  Now I do:  https://digital.tcl.sc.edu/digital/collection/birch/id/1279

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2F100_1932.jpg&hash=0206883ffd3ef606c69db865c91363c1882a6ee8)
1932 Lee County

That's the only split pair I can think of where only one of the routes entered a state. So I guess Virginia could get by with signing it only as US 25 without the "E."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 13, 2021, 05:38:30 PM
Quote from: plain on March 11, 2021, 09:28:49 PM
Given that this is a rather recent install, there is at least one Virginia locality that hasn't given up on red signal housings for emergency signals. They even slapped the yellow reflective borders on the backplates. Combined with the typical green Richmond mast arm, it's really a wild look.

Nice catch!  I remember the days when there were plenty of red 12-8-8 signal heads at fire houses and rescue squads in many jurisdictions of the Commonwealth. 

Last one I saw might have been on VA-28 (Centreville Road) in Prince William County between the city limits of Manassas Park and Fairfax County (Company 508, Yorkshire).  But they moved to a new firehouse at a new location on a side street off of VA-28, and remnants of the old red signal heads and associated poles and span wires are entirely gone.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on March 14, 2021, 12:41:23 AM
Quote from: plain on March 11, 2021, 09:28:49 PM
Given that this is a rather recent install, there is at least one Virginia locality that hasn't given up on red signal housings for emergency signals. They even slapped the yellow reflective borders on the backplates. Combined with the typical green Richmond mast arm, it's really a wild look.

Williamsburg Rd in the Fulton neighborhood just east of the descent into Fulton Bottom

Image from GSV

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210312/bc10e95d09f9b832d25282e9790e97f2.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

IMO the singals look sunburned.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 15, 2021, 12:56:12 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 13, 2021, 05:38:30 PM
Quote from: plain on March 11, 2021, 09:28:49 PM
Given that this is a rather recent install, there is at least one Virginia locality that hasn't given up on red signal housings for emergency signals. They even slapped the yellow reflective borders on the backplates. Combined with the typical green Richmond mast arm, it's really a wild look.

Nice catch!  I remember the days when there were plenty of red 12-8-8 signal heads at fire houses and rescue squads in many jurisdictions of the Commonwealth. 

Last one I saw might have been on VA-28 (Centreville Road) in Prince William County between the city limits of Manassas Park and Fairfax County (Company 508, Yorkshire).  But they moved to a new firehouse at a new location on a side street off of VA-28, and remnants of the old red signal heads and associated poles and span wires are entirely gone.

I was surprised when I saw it (also, this is the first one I've ever seen this inside Richmond city limits). Even though this is a city install, I wish VDOT hadn't given up on the red emergency signals. The older ones around this area have either faded or been replaced, and that seems to be the case elsewhere in the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 17, 2021, 12:39:05 AM
Quote from: plain on March 15, 2021, 12:56:12 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 13, 2021, 05:38:30 PM
Quote from: plain on March 11, 2021, 09:28:49 PM
Given that this is a rather recent install, there is at least one Virginia locality that hasn't given up on red signal housings for emergency signals. They even slapped the yellow reflective borders on the backplates. Combined with the typical green Richmond mast arm, it's really a wild look.

Nice catch!  I remember the days when there were plenty of red 12-8-8 signal heads at fire houses and rescue squads in many jurisdictions of the Commonwealth. 

Last one I saw might have been on VA-28 (Centreville Road) in Prince William County between the city limits of Manassas Park and Fairfax County (Company 508, Yorkshire).  But they moved to a new firehouse at a new location on a side street off of VA-28, and remnants of the old red signal heads and associated poles and span wires are entirely gone.

I was surprised when I saw it (also, this is the first one I've ever seen this inside Richmond city limits). Even though this is a city install, I wish VDOT hadn't given up on the red emergency signals. The older ones around this area have either faded or been replaced, and that seems to be the case elsewhere in the state.
The recently built fire station on Harrowgate Road in Chesterfield County has red signals.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on March 18, 2021, 08:42:13 AM
I remember these red signals as a child.


Anyway, I gather that I-64 over the Elizabeth River in Chesapeake will be like NJ Route 37 in Toms River, NJ with one movable bridge paired with a fixed span when completed.

To me that always seemed odd in NJ going to the shore, however if it ain’t broken don’t fix it as the saying goes.  Too much of replacing things that don’t need it these days.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 18, 2021, 08:57:31 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 18, 2021, 08:42:13 AM
I remember these red signals as a child.


Anyway, I gather that I-64 over the Elizabeth River in Chesapeake will be like NJ Route 37 in Toms River, NJ with one movable bridge paired with a fixed span when completed.

To me that always seemed odd in NJ going to the shore, however if it ain't broken don't fix it as the saying goes.  Too much of replacing things that don't need it these days.

Technically, that's how the 14th Street Bridge on I-395 is: The inbound bridge (Arland D. Williams Bridge) is an old drawspan and you can still see the operator's tower there. The other two spans are fixed, as is the Fenwick Bridge (the Metrorail bridge just downstream). The last time the drawspan opened was in 1969 when barges were used in dismantling the old "Highway Bridge" that used to stand where the "HOV Bridge" is now. I have no idea whether it could still be opened nowadays or whether at some point it will face deterioration problems similar to those recently fixed on Memorial Bridge's old drawspan.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 04:23:07 PM
Centerville Turnpike Bridge Replacement Feasibility Study (https://www.cityofchesapeake.net/government/city-departments/departments/Public-Works-Department/Active-Public-Works-Projects/active-transportation-street-projects/Centerville-Turnpike-Bridge-Replacement-Feasibility-Study.htm)
QuoteThis feasibility study will evaluate options for replacing the Centerville Turnpike Bridge with a fixed-span bridge over the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal that can also provide adequate vertical clearance for navigational activities and a wider bridge for the future roadway widening. Study limit was extended from Butts Station Rd. to north of Elbow Rd. City has recommended five alternatives (four fixed, one movable bridge) be advanced for evaluation. A Virtual Citizen Information Meeting is expected to be scheduled in Spring 2021.
QuoteVirtual Citizen Information Meeting
The City of Chesapeake will host a Virtual Citizen Information Meeting beginning March 25, 2021, to discuss this feasibility study and solicit feedback from residents. Visit https://bit.ly/centervillestudy beginning March 25 to view the meeting and provide comments. Comments submitted by April 9, 2021, will be added to the official record.
The city currently estimates the project will cost between $200 and $250 million.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 18, 2021, 08:42:13 AM
Anyway, I gather that I-64 over the Elizabeth River in Chesapeake will be like NJ Route 37 in Toms River, NJ with one movable bridge paired with a fixed span when completed
That's correct. Here is a rendering from the project website (https://www.64highrise.org/about_the_project/default.asp).

(https://www.64highrise.org/img/high_rise_rendering_cropped_for_facebook.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 18, 2021, 05:49:44 PM
I thought the use of the current (draw)bridge was going to be temporary for the inner loop until a new bridge could be built. Isn't the ultimate goal fixed spans for both directions?



Quote from: Takumi on March 17, 2021, 12:39:05 AM
The recently built fire station on Harrowgate Road in Chesterfield County has red signals.

Nice! Maybe they're making an all around comeback. Time will tell. Also noteworthy is the flashing yellow orb instead of a steady green, like the signal on VA 10 close to Warwick Rd in the city.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 09:49:42 PM
Quote from: plain on March 18, 2021, 05:49:44 PM
I thought the use of the current (draw)bridge was going to be temporary for the inner loop until a new bridge could be built. Isn't the ultimate goal fixed spans for both directions?
Yes, VDOT plans to eventually widen the corridor further and construct a second fixed span bridge to replace the existing High Rise Bridge in a Phase 2 project, but that's at least a decade away.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 09:53:59 PM
About damn time. That gives me a headache when driving on that section.

Also, why isn't I-64 signed WEST or EAST on that segment?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 18, 2021, 10:00:28 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 09:53:59 PM
About damn time. That gives me a headache when driving on that section.

Also, why isn't I-64 signed WEST or EAST on that segment?

Because "westbound" I-64 goes east and "eastbound" I-64 goes west. Take a look at a map. It's sort of like a fishhook around Norfolk.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 10:00:42 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 09:53:59 PM
About damn time. That gives me a headache when driving on that section.

Also, why isn't I-64 signed WEST or EAST on that segment?
The directions aren't signed south of I-264 (with a few exceptions - including new signage Chesapeake recently put on the Dominion Blvd project) to avoid confusion with cardinal direction. Because Interstate 64 does almost a loop through the area, south of I-264, a motorist traveling in the west direction towards Suffolk is actually heading on I-64 East, and vice versa.

It's still referred though as "East" and "West" in official reports, with the direction corresponding to the official direction (I-64 East is going west to Suffolk, I-64 West is going east to Va Beach), not cardinal direction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on March 19, 2021, 01:10:36 PM
This (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8096981,-77.1512367,3a,47.6y,62.38h,96.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szeTk_74MpeQANNwBggebfg!2e0!5s20080601T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en) sign in 2008 looks better compared to the one they have mounted on there right now.

Wouldn't I-74 be the same way?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on March 19, 2021, 01:12:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 18, 2021, 10:00:28 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 09:53:59 PM
About damn time. That gives me a headache when driving on that section.

Also, why isn't I-64 signed WEST or EAST on that segment?

Because "westbound" I-64 goes east and "eastbound" I-64 goes west. Take a look at a map. It's sort of like a fishhook around Norfolk.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 10:00:42 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 09:53:59 PM
About damn time. That gives me a headache when driving on that section.

Also, why isn't I-64 signed WEST or EAST on that segment?
The directions aren't signed south of I-264 (with a few exceptions - including new signage Chesapeake recently put on the Dominion Blvd project) to avoid confusion with cardinal direction. Because Interstate 64 does almost a loop through the area, south of I-264, a motorist traveling in the west direction towards Suffolk is actually heading on I-64 East, and vice versa.

It's still referred though as "East" and "West" in official reports, with the direction corresponding to the official direction (I-64 East is going west to Suffolk, I-64 West is going east to Va Beach), not cardinal direction.
I would fix those numbers and take I-64 to Va beach.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 19, 2021, 02:14:02 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 19, 2021, 01:12:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 18, 2021, 10:00:28 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 09:53:59 PM
About damn time. That gives me a headache when driving on that section.

Also, why isn't I-64 signed WEST or EAST on that segment?

Because "westbound" I-64 goes east and "eastbound" I-64 goes west. Take a look at a map. It's sort of like a fishhook around Norfolk.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 10:00:42 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 09:53:59 PM
About damn time. That gives me a headache when driving on that section.

Also, why isn't I-64 signed WEST or EAST on that segment?
The directions aren't signed south of I-264 (with a few exceptions - including new signage Chesapeake recently put on the Dominion Blvd project) to avoid confusion with cardinal direction. Because Interstate 64 does almost a loop through the area, south of I-264, a motorist traveling in the west direction towards Suffolk is actually heading on I-64 East, and vice versa.

It's still referred though as "East" and "West" in official reports, with the direction corresponding to the official direction (I-64 East is going west to Suffolk, I-64 West is going east to Va Beach), not cardinal direction.
I would fix those numbers and take I-64 to Va beach.

That's been a recurring proposal (http://vahighways.com/route-log/i864.htm) for years now, but it doesn't seem likely to happen.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on March 20, 2021, 11:26:35 AM
I see an ALT US 60 is designated along part of US 460 and VA 168. Is that official or an implied designation?

https://goo.gl/maps/4WetVnsJDcJ5E6gh6

Also I see they took down the EB overhead on Ocean View at Tidewater but left the one opposite at Ocean View at 4th View up.  The one removed is needed and the one still standing is not.  Great logic!  Why not transfer the mast arm and add the needed signs?

Also how old, does anyone know, is the Little Creek Road SPUI at Tidewater Drive in Wards Corner is?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 22, 2021, 11:49:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 20, 2021, 11:26:35 AM
I see an ALT US 60 is designated along part of US 460 and VA 168. Is that official or an implied designation?

A bit of both.  It's intended to direct WB 60 traffic along better routes towards 64 since one cannot (for years) make a direct left turn from Ocean View to 4th View, and to reduce the amount of through traffic using Mason Creek Rd.

That designation, BTW, is older than this forum.  It existed when I was stationed in Norfolk my FIRST time.

QuoteAlso I see they took down the EB overhead on Ocean View at Tidewater but left the one opposite at Ocean View at 4th View up.  The one removed is needed and the one still standing is not.  Great logic!  Why not transfer the mast arm and add the needed signs?

EB overhead was taken down when the overpass was closed for a stretch some years ago due to its poor condition (since reopened after emergency repairs were made).  IMO, neither overhead is needed.

QuoteAlso how old, does anyone know, is the Little Creek Road SPUI at Tidewater Drive in Wards Corner is?

Per NBI, the bridge was built in 1959.  Whether it's actually operated as a single intersection since that time, however, is harder to say.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 07:37:47 AM
^

With the overpass at Ocean View now demolished, I wish they would reconfigure the intersection back to a traditional design to simply allow left turns from Ocean View to 4th View to access I-64 without having to cut down alternative routes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 23, 2021, 09:21:54 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 22, 2021, 11:49:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 20, 2021, 11:26:35 AM


QuoteAlso how old, does anyone know, is the Little Creek Road SPUI at Tidewater Drive in Wards Corner is?

Per NBI, the bridge was built in 1959.  Whether it's actually operated as a single intersection since that time, however, is harder to say.

Historic Aerials are too fuzzy to definitively say whether this has always been a single intersection.  In one older one it appears there is a median on Little Creek and a left turn lane on the bridge.

It also appears the ramps from VA 168 could only turn right originally, but I cannot say for certain though the signage in the 2001 photo (sign much older than that) - https://www.aaroads.com/guides/va-168/ (next to last photo) suggests this may have been true.

Despite my using a grocery store very close to this intersection in 1991, I do not remember how this was set up then, but do recall thinking the Hampton Roads Pkwy SPUI was the first one I'd ever remembered seeing.

If a SPUI requires that both ramps can turn left at the same time, then this is not a SPUI as each ramp gets its own left turn phase.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 23, 2021, 12:52:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 07:37:47 AM
^

With the overpass at Ocean View now demolished, I wish they would reconfigure the intersection back to a traditional design to simply allow left turns from Ocean View to 4th View to access I-64 without having to cut down alternative routes.

Was this recently?  The overpass was still open in 2019.

How (if at all) is eastbound 60 signed now?  Tidewater to Mason Creek?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 23, 2021, 01:04:47 PM
Looking at that area on Street View revealed this monstrosity: https://goo.gl/maps/HxmQSaLtR9dv6d5h9
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 01:30:24 PM
It was closed and demolished this past summer. The at-grade intersection provides continuity for Ocean View traffic, though still keeps the same restrictive movement for westbound traffic, forcing Tidewater traffic onto 4th View St to I-64, and Ocean View traffic on Tidewater.

US-60 East is still on the same route it was before, just at-grade instead of on an overpass. I've never thought about it or looked until now... how is US-60 West signed through this area to provide full continuity?

New intersection to replace West Ocean View Avenue flyover (https://www.wtkr.com/news/new-intersection-to-replace-west-ocean-view-avenue-flyover)
QuoteNORFOLK, Va. - An at-grade, signalized intersection is due to replace the W. Ocean View Avenue flyover located at Tidewater Drive.

The flyover is due to close on Wednesday, July 15, 2020. It is fixable, but would require a remarkable reclamation project to extend its service life, according to the City of Norfolk.

The new intersection will have improved safety, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, and context-sensitivity. In the new configuration, eastbound W. Ocean View Avenue traffic between 4th View Street and Mason Creek Road will pass straight through the new signalized intersection with Tidewater Drive.

The separation will be maintained between Tidewater Drive traffic to 4th View Street and westbound W. Ocean View Avenue traffic to Willoughby Spit.

Demolition of the flyover is scheduled to take place from Tuesday, July 21 through Sunday, July 26, 2020.
(https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/dda6148/2147483647/strip/true/crop/828x466+0+0/resize/1280x720!/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewscripps-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F16%2F44%2F32ee9abc43e4ae940c6dbb19db9b%2F0d0b13e9-34d7-4a43-aac3-e9af85d742b9.jpeg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on March 23, 2021, 01:58:03 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 23, 2021, 01:04:47 PM
Looking at that area on Street View revealed this monstrosity: https://goo.gl/maps/HxmQSaLtR9dv6d5h9

That whole region is an "odd sign" geek's dream (or nightmare, if you prefer.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 23, 2021, 02:14:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 23, 2021, 01:58:03 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 23, 2021, 01:04:47 PM
Looking at that area on Street View revealed this monstrosity: https://goo.gl/maps/HxmQSaLtR9dv6d5h9

That whole region is an "odd sign" geek's dream (or nightmare, if you prefer.)

So I understand (and have seen in photos on this forum). I haven't been to Norfolk since the late 1990s or Virginia Beach since 1991. I last passed through the area on I-664 on my way to Edenton, North Carolina, in 2006, but didn't see anything too interesting.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 23, 2021, 04:28:43 PM
In 1991 Virginia Beach had lots of circles.  Norfolk's signage was really good then.

These days, most of the retched shields are in Norfolk proper and not on the freeways.  Portsmouth and Chesapeake have generally had correct shields but not enough of them on some of the state routes.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 23, 2021, 04:55:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4US-60 East is still on the same route it was before, just at-grade instead of on an overpass. I've never thought about it or looked until now... how is US-60 West signed through this area to provide full continuity?

Although Mason Creek Rd is not officially part of US 60, there have been "TO US 60 WEST" trailblazers on WB Ocean View at Mason Creek for years, since the separation scheme for Ocean View and Tidewater at 4th View went into effect.  There is also the aforementioned "WB ALT US 60" signed along Granby and Tidewater.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 05:22:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 23, 2021, 04:55:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4US-60 East is still on the same route it was before, just at-grade instead of on an overpass. I've never thought about it or looked until now... how is US-60 West signed through this area to provide full continuity?

Although Mason Creek Rd is not officially part of US 60, there have been "TO US 60 WEST" trailblazers on WB Ocean View at Mason Creek for years, since the separation scheme for Ocean View and Tidewater at 4th View went into effect.  There is also the aforementioned "WB ALT US 60" signed along Granby and Tidewater.
So where does the official routing go now that the separation was put into place 10-15 years ago? Or is it simply an official gap in the system?

Another question... what exactly was the intent for the separation?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 23, 2021, 08:35:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 05:22:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 23, 2021, 04:55:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4US-60 East is still on the same route it was before, just at-grade instead of on an overpass. I've never thought about it or looked until now... how is US-60 West signed through this area to provide full continuity?

Although Mason Creek Rd is not officially part of US 60, there have been "TO US 60 WEST" trailblazers on WB Ocean View at Mason Creek for years, since the separation scheme for Ocean View and Tidewater at 4th View went into effect.  There is also the aforementioned "WB ALT US 60" signed along Granby and Tidewater.
So where does the official routing go now that the separation was put into place 10-15 years ago? Or is it simply an official gap in the system?

Another question... what exactly was the intent for the separation?

Asking the question "what is the official route of X" in any independent city in Virginia is a tricky proposition.  Ever since they changed how money is allocated to Independent Cities, it has no longer been necessary to explicitly and accurately define what streets primary routes use within city limits.  Routes in several cities have had their posted alignments changed with nary a mention in AASHTO or the CTB.  Are those "official"?  Who knows...

The 2019 traffic log shows US 60 on 4th View then Ocean View all the way.  No mention of 60 ALT or 60P on Mason Creek.

What do you mean by "separation"?  Splitting of US 60 or splitting of Ocean View to prevent left turns onto 4th View (and conversely Tidewater Dr cannot go past 4th View onto Ocean View - they also have to use Mason Creek to do this).

The US 60 separation is because of the separation of Ocean View.

The signed change in US 60 occurred in summer 2004 (direct observation e-mailed to me at the time by Froggie).

2003 AADTs:
4th View: 12000
Tidewater Dr: 6500
Ocean View E of Tidewater: 15000
Ocean View W of 4th View: 7400

2019 AADT:
4th View: 12000
Tidewater Dr: 8900
Ocean View E of Tidewater: 14000
Ocean View W of 4th View: 5600

Mason Creek Rd is not on Norfolk traffic data reports then or now.

These don't seem all that high to me but these are possibilities:

Too many wrecks with weaving traffic:  VA 168 wanting to go to Willoughby Split vs. Ocean View Ave wanting to go to 4th View
Too much traffic going through Willoughby Spit, so make it harder for some of the traffic to do that
Backups on Ocean View WB/Tidewater Dr NB because of the weaving
Backups on I-64 from frequent HRBT issues spilled over onto 4th View and Ocean View/Tidewater Dr making it impossible for Willoughby Spit residents to get home

I left the area in 1992 so I have no insight on conditions of the time (I don't personally ever remembering getting stuck there).

It seems to me that putting a signalized intersection where the overpass would prevent the two weaving issues from happening, so there could be more to it than that.

The City of Norfolk project page gives no information n why the traffic pattern needs to remain the same at 4th View/Ocean View
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 10:10:54 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 23, 2021, 08:35:43 PM
What do you mean by "separation"?  Splitting of US 60 or splitting of Ocean View to prevent left turns onto 4th View (and conversely Tidewater Dr cannot go past 4th View onto Ocean View - they also have to use Mason Creek to do this).
Yes, because one following US-60 West cannot follow Ocean View then turn left onto 4th View, which is the route US-60 officially follows. You must use other cutover routes such as Mason Creek, Granby St, or simply follow Ocean View down to I-64 / US-60 just before the HRBT to merge with it. Either one, you are leaving US-60 for a period.

Quote from: Mapmikey on March 23, 2021, 08:35:43 PM
Too many wrecks with weaving traffic:  VA 168 wanting to go to Willoughby Split vs. Ocean View Ave wanting to go to 4th View
Questionable, given 2002 imagery shows a signal that alternates between Tidewater traffic and Ocean View traffic, so weaving would not have existed.

Quote from: Mapmikey on March 23, 2021, 08:35:43 PM
Too much traffic going through Willoughby Spit, so make it harder for some of the traffic to do that
Likely the main culprit.

Quote from: Mapmikey on March 23, 2021, 08:35:43 PM
It seems to me that putting a signalized intersection where the overpass would prevent the two weaving issues from happening, so there could be more to it than that.
Agreed. With the intersection now being fully signalized, it would've simply made sense to make it a traditional three-way signalized intersection without any restrictions on turns. No clue otherwise.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on March 24, 2021, 08:43:51 AM
Having lived in the area at the time, the stated reason I heard was to deter use of Ocean View on Willoughby Spit to get around HRBT backups. Tidewater Dr is a fairly convenient alternative to 64, so you'd get a lot of traffic that wanted to wait to re-enter 64 until as late as possible, clogging up Willoughby Spit out to 15th View. Most traffic coming west on Ocean View, on the other hand, originated along that corridor rather than bailing off 64.

This change also coincided with the closing of the 15th View onramp when the HRBT is congested, so it made sense to discourage drivers from even getting to the ramp in the first place. You know some would find the ramp closed, not want to U-turn and drive back to 4th View, and try to drive around the gates or something. You can even see multiple cars U-turning in front of the gate in streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/unWgfM8m8znFhbRD8

Weaving wasn't the reason, discouraging spillover traffic from 64 from going through Willoughby Spit was.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 24, 2021, 10:10:30 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 10:10:54 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 23, 2021, 08:35:43 PM
What do you mean by "separation"?  Splitting of US 60 or splitting of Ocean View to prevent left turns onto 4th View (and conversely Tidewater Dr cannot go past 4th View onto Ocean View - they also have to use Mason Creek to do this).
Yes, because one following US-60 West cannot follow Ocean View then turn left onto 4th View, which is the route US-60 officially follows. You must use other cutover routes such as Mason Creek, Granby St, or simply follow Ocean View down to I-64 / US-60 just before the HRBT to merge with it. Either one, you are leaving US-60 for a period.

Since Ocean View west of 4th is still US 60P, one could argue you are still on US 60 if you just stay west on Ocean View all the way to the HRBT.

But should you not buy into that, there are other Virginia examples of this:

US 33/VA 33 EB cannot follow the route in Richmond due to no left turn possible.  The workaround is quasi-posted
VA 131 cannot be driven west/northbound everywhere due to a short one-way segment eastbound.  There is no posted workaround (and VA 131 is poorly posted anyway) though a simple one exists
Two state facility routes have one-way segments with no opposite direction possible: 393 and 399

I didn't remember the separate signals for US 60 WB and VA 168 NB and aerials are horrible for anything older than 2002 to see when that became the configuration.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 24, 2021, 06:39:08 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on March 24, 2021, 08:43:51 AM
Having lived in the area at the time, the stated reason I heard was to deter use of Ocean View on Willoughby Spit to get around HRBT backups.

Correct.  A byproduct of drivers trying to queue-jump the HRBT backup was that the congestion made it a lot harder for Willougby Spit residents and first responders to get to/from the Spit.  Since the change (which I was stationed in Norfolk at the time and saw firsthand), that largely went away, since HRBT-bound traffic can queue along what is largely a limited-access Tidewater Dr and not jam up those using Ocean View to get to the Spit.  Meanwhile, those trying to get to the residential areas sandwiched between the Naval Base and 64 can take 1st View (which has an underpass under 64).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on March 25, 2021, 10:44:32 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 01:30:24 PM
It was closed and demolished this past summer. The at-grade intersection provides continuity for Ocean View traffic, though still keeps the same restrictive movement for westbound traffic, forcing Tidewater traffic onto 4th View St to I-64, and Ocean View traffic on Tidewater.

US-60 East is still on the same route it was before, just at-grade instead of on an overpass. I've never thought about it or looked until now... how is US-60 West signed through this area to provide full continuity?

New intersection to replace West Ocean View Avenue flyover (https://www.wtkr.com/news/new-intersection-to-replace-west-ocean-view-avenue-flyover)
QuoteNORFOLK, Va. - An at-grade, signalized intersection is due to replace the W. Ocean View Avenue flyover located at Tidewater Drive.

The flyover is due to close on Wednesday, July 15, 2020. It is fixable, but would require a remarkable reclamation project to extend its service life, according to the City of Norfolk.

The new intersection will have improved safety, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, and context-sensitivity. In the new configuration, eastbound W. Ocean View Avenue traffic between 4th View Street and Mason Creek Road will pass straight through the new signalized intersection with Tidewater Drive.

The separation will be maintained between Tidewater Drive traffic to 4th View Street and westbound W. Ocean View Avenue traffic to Willoughby Spit.

Demolition of the flyover is scheduled to take place from Tuesday, July 21 through Sunday, July 26, 2020.
(https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/dda6148/2147483647/strip/true/crop/828x466+0+0/resize/1280x720!/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewscripps-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F16%2F44%2F32ee9abc43e4ae940c6dbb19db9b%2F0d0b13e9-34d7-4a43-aac3-e9af85d742b9.jpeg)
I hate those type of super streets really. I wish they made one where you can turn right and make a u-turn.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 26, 2021, 12:27:01 PM
^ If you're referring to the U-turn just south of the intersection, I'm not really sure what the purpose of that is.  But given it's location, I can say with certainty that it has nothing to do with the superstreet concept as you claim.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 26, 2021, 12:35:27 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 26, 2021, 12:27:01 PM
^ If you're referring to the U-turn just south of the intersection, I'm not really sure what the purpose of that is.  But given it's location, I can say with certainty that it has nothing to do with the superstreet concept as you claim.


Those other median cuts along Ocean View don't appear to be related to a superstreet concept either, at least not in the usual sense of that term, based on a look at Google Maps–they appear to be exits from the two beach parking areas along there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 26, 2021, 10:09:23 PM
^ From personal experience, that is correct.  Those are access points to/from the parking lots.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on March 29, 2021, 08:13:09 AM
I wonder if the U-turn is provided because Norfolk is planning to ban left turns from Tidewater northbound at Mason Creek. It would make sense due to the intersection geometry.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on March 30, 2021, 01:32:09 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 19, 2021, 02:14:02 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 19, 2021, 01:12:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 18, 2021, 10:00:28 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 09:53:59 PM
About damn time. That gives me a headache when driving on that section.

Also, why isn't I-64 signed WEST or EAST on that segment?

Because "westbound" I-64 goes east and "eastbound" I-64 goes west. Take a look at a map. It's sort of like a fishhook around Norfolk.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 10:00:42 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 09:53:59 PM
About damn time. That gives me a headache when driving on that section.

Also, why isn't I-64 signed WEST or EAST on that segment?
The directions aren't signed south of I-264 (with a few exceptions - including new signage Chesapeake recently put on the Dominion Blvd project) to avoid confusion with cardinal direction. Because Interstate 64 does almost a loop through the area, south of I-264, a motorist traveling in the west direction towards Suffolk is actually heading on I-64 East, and vice versa.

It's still referred though as "East" and "West" in official reports, with the direction corresponding to the official direction (I-64 East is going west to Suffolk, I-64 West is going east to Va Beach), not cardinal direction.
I would fix those numbers and take I-64 to Va beach.

That's been a recurring proposal (http://vahighways.com/route-log/i864.htm) for years now, but it doesn't seem likely to happen.
Besides, those who live there (or used to live there) are used to I-64 not having cardinal directions in Chesapeake and Va. Beach.  The INNER and OUTER Beltway signs suffice.

Back in the 1980's, cardinal directions of EAST and WEST were tried on I-64, however, that did not last long due to "motorist confusion".  I have advocated before, not that it will ever occur, that I-64 could have been signed NORTH-SOUTH from Bowers Hill to I-264 in Norfolk, following the old Bypass US 13 cardinal directions (NORTH toward Va. Beach and SOUTH toward Suffolk).  I mean this occurs on I-69 around Lansing, MI., why not there?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 30, 2021, 01:46:39 AM
It still makes me wonder why the city of Chesapeake decided to post "East" and "West" cardinal directions on the recently completed US-17 Dominion Blvd expansion on the approaches to the Oak Grove Interchange.

I've personally accustomed myself to "East" being west towards Bowers Hill and "West" being east towards Virginia Beach, which are the official directions. When you think of the overall westward trajectory of the highway towards Richmond, it makes sense.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on March 30, 2021, 03:05:14 AM
It does make sense--overall.  However, a majority of the motorists are locals.  Having cardinal directions going opposite of what they are supposed to is bound to confuse many of the motorists ("Why does this say WEST when I am headed East?").  That is why there weren't any cardinal directions posted, until the ones on the BGS's at the Oak Grove interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on March 30, 2021, 03:11:42 AM
I thought US 60 WEST was officially routed on Mason Creek to Tidewater to 4th View.  Or is it a case of Norfolk being lazy and half-assed with the signage?   :-/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on March 30, 2021, 03:33:14 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 30, 2021, 03:05:14 AM
It does make sense--overall.  However, a majority of the motorists are locals.  Having cardinal directions going opposite of what they are supposed to is bound to confuse many of the motorists ("Why does this say WEST when I am headed East?").  That is why there weren't any cardinal directions posted, until the ones on the BGS's at the Oak Grove interchange.
Both IL and WI have the same issue between Milwaukee and Chicago with I-94. The former is north of the latter and you need to take I-94 west to travel north.  I-94 East, on the other hand travels south to Chicagoland. Still both agencies sign it E-W even with the redundant I-41 signed north- south with it part of the way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on March 30, 2021, 09:01:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 30, 2021, 03:33:14 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 30, 2021, 03:05:14 AM
It does make sense--overall.  However, a majority of the motorists are locals.  Having cardinal directions going opposite of what they are supposed to is bound to confuse many of the motorists ("Why does this say WEST when I am headed East?").  That is why there weren't any cardinal directions posted, until the ones on the BGS's at the Oak Grove interchange.
Both IL and WI have the same issue between Milwaukee and Chicago with I-94. The former is north of the latter and you need to take I-94 west to travel north.  I-94 East, on the other hand travels south to Chicagoland. Still both agencies sign it E-W even with the redundant I-41 signed north- south with it part of the way.

At least in the case of I-94, the cardinal direction is not the opposite direction.  I-94 west is north.  But it is far worse to have a signed I-64 to the east, when the road goes to the west.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 31, 2021, 08:07:12 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on March 30, 2021, 03:05:14 AM
It does make sense--overall.  However, a majority of the motorists are locals.  Having cardinal directions going opposite of what they are supposed to is bound to confuse many of the motorists ("Why does this say WEST when I am headed East?").  That is why there weren't any cardinal directions posted, until the ones on the BGS's at the Oak Grove interchange.

Quote from: roadman65 on March 30, 2021, 03:33:14 PM
Both IL and WI have the same issue between Milwaukee and Chicago with I-94. The former is north of the latter and you need to take I-94 west to travel north.  I-94 East, on the other hand travels south to Chicagoland. Still both agencies sign it E-W even with the redundant I-41 signed north- south with it part of the way.

Quote from: mrsman on March 30, 2021, 09:01:02 PM
At least in the case of I-94, the cardinal direction is not the opposite direction.  I-94 west is north.  But it is far worse to have a signed I-64 to the east, when the road goes to the west.

Well, it used to be similar to the I-94 situation when I-64 was the main route west from Norfolk/Portsmouth/Chesapeake.  Now, much of this area is better served by I-664 and the Second Crossing (Merrimack-Monitor Bridge-Tunnel).  Also, overall improvements to US-460 and US-58 have made them much more viable for westward travel.  I think it is fair to say that most of the non-local traffic on I-64 between Bowers Hill and Virginia Beach is now heading eastbound instead of westbound.  I know it's tough for VDOT to consider downgrading this from a 2di to a 3di, but that is probably the best solution to solve this East-West reversal issue.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 31, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
I still say just have I-64 terminate in Hampton and designate the entire Hampton Roads Beltway as I-664. I know that no city wants to lose a 2di but at least the confusion would be gone.

Look at the Bay area in California. San Jose has never had a 2di, yet it has grown to become the 3rd largest city in CA and one of the largest in the country.

At this point both Virginia Beach & Norfolk is already well known and Chesapeake will always be a suburb so it shouldn't be much of a problem.

Also, there's no telling what's going to happen with I-87.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 31, 2021, 02:55:22 PM
Quote from: plain on March 31, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
Also, there's no telling what's going to happen with I-87.
My logical assumption would be that it will terminate at the I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 interchange and not travel inside the Hampton Roads Beltway.

The designation of I-87 in the Hampton Roads area will most likely not impact any of I-64's routing, it will merely act as an interstate highway designation for the US-17 corridor towards North Carolina leaving to the south of the Hampton Roads Beltway.

The most I could see, and this is diving into fictional territory, but is to replace I-464 with I-87 to connect it to Downtown Norfolk and terminate at I-264.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 31, 2021, 03:48:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2021, 02:55:22 PM
Quote from: plain on March 31, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
Also, there's no telling what's going to happen with I-87.
My logical assumption would be that it will terminate at the I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 interchange and not travel inside the Hampton Roads Beltway.

The designation of I-87 in the Hampton Roads area will most likely not impact any of I-64's routing, it will merely act as an interstate highway designation for the US-17 corridor towards North Carolina leaving to the south of the Hampton Roads Beltway.

The most I could see, and this is diving into fictional territory, but is to replace I-464 with I-87 to connect it to Downtown Norfolk and terminate at I-264.



Another option that would set up I-87 to continue up the Eastern Shore 50 years from now...

Have I-64 replace I-264 to the Oceanfront
Have I-87 replace I-64 from I-464 to I-64/264
Have I-664 replace I-64 from Bowers Hill to I-87/464

It would also at that point make more sense for 464 to become 287 but not strictly necessary.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on March 31, 2021, 03:52:35 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 31, 2021, 03:48:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2021, 02:55:22 PM
Quote from: plain on March 31, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
Also, there's no telling what's going to happen with I-87.
My logical assumption would be that it will terminate at the I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 interchange and not travel inside the Hampton Roads Beltway.

The designation of I-87 in the Hampton Roads area will most likely not impact any of I-64's routing, it will merely act as an interstate highway designation for the US-17 corridor towards North Carolina leaving to the south of the Hampton Roads Beltway.

The most I could see, and this is diving into fictional territory, but is to replace I-464 with I-87 to connect it to Downtown Norfolk and terminate at I-264.



Another option that would set up I-87 to continue up the Eastern Shore 50 years from now...

Have I-64 replace I-264 to the Oceanfront
Have I-87 replace I-64 from I-464 to I-64/264
Have I-664 replace I-64 from Bowers Hill to I-87/464

It would also at that point make more sense for 464 to become 287 but not strictly necessary.

Probably in 2100 they may decide to do it. The hierarchy of today will be gone and new generations may see the need to make theUS 13 corridor  a freeway then.  I-87 is now left open for the number to be used.

Probably Ohio may decide to complete the link of I-74 as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 31, 2021, 04:42:16 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTNOVA/status/1377358041838874629

The proposal involves extending Town Center Parkway underneath the Dulles Access and Toll Roads and the Silver Line tracks and then tying it into Sunrise Valley Drive to the west of the CoreSite Data Center building. On the map linked below, the existing Town Center Parkway is underneath the "J" in the word "Joint" to the north of the highway.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9527506,-77.3646395,1035m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on March 31, 2021, 06:02:30 PM
^^^^

I think making this new road would be a good idea.  There needs to be more local roads crossing over/under the Dulles Toll Road to improve traffic circulation in this area.  And if the road does not have ramps to the toll road, that is a plus, as a road without ramps will have less traffic and be more useful as a N-S road in the area.

The completion of the silver line will bring more growth to this area.  The roads need to be put in now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 31, 2021, 06:34:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2021, 04:42:16 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTNOVA/status/1377358041838874629

The proposal involves extending Town Center Parkway underneath the Dulles Access and Toll Roads and the Silver Line tracks and then tying it into Sunrise Valley Drive to the west of the CoreSite Data Center building. On the map linked below, the existing Town Center Parkway is underneath the "J" in the word "Joint" to the north of the highway.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9527506,-77.3646395,1035m/data=!3m1!1e3

Is VDOT pulling some kind of April's Fools joke? Because I don't see this happening
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 11:01:33 AM
Toll rates on the VA-168 Chesapeake Expressway (http://www.chesapeakeexpressway.com/) will be increasing from $3 to $4 off-peak and from $8 to $9 during peak summer weekends, beginning May 1.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 01, 2021, 01:05:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 11:01:33 AM
Toll rates on the VA-168 Chesapeake Expressway (http://www.chesapeakeexpressway.com/) will be increasing from $3 to $4 off-peak and from $8 to $9 during peak summer weekends, beginning May 1.

And still 55 mph  :colorful:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jmacswimmer on April 01, 2021, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 11:01:33 AM
Toll rates on the VA-168 Chesapeake Expressway (http://www.chesapeakeexpressway.com/) will be increasing from $3 to $4 off-peak and from $8 to $9 during peak summer weekends, beginning May 1.

Oof - that weekend toll is closing in on NYC-level :wow:

I don't have as much of an issue with the weekday-rate (and by coincidence, I've only ever been thru there on weekdays), but I would definitely shunpike on weekends.  I imagine the city knows it can still count on enough unaware out-of-towners heading to/from OBX rentals on Saturday to offset the shunpikers?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 01:37:23 PM
Quote from: plain on April 01, 2021, 01:05:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 11:01:33 AM
Toll rates on the VA-168 Chesapeake Expressway (http://www.chesapeakeexpressway.com/) will be increasing from $3 to $4 off-peak and from $8 to $9 during peak summer weekends, beginning May 1.

And still 55 mph  :colorful:
Yup. And the city still refuses to increase it. City ordinance was updated around 2015 to allow up to 65 mph on limited access highways, but then the city did not want to spend the money necessary for a speed study and instead just lowered the speed limit on parallel Battlefield Blvd to 45 mph.

IMO, all of both VA-168 and US-17 in the city should be at least 60 mph, with 65 mph on at minimum the toll road, if not more of the Expressway north to I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 01:40:34 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on April 01, 2021, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 11:01:33 AM
Toll rates on the VA-168 Chesapeake Expressway (http://www.chesapeakeexpressway.com/) will be increasing from $3 to $4 off-peak and from $8 to $9 during peak summer weekends, beginning May 1.

Oof - that weekend toll is closing in on NYC-level :wow:

I don't have as much of an issue with the weekday-rate (and by coincidence, I've only ever been thru there on weekdays), but I would definitely shunpike on weekends.  I imagine the city knows it can still count on enough unaware out-of-towners heading to/from OBX rentals on Saturday to offset the shunpikers?
Yup, and that's why they keep raising it. The off peak toll is barely worth it now (I'll usually only take it at night when on a long drive from like the Outer Banks), it certainly isn't going to be worth it at $4. You bypass 6 miles of 45-55 mph two lane road that, unless during rush hour, is maybe 2-4 minutes slower.

If the speed limit was 65 mph, maybe I'd have second thoughts. But with the toll road only being 55 mph, it's not worth it. That rural freeway can easily handle 70 mph speeds.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 01, 2021, 02:08:15 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on April 01, 2021, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 11:01:33 AM
Toll rates on the VA-168 Chesapeake Expressway (http://www.chesapeakeexpressway.com/) will be increasing from $3 to $4 off-peak and from $8 to $9 during peak summer weekends, beginning May 1.

Oof - that weekend toll is closing in on already NYC-level :wow:

FTFY.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jmacswimmer on April 01, 2021, 02:18:27 PM
Quote from: plain on April 01, 2021, 02:08:15 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on April 01, 2021, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 11:01:33 AM
Toll rates on the VA-168 Chesapeake Expressway (http://www.chesapeakeexpressway.com/) will be increasing from $3 to $4 off-peak and from $8 to $9 during peak summer weekends, beginning May 1.

Oof - that weekend toll is closing in on already NYC-level :wow:

FTFY.

Well played :-D (Not to be outdone, the toll-by-plate/out-of-state E-ZPass rate at MTAB&T facilities goes above $10 on 4/11.  But I will concede that if you have a NY E-ZPass, those crossings remain cheaper than the Chesapeake Expressway on a weekend.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 01, 2021, 02:58:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 11:01:33 AM
Toll rates on the VA-168 Chesapeake Expressway (http://www.chesapeakeexpressway.com/) will be increasing from $3 to $4 off-peak and from $8 to $9 during peak summer weekends, beginning May 1.

And this is why I always shunpike the Chesapeake Expressway, even with the lowered speed limit on Battlefield Blvd.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 01, 2021, 03:02:22 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 01, 2021, 02:58:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 11:01:33 AM
Toll rates on the VA-168 Chesapeake Expressway (http://www.chesapeakeexpressway.com/) will be increasing from $3 to $4 off-peak and from $8 to $9 during peak summer weekends, beginning May 1.
And this is why I always shunpike the Chesapeake Expressway, even with the lowered speed limit on Battlefield Blvd.

If I ever go to the Outer Banks again, I want to take US 17 BUS through Deep Creek than US 17 SB to NC 343 SB in South Mills to US 158 EB to avoid the problem entirely.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on April 01, 2021, 09:29:46 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 31, 2021, 03:48:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 31, 2021, 02:55:22 PM
Quote from: plain on March 31, 2021, 01:55:13 PM
Also, there's no telling what's going to happen with I-87.
My logical assumption would be that it will terminate at the I-64 / I-464 / VA-168 interchange and not travel inside the Hampton Roads Beltway.

The designation of I-87 in the Hampton Roads area will most likely not impact any of I-64's routing, it will merely act as an interstate highway designation for the US-17 corridor towards North Carolina leaving to the south of the Hampton Roads Beltway.

The most I could see, and this is diving into fictional territory, but is to replace I-464 with I-87 to connect it to Downtown Norfolk and terminate at I-264.



Another option that would set up I-87 to continue up the Eastern Shore 50 years from now...

Have I-64 replace I-264 to the Oceanfront
Have I-87 replace I-64 from I-464 to I-64/264
Have I-664 replace I-64 from Bowers Hill to I-87/464

It would also at that point make more sense for 464 to become 287 but not strictly necessary.
That does remind me. This is my concept, which is far less likely to happen, but has lots of stuff there for it.
Regarding the Town Center underpass, I'm in approval for that. The question is, how will they do that especially with the Silver Line being recently built?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on April 10, 2021, 02:33:17 PM
Chesapeake Bay Bridge wreck victim found in Outer Banks

"AVON, N.C. – A body that washed up Friday morning in the Outer Banks is that of Erik Mezick, the Maryland man whose box truck plunged off the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel more than three months ago.

His family announced the news through "Finding Erik Mezick,"  a Facebook page they created after the Dec. 29 accident. In the months since Mezick went missing, his body drifted more than 100 miles before it came to rest on the beach between the villages of Salvo and Avon.

A resident reported finding the body of a male at 9:14 a.m. on the beach within the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. It appeared to have been in the ocean for a long time, according to a release from the seashore.

"The cause of the accident still hasn't been determined. Conditions were windy that day on the CBBT but not enough to trigger traffic restrictions.

Erik Mezick, 47, was heading north on the 17-mile span, driving a 20-foot box truck on a delivery run for Baltimore-based Cloverland Greenspring Dairy. His truck crashed through the guard rail around 8:20 a.m. near milepost 14, about three-quarters of the way across, plummeting into frigid waters.

Witnesses saw him outside the cab, floating on the surface. He appeared unresponsive and was drifting west toward the bay when he went under.

Multiple agencies searched for him, covering nearly 200 square miles. Debris from the truck washed ashore days later in Virginia Beach.

"According to CBBT records, Mezick's was the 16th over-the-side accident on the span. Most have been deadly, with bodies typically recovered within hours or a few days.


https://www.pilotonline.com/news/vp-nw-trucker-found-20210409-vi26d7bnyjdcbokoopa5kxiun4-story.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Old Dominionite on April 11, 2021, 03:15:56 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on April 01, 2021, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 11:01:33 AM
Toll rates on the VA-168 Chesapeake Expressway (http://www.chesapeakeexpressway.com/) will be increasing from $3 to $4 off-peak and from $8 to $9 during peak summer weekends, beginning May 1.

Oof - that weekend toll is closing in on NYC-level :wow:

I don't have as much of an issue with the weekday-rate (and by coincidence, I've only ever been thru there on weekdays), but I would definitely shunpike on weekends.  I imagine the city knows it can still count on enough unaware out-of-towners heading to/from OBX rentals on Saturday to offset the shunpikers?

They should give Battlefield Blvd another designation besides VA 168 Business to reduce the likelihood of shunpiking even further...  :colorful:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 11, 2021, 03:19:26 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on April 11, 2021, 03:15:56 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on April 01, 2021, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 01, 2021, 11:01:33 AM
Toll rates on the VA-168 Chesapeake Expressway (http://www.chesapeakeexpressway.com/) will be increasing from $3 to $4 off-peak and from $8 to $9 during peak summer weekends, beginning May 1.

Oof - that weekend toll is closing in on NYC-level :wow:

I don't have as much of an issue with the weekday-rate (and by coincidence, I've only ever been thru there on weekdays), but I would definitely shunpike on weekends.  I imagine the city knows it can still count on enough unaware out-of-towners heading to/from OBX rentals on Saturday to offset the shunpikers?

They should give Battlefield Blvd another designation besides VA 168 Business to reduce the likelihood of shunpiking even further...  :colorful:
I doubt it would do anything. The route is already well known by locals and long distance travelers alike. Despite what many think, the toll road is still quite busy during peak weekends, so it does get well usage by many long distance motorists who have no problem paying the high toll, or don't think about driving off the main highway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 11, 2021, 05:17:28 PM
How is the Chesapeake Expy penciling out financially.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 11, 2021, 05:24:40 PM
http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/government/city-departments/departments/Public-Works-Department/chesapeake-transportation-system/bridges-dominion-blvd-improvements/chesapeake-transportation-system-disclosure-reports.htm

Revenue information from tolls collected on both VA-168 and US-17 are published on the city's website.

Overall, despite a decrease in traffic volumes from the initial $6 peak toll, then to $8, toll revenue has gone up.

There is seemingly more interest by the city to increase revenues as opposed to addressing traffic problems on Battlefield Blvd. Lowering the toll would increase volumes on the Expressway and reduce them on Battlefield, but could potentially reduce revenues. At the same time, the city has a long range plan to widen Battlefield to 4 lanes. This seems counterintuitive because that was what the Expressway was constructed for - widening alternatives were dismissed and was preferred for new location alignment - and the money spent on such a project could be used to remove any remaining debts that need to be paid off, reducing or eliminating tolls entirely, and eliminating the need for widening on Battlefield.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 18, 2021, 09:38:18 PM
Don't think this have come up, but the Varina-Enon Bridge carrying I-295 got a paint job. the cable stays are now (well have been for at least a year and a half) blue in color.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 19, 2021, 01:07:48 PM
It looks like VDOT is planning on implementing variable speed limits along I-95 in Spotsylvania County between about MM 115 (south of SR 606) and the VA 3 interchange:

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2021/april/ctb_workshop_meeting_april_2021.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on April 20, 2021, 02:30:25 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/LvV9E4FtTFeekZAR7

Was noticing at the east end of VA 272 the houses on the SE corner of that intersection with US 58 kept the old concrete alignment of the relocated VA 189 alive. 

I still wonder what the reason for VA 189 that was realigned after the US 58 freeway got completed. To me VA 272 should still be VA 189 instead of it aligning itself northward to end at US 58 south of Franklin.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 20, 2021, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2021, 02:30:25 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/LvV9E4FtTFeekZAR7

Was noticing at the east end of VA 272 the houses on the SE corner of that intersection with US 58 kept the old concrete alignment of the relocated VA 189 alive. 

I still wonder what the reason for VA 189 that was realigned after the US 58 freeway got completed. To me VA 272 should still be VA 189 instead of it aligning itself northward to end at US 58 south of Franklin.

I fixed the typo in your previous post.

My belief is that the reasoning for the insane routings around Franklin come down to this weight-restricted bridge on VA 189 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6250749,-76.8929068,3a,75y,357.89h,87.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2Mo8XkbZSdTFaYnrg_Bv7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

Personally, I would reduce VA 189 to the short stretch in Holland, decommission VA 272, have US 258 replace VA 189 south of US 58, and extend US 258 Business (which is a mess of its own in Franklin) down current US 258 to the south end of VA 189.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on April 20, 2021, 04:26:04 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 20, 2021, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2021, 02:30:25 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/LvV9E4FtTFeekZAR7

Was noticing at the east end of VA 272 the houses on the SE corner of that intersection with US 58 kept the old concrete alignment of the relocated VA 189 alive. 

I still wonder what the reason for VA 189 that was realigned after the US 58 freeway got completed. To me VA 272 should still be VA 189 instead of it aligning itself northward to end at US 58 south of Franklin.

I fixed the typo in your previous post.

My belief is that the reasoning for the insane routings around Franklin come down to this weight-restricted bridge on VA 189 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6250749,-76.8929068,3a,75y,357.89h,87.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2Mo8XkbZSdTFaYnrg_Bv7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

Personally, I would reduce VA 189 to the short stretch in Holland, decommission VA 272, have US 258 replace VA 189 south of US 58, and extend US 258 Business (which is a mess of its own in Franklin) down current US 258 to the south end of VA 189.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 20, 2021, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2021, 02:30:25 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/LvV9E4FtTFeekZAR7

Was noticing at the east end of VA 272 the houses on the SE corner of that intersection with US 58 kept the old concrete alignment of the relocated VA 189 alive. 

I still wonder what the reason for VA 189 that was realigned after the US 58 freeway got completed. To me VA 272 should still be VA 189 instead of it aligning itself northward to end at US 58 south of Franklin.

I fixed the typo in your previous post.

My belief is that the reasoning for the insane routings around Franklin come down to this weight-restricted bridge on VA 189 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6250749,-76.8929068,3a,75y,357.89h,87.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2Mo8XkbZSdTFaYnrg_Bv7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

Personally, I would reduce VA 189 to the short stretch in Holland, decommission VA 272, have US 258 replace VA 189 south of US 58, and extend US 258 Business (which is a mess of its own in Franklin) down current US 258 to the south end of VA 189.

That bridge was not that way back in 1983 when I drove it.  That was part of temporary US 58 as the freeway was not yet completed then between SR 714 and VA 272 ( then VA 189 as it was signed concurrent with US 58 to Holland then).

Obviously it deteriorated over the years and most likely is listed now as structurally deficient.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on April 20, 2021, 04:31:10 PM
https://www.thetidewaternews.com/2021/02/25/south-quay-road-to-close-for-bridge-replacement/

Obviously the bridge is being addressed now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 20, 2021, 05:30:06 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2021, 04:31:10 PM
https://www.thetidewaternews.com/2021/02/25/south-quay-road-to-close-for-bridge-replacement/

Obviously the bridge is being addressed now.

I wonder if it is worth checking with VDOT to see if any routes around Franklin may change after the completion of this project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on April 23, 2021, 09:36:54 AM
Heads up in case anyone is passing thru my neck of the woods this morning. Southbound US-29 traffic is being detoured through Danville due to a tractor-trailer crash just north of the US-58/US-360 interchange.

https://www.wfxrtv.com/news/local-news/southside-virginia-news/tractor-trailer-crash-closes-down-us-29-south-in-danville/ (https://www.wfxrtv.com/news/local-news/southside-virginia-news/tractor-trailer-crash-closes-down-us-29-south-in-danville/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 28, 2021, 11:49:44 AM
https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/050421%20FTAC%2007%20Hampton%20Roads%20Highway%20Access%20Study.pdf

The HRTPO (Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization) is planning to conduct a study in FY22 to evaluate different proposals to improve highway access from the region to the north, west, and south.

QuoteImprovements have been proposed for many of the corridors that provide access to and from Hampton Roads. Some of these improvements include widening I-64 between Richmond and Williamsburg, replacing all or portions of Routes 58 and 460 with limited-access facilities, and building I-87 to and from North Carolina.

HRTPO staff will be preparing a study in FY22 to compare proposed improvements to these corridors based on the overall collective impact on the Hampton Roads region.

QuoteA. Background
The main highways linking Hampton Roads to the outside are (counterclockwise):
- US 13 North (via Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel)
- US 17 North
- I-64 West
- US 460 West
- US 58 West
- US 17 South (leading to I-87 proposed in North Carolina)
- VA 168 South

Improvements have been proposed to each of these corridors. Given limited transportation funds, the purpose of this effort is to compare these improvements using costs and benefits. Each corridor serves one or more areas outside of Hampton Roads: North, West, or South. Corridors serving the same area will be compared to each other. For example, US 13 North, US 17 North, and I-64 West all serve the North area.

B. Work Elements (WE)
Proposed work activities for FY22:
1. Identify corridors serving outside areas.
2. By area served, compare the current usage of competing highways:
       o Total vehicle volume
       o Truck volume
       o Port truck volume
3. Compare areas by port-related origins/destinations.
4. By area served, compare current travel times for competing highways.
       o Based on future scenarios of volumes, congestion, and signalization, estimate and compare future travel times for competing highways.
5. Identify planned improvements (with costs) by corridor.
6. Consider other measures, e.g. safety and economic development opportunities.
7. By area served, prioritize corridors based on the overall collective impact for our region.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 29, 2021, 06:04:16 PM
The first two (US 13 North & US 17 North) I really don't see much happening, but the others have some potential. US 13 is going to be extremely difficult and there's no point with US 17, unless it will get 6-laned between VA 134 and I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 29, 2021, 11:41:50 PM
Quote from: plain on April 29, 2021, 06:04:16 PM
The first two (US 13 North & US 17 North) I really don't see much happening, but the others have some potential. US 13 is going to be extremely difficult and there's no point with US 17, unless it will get 6-laned between VA 134 and I-64.
I imagine for most of them, any improvements will be limited to widening, intersection improvements, etc.

The only major recommendations I imagine would be focused towards upgrading US-58 West and US-17 South (I-87) to interstate standards, along with maybe reviving a potential US-460 realignment, and obviously I-64 widening to 6 lanes between Bottoms Bridge and Williamsburg.

It would be extremely interesting to see any freeway concepts for US-17 North, US-13 North, or VA-168 South where they are not currently built to those standards, considering no real proposals exist, but I wouldn't hold my breath. At the very least, it would be something to see US-13 in Virginia Beach upgraded or even proposed. The alignment east of Diamond Springs Rd is already built on limited access right of way. VDOT conceptual plans for the I-264 Phase 3 project show a conceptual interchange complex involving Wesleyan Dr and US-13. The only hard spot would obviously be Diamond Springs to Wesleyan, where the roadway functions as an 8 lane arterial with no access control. Either major right of way acquisition or an elevated viaduct would be required if a freeway was proposed in that location. There are certainly benefits to upgrading US-13 between I-64 and the CBBT to interstate standards though, providing an adequate expressway at least out of the metro area, and locally, having a high-capacity freeway serve that area of the city.

While US-17 South, US-58 West, and VA-168 South do not extend out of the region as freeways, they at least function as limited access highways until outside the metro area. US-13 does not.

US-17 North...? The only true freeway design I could envision is what was proposed in the 1980s - a new location highway between I-64 near Williamsburg and US-17 near Gloucester featuring a new James River crossing. Would bypass the commercial strip that is US-17 between Gloucester and Newport News. If this highway was ever built, it would most definitely be a toll road.

These are definitely projects with potential, and while I highly doubt it, it would be interesting to see this study look at full buildouts of US-17 North and US-13 North in this regard. They have merit to be studied as independent projects as well, but this would be a start. They aren't even official proposals at this point.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 30, 2021, 01:51:09 AM
Worth noting that both the 1965 and 1969 Southside transportation plans recommended Northampton (13) as a freeway between 64 and the CBBT.  Obviously that didn't come to fruition, but it's been proposed before.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 30, 2021, 08:21:48 AM
Quote from: froggie on April 30, 2021, 01:51:09 AM
Worth noting that both the 1965 and 1969 Southside transportation plans recommended Northampton (13) as a freeway between 64 and the CBBT.  Obviously that didn't come to fruition, but it's been proposed before.


That honestly would have made a lot of sense considering how congested that stretch is today...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 18 wheel warrior on May 01, 2021, 06:02:10 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 30, 2021, 01:51:09 AM
Worth noting that both the 1965 and 1969 Southside transportation plans recommended Northampton (13) as a freeway between 64 and the CBBT.  Obviously that didn't come to fruition, but it's been proposed before.
Interestingly, that was the same period many locals, mainly Virginia Beach Blvd businesses, were opposed to the Virginia Beach-Norfolk Expressway construction because they were afraid the businesses on the Boulevard would end up going out of business. Guess what didn't happen? At least that was the story I was told. I wonder if there was similar opposition to upgrading Northampton Blvd to a freeway. It certainly would have avoided the traffic mess that's existed between 64 and Diamond Springs since who knows how long....
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 18 wheel warrior on May 01, 2021, 06:53:09 PM
Decades ago, there were proposals for a freeway to run from Norfolk to Raleigh. I think VDOT may have dropped the ball when the reconstruction of VA-104 (now relocated US-17) Dominion Blvd only went to south of Cedar Rd. VDOT could have done something to make a future upgrade to interstate standard to facilitate this long awaited highway easier. It's going to be another mess when this project is funded and started.

In my view, expansion/upgrading of US-17 from Cedar Rd to the NC line should be a top priority to facilitate port and other commercial traffic between the ports in Virginia to I-95 near Rocky Mount and beyond. US-64 from Knightdale (the current "end" of the southern I-87) to Williamston only need minor improvements to upgrade to interstate standard. From Williamston (aside from the bypasses along the way) to the state line will be their big project. VDOT starting this would signal to NCDOT its commitment to make this happen and perhaps get their part started. NCDOT seems to build highways at incredible speed. Unfortunately, I can't count on VDOT to get anything going any faster than molasses flowing uphill in winter.

VDOT has started something along US-58 in Suffolk. Some right of way has been purchased; homes demolished in anticipation for expansion. How long this project is and when construction is to start I don't know. Improvements between the Downtown Suffolk bypass and Holland Bypass would be welcome!

Expansion of US-460 between the Suffolk Bypass and Petersburg from a mostly 4 lane undivided highway to a divided highway would be nice; it'd be an excellent alternative to I-64 to the north and west. Not that it isn't now; it would be safer. Sticking point would be perhaps building bypasses around Zuni, Windsor, Wakefield, Ivor and Waverly.

VDOT has paid too much attention to northern Virginia over the decades. We've needed serious attention for many years. It's time we got that attention!

 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 01, 2021, 07:28:04 PM
Regarding the city of Chesapeake's project with Dominion Blvd expansion, I think the project helped to at least tackle the most challenging portion of the US-17 corridor between I-64 and North Carolina. The only criticism I had is something should've been done at Grassfield Pkwy and Scenic Pkwy to at least reserve right of way for future interchanges or just outright build them. That stretch did see improvements though, as it was at least widened to a 4 lane divided highway.

Either way though, I don't think the remainder of US-17 would be a hard project to upgrade to interstate standards, at least compared to the mess Dominion Blvd caused motorists for a few years. The highway was mostly relocated on new alignment in 2005 by VDOT, and while it still has at grade intersections at minor roadways, the roadway is built on a limited access right of way with sufficient room to purchase additional right of way near at least Ballahack Rd, Cornland Rd, and US-17 Business to construct grade separated interchanges.

Now, the city of Chesapeake is planning to eventually construct a "megasite"  on the field east of the highway just north of the state line in the future, and if proper consideration isn't done to accommodate the future interstate (i.e. building a privately funded interchange vs. the current planned installation of a traffic signal), then that could be another hassle. Plus, let's not put another signal on US-17, interstate planned or not. IMO, no new access should even go there, but because 3 private farm access points were authorized when that relocation was constructed, they're using that "loophole" .

There hasn't been much formal study by VDOT regarding I-87 yet, unlike North Carolina's two feasibility studies on US-64 and US-17, though adjusted for 2045 inflation, the HRTPO estimates construction of I-87 between the state line and I-64 along US-17 to cost $404 million.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 02, 2021, 07:02:17 PM
https://twitter.com/ChesapeakeRoads/status/1388948697426374665

For some context, the bridge was closed in late 2019 - early 2020 for 6 months for a scheduled rehabilitation project that caused an over 5 mile detour that utilized the VA-168 freeway over the waterway, and caused significant increased congestion issues in the area, particularly along VA-165, VA-168 freeway, and up to the I-64 interchange. The bridge re-opened in February 2020, and all was normal. In November 2020 however, a barge struck the bridge causing it to be closed to accommodate emergency repairs. Emergency funding was appropriated, and work was not expected to be done until May 31, 2021. In all, a roughly another 6 month closure took place, repeating those same traffic issues and detour.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 02, 2021, 11:58:01 PM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on May 01, 2021, 06:53:09 PM
Decades ago, there were proposals for a freeway to run from Norfolk to Raleigh.

Where?  And from whom?

Of the three regional Southside transportation plans I'm most familiar with (above-mentioned 1965, above-mentioned 1969, and VDOT's 2010 thoroughfare plan released in 1989), none had a freeway along Dominion, and none had a freeway along 58 past Suffolk.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 03, 2021, 08:42:22 AM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on May 01, 2021, 06:53:09 PM
VDOT has started something along US-58 in Suffolk. Some right of way has been purchased; homes demolished in anticipation for expansion. How long this project is and when construction is to start I don't know. Improvements between the Downtown Suffolk bypass and Holland Bypass would be welcome!

Is it this (https://www.suffolkva.us/688/Route-58-Holland-Road-Corridor-Improveme) project? If so, it looks like a city project and not a VDOT one.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 06, 2021, 07:40:05 PM
US 250 between VA 6 and the bottom of Afton Mtn towards VA 151 closed by rockslide since May 4:

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1390427127942635523?s=20
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 07, 2021, 02:15:58 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTNOVA/status/1390416927030497282
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 08, 2021, 11:50:37 AM
Warner, transportation leaders meet to discuss priorities (https://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2021/05/07/warner-transportation-leaders-meet-to-discuss-priorities/)
QuoteHampton Roads transportation leaders outlined their priorities for Sen. Mark Warner Friday on how the region could benefit from federal money to move along projects such as port dredging, interstate and road expansion and other infrastructure projects.

Warner's meeting at the Virginia International Gateway terminal at the Port of Virginia was part of a two-day swing through the region, meeting with museum and music venue operators the day before and later Friday visiting the Hampton VA Medical Center with Reps. Bobby Scott and Elaine Luria.

During the hour-long visit, Warner and transportation officials touched on the importance of improving the region's transportation network, continuing to advance dredging at the Port of Virginia, the importance of offshore wind and addressing sea-level rise.

He said the port is among the state's greatest assets and believes the region can use its deep maritime ties to its advantage.

New port director Stephen Edwards emphasized that the dredging at the port is contingent on federal money coming to it. He also asked Warner to help it get "new start"  designation from the Army Corps of Engineers. That would let the Norfolk Harbor and Channels widening and deepening project move to the next stage of construction and get Army Corps funding. Currently, that project is ongoing and is funded through a combination of state and local money.

Edwards said it is important that it work collaboratively on making improvements to State Route 164 to Suffolk. Bob Crum, executive director of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, said that kind of work helps the port.

"What we're about is what comes next, and for our port partners, we need to build that land-side transportation network to support the tremendous work that you're doing at the port,"  Crum said.

He said a priority is to finish Interstate 64 expansion north to I-295 in Richmond.

Crum noted the current widening of I-64 in South Hampton Roads, with the goal of continuing that though I-664 to Route 164, "which is going to be key to our port facilities."

"So there's a lot of projects there that we really think that if we're going to keep pace and really be able to provide the type of land-side network,"  Crum said, "that some investments are going to be critically important."

The projects, Crum noted, are out of the organization's long-range transportation plan endorsed by its regional board.

Kevin Page, executive director of the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission, said the region would soon have its own 44-mile managed hot-lane network.

Crum also noted ongoing conversations with city managers throughout the region on the fiber ring and using money from the American Rescue Plan to build that out, having already received such a commitment from Norfolk Mayor Kenny Alexander.

David White, executive director of the Virginia Maritime Association, agreed with Warner about the importance for the region to embrace a maritime focus.

"This region is a maritime economy,"  White said, "and I think that we have really finally come to recognize that, and we need to flex our muscles around that."

Page said there are 200 lane miles under construction or reconstruction in Hampton Roads, and noted that it is the 95% funding partner in the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel expansion project. The HRBT project, he said, would create 28,000 jobs between now and 2025.

He stressed the importance of building up the infrastructure surrounding the port and working with federal partners to gain more financial support for those efforts.

With $6.1 billion worth of highway projects slated for completion by October 2025, Page said that without federal money, Route 164 widening wouldn't happen until 2045, and I-664 widening from Bowers Hill to the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel wouldn't happen until 2038.

But he said the region's cooperation has never been better, and its regional transportation priorities even have buy-in from unlikely places.

"It's been really enlightening to me to sit down with Southampton County, who'll probably never see an HRTAC project because we have highest priority congestion relief projects,"  Page said, "but they're a contributor and understanding as that regional partner what it means for them – a lot of trucks stopping there in that region to fuel up."

Said John Milliken of the port authority's board of directors: "What happens outside the port boundaries is every bit as important as what happens inside."

Warner noted the collaboration on display throughout the region hasn't always been the case.

"For too long in Hampton Roads, I used to think economic development was Norfolk steals from Virginia Beach, and then Virginia Beach steals from Norfolk, but that doesn't grow the overall pie."

Warner also addressed U.S. Route 58 and its role with the port and the overall transportation network.

"We've been trying to make sure that there is that southern route that goes along 58,"  Warner said. "It's really important (and) that's been a priority for 20-plus years. And part of it is improvements in communities like Suffolk, but part of it is the need for improvements in a place like Patrick County, much further west, because even if you get the improvements in Suffolk, if you're trying to ship goods to Tennessee and beyond, and the 58 corridor can be one of those corridors, you've got bottlenecks along the way.

"It's gotten better. Some of these bottlenecks go back to when I was governor (from 2002 to 2006) and they're finally improving, but it's been a long, long process. And I do think there is an opportunity there."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 08, 2021, 04:40:59 PM
Would the I-664 and VA-164 widening projects be a continuation of the current 2 GP/1 HOT lane configuration in each direction that is currently being built on the southside section of I-64? Also while I'm glad to hear US-58 get some recognition, it doesn't sound like there are any big projects planned for that corridor between Emporia and Bowers Hill besides the Bowers Hill interchange improvements and the upcoming US-58 widening west of Suffolk that IMO should've instead been a limited access bypass. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 08, 2021, 04:52:32 PM
https://www.winchesterstar.com/winchester_star/kaine-regional-officials-discuss-using-american-rescue-plan-funds-to-improve-i-81/article_b02b5a57-36b5-5eaa-8e22-480f82c84188.html
QuoteWINCHESTER – The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan approved by the federal government in March to address the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic includes billions of dollars that Virginia and its localities can use for road improvements.

U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Virginia Transportation Secretary Shannon Valentine were in Winchester Friday morning to hear how local and state representatives would like to use that money to better the 325-mile section of Interstate 81 that runs through the commonwealth.

"When you get one-time money, using it for infrastructure is smart," Kaine told the group assembled on the fourth floor of Rouss City Hall.

Del. Bill Wiley, R-Winchester, pulled no punches, telling Kaine the portion of I-81 in the Northern Shenandoah Valley is "the red-headed stepchild. We're always third or fourth priority."

Wiley and several others who attended Friday's session told Kaine and Valentine that when federal and state governments earmark money for transportation improvements in Virginia, funds frequently are directed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and Virginia Department of Transportation to more populous areas, particularly Northern Virginia. Meanwhile, the two-lane I-81 corridor in Frederick County cannot adequately handle its increasingly high volumes of vehicular traffic, resulting in frequent slowdowns and vehicle crashes.

"We're way behind and need to get going," Wiley said.

Chris Kyle, chairman of the GO Virginia Region 8 Council, agreed, saying the formula currently used by Virginia to determine how to best spend transportation dollars needs to change to better reflect the long-standing needs of the state's western half, including the Northern Shenandoah Valley.

"The dollars come to the state," Kyle said. "Let's stop them before they go east."

Dale Bennett, president and CEO of the Richmond-based Virginia Trucking Association, said an inefficient I-81 is not just frustrating and dangerous. It also hurts the environment because tractor-trailers slowed by bottlenecks emit more exhaust fumes and consume more fuel than they would if traffic flowed freely.

David Covington, I-81 program delivery director at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), said the state is already planning to add a third lane to northbound and southbound I-81 between Exits 313 and 317 in Winchester, but it's not clear when work would begin.

Mark Merrill, Staunton District representative on the Commonwealth Transportation Board, said he would like the I-81 lane widening in Winchester to extend farther south to Stephens City due to the area's high volume of traffic.

"I think we have to do more," Merrill said.

Del. Wendy Gooditis, D-Clarke County, told Kaine she is grateful that Merrill, a Winchester resident, is on the Commonwealth Transportation Board because he will be a solid resource for helping to improve local conditions on I-81.

"I'm just so thankful for the work being done," Gooditis said.

Kaine said the federal government will let states and localities determine the best way to invest American Rescue Plan funds when they're distributed in the coming weeks and months, as long as the spending falls within the assistance program's parameters. However, Congress could strongly encourage recipients to focus on specific areas of longstanding need.

"As we talk about the infrastructure portion going to roads, we might be able to write criteria that would really advantage I-81," Kaine said, particularly if states along the corridor have already identified problem areas and developed improvement plans.

In Virginia, Valentine said, plans to improve I-81 in the Winchester area have been on the books for more than 20 years.

Would love to know exactly how much money were talking about here. Short term, for at the least the Winchester area, I agree that the currently planned I-81 widening should extend south to Exit 307. I also think that some of the money could be used to help construct either the first section of the VA-37 eastern extension or the Exit 307 relocation project. Longer term, I think that it makes sense to widen all of I-81 from north of I-66 to the West Virginia state line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 08, 2021, 05:32:51 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 08, 2021, 04:40:59 PM
Would the I-664 and VA-164 widening projects be a continuation of the current 2 GP/1 HOT lane configuration in each direction that is currently being built on the southside section of I-64?
Unfortunately, for at least I-664 as of now, yes.

VDOT is currently conducting a study to create an Environmental Impact Statement for the Bowers Hill Interchange and the I-664 corridor between Bowers Hill and the MMMBT. A public meeting was held in March 2021 that presented various alternatives that involved constructing 1 or 2 HO/T lanes in each direction along with alternatives that would construct 1 or 2 general purpose lanes in each direction. There was a public comment period, and the response from an overwhelming majority of people was that their was preference for general purpose widening with an emphasis on no tolls. Anyways, being this is VDOT, and the fact the HRTPO has locked in an "Express Lane Network" that is to be built out around the entire Hampton Roads Beltway (I-64 / I-664) and up I-64 to Jefferson Ave in Newport News, they threw that right out the window and eliminated all general purpose alternatives from further study. Their reasoning? It "didn't meet the purpose and need" which indicates that one of the goals is to "provide alternative travel choices". Essentially, this study was ultimately going to be a HO/T lane addition project, but they couldn't brand it as such. I predicted from the beginning they would go this route, and sure enough they did.

See this presentation for specifics - https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/042321%20BHIWG%2005_Presentation%20Improvement%20Study.pdf

The idea does not seem popular in this region, nor does it make sense outside maybe I-64 in Norfolk where it's currently being built - I will also add I could see viability and a potential way to help fund for a complete reconstruction of I-264 similar to how I-495 was done in Northern Virginia or currently I-66 (3 general purpose + 2 HO/T each way, every interchange completely reconstructed). I-64 south of I-264 Norfolk into Virginia Beach and Chesapeake all the way to I-464 has 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HOV lane in each direction and has since the 90s and almost never has any congestion issues - and of course these HOV lanes will be converted to HO/T (the segment in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach is already under construction) but at least there will still be 3 general purpose lanes retained. The same applies for I-64 on the Peninsula north of I-664. The stretches of I-64 and I-664 that are still 4 lanes in Chesapeake see moderate congestion during peak hours, but the volumes are low enough (lower than the previous mentioned segments due to a large percentage of traffic exiting at VA-168 / US-17 South) that if you simply added one or two general purpose lanes, traffic would be fine, and if the previous mentioned segments are any indication, it would work for decades to come. But instead, we'll see a transition from that nice wide open highway crammed down to still 2 congested general purpose lanes and the occasional car in the Express Lane. And of course, to make it better, they had an original policy that the HO/T lanes would only be tolled during peak hours, similar to the existing reversible segment, but they have instead changed on that and mandated they be tolled 24/7. Soon enough, they'll change the policy on the existing ones too to be "consistent". It's ridiculous honestly, and I question how well it will help traffic problems more than general purpose widening would do - but who knows. It's what we're stuck with and clearly "public input" is worthless - they blatantly admitted from that I-664 study and the above linked presentation.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 08, 2021, 04:40:59 PM
Also while I'm glad to hear US-58 get some recognition, it doesn't sound like there are any big projects planned for that corridor between Emporia and Bowers Hill besides the Bowers Hill interchange improvements and the upcoming US-58 widening west of Suffolk that IMO should've instead been a limited access bypass.
Agreed, and it honestly shows incompetence on VDOT's part. They are so narrowed down on arterial improvements, and while I'm not necessarily against those either, the fact there has been no large scale study or goal on improving the US-58 corridor to interstate standards out to I-95 is beyond me - or even at least to Holland! It keeps getting discussed internally, but there's no real effort to get anything done. And at this rate, there's much higher priorities in the region who knows. This is one of the main reasons I'm supportive of the proposed I-87 project in North Carolina - it might not be the desired connection like US-58 is, but if they can actually get something built up over the next 15 to 20 years (still quicker than VDOT will ever get dirt turned on US-58), there will at least be a somewhat viable alternative to the south. It wouldn't be necessary if VDOT had focused on US-58 20 or 30 years ago when there was prime opportunity to improve it when there was 30 miles between the Courtland Bypass and I-95 that was still 2 lane road - perhaps relocating on a freeway alignment. Would've been a major start, but instead they went with traditional 4 lane widening. I'm not arguing US-58 is not viable for the traffic volumes it carries - it certainly is - but given it's critical function of connecting a metropolitan area of 2 million to the East Coast's main north-south interstate highway - and being a major freight route - it should be built to at least freeway standards.

Imagine how the US-58 corridor would be if all the widenings that have occurred since the 80s - the whole corridor east of I-77 - were all built to freeway standards and a relocation of the old 2 lane road. With offering faster travel times, and the opportunity to eventually improve the "gaps" between the long freeway segments to also meet standards, the corridor would actually be another viable cross-state interstate route, and would certainly help to ease some of that congestion on I-64 or I-81. The current corridor about to be 4 lanes may do that to some extent - but if we're going to be 100% honest, it's really not doing much to attract long distance traffic. I've driven the whole thing between Hampton Roads and I-77, and honestly, as much as I don't care for a lot of I-81 due to the truck traffic, I'd still rather go that way simply because I can at least move along at 70+ mph the whole way vs. the 55-60 mph that drags on for hundreds of miles on US-58, plus the occasional urban areas with 45 mph speed limits and traffic lights.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 08, 2021, 04:52:32 PM
Would love to know exactly how much money were talking about here. Short term, for at the least the Winchester area, I agree that the currently planned I-81 widening should extend south to Exit 307.
I say go all the way to I-66 at Exit 300 at least.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 08, 2021, 04:52:32 PM
Longer term, I think that it makes sense to widen all of I-81 from north of I-66 to the West Virginia state line.
Agreed considering West Virginia is eventually going to get to that point, and honestly, long term, VDOT should be planning for a full widening of all 325 miles from Tennessee to West Virginia. Nobody is saying it's going to get done immediately, but the fact they aren't even at least proposals or concepts on a map for the majority of rural areas is sad. I agree with the principle of addressing the major chokepoints first, but then they plan to just stop. Keep it going, 6 lanes throughout should be the next step. The whole corridor in all honesty is a bottleneck. The peak weekend volumes along with just the sheer amount of trucks all year round clearly warrants a continuous 3rd lane.

I'll give the eastern part of the state (Hampton Roads / Richmond region) some credit in this regard - they are fully committed and actively planning and pushing to get the remainder of the I-64 gap between Richmond and Williamsburg fully widened to 6 lanes. Given how much the Phase 1-2 projects and the recently completed widening east of I-295, along with the ongoing Phase 3 project near Williamsburg will and have significantly relieved the worst bottlenecks on the corridor, they could've simply went the route of I-81 and said the rest of the corridor as adequate enough. But no, they are still trying to get it done properly and get the needed funding to do so.

Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 08, 2021, 04:40:59 PM
I also think that some of the money could be used to help construct either the first section of the VA-37 eastern extension or the Exit 307 relocation project.
What are these projects?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 09, 2021, 09:31:16 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 08, 2021, 05:32:51 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 08, 2021, 04:40:59 PM
Would the I-664 and VA-164 widening projects be a continuation of the current 2 GP/1 HOT lane configuration in each direction that is currently being built on the southside section of I-64?
Unfortunately, for at least I-664 as of now, yes.

VDOT is currently conducting a study to create an Environmental Impact Statement for the Bowers Hill Interchange and the I-664 corridor between Bowers Hill and the MMMBT. A public meeting was held in March 2021 that presented various alternatives that involved constructing 1 or 2 HO/T lanes in each direction along with alternatives that would construct 1 or 2 general purpose lanes in each direction. There was a public comment period, and the response from an overwhelming majority of people was that their was preference for general purpose widening with an emphasis on no tolls. Anyways, being this is VDOT, and the fact the HRTPO has locked in an "Express Lane Network" that is to be built out around the entire Hampton Roads Beltway (I-64 / I-664) and up I-64 to Jefferson Ave in Newport News, they threw that right out the window and eliminated all general purpose alternatives from further study. Their reasoning? It "didn't meet the purpose and need" which indicates that one of the goals is to "provide alternative travel choices". Essentially, this study was ultimately going to be a HO/T lane addition project, but they couldn't brand it as such. I predicted from the beginning they would go this route, and sure enough they did.

See this presentation for specifics - https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/042321%20BHIWG%2005_Presentation%20Improvement%20Study.pdf

The idea does not seem popular in this region, nor does it make sense outside maybe I-64 in Norfolk where it's currently being built - I will also add I could see viability and a potential way to help fund for a complete reconstruction of I-264 similar to how I-495 was done in Northern Virginia or currently I-66 (3 general purpose + 2 HO/T each way, every interchange completely reconstructed). I-64 south of I-264 Norfolk into Virginia Beach and Chesapeake all the way to I-464 has 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HOV lane in each direction and has since the 90s and almost never has any congestion issues - and of course these HOV lanes will be converted to HO/T (the segment in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach is already under construction) but at least there will still be 3 general purpose lanes retained. The same applies for I-64 on the Peninsula north of I-664. The stretches of I-64 and I-664 that are still 4 lanes in Chesapeake see moderate congestion during peak hours, but the volumes are low enough (lower than the previous mentioned segments due to a large percentage of traffic exiting at VA-168 / US-17 South) that if you simply added one or two general purpose lanes, traffic would be fine, and if the previous mentioned segments are any indication, it would work for decades to come. But instead, we'll see a transition from that nice wide open highway crammed down to still 2 congested general purpose lanes and the occasional car in the Express Lane. And of course, to make it better, they had an original policy that the HO/T lanes would only be tolled during peak hours, similar to the existing reversible segment, but they have instead changed on that and mandated they be tolled 24/7. Soon enough, they'll change the policy on the existing ones too to be "consistent". It's ridiculous honestly, and I question how well it will help traffic problems more than general purpose widening would do - but who knows. It's what we're stuck with and clearly "public input" is worthless - they blatantly admitted from that I-664 study and the above linked presentation.

Here's something that I just thought of; since it appears that VDOT isn't planning to add anymore GP lanes to southside regardless, why not just make all of the HOT lane projects there a PP3 deal? Then not only would these projects happen sooner, but VDOT would also save a ton of money that could otherwise be used to expediate other important projects such as the further widening of I-64 on the Peninsula and proper interchange improvements at Bowers Hill, Oak Grove, and I-264.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 08, 2021, 05:32:51 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 08, 2021, 04:52:32 PM
Longer term, I think that it makes sense to widen all of I-81 from north of I-66 to the West Virginia state line.
Agreed considering West Virginia is eventually going to get to that point, and honestly, long term, VDOT should be planning for a full widening of all 325 miles from Tennessee to West Virginia. Nobody is saying it's going to get done immediately, but the fact they aren't even at least proposals or concepts on a map for the majority of rural areas is sad. I agree with the principle of addressing the major chokepoints first, but then they plan to just stop. Keep it going, 6 lanes throughout should be the next step. The whole corridor in all honesty is a bottleneck. The peak weekend volumes along with just the sheer amount of trucks all year round clearly warrants a continuous 3rd lane.

As someone who travels on a majority of I-81 in Virginia much more frequently now, I would argue that not all of the 325 miles needs widening. In fact, I actually think that the Interstate I-81 Improvement Program did a pretty good job project need wise with perhaps only two exceptions; not including southbound widening from Exit 137 to Exit 128 and pretty much screwing over the Winchester area. The widening from Exit 313 to 317 (almost wasn't even a project in the first place) does not go far enough and indeed should extend 13 miles south and 6 miles north. Extending the widening south to Exit 307 now would go a long way in getting that done. Ultimately, twenty plus years down the line, I would not be surprised if development between Winchester, Martinsburg, and Hagerstown pretty much fills in and you have seemingly have one 50 mile metropolitan area stretching from I-66 to the Pennsylvania state line in which 6 lanes the whole way would surely be needed.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 08, 2021, 05:32:51 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 08, 2021, 04:40:59 PM
I also think that some of the money could be used to help construct either the first section of the VA-37 eastern extension or the Exit 307 relocation project.
What are these projects?
https://www.fcva.us/departments/planning-development/transportation/road-plans-transportation-comp-plans
https://www.fcva.us/home/showpublisheddocument/11561/636214603255330000
https://www.fcva.us/home/showpublisheddocument/11557/637459610817330000
https://www.winchesterstar.com/winchester_star/frederick-panel-discusses-county-road-improvement-priorities/article_c6367f72-33f0-515a-bd0c-7092904b4ede.html
QuoteTwo other major interstate projects, both unfunded, involve further improvements to I-81 exit 310 and relocating the I-81 exit 307 interchange near Stephens City. Town officials have stressed the need to relocate exit 307 to reduce traffic congestion in Stephens City. Relocating the exit would cost an estimated $241 million.

The top primary road projects are related to the four-phase extension of the Va. 37 bypass, which will loop around Winchester once completed. The project has been on the county's wish list for years, but its more than $770 million cost has kept it from getting off the ground.

I believe that both projects, the Exit 307 relocation and the first phase of the VA-37 bypass (to US-522) were submitted to smart scale at some point but did not score well. Since then, I think that the first phase of the VA-37 bypass has now been even further shortened to only extend to Warrior Drive. Also IMO that $770 million estimate to complete the whole thing seems low.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 09, 2021, 10:55:10 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 09, 2021, 09:31:16 AM
As someone who travels on a majority of I-81 in Virginia much more frequently now, I would argue that not all of the 325 miles needs widening. In fact, I actually think that the Interstate I-81 Improvement Program did a pretty good job project need wise with perhaps only two exceptions; not including southbound widening from Exit 137 to Exit 128 and pretty much screwing over the Winchester area. The widening from Exit 313 to 317 (almost wasn't even a project in the first place) does not go far enough and indeed should extend 13 miles south and 6 miles north. Extending the widening south to Exit 307 now would go a long way in getting that done. Ultimately, twenty plus years down the line, I would not be surprised if development between Winchester, Martinsburg, and Hagerstown pretty much fills in and you have seemingly have one 50 mile metropolitan area stretching from I-66 to the Pennsylvania state line in which 6 lanes the whole way would surely be needed.

I agree with the above.  In a perfect world, I-81 would be at least six lanes all the way from Bristol, Virginia in the south to the junction of I-81 and I-80 north of Hazleton in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.  The I-81 interchanges at I-77 (both of them), I-64 (also both of them), I-66, I-70, I-78 and I-81 would become more truck friendly, and the breezewood at I-76 (Penn Pike) in Carlisle would be remediated.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on May 09, 2021, 11:05:49 AM


Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 09, 2021, 10:55:10 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 09, 2021, 09:31:16 AM
As someone who travels on a majority of I-81 in Virginia much more frequently now, I would argue that not all of the 325 miles needs widening. In fact, I actually think that the Interstate I-81 Improvement Program did a pretty good job project need wise with perhaps only two exceptions; not including southbound widening from Exit 137 to Exit 128 and pretty much screwing over the Winchester area. The widening from Exit 313 to 317 (almost wasn't even a project in the first place) does not go far enough and indeed should extend 13 miles south and 6 miles north. Extending the widening south to Exit 307 now would go a long way in getting that done. Ultimately, twenty plus years down the line, I would not be surprised if development between Winchester, Martinsburg, and Hagerstown pretty much fills in and you have seemingly have one 50 mile metropolitan area stretching from I-66 to the Pennsylvania state line in which 6 lanes the whole way would surely be needed.

I agree with the above.  In a perfect world, I-81 would be at least six lanes all the way from Bristol, Virginia in the south to the junction of I-81 and I-80 north of Hazleton in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.  The I-81 interchanges at I-77 (both of them), I-64 (also both of them), I-66, I-70, I-78 and I-81 would become more truck friendly, and the breezewood at I-76 (Penn Pike) in Carlisle would be remediated.

I don't know.  The stretch south of I-77 seems fine as is. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 09, 2021, 11:21:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 09, 2021, 11:05:49 AM


Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 09, 2021, 10:55:10 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 09, 2021, 09:31:16 AM
As someone who travels on a majority of I-81 in Virginia much more frequently now, I would argue that not all of the 325 miles needs widening. In fact, I actually think that the Interstate I-81 Improvement Program did a pretty good job project need wise with perhaps only two exceptions; not including southbound widening from Exit 137 to Exit 128 and pretty much screwing over the Winchester area. The widening from Exit 313 to 317 (almost wasn't even a project in the first place) does not go far enough and indeed should extend 13 miles south and 6 miles north. Extending the widening south to Exit 307 now would go a long way in getting that done. Ultimately, twenty plus years down the line, I would not be surprised if development between Winchester, Martinsburg, and Hagerstown pretty much fills in and you have seemingly have one 50 mile metropolitan area stretching from I-66 to the Pennsylvania state line in which 6 lanes the whole way would surely be needed.

I agree with the above.  In a perfect world, I-81 would be at least six lanes all the way from Bristol, Virginia in the south to the junction of I-81 and I-80 north of Hazleton in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.  The I-81 interchanges at I-77 (both of them), I-64 (also both of them), I-66, I-70, I-78 and I-81 would become more truck friendly, and the breezewood at I-76 (Penn Pike) in Carlisle would be remediated.

I don't know.  The stretch south of I-77 seems fine as is. 

The stretch of I-81 between I-78 and I-80 gets less traffic than the rest of the corridor.  However, I-81 really needs 6+ lanes from I-80 all the way to at least the northern end of I-476.  Anyway back to Virginia...

How long has there been a push to realign VA 277?  (My fictional VA renumbering plans actually have VA 277 becoming part of an extended US 48.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on May 09, 2021, 02:08:07 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 09, 2021, 11:21:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 09, 2021, 11:05:49 AM


Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 09, 2021, 10:55:10 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on May 09, 2021, 09:31:16 AM
As someone who travels on a majority of I-81 in Virginia much more frequently now, I would argue that not all of the 325 miles needs widening. In fact, I actually think that the Interstate I-81 Improvement Program did a pretty good job project need wise with perhaps only two exceptions; not including southbound widening from Exit 137 to Exit 128 and pretty much screwing over the Winchester area. The widening from Exit 313 to 317 (almost wasn't even a project in the first place) does not go far enough and indeed should extend 13 miles south and 6 miles north. Extending the widening south to Exit 307 now would go a long way in getting that done. Ultimately, twenty plus years down the line, I would not be surprised if development between Winchester, Martinsburg, and Hagerstown pretty much fills in and you have seemingly have one 50 mile metropolitan area stretching from I-66 to the Pennsylvania state line in which 6 lanes the whole way would surely be needed.

I agree with the above.  In a perfect world, I-81 would be at least six lanes all the way from Bristol, Virginia in the south to the junction of I-81 and I-80 north of Hazleton in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.  The I-81 interchanges at I-77 (both of them), I-64 (also both of them), I-66, I-70, I-78 and I-81 would become more truck friendly, and the breezewood at I-76 (Penn Pike) in Carlisle would be remediated.

I don't know.  The stretch south of I-77 seems fine as is. 

The stretch of I-81 between I-78 and I-80 gets less traffic than the rest of the corridor.  However, I-81 really needs 6+ lanes from I-80 all the way to at least the northern end of I-476.  Anyway back to Virginia...

How long has there been a push to realign VA 277?  (My fictional VA renumbering plans actually have VA 277 becoming part of an extended US 48.)
I was gonna say, 78 contributes the majority of traffic at the 81 junction, so the 6-laning can end there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on May 09, 2021, 05:33:53 PM
QuoteTwo other major interstate projects, both unfunded, involve further improvements to I-81 exit 310 and relocating the I-81 exit 307 interchange near Stephens City. Town officials have stressed the need to relocate exit 307 to reduce traffic congestion in Stephens City. Relocating the exit would cost an estimated $241 million.

$241 million to relocate a minor interchange? Huh?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 09, 2021, 05:49:42 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on May 09, 2021, 05:33:53 PM
QuoteTwo other major interstate projects, both unfunded, involve further improvements to I-81 exit 310 and relocating the I-81 exit 307 interchange near Stephens City. Town officials have stressed the need to relocate exit 307 to reduce traffic congestion in Stephens City. Relocating the exit would cost an estimated $241 million.

$241 million to relocate a minor interchange? Huh?

I would not consider that a minor interchange.  VA 277 is a good alternative to access US 340 and VA 7 without going through WInchester.  2019 VDOT Traffic Data (https://virginiadot.org/info/resources/Traffic_2019/AADT_034_Frederick_2019.pdf) shows a minimum AADT of 8500.

Also VA 277 is being widened to four lanes from I-81 to SR 641 right now. (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/frederick_county_8211_route_277_fairfax_pike.asp#)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on May 11, 2021, 10:01:25 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 09, 2021, 11:05:49 AM

I don't know.  The stretch south of I-77 seems fine as is.

For the most part it is. Compared to other sections it is relatively flat, has a lower traffic volume, and fewer major wrecks that sections further north. In the widening scheme, most of that section could be at the bottom of the list, with perhaps the area around Abingdon getting additional lanes first. There is a combination of through and local traffic there that would benefit from an additional lane in each direction.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 11:32:56 AM
There are a few hills around Marion that could stand to have a passing lane added -- basically any stretch that has the signage that any vehicle traveling at less than the posted speed limit must use the right lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 14, 2021, 02:26:35 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1393250683709759489

Larger image:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1XSHF_XoAMHc_Z?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 16, 2021, 08:35:28 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 09, 2021, 11:05:49 AM
I don't know.  The stretch south of I-77 seems fine as is. 

I am speaking of the interchanges, not the mainline of I-81.  The I-77 N interchange in Wytheville (I-81 Exit 72) is has pretty sharp ramps and the bridge that carries I-81 over I-77 there is not in great shape either.

The I-77 S interchange (I-81 Exit 81) is better for reasons not clear to me (age perhaps?).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 20, 2021, 09:03:43 AM
https://www.facebook.com/ChesterfieldVA/posts/10158520629394862

After almost four wacky years, the project to widen Chesterfield County SR 720's (Lucks Lane) remaining 2-lane segment to 4-lanes divided has been completed and opened to traffic.

The widening was planned to be completed in August 2019, but the original contractor, Fielder's Choice Enterprises, understaffed and eventually abandoned the project. The company has since been suspended from bidding on VDOT projects, and no longer exists (it was acquired by Caton Construction Group). Fielder's Choice did strange things such as install a traffic signal at Lucks Lane and Walton Bluff Parkway before actually widening the road. They abandoned the project in mid-2020 and another contractor was brought in to complete it.

SR 720 is now a 4-lane facility throughout and is now a pretty good toll-free alternative to VA 76 for reaching VA 288 from Courthouse Road (SR 653).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 20, 2021, 09:05:53 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 20, 2021, 09:03:43 AM
https://www.facebook.com/ChesterfieldVA/posts/10158520629394862

After almost four wacky years, the project to widen Chesterfield County SR 720's (Lucks Lane) remaining 2-lane segment to 4-lanes divided has been completed and opened to traffic.

The widening was planned to be completed in August 2019, but the original contractor, Fielder's Choice Enterprises, understaffed and eventually abandoned the project. The company has since been suspended from bidding on VDOT projects, and no longer exists (it was acquired by Caton Construction Group). Fielder's Choice did strange things such as install a traffic signal at Lucks Lane and Walton Bluff Parkway before actually widening the road. They abandoned the project in mid-2020 and another contractor was brought in to complete it.

SR 720 is now a 4-lane facility throughout and is now a pretty good toll-free alternative to VA 76 for reaching VA 288 from Courthouse Road (SR 653).

I need to drive that (along with SR 711) the next time I am in the area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 20, 2021, 02:33:46 PM
It's about time too. I figured it had something to do with the contractors as VDOT projects in the Richmond District usually doesn't take that long. I'll go take a look at the finished product later this afternoon.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 20, 2021, 02:54:10 PM
Now, I've seen cars do this, but never expected it from a truck.

https://twitter.com/NorfolkVA/status/1395432925575974916

Here are the plans:
(https://www.norfolk.gov/ImageRepository/Document?documentID=66029)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 20, 2021, 03:06:06 PM
Wow!!! What in the entire actual non-fictional fuck was he thinking?? If that was a Jersey wall there instead of grass he wouldn't have ever made it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on May 20, 2021, 06:01:50 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2021, 02:54:10 PM
Now, I've seen cars do this, but never expected it from a truck.

[tweet]1395432925575974916[/tweet]

Here are the plans:

Why is every single vehicle going that way...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 20, 2021, 06:15:05 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 20, 2021, 06:01:50 PM
Why is every single vehicle going that way...

Monkey see, monkey do.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 20, 2021, 07:36:40 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 20, 2021, 06:01:50 PM
Why is every single vehicle going that way...
If you're asking why they're on the off-ramp as opposed to the on-ramp, it's because they close the on-ramp during heavy congestion to deter drivers from getting off at Exit 273 4th View St, cutting down Tidewater Dr through the Ocean View community, then getting on right before the ramp.

But drivers frequently, as seen in the image, just simply illegally use the off-ramp to jump on anyways and avoid the gate. Very dangerous.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 20, 2021, 08:56:49 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2021, 07:36:40 PM
But drivers frequently, as seen in the image, just simply illegally use the off-ramp to jump on anyways and avoid the gate. Very dangerous.

Then the easiest change would have been to remove the ramp gate. Queue jumping is annoying, but driving the wrong way onto a freeway is far worse.

Here's an easy fix: install a ramp meter with a fixed (long!) interval that operates during peak hours. Queue jumpers will quickly realize that they lose time, and they won't do it anymore. Then, every ramp is open as before but without any queue jumping. Everyone wins, especially residents, who now don't have to back-track to 4th View to go north.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 20, 2021, 09:14:07 PM
Why do you assume they'll obey the ramp meter?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 20, 2021, 09:21:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2021, 09:14:07 PM
Why do you assume they'll obey the ramp meter?

Why assume drivers would ignore it? Ramp meters are very common across the US, and I'm not aware of compliance issues to the level of "we may as well take the meter out".

It's occasional red light runner versus wrong-way drivers versus total ramp closure. My vote still goes for the first option.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 20, 2021, 09:50:18 PM
Presentation from the May 20th HRTPO meeting regarding the upcoming Hampton Roads Gateways Study.

QuoteIntroduction
Improvements have been proposed for many of the corridors that provide access to and from Hampton Roads.
- Widening I-64 between Richmond and Williamsburg
- Replacing all or portions of US Route 58 and US Route 460 with limited-access facilities
- Replacing portions of US Route 17 and US Route 64 with limited-access facilities (I-87)
- Because of the importance of these gateways to the vitality of Hampton Roads, HRTPO will be preparing a study to compare proposed improvements to these gateways based on the impact on the region.

Major Regional Gateways
- VA Route 168
- US Route 17 (Proposed I-87)
- US Route 58
- US Route 460
- I-64 West
- US Route 17 North
- US Route 13 North

Existing Travel Characteristics
I-64 from I-295 to I-664 (Coliseum)
- via I-64


Distance% Limited AccessTravel TimeAverage Speed
64 miles100%                 55 mins     70.0 MPH

Hampton Roads to Raleigh Routes
- via US-58 / I-95


Distance  % Limited AccessTravel TimeAverage Speed
178 miles75%                  2 hr 41 mins66.2 MPH

- via US-17 / US-64 (Proposed I-87)


Distance  % Limited AccessTravel TimeAverage Speed
194 miles66%                  2 hr 57 mins65.6 MPH

Proposed Study Elements
Identify corridors serving outside areas
- Compare:
     - The current usage of highways by area served:
          - Total vehicle volumes
          - Truck volumes
          - Trucks serving the port
     - Areas by port-related origins/destinations
     - Current travel times for highways
     - Future travel times for highways based on future scenarios

Proposed Study Elements
- Identify planned improvements by corridor
- Consider other measures such as safety and economic development opportunities.
- Prioritize investments based on overall impact for our region
- Consider overall impact for our region
     - Job creation
     - Economic impacts
     - Port as an economic driver
     - Quality of life
- Coordination with HRPDC

Presentation: https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/052021%20TPO%2007_Presentation%20FY%202022%20UPWP%20-%20Hampton%20Roads%20Regional%20Gateways.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 18 wheel warrior on May 20, 2021, 10:24:20 PM
Quote
Why assume drivers would ignore it? Ramp meters are very common across the US, and I'm not aware of compliance issues to the level of "we may as well take the meter out".

It's occasional red light runner versus wrong-way drivers versus total ramp closure. My vote still goes for the first option.

Meters would be of no use when tunnel bound traffic is backed up beyond 4th View St, often as far as Granby St (6 miles), sometimes even longer!

Residents in Willoughby don't want the traffic on W. Ocean View jamming up their final approach to home. The gate closes when tunnel traffic is backed up. The self privilege class who think they are above waiting in traffic with everyone else is the problem. Trucks aren't even permitted on WB W. Ocean View. The Penn-Ohio driver was likely unfamiliar with the area and was stuck in the wrong lane forcing the driver there. I'd never seen a truck driver do that before. Interesting the city used that photo to make its point.

I've often suggested that VDOT install "wrong way" spikes in the pavement to prevent these alpha henrys from driving up the offramp. This ramp needs to stay open for overheight vehicles to exit and loop around to re-enter the interstate on the other side.  The problem would be solved after word gets out that tires will explode if one tries to bypass the stopped traffic. Probably much cheaper than their "solution".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on May 20, 2021, 11:29:01 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 14, 2021, 02:26:35 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1393250683709759489

Larger image:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1XSHF_XoAMHc_Z?format=jpg&name=large)
Muh induced demand
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on May 20, 2021, 11:30:02 PM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on May 20, 2021, 10:24:20 PM
Quote
Why assume drivers would ignore it? Ramp meters are very common across the US, and I'm not aware of compliance issues to the level of "we may as well take the meter out".

It's occasional red light runner versus wrong-way drivers versus total ramp closure. My vote still goes for the first option.

Meters would be of no use when tunnel bound traffic is backed up beyond 4th View St, often as far as Granby St (6 miles), sometimes even longer!

Residents in Willoughby don't want the traffic on W. Ocean View jamming up their final approach to home. The gate closes when tunnel traffic is backed up. The self privilege class who think they are above waiting in traffic with everyone else is the problem. Trucks aren't even permitted on WB W. Ocean View. The Penn-Ohio driver was likely unfamiliar with the area and was stuck in the wrong lane forcing the driver there. I'd never seen a truck driver do that before. Interesting the city used that photo to make its point.

I've often suggested that VDOT install "wrong way" spikes in the pavement to prevent these alpha henrys from driving up the offramp. This ramp needs to stay open for overheight vehicles to exit and loop around to re-enter the interstate on the other side.  The problem would be solved after word gets out that tires will explode if one tries to bypass the stopped traffic. Probably much cheaper than their "solution".

California experimented it. The problem is that those "wrong way" spikes have a tendency to act also as "right way" spikes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 21, 2021, 07:59:09 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 20, 2021, 09:21:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2021, 09:14:07 PM
Why do you assume they'll obey the ramp meter?

Why assume drivers would ignore it? ....

Because they're already driving on the wrong side of the road, which I think most of us would reasonably view as a more extreme thing to do than simply ignoring a ramp meter. (I've ignored a ramp meter when it was clearly not working properly, but it was one I went through almost every day, so I knew how long it was supposed to take and therefore I knew it was broken. The guy in the lane to my left was determined to wait for the green, no matter how many people behind him started honking.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 21, 2021, 10:26:50 AM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1395744197362192389
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 21, 2021, 01:20:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 21, 2021, 07:59:09 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 20, 2021, 09:21:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2021, 09:14:07 PM
Why do you assume they'll obey the ramp meter?

Why assume drivers would ignore it? ....

Because they're already driving on the wrong side of the road, which I think most of us would reasonably view as a more extreme thing to do than simply ignoring a ramp meter. (I've ignored a ramp meter when it was clearly not working properly, but it was one I went through almost every day, so I knew how long it was supposed to take and therefore I knew it was broken. The guy in the lane to my left was determined to wait for the green, no matter how many people behind him started honking.)

Although I get what you're saying, I don't think correlating wrong-way driving with red-light "meter running" is very fair. They are distinctly different violations, and the former is certainly not an indication of what they may also be capable of (wrong-way driving doesn't mean they also regularly run red lights or ignore stop signs, for instance). Plus, how many wrong-way drivers were simply doing a "monkey see, monkey do" thing? Meter running isn't totally unheard of, but I don't see dozens of drivers do it simultaneously.

Another fix would be to install flexiposts along the length of the solid white line where the #3 lane diverges towards 15th View. Drivers who come up the off-ramp would not be able to easily make the turn onto northbound 64; this may leave them high-and-dry, as they previously were able to make the sharp turn to enter the freeway. But this change would, over time, gradually decrease and then eliminate wrong-way driving since those who repeatedly performed the maneuver would quickly learn that it has become nearly impossible.

Yet another solution, and one that Willoughby residents may like, may be a combination of the above (ramp meter + flexiposts), with a road diet along Ocean View: eliminate the outside lane, add a parking lane, buffered bike lane, and all-way stops at 13th, 12th, 11th, and 9th (to improve pedestrian safety), with the U-turn concept as proposed by Norfolk at the end of the road (this is actually quite smart). Also, change the intersection at 4th View to remove the seagull operation, which does nothing except improve flow for the annoying queue-jump maneuver.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 21, 2021, 01:28:50 PM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on May 20, 2021, 10:24:20 PM
Residents in Willoughby don't want the traffic on W. Ocean View jamming up their final approach to home. The gate closes when tunnel traffic is backed up. The self privilege class who think they are above waiting in traffic with everyone else is the problem.

I don't feel like exceptionalism is the argument that one should be making. Plenty of bridges and tunnels get backed up all over this country, yet I'm not aware of any cities that solved the "issue" in the manner seen here. After all, queue jumping is not usually regarded as a serious problem in most places.

But, if it's seriously as problematic as you're implying, why have they kept the on-ramp at all? I can see the idea, which is that part of the time, it can operate just fine, and the rest of the time, it's closed. But I see that as problematic, as it messes with driver expectations: they can clearly see the on-ramp on maps, yet its closed. Rather than back-track to 4th View, they just use the off-ramp. If they just permanently closed the ramp, I think you'd see a lot less drivers going down Ocean View to get back on 64 (minus those drivers that exit at 4th View with the expressed intent to use the off-ramp to enter at 15th View, which I suspect is not many people). Willoughby residents certainly wouldn't care about losing the ramp; after all, they chose to live on a spit, so I doubt those extra few minutes detouring to 4th View matters that much.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 21, 2021, 01:34:47 PM
Someone remind me again what the plan is for that particular spot in regards to the HRBT expansion project. I'm wondering if that gate (or the interchange for that matter) will continue to exist afterwards.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 21, 2021, 02:05:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 21, 2021, 01:28:50 PM
Also, change the intersection at 4th View to remove the seagull operation, which does nothing except improve flow for the annoying queue-jump maneuver.
I don't like the setup either, but it's official reason for being like that is so traffic coming up from Tidewater Dr is forced to turn left onto 4th View to use the ramp to I-64 as opposed to continuing down Ocean View Dr to that 15th View ramp.

Quote from: jakeroot on May 21, 2021, 01:28:50 PM
But, if it's seriously as problematic as you're implying, why have they kept the on-ramp at all? I can see the idea, which is that part of the time, it can operate just fine, and the rest of the time, it's closed. But I see that as problematic, as it messes with driver expectations: they can clearly see the on-ramp on maps, yet its closed. Rather than back-track to 4th View, they just use the off-ramp. If they just permanently closed the ramp, I think you'd see a lot less drivers going down Ocean View to get back on 64 (minus those drivers that exit at 4th View with the expressed intent to use the off-ramp to enter at 15th View, which I suspect is not many people). Willoughby residents certainly wouldn't care about losing the ramp; after all, they chose to live on a spit, so I doubt those extra few minutes detouring to 4th View matters that much.
It's honestly a good argument to make. If they had no ramps altogether, there would no longer be a problem of through traffic cutting through, they would be isolated. If traffic wanted to access I-64, they could go to 4th View like everyone else already has to. It would also eliminate ramps that have questionable geometry. The speed limit is only 55 mph on the mainline, though traffic is usually moving in excess of 70 mph when there's not a backup.

Quote from: plain on May 21, 2021, 01:34:47 PM
Someone remind me again what the plan is for that particular spot in regards to the HRBT expansion project. I'm wondering if that gate (or the interchange for that matter) will continue to exist afterwards.
The HRBT Expansion Project plans to retain the existing ramps for westbound. Eastbound would have an off-ramp realignment, but that's a different story. The city of Norfolk's project website linked yesterday regarding the on-ramp specifically says the gate's restrictions will end at the completion of the project. Whether that means the 12:30 - 6 closure, or getting rid of it altogether, I don't know. I suppose it would depends if backups are still a regular occurrence at the tunnel at peak hours. I suppose it would depend on how many people use the new HO/T lanes and how high the toll rates are. If rates are low and the lanes get high usage, perhaps the load would be equally spread across the 4 lanes each way with a slight edge to the HO/T lanes not getting into the near-congestion area, and the area will flow much smoother for all the lanes enough to not divert people off. Or the HO/T lanes get underutilized and the tunnel is still a standstill.

See around 1:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4rNYsSJxhM
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 21, 2021, 03:14:11 PM
https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/va-revenue-surplus-likely-to-exceed-500-million-after-unusual-recession/article_8afe9171-8bfe-5723-a38d-3a8f6aef79a5.html
QuoteThe economic recession triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic seems a dim memory, as Virginia expects a half-billion budget surplus by the end of June and a $4.3 billion federal deposit in the state's bank account any day.

Secretary of Finance Aubrey Layne told legislators on Monday that he expects state revenues to exceed expenses by more than $500 million in the fiscal year that ends June 30.

Layne also expects Virginia to receive its share of federal aid from the American Rescue Plan Act in one lump sum soon, allowing the state to benefit from interest on the money while Gov. Ralph Northam and the General Assembly decide how to spend it during a special legislative session the governor is expected to call in late July or early August.

And that doesn't include $6.6 billion that the federal government is sending to the state for specific categories of programs – support for K-12 schools and higher education, child care, transportation and public health.

"I don't think anyone 14 months ago would have thought we'd be in as good a position as we are,"  the finance secretary told the House Appropriations Committee on Monday.
The next big question for the Northam administration, General Assembly and local governments is "what do you do with the abundance of revenues?"  said McNab at Old Dominion.

The American Rescue Plan Act, which President Joe Biden signed on March 11, is sending $7.2 billion to Virginia and its local governments. The state will receive $4.3 billion and localities $2.9 billion, almost all of it directly from the federal government. The state will allocate about $633 million of the local money among towns.

The two-year budget the General Assembly adopted this year requires legislators to appropriate the state's share of the funding, including any discretionary grants directly to the Department of Education and other state agencies under the new federal law. The legislature will have that opportunity when it meets in special session this summer.

Would love to see a decent chunk of this go towards increasing smart scale's budget while also reserving some funding for bigger statewide transportation projects and local transportation agencies such as the NVTA, CVTA, and HRTAC.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2021, 01:43:58 PM
WTOP Radio: GW Parkway: Trails and history round out Virginia commuter route (https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/05/gw-parkway-trails-and-history-round-out-virginia-commuter-route/)

QuoteAs pandemic-related restrictions are lifted and more people venture out, the head of the George Washington Memorial Parkway says the Northern Virginia route has a lot to offer.

Quote"Get out for mental health. Get out for wellness. Enjoy the trails. Enjoy the green spaces,"  said George Washington Memorial Parkway Superintendent Charles Cuvelier.

QuoteThe parkway, built in 1930, is nearly 25 miles long and more than a commuter route or way to get to Reagan National Airport.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on May 23, 2021, 04:52:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 21, 2021, 01:28:50 PM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on May 20, 2021, 10:24:20 PM
Residents in Willoughby don't want the traffic on W. Ocean View jamming up their final approach to home. The gate closes when tunnel traffic is backed up. The self privilege class who think they are above waiting in traffic with everyone else is the problem.

I don't feel like exceptionalism is the argument that one should be making. Plenty of bridges and tunnels get backed up all over this country, yet I'm not aware of any cities that solved the "issue" in the manner seen here. After all, queue jumping is not usually regarded as a serious problem in most places.

But, if it's seriously as problematic as you're implying, why have they kept the on-ramp at all? I can see the idea, which is that part of the time, it can operate just fine, and the rest of the time, it's closed. But I see that as problematic, as it messes with driver expectations: they can clearly see the on-ramp on maps, yet its closed. Rather than back-track to 4th View, they just use the off-ramp. If they just permanently closed the ramp, I think you'd see a lot less drivers going down Ocean View to get back on 64 (minus those drivers that exit at 4th View with the expressed intent to use the off-ramp to enter at 15th View, which I suspect is not many people). Willoughby residents certainly wouldn't care about losing the ramp; after all, they chose to live on a spit, so I doubt those extra few minutes detouring to 4th View matters that much.

I know I am coming in a little late to the conversation, but I agree that simply closing the ramp with a gate has been the source of the problems here.  If they really want to discourage traffic using this ramp, they need to close the ramp entirely.  It seems obvious, that doing it this way has led to safety problems as drivers will refuse to backtrack and will rather just use the offramp instead.

Shame on VDOT for even putting up the gates in the first place.  It seems like use of the off-ramp in this manner was a known problem and their use of the gates has only exacerbated it.

If the ramps at 15th view are closed completely, then only local drivers will be on the spit and all drivers would be forced to use 4th view.  That might be the best answer here.

I can think of a similar situation occurring in California.  The original layout of the 405 freeway had an off-ramp and on-ramp on the SB side at Waterford Street, which is a very local street and requires much travel on local streets to get to most anywhere.  If there was a backup on the freeway, a lot of drivers who would otherwise get on 405 south from the Sunset ramps, might instead drive on Church Lane to head to the Waterford ramps.  Eventually, the Waterford ramps closed.  The local drivers do have to drive further to reach the freeway (either Sunset or Wilshire) but they now can avoid the regional freeway traffic on local streets.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Waterford+St,+Los+Angeles,+CA+90049/@34.0614418,-118.4622379,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c2bc9910ef6dd1:0xbf2abcc091524c6!8m2!3d34.0614908!4d-118.4590997


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on May 23, 2021, 10:50:50 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 23, 2021, 04:52:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 21, 2021, 01:28:50 PM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on May 20, 2021, 10:24:20 PM
Residents in Willoughby don't want the traffic on W. Ocean View jamming up their final approach to home. The gate closes when tunnel traffic is backed up. The self privilege class who think they are above waiting in traffic with everyone else is the problem.

I don't feel like exceptionalism is the argument that one should be making. Plenty of bridges and tunnels get backed up all over this country, yet I'm not aware of any cities that solved the "issue" in the manner seen here. After all, queue jumping is not usually regarded as a serious problem in most places.

But, if it's seriously as problematic as you're implying, why have they kept the on-ramp at all? I can see the idea, which is that part of the time, it can operate just fine, and the rest of the time, it's closed. But I see that as problematic, as it messes with driver expectations: they can clearly see the on-ramp on maps, yet its closed. Rather than back-track to 4th View, they just use the off-ramp. If they just permanently closed the ramp, I think you'd see a lot less drivers going down Ocean View to get back on 64 (minus those drivers that exit at 4th View with the expressed intent to use the off-ramp to enter at 15th View, which I suspect is not many people). Willoughby residents certainly wouldn't care about losing the ramp; after all, they chose to live on a spit, so I doubt those extra few minutes detouring to 4th View matters that much.

I know I am coming in a little late to the conversation, but I agree that simply closing the ramp with a gate has been the source of the problems here.  If they really want to discourage traffic using this ramp, they need to close the ramp entirely.  It seems obvious, that doing it this way has led to safety problems as drivers will refuse to backtrack and will rather just use the offramp instead.

Shame on VDOT for even putting up the gates in the first place.  It seems like use of the off-ramp in this manner was a known problem and their use of the gates has only exacerbated it.

If the ramps at 15th view are closed completely, then only local drivers will be on the spit and all drivers would be forced to use 4th view.  That might be the best answer here.

Eyeroll. The ramps are there because it's a two-mile backtrack to the (busy) 4th View interchange. The 15th View closure during rush hour is well posted and people going the wrong way down the ramp aren't actually a huge enough problem to merit the complete removal of the ramp. Google Maps will not route through the ramp when it's closed, so any "confused" person that ends up going up the offramp is either comically inept or being willfully dangerous. An easier solution would be to station an NPD cruiser on the grass next to the offramp to deter any funny business from regular / repeat offenders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 24, 2021, 07:40:12 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 23, 2021, 10:50:50 PM
Eyeroll. The ramps are there because it's a two-mile backtrack to the (busy) 4th View interchange. The 15th View closure during rush hour is well posted and people going the wrong way down the ramp aren't actually a huge enough problem to merit the complete removal of the ramp. Google Maps will not route through the ramp when it's closed, so any "confused" person that ends up going up the offramp is either comically inept or being willfully dangerous. An easier solution would be to station an NPD cruiser on the grass next to the offramp to deter any funny business from regular / repeat offenders.

But it would only be a two-mile backtrack for Willoughby residents, who are now (alongside everyone else) forbidden from using the ramps during the entire afternoon every single day.

Maintaining the current interchange literally benefits no one but Willoughby residents, yet it creates complete havoc otherwise: gates across ramps (defeating driver expectations), drivers going the wrong-way up off-ramps, drivers using Ocean View to bypass I-64 using a major five-lane road (can anyone really blame drivers for using Ocean View?) ... it's simply not worth keeping if long-term daily closures are the only solution to this absolutely self-inflicted issue (that Norfolk 100% brought on themselves).

Here's the even nuttier thing no one has mentioned: why aren't there gates across both ramps? No one is exiting at 15th View during times of heavy traffic; they have long since exited the freeway. Probably at 4th View. There would be no way to use the off-ramp if it was also gated.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on May 24, 2021, 09:07:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 24, 2021, 07:40:12 PM
Here's the even nuttier thing no one has mentioned: why aren't there gates across both ramps? No one is exiting at 15th View during times of heavy traffic; they have long since exited the freeway. Probably at 4th View. There would be no way to use the off-ramp if it was also gated.

That offramp has had gates since at least 2012 - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.96706,-76.2934643,3a,75y,209.19h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPgkNAmOdMrtQkDoC9-jIhA!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 24, 2021, 09:15:54 PM
Around 200 gallons of fuel leak following gas tanker truck crash on Route 17 in Chesapeake (https://www.wavy.com/traffic/gas-tanker-crash-fuel-leak-closes-portion-of-route-17-in-chesapeake/)
Quote CHESAPEAKE, Va. (WAVY) – A gas tanker truck crash closed a portion of Route 17 in Chesapeake Monday afternoon.

According to police, officers got the call for the crash just after 1 p.m. on South Route 17 at mile marker 6. The road was closed between Douglas Road and Cornland Road until about 9 p.m.

Initial investigations revealed that the tanker truck was traveling southbound when it lost control and crashed on the right side of the highway.

Officials said the driver was injured and sent to a local hospital with injuries that weren't considered life-threatening.

During the crash, police said the trailer began leaking fuel which prompted a response from the Chesapeake Fire Department. Crews with the hazmat team quickly stopped the leak.

Captain Bradley from the Chesapeake Fire Department told 10 On Your Side that around 200 gallons of fuel leaked following the crash. The leak was both diesel and fuel.

The leak was not near any homes or near waterways. The remaining fuel will be offloaded to another tanker truck by drilling holes into the tank and pumping it out.

Officials said a clean-up contractor will remove any contaminated soil and clean the roadway.

South Mills Fire Department and Navy Regional also responded to assist at the scene.

(https://www.wavy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/05/Overturned-Fuel-Tanker-3.jpg)



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on May 25, 2021, 10:17:41 AM
Regarding just closing the ramps entirely at 15th View, one thing some commenters may have missed is there's a truck inspection station just before the exit ramp.  During times of operation, it may become necessary to turn trucks there around so they don't go through the tunnel...much easier to do that at an existing off-ramp than to stop traffic in both directions to do it at the tunnel itself (as happens currently and regularly...when I was last stationed in Norfolk it averaged 5 times a day).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 26, 2021, 12:51:49 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 24, 2021, 09:07:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 24, 2021, 07:40:12 PM
Here's the even nuttier thing no one has mentioned: why aren't there gates across both ramps? No one is exiting at 15th View during times of heavy traffic; they have long since exited the freeway. Probably at 4th View. There would be no way to use the off-ramp if it was also gated.

That offramp has had gates since at least 2012 - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.96706,-76.2934643,3a,75y,209.19h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPgkNAmOdMrtQkDoC9-jIhA!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Are they not used? Was their installation a mistake given the inspection station?

Quote from: froggie on May 25, 2021, 10:17:41 AM
Regarding just closing the ramps entirely at 15th View, one thing some commenters may have missed is there's a truck inspection station just before the exit ramp.  During times of operation, it may become necessary to turn trucks there around so they don't go through the tunnel...much easier to do that at an existing off-ramp than to stop traffic in both directions to do it at the tunnel itself (as happens currently and regularly...when I was last stationed in Norfolk it averaged 5 times a day).

The best compromise I can conjure up is a maintenance-style exit, with a manually-operated (or remotely-operated) gate that can be moved to allow either (a) trucks to exit if they fail an inspection, or (b) allow emergency vehicles access to I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 26, 2021, 01:58:39 PM
You'd think they'd try to make the signage more... visible.
https://twitter.com/NorfolkVA/status/1397545208003371013
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 26, 2021, 02:54:57 PM
Here is my quick redesign of the 15th View interchange using my latest 'maintenance-style' interchange suggestion:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51206058505_e8987b347d_k.jpg)
I-64 @ 15th View Concept 1 (https://flic.kr/p/2m1UrcF) by Jake Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on May 27, 2021, 10:24:24 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 26, 2021, 12:51:49 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 24, 2021, 09:07:16 PM
That offramp has had gates since at least 2012 - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.96706,-76.2934643,3a,75y,209.19h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPgkNAmOdMrtQkDoC9-jIhA!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Are they not used? Was their installation a mistake given the inspection station?

Those gates were installed as part of the contraflow setup used for hurricane evacuations, which begins at Willoughby Spit. Every ramp on I-64 between there and I-295 has gates. I can't confirm on VDOT's website, but I presume this offramp would be closed when contraflow is in effect.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 12:34:31 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 27, 2021, 10:24:24 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 26, 2021, 12:51:49 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 24, 2021, 09:07:16 PM
That offramp has had gates since at least 2012 - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.96706,-76.2934643,3a,75y,209.19h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPgkNAmOdMrtQkDoC9-jIhA!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Are they not used? Was their installation a mistake given the inspection station?

Those gates were installed as part of the contraflow setup used for hurricane evacuations, which begins at Willoughby Spit. Every ramp on I-64 between there and I-295 has gates. I can't confirm on VDOT's website, but I presume this offramp would be closed when contraflow is in effect.
The gates were only installed on the eastbound on-ramps, not westbound, because it would be the eastbound lanes that would flip to westbound if the reversal was put in place. Westbound lanes would continue carrying westbound traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 06:36:59 PM
Some updates on the I-664 corridor... while the Bowers Hill Interchange study (which in reality is all of I-664 on the Southside) is ongoing, and now recommending the construction of either 2 HO/T lanes in each direction or 1 HO/T + 1 part-time HO/T shoulder in each direction with no new general purpose capacity... the Regional Connectors Study, which is evaluating I-664 on the Peninsula, the MMMBT, VA-164, and the proposed Third Crossing, is also underway.

Presentation from the "Working Group Meeting" (does not appear to be that much of a public study) from May 25, 2021 has come out with new recommendations for build alternatives.

As far as I-664 goes, two main alternatives were studied - widening to 8 lanes by adding one general purpose lane in each direction alongside a HO/T lane, and widening to 8 lanes by adding two HO/T lanes in each direction. Obviously, because of the current nature of the HRTPO, they swiftly eliminated the first option from any further sort of study, mainly citing concerns of a "barrier" in the tunnel that would cause safety concerns for separating GP and HO/T traffic (which, IMO, just sounds like another excuse to justify more HO/T lanes and no general purpose capacity). That's okay though... the existing general purpose lanes will always remain a free alternative they keep saying and will not be impacted... that's true, 2 will be retained each way as is today.

Here's my biggest gripe though... the preferred alternative for I-664 recommends an 8 lane design on the Peninsula - 2 GP + 2 HO/T each way... but here's the thing. I-664 is already 6 general purpose lanes (3 each way) on the Peninsula. The alternative they are proposing with zero public input (not that they listen anyways - look at Bowers Hill and the HO/T recommendation despite heavy preference toward GP expansion) would convert over 4 miles of the left general purpose lane each way into a HO/T lane. I can't help but feel this is only going to cause more problems than solve. It's no different than the upcoming project between the I-664 interchange and HRBT on I-64 that would convert that stretch from 3 GP to 2 GP + 2 HO/T each way.

If there's a strong desire to add two HO/T lanes each way, how about add them and still retain the 3 general purpose lanes... to have 3 GP + 2 HO/T each way... not only does it not impact the existing design, it adds more capacity.

All put together, the multi-billion dollar worth of tax funded projects across the region, including the ongoing HRBT expansion, High Rise Bridge widening, and proposed MMMBT and I-664 widening, will add zero general purpose lanes, all new capacity will be tolled HO/T lanes. Additionally, the proposed Third Crossing will be built as a tolled facility. The real question is when will I-664 or the Third Crossing ever get built...? Likely not another 10-15 years at minimum. Will all these projects help? Yes, but there are certainly areas, particularly in the western part of the region, where general purpose expansion would've likely done better overall at improving traffic. I feel it will not live up to its full potential.

See the full presentation for more - https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/May%2025%20RCS%20Working%20Group%20Mtg%20ver2.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on May 27, 2021, 07:12:32 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 06:36:59 PM
Some updates on the I-664 corridor... while the Bowers Hill Interchange study (which in reality is all of I-664 on the Southside) is ongoing, and now recommending the construction of either 2 HO/T lanes in each direction or 1 HO/T + 1 part-time HO/T shoulder in each direction with no new general purpose capacity... the Regional Connectors Study, which is evaluating I-664 on the Peninsula, the MMMBT, VA-164, and the proposed Third Crossing, is also underway.

Presentation from the "Working Group Meeting" (does not appear to be that much of a public study) from May 25, 2021 has come out with new recommendations for build alternatives.

As far as I-664 goes, two main alternatives were studied - widening to 8 lanes by adding one general purpose lane in each direction alongside a HO/T lane, and widening to 8 lanes by adding two HO/T lanes in each direction. Obviously, because of the current nature of the HRTPO, they swiftly eliminated the first option from any further sort of study, mainly citing concerns of a "barrier" in the tunnel that would cause safety concerns for separating GP and HO/T traffic (which, IMO, just sounds like another excuse to justify more HO/T lanes and no general purpose capacity). That's okay though... the existing general purpose lanes will always remain a free alternative they keep saying and will not be impacted... that's true, 2 will be retained each way as is today.

Here's my biggest gripe though... the preferred alternative for I-664 recommends an 8 lane design on the Peninsula - 2 GP + 2 HO/T each way... but here's the thing. I-664 is already 6 general purpose lanes (3 each way) on the Peninsula. The alternative they are proposing with zero public input (not that they listen anyways - look at Bowers Hill and the HO/T recommendation despite heavy preference toward GP expansion) would convert over 4 miles of the left general purpose lane each way into a HO/T lane. I can't help but feel this is only going to cause more problems than solve. It's no different than the upcoming project between the I-664 interchange and HRBT on I-64 that would convert that stretch from 3 GP to 2 GP + 2 HO/T each way.

If there's a strong desire to add two HO/T lanes each way, how about add them and still retain the 3 general purpose lanes... to have 3 GP + 2 HO/T each way... not only does it not impact the existing design, it adds more capacity.

All put together, the multi-billion dollar worth of tax funded projects across the region, including the ongoing HRBT expansion, High Rise Bridge widening, and proposed MMMBT and I-664 widening, will add zero general purpose lanes, all new capacity will be tolled HO/T lanes. Additionally, the proposed Third Crossing will be built as a tolled facility. The real question is when will I-664 or the Third Crossing ever get built...? Likely not another 10-15 years at minimum. Will all these projects help? Yes, but there are certainly areas, particularly in the western part of the region, where general purpose expansion would've likely done better overall at improving traffic. I feel it will not live up to its full potential.

See the full presentation for more - https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/May%2025%20RCS%20Working%20Group%20Mtg%20ver2.pdf
Curious what the City of Hampton ever did to anger these folks. Trucks can't use HOT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 07:49:22 PM
^

Oh, that's even better. The FTAC (Freight Transportation Advisory Committee) is trying to push through the HRTPO to allow trucks to use the HO/T lanes.

Seems like a poor idea, IMO. It's just going to clog up the lanes more and disincentive cars to use them. Especially in the areas it's only 1 lane in each direction.

I asked VDOT on Twitter recently, they mentioned the speed limit in the Express Lanes under construction in Chesapeake will be 65 mph. That's a plus, I suppose, but in all reality, they simply need to raise all the lanes from 60 mph to 65 mph, and maybe even 70 mph in the Express Lanes. No reason it cannot handle it. They said a speed study will be completed for all the lanes after construction has been complete, but given there legacy, I doubt any official change will come. The fact they bumped the Peninsula to 65 mph still amazes me. And yet I-664 is still 60 mph.

I imagine using the single HO/T lane off peak will just risk getting caught behind the speed limit stickler (still 5 mph faster than the GP) with no passing opportunity and traffic in the main lanes still flowing much faster. It's why I've suggested they make the "part-time shoulder lane"  in areas they are implementing it a full time lane to allow that passing legally, and discourage illegal shoulder passing which might be far more tempting when there's only one lane and a hard shoulder essentially striped as a lane. The only areas that won't have a hard part-time shoulder is where the existing HOV lanes are being converted (there's room to add them, at least on the Chesapeake segment, IMO, and they should). Essentially provide a consistent 2 HO/T lanes in each direction throughout the system to guarantee that passing ability, and to overall carry more capacity, lowering toll rates and getting more usage.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2021, 09:38:34 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 12:34:31 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 27, 2021, 10:24:24 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 26, 2021, 12:51:49 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 24, 2021, 09:07:16 PM
That offramp has had gates since at least 2012 - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.96706,-76.2934643,3a,75y,209.19h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPgkNAmOdMrtQkDoC9-jIhA!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Are they not used? Was their installation a mistake given the inspection station?

Those gates were installed as part of the contraflow setup used for hurricane evacuations, which begins at Willoughby Spit. Every ramp on I-64 between there and I-295 has gates. I can't confirm on VDOT's website, but I presume this offramp would be closed when contraflow is in effect.
The gates were only installed on the eastbound on-ramps, not westbound, because it would be the eastbound lanes that would flip to westbound if the reversal was put in place. Westbound lanes would continue carrying westbound traffic.

No, the gates were installed on westbound ramps too. VDOT's old contraflow plan (https://web.archive.org/web/20080608010122/http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/reversal.asp) states that some westbound entrance and exit ramps will be closed to smooth traffic flow and prevent bottlenecks.

But (https://goo.gl/maps/GuiHaapSue5382898) you're (https://goo.gl/maps/a2iHxnczcjUcp1i18) welcome (https://goo.gl/maps/zokSXe2Y2N2SN2X49) to (https://goo.gl/maps/pCobD8TVwuYSZ98UA) check (https://goo.gl/maps/CuHQaXJrCJX3RufQ8) for (https://goo.gl/maps/t83GrA8CWyHvwNAN8) yourself (https://goo.gl/maps/sCTFPSkgJG4uZE778). Not like I lived there for 20 years and watched those gates go up or anything...  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 28, 2021, 11:06:10 AM
I'm trying to remember if the gate at 15th View WB was there before the rest of them was... I'm not sure. I don't think it originally had anything to do with lane reversal, they just didn't want traffic clogging up Ocean View Ave trying to get around the backups on I-64. Look closely at it. Other than the lights on top you'll see a bit of a difference.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on May 28, 2021, 01:11:23 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2021, 09:38:34 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 27, 2021, 12:34:31 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 27, 2021, 10:24:24 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 26, 2021, 12:51:49 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 24, 2021, 09:07:16 PM
That offramp has had gates since at least 2012 - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.96706,-76.2934643,3a,75y,209.19h,85.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPgkNAmOdMrtQkDoC9-jIhA!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Are they not used? Was their installation a mistake given the inspection station?

Those gates were installed as part of the contraflow setup used for hurricane evacuations, which begins at Willoughby Spit. Every ramp on I-64 between there and I-295 has gates. I can't confirm on VDOT's website, but I presume this offramp would be closed when contraflow is in effect.
The gates were only installed on the eastbound on-ramps, not westbound, because it would be the eastbound lanes that would flip to westbound if the reversal was put in place. Westbound lanes would continue carrying westbound traffic.

No, the gates were installed on westbound ramps too. VDOT's old contraflow plan (https://web.archive.org/web/20080608010122/http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/reversal.asp) states that some westbound entrance and exit ramps will be closed to smooth traffic flow and prevent bottlenecks.

But (https://goo.gl/maps/GuiHaapSue5382898) you're (https://goo.gl/maps/a2iHxnczcjUcp1i18) welcome (https://goo.gl/maps/zokSXe2Y2N2SN2X49) to (https://goo.gl/maps/pCobD8TVwuYSZ98UA) check (https://goo.gl/maps/CuHQaXJrCJX3RufQ8) for (https://goo.gl/maps/t83GrA8CWyHvwNAN8) yourself (https://goo.gl/maps/sCTFPSkgJG4uZE778). Not like I lived there for 20 years and watched those gates go up or anything...  :rolleyes:

Well, then I guess this begs the question: is VDOT simply using a contraflow gate to stop on-ramp traffic at the Willoughby Spit? When I first saw the tweet from a couple pages back, I had the impression the gate was installed purely to stop traffic from bypassing I-64. I can see from Street View that gates have been installed at the Willoughby Spit junction for...as long as street view has been around (at least 2007).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ran4sh on May 30, 2021, 06:18:22 PM
Now that Florida is on E-ZPass and Minnesota and Georgia will be on E-ZPass soon, I was looking at the various options for obtaining an E-ZPass.

I noticed that E-ZPass Flex units only have a switch for HOV on/off (as opposed to the California transponder which has a switch for 1, 2, or 3+ people in your car), but different Express Lanes in the Northern Virginia area have different HOV qualification.

Specifically, I-66 HO/T allows HOV 2+ free, but it intersects with I-495 HO/T which requires HOV 3+ for a free ride. Which means a driver of HOV2 whose route uses both of those roads must switch the Flex at the interchange. But what happens if they forget, do they just get ticketed? It's interesting that the websites of both the I-66 and I-495 HO/T (Express) lanes don't address that possibility.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 30, 2021, 06:27:54 PM
^

Not sure, but once the I-66 Outside the Beltway project is complete, the segment that is HOV-2 will be switching to HOV-3, so it will be uniform after that.

The Express Lanes in Hampton Roads are HOV-2, but that's a different part of the state altogether.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ran4sh on May 30, 2021, 06:42:40 PM
Yeah, there would be no issue if someone is driving from Hampton Roads to Northern Virginia, because that's a long time to remember to switch the E-ZPass and one can find a place to stop if they are unable to do it while driving.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 01, 2021, 02:36:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 28, 2021, 01:11:23 PM=
Well, then I guess this begs the question: is VDOT simply using a contraflow gate to stop on-ramp traffic at the Willoughby Spit? When I first saw the tweet from a couple pages back, I had the impression the gate was installed purely to stop traffic from bypassing I-64. I can see from Street View that gates have been installed at the Willoughby Spit junction for...as long as street view has been around (at least 2007).

The gate on the westbound onramp at Willoughby Spit was there before the contraflow gates were installed. The gate on the westbound offramp at Willoughby Spit was added with the other contraflow gates.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on June 03, 2021, 04:09:04 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on May 30, 2021, 06:18:22 PM
Now that Florida is on E-ZPass and Minnesota and Georgia will be on E-ZPass soon, I was looking at the various options for obtaining an E-ZPass.

I noticed that E-ZPass Flex units only have a switch for HOV on/off (as opposed to the California transponder which has a switch for 1, 2, or 3+ people in your car), but different Express Lanes in the Northern Virginia area have different HOV qualification.

Specifically, I-66 HO/T allows HOV 2+ free, but it intersects with I-495 HO/T which requires HOV 3+ for a free ride. Which means a driver of HOV2 whose route uses both of those roads must switch the Flex at the interchange. But what happens if they forget, do they just get ticketed? It's interesting that the websites of both the I-66 and I-495 HO/T (Express) lanes don't address that possibility.

How is E-ZPass getting to take over a large chunk of the Eastern U.S.? That is quite an interesting situation.
And it is quite interesting as well that they are planning to further limit the interior 66 lanes once the outer portion is completed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 15, 2021, 07:55:03 PM
The Bi-County Parkway is back from the dead again:

https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/bi-county-parkway-returns-for-debate-as-county-considers-its-long-term-transportation-plans/article_bdc915e8-cdfb-11eb-9a1d-571bc7345bcf.html?fbclid=IwAR0H5Cv7AI-4oPpUZoed-eOyL6h2wR9KFn3KUMcEN0Lt9e5hSuKkYfKl55s
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 15, 2021, 07:58:22 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 15, 2021, 07:55:03 PM
The Bi-County Parkway is back from the dead again:

https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/bi-county-parkway-returns-for-debate-as-county-considers-its-long-term-transportation-plans/article_bdc915e8-cdfb-11eb-9a1d-571bc7345bcf.html?fbclid=IwAR0H5Cv7AI-4oPpUZoed-eOyL6h2wR9KFn3KUMcEN0Lt9e5hSuKkYfKl55s

Also US 55 and US 234 (and US 234 BUS) all of a sudden have shown up on a random map.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 15, 2021, 08:13:00 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 15, 2021, 07:55:03 PM
The Bi-County Parkway is back from the dead again:

https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/bi-county-parkway-returns-for-debate-as-county-considers-its-long-term-transportation-plans/article_bdc915e8-cdfb-11eb-9a1d-571bc7345bcf.html?fbclid=IwAR0H5Cv7AI-4oPpUZoed-eOyL6h2wR9KFn3KUMcEN0Lt9e5hSuKkYfKl55s
Good. And hopefully, with long term sustainability in mind, it will properly be constructed as a freeway facility or at least limited access rural design with right of way for future interchanges. At least one type of facility to that design is needed in the area, particularly as a bypass for US-15.

How about keep it going up to the VA-7 corridor?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 15, 2021, 08:29:37 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 15, 2021, 07:58:22 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 15, 2021, 07:55:03 PM
The Bi-County Parkway is back from the dead again:

https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/bi-county-parkway-returns-for-debate-as-county-considers-its-long-term-transportation-plans/article_bdc915e8-cdfb-11eb-9a1d-571bc7345bcf.html?fbclid=IwAR0H5Cv7AI-4oPpUZoed-eOyL6h2wR9KFn3KUMcEN0Lt9e5hSuKkYfKl55s

Also US 55 and US 234 (and US 234 BUS) all of a sudden have shown up on a random map.

Unfortunately it's a random VDOT map from their 2013 presentation on the proposal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 15, 2021, 11:46:41 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 15, 2021, 07:55:03 PM
The Bi-County Parkway is back from the dead again:

https://www.princewilliamtimes.com/news/bi-county-parkway-returns-for-debate-as-county-considers-its-long-term-transportation-plans/article_bdc915e8-cdfb-11eb-9a1d-571bc7345bcf.html?fbclid=IwAR0H5Cv7AI-4oPpUZoed-eOyL6h2wR9KFn3KUMcEN0Lt9e5hSuKkYfKl55s

The only way the Bi-County Parkway has any shot of ever getting built is if two things happen. The first would be the closure of VA-234 through the battlefield that would result in north/south traffic being forced to use Pageland Lane. At the moment I would argue that the existing two lane Pageland is fine as it is capacity wise. However, if VA-234 was closed then I think this would not be the case and thus you would have a more clear need for an upgraded four lane corridor. Right now the "Western connection to Dulles" or even the stronger "North/South connection to Loudoun" argument isn't cutting it in terms of gaining local political support and the response seems to always be to just get people to use US-15 or VA-28. The second thing would be a route change which I'm hoping will soon happen. Instead of having the parkway follow Pageland and Saunders lane (where I suspect most of the residential opposition is) to Northstar Blvd, have it instead follow the southern half of Pageland and then cut over east to connect to Gum Spring Road. Not only would this routing affect less properties, but it would also cost significantly less due to the fact that most of Gum Spring Road is already upgraded to a nice four lane road. While actually funding the Bi-county Parkway is another issue (probably around $1 billion at this point), I believe that these two conditions would be the necessary compromise to finally move the road forward. While a full freeway is not needed, limited access would certainly be nice.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 15, 2021, 11:51:22 PM
^

Something along the lines of a limited access facility or freeway is needed for the US-15 corridor between I-66 and Leesburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 16, 2021, 12:00:40 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 15, 2021, 11:51:22 PM
^

Something along the lines of a limited access facility or freeway is needed for the US-15 corridor between I-66 and Leesburg.

VA-28/VA-7 is the best we're gonna get and that corridor will probably be built to eight gp lanes plus hot lanes before something like that would ever be considered along the US-15 corridor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on June 16, 2021, 07:09:30 PM
Why not just turn Route 28 south of I-66 into a freeway? Seems more cost effective.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 16, 2021, 07:50:37 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 16, 2021, 07:09:30 PM
Why not just turn Route 28 south of I-66 into a freeway? Seems more cost effective.

Pull up a satellite view of VA 28 to see why not.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 17, 2021, 12:02:24 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 16, 2021, 07:50:37 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 16, 2021, 07:09:30 PM
Why not just turn Route 28 south of I-66 into a freeway? Seems more cost effective.

Pull up a satellite view of VA 28 to see why not.

While certainly not more cost effective IMO, Fairfax is planning for an eventual interchange at New Braddock Road where I assume in the process the two lights north of that intersection will be eliminated. In a dream scenario south of New Braddock Road, the freeway section would extend to a final big interchange with Compton Road, Ordway Road, and the future Route 28 bypass. The existing three intersections between the New Braddock Road and Compton Road interchanges would be eliminated. However I do not think that there is local support for this and already the future Route 28 bypass tie in is planned to be a T intersection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 17, 2021, 08:36:50 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 15, 2021, 11:51:22 PM
^

Something along the lines of a limited access facility or freeway is needed for the US-15 corridor between I-66 and Leesburg.

There's a lot of old money along US 15 in rural Loudoun County, I would imagine there would be fierce opposition to making any major improvements to that corridor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 17, 2021, 05:02:16 PM
Here's a photo showing a VA 102 cutout (right at the bridge) when it existed in Floyd County...

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1403401103534866435 (https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1403401103534866435)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 12:42:29 PM
More progress being made... the entire project stretches from MM 241 to MM 233 and will be fully complete by Fall 2021. Upon completion, between 2016 and 2021, approximately 26 miles of I-64 between MM 254 and MM 233, and between MM 200 and 205, will have been expanded from 4 to 6 lanes. A 28 mile gap between MM 205 and MM 233 will remain at 4 lanes until funding is identified to complete that stretch.

New, Third Travel Lane Opens Along Eastern Project Limits of I-64 Widening Project (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/I-64-WIDENING--NEW--THIRD-TRAVEL-LANE-OPENS-ALONG-EASTERN-PROJECT-LIMITS.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=hj3bAzj6Iyc)
QuoteYORK COUNTY — As of overnight on Tuesday, June 22, contractor crews with the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) I-64 Widening Segment III Project have increased vehicle capacity eastbound by opening approximately two miles of a third travel lane to traffic. Following overnight operations to adjust traffic barriers, motorists are now able to utilize a third lane for travel on I-64 east between the on-ramp at Route 143 (exit 238) to the eastern limits of the project, just west of Route 199 (exit 242).

Lane closures will continue as needed in this section of I-64, as well as throughout the project corridor. Crews will also be implementing lane closures to place the final surface layer of pavement across all lanes to create a smooth riding surface throughout the project corridor.

Motorists are reminded to continue to obey the reduced work zone speed limit of 55 mph on I-64 and to drive with caution when traveling in the project work zone.
All project work and scheduled closures are dependent upon weather conditions. 

For additional scheduled lane closures this week and to learn more about the I-64 Widening Segment III project, please visit the project website at http://i64widening.org/learn_more/segment_3.asp.
(https://files.constantcontact.com/5ebe224c501/804dad0f-b958-4c35-b948-b79ec6f5f37b.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 24, 2021, 09:00:29 AM
The Jeff Davis Highway renaming saga continues. The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approved renaming the segment within the county.

They're officially renaming it "Route 1". As in, that's its actual name. Never mind that it's also US 301 or anything.

https://www.nbc12.com/2021/06/23/chesterfield-discuss-renaming-jefferson-davis-highway/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=snd&utm_content=wwbt
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 24, 2021, 09:07:05 AM
^They may as well call it "Historic Route 1" which they have already posted it as for some reason.  (Note that I am not endorsing adding it to usaush in Travel Mapping.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 24, 2021, 09:32:27 AM
From that NBC12 story:

QuoteOfficials say the name change makes the most sense as many of their residents already refer to the area as "˜Route One.'
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 24, 2021, 05:49:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 12:42:29 PM
A 28 mile gap between MM 205 and MM 233 will remain at 4 lanes until funding is identified to complete that stretch.

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2021/april/3-interstate_operations_and_enhancement_program.pdf
According to this we should know within a month which interstate projects will be funded by the recent I-81 bill in which annual dedicated funding is allocated to I-81 and other interstates across the state. While we know the recommended projects for I-95 and I-64, what we don't know unlike with I-81 is their funding and timetables. For I-64 the top priority should be continued widening of the Williamsburg/Richmond four lane gap and improvements to the Oak Grove interchange (I-464). For I-95 the top priority should be widening to four lanes from Exit 130 to Exit 126 and improvements to the Fairfax County Parkway Interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 25, 2021, 11:39:29 AM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1408440346976063490
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 25, 2021, 11:42:35 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 24, 2021, 05:49:25 PM
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2021/april/3-interstate_operations_and_enhancement_program.pdf
According to this we should know within a month which interstate projects will be funded by the recent I-81 bill in which annual dedicated funding is allocated to I-81 and other interstates across the state. While we know the recommended projects for I-95 and I-64, what we don't know unlike with I-81 is their funding and timetables. For I-64 the top priority should be continued widening of the Williamsburg/Richmond four lane gap and improvements to the Oak Grove interchange (I-464). For I-95 the top priority should be widening to four lanes from Exit 130 to Exit 126 and improvements to the Fairfax County Parkway Interchange.
Agreed. VDOT also badly needs to do something about I-95, specifically southbound south of the Occoquan River. Widen the highway in that direction to 4 lanes plus that new auxiliary lane and let it go for a few more miles, at the minimum. The merge is poorly positioned and the backups seem to happen every day, well outside of peak hours. And whenever the HO/T lanes are positioned the opposite direction (as it often is - due to incompetency in building a proper 2 way setup), it's impossible to reliably bypass the congestion.

Regarding I-64, they need to begin a full environmental impact statement on the reconstruction of the I-64 / I-464 (Oak Grove Interchange) junction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on June 25, 2021, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 24, 2021, 09:00:29 AM
The Jeff Davis Highway renaming saga continues. The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approved renaming the segment within the county.

They're officially renaming it "Route 1". As in, that's its actual name. Never mind that it's also US 301 or anything.

https://www.nbc12.com/2021/06/23/chesterfield-discuss-renaming-jefferson-davis-highway/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=snd&utm_content=wwbt

They should rename Harry Byrd highway first. The man closed all of Virginia's schools to avoid complying with Brown vs Board of Ed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 25, 2021, 12:27:23 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 25, 2021, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 24, 2021, 09:00:29 AM
The Jeff Davis Highway renaming saga continues. The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approved renaming the segment within the county.

They're officially renaming it "Route 1". As in, that's its actual name. Never mind that it's also US 301 or anything.

https://www.nbc12.com/2021/06/23/chesterfield-discuss-renaming-jefferson-davis-highway/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=snd&utm_content=wwbt

They should rename Harry Byrd highway first. The man closed all of Virginia's schools to avoid complying with Brown vs Board of Ed.

I don't disagree.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 25, 2021, 01:39:36 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 25, 2021, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 24, 2021, 09:00:29 AM
The Jeff Davis Highway renaming saga continues. The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approved renaming the segment within the county.

They're officially renaming it "Route 1". As in, that's its actual name. Never mind that it's also US 301 or anything.

https://www.nbc12.com/2021/06/23/chesterfield-discuss-renaming-jefferson-davis-highway/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=snd&utm_content=wwbt

They should rename Harry Byrd highway first. The man closed all of Virginia's schools to avoid complying with Brown vs Board of Ed.

This is historically inaccurate.  While Harry F Byrd did vigorously champion and lead Virginia's resistance to Brown v. Board (reason enough to not venerate him on a highway), there was never a state wide school closure (which he couldn't have unilaterally done anyway as a US Senator).  Desegregation was slow-walked as the majority of Virginia state leaders tried to find legal ways to maintain segregated schools.

Further court rulings prevented statewide closures of schools as a response to desegregation.  One county (Prince Edward) did close their public schools for 5 years in 1959.

Prince Edward (as did many counties in the South whether they integrated public schools immediately or not) provided help for White students for new private schools that could still exclude Black children.  Some of these private schools didn't accept non-White students until the mid 1980s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 25, 2021, 02:10:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 25, 2021, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 24, 2021, 09:00:29 AM
The Jeff Davis Highway renaming saga continues. The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approved renaming the segment within the county.

They're officially renaming it "Route 1". As in, that's its actual name. Never mind that it's also US 301 or anything.

https://www.nbc12.com/2021/06/23/chesterfield-discuss-renaming-jefferson-davis-highway/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=snd&utm_content=wwbt

They should rename Harry Byrd highway first. The man closed all of Virginia's schools to avoid complying with Brown vs Board of Ed.

I have a feeling it will happen soon enough.

I'm actually surprised at how quick Chesterfield County got out there with renaming it's portion of 1/301, given its politics in the past.


Quote from: sprjus4 on June 25, 2021, 11:42:35 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 24, 2021, 05:49:25 PM
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2021/april/3-interstate_operations_and_enhancement_program.pdf
According to this we should know within a month which interstate projects will be funded by the recent I-81 bill in which annual dedicated funding is allocated to I-81 and other interstates across the state. While we know the recommended projects for I-95 and I-64, what we don't know unlike with I-81 is their funding and timetables. For I-64 the top priority should be continued widening of the Williamsburg/Richmond four lane gap and improvements to the Oak Grove interchange (I-464). For I-95 the top priority should be widening to four lanes from Exit 130 to Exit 126 and improvements to the Fairfax County Parkway Interchange.
Agreed. VDOT also badly needs to do something about I-95, specifically southbound south of the Occoquan River. Widen the highway in that direction to 4 lanes plus that new auxiliary lane and let it go for a few more miles, at the minimum. The merge is poorly positioned and the backups seem to happen every day, well outside of peak hours. And whenever the HO/T lanes are positioned the opposite direction (as it often is - due to incompetency in building a proper 2 way setup), it's impossible to reliably bypass the congestion.

Regarding I-64, they need to begin a full environmental impact statement on the reconstruction of the I-64 / I-464 (Oak Grove Interchange) junction.

Regarding the Oak Grove Interchange, I also agree. The current interchange is a mess, and it sure as hell doesn't help that there's now five legs of freeway feeding into it. The process could've at least started when the Dominion Blvd project was going on. The way I see it, there needs to be at the very least 2 flyovers involving I-64: one from the Inner Loop to US 17 & VA 168 (would split at some point after leaving the interstate of course) and one from VA 168 NB to the Inner Loop. One thing is for sure, the existing loop ramp from 64 IL to 17/168 SB needs to be eliminated.

I'm sure there are some people on this forum who can draw up some concepts for this interchange...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 25, 2021, 02:41:10 PM
Regarding Harry Byrd versus Jeff Davis, sooner or later they'll remove Byrd's name. I believe they removed his statue in Richmond. But he at least has a connection to Virginia. One of the arguments that has long been raised about Davis, aside from the obvious Confederate connection, is that he had no real connection to Virginia other than living in the White House in Richmond for a couple of years as president. I am not big on renaming roads for a host of reasons, not the least of which involves the cost and hassle to business owners (and to an immensely lesser degree, homeowners) located on the roads in question. But if they're going to rename them, which will surely be the case, then it seems perfectly normal to rename Jeff Davis first, both for the reason I just mentioned and because far more people know who Jeff Davis was than know who Harry Byrd was. In terms of visibility and such, Davis is almost certainly more confidential.

(Heck, Sen. Harry Byrd left the Senate in 1965 and died in 1966; meanwhile, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia served in the Senate from 1959 until his death in 2010. I saw something recently that discussed congressional action as to a particular statute in 1955 and 1988 and that referred to statements by "Sen. Byrd" taking one position in 1955 and then to statements showing that by 1988, "Sen. Byrd" had realized his position in 1955 was incorrect. They were two different men who were not related, as Robert Byrd was adopted.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 25, 2021, 07:54:39 PM
If we're going to rename stuff because of people's pasts, Robert Byrd should be tops on the list.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 25, 2021, 08:40:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 25, 2021, 07:54:39 PM
If we're going to rename stuff because of people's pasts, Robert Byrd should be tops on the list.

But I doubt Virginia has very much named after the Western Counties.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 26, 2021, 12:22:21 PM
Apparently Jeff Davis Hwy isn't the only road with a recent name change.

Looks like Hampton renamed Magruder Blvd (VA 134) to Neil Armstrong Pkwy. This had to be very recent.

Images from this morning

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210626/c669d2f33808f21e2c6abc11aa228655.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210626/e66bf65d7b47ce017e5506d81e6805a5.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210626/62844a5e8a90f62f815dc6bc84efeafe.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 26, 2021, 02:03:48 PM
Quote from: plain on June 26, 2021, 12:22:21 PM
Apparently Jeff Davis Hwy isn't the only road with a recent name change.

Looks like Hampton renamed Magruder Blvd (VA 134) to Neil Armstrong Pkwy. This had to be very recent.

Images from this morning

Recent as in the signs were just put up this week. (https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/hampton/signs-going-up-for-hamptons-neil-armstrong-parkway-formerly-named-magruder-boulevard/)  The change was voted on by the Hampton City Council in 2020 and was approved.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 26, 2021, 10:45:59 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 26, 2021, 02:03:48 PM
Quote from: plain on June 26, 2021, 12:22:21 PM
Apparently Jeff Davis Hwy isn't the only road with a recent name change.

Looks like Hampton renamed Magruder Blvd (VA 134) to Neil Armstrong Pkwy. This had to be very recent.

Images from this morning

Recent as in the signs were just put up this week. (https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/hampton/signs-going-up-for-hamptons-neil-armstrong-parkway-formerly-named-magruder-boulevard/)  The change was voted on by the Hampton City Council in 2020 and was approved.

Does he have some sort of significant tie to the area? I would expect this in Wapakoneta, Ohio.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 26, 2021, 11:00:54 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 26, 2021, 10:45:59 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 26, 2021, 02:03:48 PM
Quote from: plain on June 26, 2021, 12:22:21 PM
Apparently Jeff Davis Hwy isn't the only road with a recent name change.

Looks like Hampton renamed Magruder Blvd (VA 134) to Neil Armstrong Pkwy. This had to be very recent.

Images from this morning

Recent as in the signs were just put up this week. (https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/hampton/signs-going-up-for-hamptons-neil-armstrong-parkway-formerly-named-magruder-boulevard/)  The change was voted on by the Hampton City Council in 2020 and was approved.

Does he have some sort of significant tie to the area? I would expect this in Wapakoneta, Ohio.
NASA Langley...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on June 27, 2021, 10:34:10 AM
These signs were installed on Monday. The ones done by VDOT on I-64 went up slightly earlier, I think.

Quote from: plain on June 26, 2021, 12:22:21 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210626/62844a5e8a90f62f815dc6bc84efeafe.jpg)

This dancing-arrow SPUI signage is unusual. Anyone know of any other examples of this? (I assume this was a City of Hampton job, not VDOT)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 27, 2021, 08:14:56 PM
Picture from earlier on I-64... looks like they simply put greenout over the "Magruder Blvd" text.
(https://i.ibb.co/vkx03BQ/70-CB1-EEB-3-D8-D-4-B31-99-BD-8-CF400-A10-B57.jpg)

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

Quote from: Thing 342 on June 27, 2021, 10:34:10 AM
This dancing-arrow SPUI signage is unusual. Anyone know of any other examples of this? (I assume this was a City of Hampton job, not VDOT)
Honestly, it's not a bad setup. I kind of like it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2021, 09:41:32 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 27, 2021, 08:14:56 PM
The signs did not look the cleanest though... especially for a VDOT install who is usually good on the interstate system (arterials are a whole different story... yikes)

Signs on VDOT-maintained arterial highways are IMO generally pretty good.  Signs on arterials maintained by cities and towns range from very good to unspeakably bad.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 28, 2021, 11:43:26 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 27, 2021, 08:14:56 PM
Picture from earlier on I-64... looks like they simply put greenout over the "Magruder Blvd" text.
(https://i.ibb.co/vkx03BQ/70-CB1-EEB-3-D8-D-4-B31-99-BD-8-CF400-A10-B57.jpg)

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

Quote from: Thing 342 on June 27, 2021, 10:34:10 AM
This dancing-arrow SPUI signage is unusual. Anyone know of any other examples of this? (I assume this was a City of Hampton job, not VDOT)
Honestly, it's not a bad setup. I kind of like it.

I didn't use I-664 while I was in the area but the VDOT camera (pictured below) closest to the sign shows it, though it's not zoomed in.

As for the VA 134 sign and the dancing arrows Thing 342 referred to, not only is it rare at SPUIs, those arrows are very rare for VA altogether. The ramp from I-64 EB to I-564 & US 460 has downward slants but those aren't the same thing. I could've sworn I've seen one or two somewhere in NOVA years ago (maybe on I-395?) but if they were there I doubt that they exist today. The only one I know of still in existence today (and it's barely dancing) is on VA 76 NB at the split with I-195 & VA 195.

Images from GSV

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210628/f902bae66e21350cbd95e08a5237e86c.jpg)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210628/2618d5b9ca552e072dba909a1b1de955.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 28, 2021, 12:15:25 PM
https://youtu.be/I7ReT-npeCk

This footage from the traffic cameras from a wreck two weeks ago shows the new signage.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 28, 2021, 12:35:45 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTNOVA/status/1409548460127358980
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 28, 2021, 12:49:19 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 24, 2021, 09:00:29 AM
The Jeff Davis Highway renaming saga continues. The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approved renaming the segment within the county.

They're officially renaming it "Route 1". As in, that's its actual name. Never mind that it's also US 301 or anything.

https://www.nbc12.com/2021/06/23/chesterfield-discuss-renaming-jefferson-davis-highway/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=snd&utm_content=wwbt
They really should've considered that before deciding on renaming the road.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on June 28, 2021, 12:57:10 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 28, 2021, 12:49:19 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 24, 2021, 09:00:29 AM
The Jeff Davis Highway renaming saga continues. The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors approved renaming the segment within the county.

They're officially renaming it "Route 1". As in, that's its actual name. Never mind that it's also US 301 or anything.

https://www.nbc12.com/2021/06/23/chesterfield-discuss-renaming-jefferson-davis-highway/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=snd&utm_content=wwbt
They really should've considered that before deciding on renaming the road.


I'm both surprised and glad they didn't call it Richmond Highway like everywhere else, but...this was not the best choice. (Had I-95 not already been using the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike name, that would have been the best choice.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 28, 2021, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 28, 2021, 12:35:45 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTNOVA/status/1409548460127358980

This is a big deal as VA-7 is now a limited access freeway from VA-28 all the way to Round Hill and even further west without traffic lights to Berryville. Will be interesting to see now what the next transportation priority for Leesburg is: Widening the rest of Route 7 between Leesburg and Purcellville (including the Leesburg Bypass) to six lanes or constructing one (or both) of the Edwards Ferry Road and Battlefield Parkway interchanges on the US-15 part of the bypass. At the moment all of the projects are at least some what off the ground design wise.

Curious as well to see if any more interchanges will be pursued on VA-7 both east of VA-28 (particularly at Sterling Blvd) and around Berryville (particularly at both of Bus. VA-7 lights (half interchanges), Crums Church Road, and at Future VA-37). At the moment a future interchange at Hillsboro Road is the only other one I'm aware of although I know originally a half interchange was planned at Baron Cameron Avenue as part of the ongoing VA-7 widening project near Tysons.

Meanwhile in other Virginia transportation news:
https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/route-123-flyover-bridge-under-consideration/article_225bcacc-d7bc-11eb-b849-5b6d44f2bede.html
QuoteImprovements at Old Bridge Road and state Route 123 in Woodbridge — one of the area's most congested intersections — could include a flyover ramp that would affect several businesses.

QuoteThe first possible design is what VDOT calls an "outside-outside flyover,"  a ramp connecting the right two lanes of northbound 123 to the right two lanes of westbound Old Bridge Road. The ramp would replace the three left-turn lanes at the intersection for cars turning onto westbound Old Bridge.

QuoteCounty Planning Manager Paolo Belita told InsideNoVa there are two issues at the intersection. "There's the weaving movement when you're coming off of 95, we want to eliminate that and we're open to different ramp options,"  Belita said. "And on top of that, just to make sure that it improves overall operations at the intersection to minimize congestion. So it's both a safety and congestion-relieving project."

A flyover ramp of sorts was first proposed as part of the county's own study of the Old Bridge Road corridor in 2018, and $15 million for the project was approved by voters in a 2019 bond referendum.

"It's a county priority and based on that, we wanted to see what concept really works at this location,"  Belita said. "And the study is a good way to really help us identify a cost-effective solution for the location.

Surprised both that this is just now being addressed (lived in Lake Ridge 10 years ago and even then it was an issue) and that a flyover ramp of some sort is being considered as opposed to simply fixing the I-95 offramp (which is being considered but as a separate project). Either way I'm fine with this alternative, just curious to know what it will cost because surely $15-20 million will not be enough. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 28, 2021, 05:35:27 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 28, 2021, 05:02:22 PM
This is a big deal as VA-7 is now a limited access freeway from VA-28 all the way to Round Hill and even further west without traffic lights to Berryville.
Close, but a couple at-grade crossings still exist between the Leesburg and Purcellville bypasses. But nonetheless, it is free flow expressway all the way west now.

The improvements on VA-7 also provide an adequate, reliable shunpiking alternative to the Dulles Greenway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 28, 2021, 07:55:00 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 25, 2021, 01:39:36 PM
This is historically inaccurate.  While Harry F Byrd did vigorously champion and lead Virginia's resistance to Brown v. Board (reason enough to not venerate him on a highway), there was never a state wide school closure (which he couldn't have unilaterally done anyway as a US Senator).  Desegregation was slow-walked as the majority of Virginia state leaders tried to find legal ways to maintain segregated schools.

Further court rulings prevented statewide closures of schools as a response to desegregation.  One county (Prince Edward) did close their public schools for 5 years in 1959.

Prince Edward (as did many counties in the South whether they integrated public schools immediately or not) provided help for White students for new private schools that could still exclude Black children.  Some of these private schools didn't accept non-White students until the mid 1980s.

Regarding Harry Flood Byrd Sr., he did not directly control the public schools of the Commonwealth, but he did write the "Southern Manifesto" to defy the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 1954 Brown case - and Byrd did start and run his statewide political organization known informally as the "Byrd Machine" (or "The Organization") and the program of "Massive Resistance" (designed by Byrd) against school desegregation.

This was not limited to Virginia either. 

There were segregation academies (usually run by "Christian" groups) in Prince George's County, Maryland after it was ordered by the federal courts to develop and implement a busing plan to reduce segregation (that failed as public schools are now more segregated than they were before busing in the 1970's and is no longer in effect).

EDIT:  Returning to our subject here of Virginia's road network, Byrd did do one thing that endures across most of Virginia, and it is IMO a good thing. That would be Byrd's system of primary highways (route numbers generally less than or equal to 599 with a few exceptions) and the system of secondary highways (route numbers generally 600 or greater) which were created by the Byrd Road Act of 1932 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byrd_Road_Act).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on June 28, 2021, 09:17:07 PM
That new interchange I imagine is going to lead to a real estate boom in Western Loudoun and Clarke Counties.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 28, 2021, 11:08:44 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 28, 2021, 09:17:07 PM
That new interchange I imagine is going to lead to a real estate boom in Western Loudoun and Clarke Counties.

Is one interchange really going to do that?  There is already high-speed route in the form of VA-267 (Dulles Greenway), though it gets expensive if driven every day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 29, 2021, 12:09:09 AM
One could also argue that eastern Loudoun County is enough-in-the-sphere to where development will boom regardless of whether there's a given interchange or not...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 29, 2021, 12:13:03 PM
Even VDOT noted it will be a 30 mile segment out to Berryville without traffic signals now.

https://twitter.com/vadotnova/status/1409883229721616399
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 29, 2021, 04:53:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 28, 2021, 05:35:27 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 28, 2021, 05:02:22 PM
This is a big deal as VA-7 is now a limited access freeway from VA-28 all the way to Round Hill and even further west without traffic lights to Berryville.
Close, but a couple at-grade crossings still exist between the Leesburg and Purcellville bypasses. But nonetheless, it is free flow expressway all the way west now.

Oh right forgot about those. However in terms of at grade crossings the ones here are still pretty limited access. Going west the first one is right in/right out for eastbound traffic with a long separated r cut lane for exiting westbound traffic turning left (no access for entering westbound traffic). The second one is an r cut for eastbound entering traffic only. The third is a right in/right out for westbound traffic with an additional separated r cut lane for left turns and a right in/right out for eastbound traffic. The forth and last one is a right in turn only for westbound traffic. So while technically not limited access, this stretch of VA-7 still effectively functions as a freeway with further potential improvements possible as part of a future eastbound VA-7 widening project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 30, 2021, 02:08:27 AM
Washington Post: Rapper Ludacris responds to VDOT "˜fast and furious' road signs: "˜Virginia I love you back!' (https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/06/29/ludacris-virginia-fast-furious-sign/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on June 30, 2021, 07:02:59 AM
Is it just me, or has Northern Virginia has gone from anti-highway to pro-highway?
50 years ago, residents in Fairfax and Alexandria successfully sued to get I-66 limited to 4 lanes inside the beltway. Now they're widening it to 6 with seemingly no protest. The conversion of VA 7 to a freeway from Sterling to Leesburg seems to also have pretty much universal support, with the only complaint being disruption caused by construction. And look at how the PWC Board of Commissioners reversed themselves on the 28 bypass. And in Arlington, residents are fighting developers who want the US 1 overpass replaced by an "urban boulevard".

This is in contrast to the 70s and 80s where residents got the Monticello Freeway, Pimmit Parkway and Outer Beltways cancelled, and, again, limited 66 to 4 lanes and only allowed carpools during Rush Hour.

I guess they've figured out that stopping the building of roads doesn't stop development and the only thing worse than sprawl with highways is sprawl without highways.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 30, 2021, 07:46:07 AM
The fight against I-66 was Arlington and Alexandria, not really Fairfax (as a wider road would have been seen as more beneficial to Fairfax County residents).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jmacswimmer on June 30, 2021, 08:11:27 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2021, 07:46:07 AM
The fight against I-66 was Arlington and Alexandria, not really Fairfax (as a wider road would have been seen as more beneficial to Fairfax County residents).

I presume this is the same reason the 95/395 HOT lane project initially stopped at Turkeycock (before later continuing all the way to the 14th St Bridges)?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 30, 2021, 08:14:34 AM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 30, 2021, 08:11:27 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2021, 07:46:07 AM
The fight against I-66 was Arlington and Alexandria, not really Fairfax (as a wider road would have been seen as more beneficial to Fairfax County residents).

I presume this is the same reason the 95/395 HOT lane project initially stopped at Turkeycock (before later continuing all the way to the 14th St Bridges)?

Exactly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 30, 2021, 09:17:09 AM
Improvements to I-81 are moving forward. VDOT announced yesterday "In April, the Commonwealth Transportation Board awarded a design-build contract valued at $179 million to Archer Western Construction, LLC of Herndon to widen northbound and southbound Interstate 81 to three lanes from mile marker 136.6 to mile marker 141.8 in Roanoke County and the city of Salem. The project design is still being completed, and construction is expected to begin in late 2021 or early 2022."

"The new lanes will be built at locations along I-81's right and left shoulders. The project also includes replacing six bridges, widening two bridges and installing approximately 2.6 miles of sound barrier walls along northbound I-81. Improving the southbound exit 137 off ramp intersection at Wildwood Road and adding interchange lighting at exits 137, 140 and 141 are also included in the project."

The I-81 Corridor page on this project is at https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/interstate-81-widening-exit-137-to-141---roanoke-county-and-city-of-salem.asp

This will start at the VA 419 interchange, current end of the improvements and widening from that exit north to I-581. The new project will cover all three Salem exits and end south of exit 140. This part of I-81 has a congestion problem due to the combination of through and local traffic (getting around and across the Roanoke Valley is at times challenging and I-81, while not the most direct route, can be easier to navigate than surface streets).

Bruce in Blacksburg


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 01, 2021, 11:09:00 AM
Great set of pictures.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1410616196446056452
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 02, 2021, 09:06:22 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 30, 2021, 07:02:59 AM
I guess they've figured out that stopping the building of roads doesn't stop development and the only thing worse than sprawl with highways is sprawl without highways.
Do you hear that, Nassau and Suffolk Counties? How about you, Northwestern Hillsborough County?


I've seen a surprising increase in the acceptance of the need to build more roads in Northern Virginia, and believe it or not even parts of Washington D.C. When I traveled along I-695 in DC for the first time, I was glad they built it, but I got into a couple of traffic jams, and I realized it was too little, too late. The second time, I just flew right through it, as I was doing through the rest of DC that day, which was a huge surprise.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 02, 2021, 10:32:27 AM
I view Loudoun County, and its residents' outlook on roads, as fundamentally different from Arlington and Alexandria. The latter two will sometimes grudgingly accept spot improvements (such as the relatively short extra lane on inbound I-66 between Route 29 and Ballston) but are generally a lot less inclined to accept improvements that will allow people who live further out to have an easier commute–the attitude is more or less, "Why should we make it easier for them to drive through our area when they chose to live further out?" To some degree, I understand that outlook, even though I think it can be short-cited to the extent it overlooks the problems of increased air pollution or cut-through traffic in neighborhoods as people bail off arterial routes. Loudoun County is fundamentally different in part because it's so much further out–when I was growing up, it was considered way out in the sticks and a trip to Leesburg was an unusual event because it took a long time to get there. Of course, Loudoun and some of the other counties out that way have their own tensions about road improvements in wealthier areas (this was one of several major issues with respect to Route 50 between Routes 15 and 17 and whether to bypass the three towns along that route).

I think some of what we're seeing with Arlington and Alexandria being willing to accept some road improvements is a recognition of the point in my preceding paragraph about how congestion on the main roads just causes other problems. But their interest in improving things for thru traffic is still limited–Alexandria won't consider adjustments to Van Dorn Street for cars, but they've expressed some willingness to consider a busway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ahj2000 on July 02, 2021, 10:40:10 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 02, 2021, 10:32:27 AM
I view Loudoun County, and its residents' outlook on roads, as fundamentally different from Arlington and Alexandria. The latter two will sometimes grudgingly accept spot improvements (such as the relatively short extra lane on inbound I-66 between Route 29 and Ballston) but are generally a lot less inclined to accept improvements that will allow people who live further out to have an easier commute–the attitude is more or less, "Why should we make it easier for them to drive through our area when they chose to live further out?" To some degree, I understand that outlook, even though I think it can be short-cited to the extent it overlooks the problems of increased air pollution or cut-through traffic in neighborhoods as people bail off arterial routes. Loudoun County is fundamentally different in part because it's so much further out–when I was growing up, it was considered way out in the sticks and a trip to Leesburg was an unusual event because it took a long time to get there. Of course, Loudoun and some of the other counties out that way have their own tensions about road improvements in wealthier areas (this was one of several major issues with respect to Route 50 between Routes 15 and 17 and whether to bypass the three towns along that route).

I think some of what we're seeing with Arlington and Alexandria being willing to accept some road improvements is a recognition of the point in my preceding paragraph about how congestion on the main roads just causes other problems. But their interest in improving things for thru traffic is still limited–Alexandria won't consider adjustments to Van Dorn Street for cars, but they've expressed some willingness to consider a busway.
I do understand that outlook-but I wonder if the fact that that busway lane's superior capacity has anything to do with it. I realize that it's not exactly popular in some road circles, but transit really is the best way to reduce traffic. For the Loudon folks, wonder how the Silver line phase 2 will change your commute
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on July 02, 2021, 12:20:32 PM
More excitement, now Loudoun wants improvements on VA7 east of 28. They have 4 concepts

1. Turn it into a superstreet
(https://i.imgur.com/tFBPCUl.jpg)
This was rejected due to the adverse LOS impact caused by restricting cross traffic

2. Remove Traffic Signals
(https://i.imgur.com/9A299aI.jpg)
This was rejected due to ROW acquisition and business access issues

3. Add Frontage Roads
(https://i.imgur.com/xqFkZjp.jpg)
Rejected for Same Reason

4. Hybrid Arterial
(https://i.imgur.com/R0KI9es.jpg)
Seems to be preferred alternative.

Read all about it here (https://www.loudoun.gov/5557/Route-7-Corridor-Study)

The way this is going, soon there will be a freeway from Tysons to Winchester
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 02, 2021, 08:09:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2021, 07:46:07 AM
The fight against I-66 was Arlington and Alexandria, not really Fairfax (as a wider road would have been seen as more beneficial to Fairfax County residents).

But the I-66 as-built never touched Alexandria city, and was never planned to touch Alexandria. 

Yes, I know that Arlington and Alexandria often support each other on things like this.

It also carefully avoided Falls Church city, though some of the I-66 right-of-way boundary east of VA-7 is apparently also the Falls Church city limit (not so recently Falls Church was able to annex the land on which two schools (including the city high school) stand.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 03, 2021, 10:27:00 PM
There is effectively no undeveloped land in Arlington or Alexandria. Any road expansions would pretty much have to come at the expense of existing land use, including residential and commerical.

By comparison, there is still a ton of vacant land in Loudoun. You can build a lot of both. That window closed for the inner suburbs a long time ago...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 03, 2021, 11:08:41 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 02, 2021, 12:20:32 PM
More excitement, now Loudoun wants improvements on VA7 east of 28. They have 4 concepts

1. Turn it into a superstreet
(https://i.imgur.com/tFBPCUl.jpg)
This was rejected due to the adverse LOS impact caused by restricting cross traffic

2. Remove Traffic Signals
(https://i.imgur.com/9A299aI.jpg)
This was rejected due to ROW acquisition and business access issues

3. Add Frontage Roads
(https://i.imgur.com/xqFkZjp.jpg)
Rejected for Same Reason

4. Hybrid Arterial
(https://i.imgur.com/R0KI9es.jpg)
Seems to be preferred alternative.

Read all about it here (https://www.loudoun.gov/5557/Route-7-Corridor-Study)

The way this is going, soon there will be a freeway from Tysons to Winchester

Wow didn't think that Loudoun would actually pursue this especially since so much VA-7 traffic gets on and off at VA-28. Will be curious to see both how much these proposals cost and some more detailed designs. However, since Loudoun has a pretty good track record when comes road projects I'm fairly confident that this will get done. Also glad that the plan appears to be grade separation for thru movements all the way to the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286). East of there, the ongoing widening project will be sufficient with maybe a future interchange at Baron Cameron Avenue but that's it. Much too residential.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 08:23:58 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 03, 2021, 11:08:41 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 02, 2021, 12:20:32 PM
More excitement, now Loudoun wants improvements on VA7 east of 28. They have 4 concepts

1. Turn it into a superstreet
(https://i.imgur.com/tFBPCUl.jpg)
This was rejected due to the adverse LOS impact caused by restricting cross traffic

2. Remove Traffic Signals
(https://i.imgur.com/9A299aI.jpg)
This was rejected due to ROW acquisition and business access issues

3. Add Frontage Roads
(https://i.imgur.com/xqFkZjp.jpg)
Rejected for Same Reason

4. Hybrid Arterial
(https://i.imgur.com/R0KI9es.jpg)
Seems to be preferred alternative.

Read all about it here (https://www.loudoun.gov/5557/Route-7-Corridor-Study)

The way this is going, soon there will be a freeway from Tysons to Winchester

Wow didn't think that Loudoun would actually pursue this especially since so much VA-7 traffic gets on and off at VA-28. Will be curious to see both how much these proposals cost and some more detailed designs. However, since Loudoun has a pretty good track record when comes road projects I'm fairly confident that this will get done. Also glad that the plan appears to be grade separation for thru movements all the way to the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286). East of there, the ongoing widening project will be sufficient with maybe a future interchange at Baron Cameron Avenue but that's it. Much too residential.

If they can widen it to 6 thru lanes, there's enough space between the median and the left turn lanes for grade separation. These might be compact left handed interchanges.

Northern Virginia should be proud of how well they design their roads. Their strict access management and wide landscape buffers leave plenty of room for future expansion.

EDIT: Of course, there's another option: remove tolls on the Dulles Toll Road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2021, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 08:23:58 AM
EDIT: Of course, there's another option: remove tolls on the Dulles Toll Road.

That's probably not an option.  The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs Dulles Airport, has issued over a billion dollars worth of toll revenue bonds (secured by tolls collected on the DTR) to fund most of the cost of building  the Dulles Rail project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2021, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 08:23:58 AM
EDIT: Of course, there's another option: remove tolls on the Dulles Toll Road.

That's probably not an option.  The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs Dulles Airport, has issued over a billion dollars worth of toll revenue bonds (secured by tolls collected on the DTR) to fund most of the cost of building  the Dulles Rail project).
Agreed. I'm not opposed to the Silver Line extension to the Airport, but I don't feel like the tolls should've been used / extended to fund this project. The tolls were slated to be removed years ago once original bonds were paid off, which they have been.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 04, 2021, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2021, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 08:23:58 AM
EDIT: Of course, there's another option: remove tolls on the Dulles Toll Road.

That's probably not an option.  The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs Dulles Airport, has issued over a billion dollars worth of toll revenue bonds (secured by tolls collected on the DTR) to fund most of the cost of building  the Dulles Rail project).
Agreed. I'm not opposed to the Silver Line extension to the Airport, but I don't feel like the tolls should've been used / extended to fund this project. The tolls were slated to be removed years ago once original bonds were paid off, which they have been.

But that road has been widened numerous times, including very shortly after being built. There's a clear reason why the toll have remained...which has generally kept traffic moving.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 12:21:58 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2021, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 08:23:58 AM
EDIT: Of course, there's another option: remove tolls on the Dulles Toll Road.

That's probably not an option.  The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs Dulles Airport, has issued over a billion dollars worth of toll revenue bonds (secured by tolls collected on the DTR) to fund most of the cost of building  the Dulles Rail project).

Oh. Well those investors are in for a rude awakening.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 12:23:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 04, 2021, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2021, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 08:23:58 AM
EDIT: Of course, there's another option: remove tolls on the Dulles Toll Road.

That's probably not an option.  The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs Dulles Airport, has issued over a billion dollars worth of toll revenue bonds (secured by tolls collected on the DTR) to fund most of the cost of building  the Dulles Rail project).
Agreed. I'm not opposed to the Silver Line extension to the Airport, but I don't feel like the tolls should've been used / extended to fund this project. The tolls were slated to be removed years ago once original bonds were paid off, which they have been.

But that road has been widened numerous times, including very shortly after being built. There's a clear reason why the toll have remained...which has generally kept traffic moving.

By pushing traffic onto VA 7 forcing them to turn it into a freeway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 12:58:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 04, 2021, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2021, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 08:23:58 AM
EDIT: Of course, there's another option: remove tolls on the Dulles Toll Road.

That's probably not an option.  The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs Dulles Airport, has issued over a billion dollars worth of toll revenue bonds (secured by tolls collected on the DTR) to fund most of the cost of building  the Dulles Rail project).
Agreed. I'm not opposed to the Silver Line extension to the Airport, but I don't feel like the tolls should've been used / extended to fund this project. The tolls were slated to be removed years ago once original bonds were paid off, which they have been.

But that road has been widened numerous times, including very shortly after being built. There's a clear reason why the toll have remained...which has generally kept traffic moving.
Perhaps, but the Silver Line extension just increased its debt even further. At least the first two improvements were to the actual highway itself.

I-264 (then VA-44) in Virginia Beach was constructed as a 4 lane toll road in 1968, widened to 6 lanes in the 1980s, widened to 8 lanes in the 1990s, and still had its tolls removed entirely by the end of the century.

Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 12:23:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 04, 2021, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2021, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 08:23:58 AM
EDIT: Of course, there's another option: remove tolls on the Dulles Toll Road.

That's probably not an option.  The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs Dulles Airport, has issued over a billion dollars worth of toll revenue bonds (secured by tolls collected on the DTR) to fund most of the cost of building  the Dulles Rail project).
Agreed. I'm not opposed to the Silver Line extension to the Airport, but I don't feel like the tolls should've been used / extended to fund this project. The tolls were slated to be removed years ago once original bonds were paid off, which they have been.

But that road has been widened numerous times, including very shortly after being built. There's a clear reason why the toll have remained...which has generally kept traffic moving.

By pushing traffic onto VA 7 forcing them to turn it into a freeway.
Which section? The Greenway connecting the Airport to Leesburg is another facility entirely, built the in 1990s as a P3. Those tolls are likely here to stay for a while... the portion I'm referring to with the Silver Line extension is the Dulles Toll Road which extends from the Airport heading east.

Either way, having both VA-7 and VA-267 as freeways isn't necessarily a bad thing either. It provides greater access to Loudon County, provides redundancy in the network, and by splitting traffic along both corridors, cuts down on congestion overall. Look at I-95 and MD-295 between Baltimore and DC. Imagine if all that traffic was shoved onto one corridor - traffic would be far worse than it is today without significant widening. I-95 south of the Beltway in Virginia is a good example of what happens when there's zero redundancy in the freeway network.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 01:14:58 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 12:58:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 04, 2021, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2021, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 08:23:58 AM
EDIT: Of course, there's another option: remove tolls on the Dulles Toll Road.

That's probably not an option.  The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs Dulles Airport, has issued over a billion dollars worth of toll revenue bonds (secured by tolls collected on the DTR) to fund most of the cost of building  the Dulles Rail project).
Agreed. I'm not opposed to the Silver Line extension to the Airport, but I don't feel like the tolls should've been used / extended to fund this project. The tolls were slated to be removed years ago once original bonds were paid off, which they have been.

But that road has been widened numerous times, including very shortly after being built. There's a clear reason why the toll have remained...which has generally kept traffic moving.
Perhaps, but the Silver Line extension just increased its debt even further. At least the first two improvements were to the actual highway itself.

I-264 (then VA-44) in Virginia Beach was constructed as a 4 lane toll road in 1968, widened to 6 lanes in the 1980s, widened to 8 lanes in the 1990s, and still had its tolls removed entirely by the end of the century.

Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 12:23:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 04, 2021, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2021, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 08:23:58 AM
EDIT: Of course, there's another option: remove tolls on the Dulles Toll Road.

That's probably not an option.  The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs Dulles Airport, has issued over a billion dollars worth of toll revenue bonds (secured by tolls collected on the DTR) to fund most of the cost of building  the Dulles Rail project).
Agreed. I'm not opposed to the Silver Line extension to the Airport, but I don't feel like the tolls should've been used / extended to fund this project. The tolls were slated to be removed years ago once original bonds were paid off, which they have been.

But that road has been widened numerous times, including very shortly after being built. There's a clear reason why the toll have remained...which has generally kept traffic moving.

By pushing traffic onto VA 7 forcing them to turn it into a freeway.
Which section? The Greenway connecting the Airport to Leesburg is another facility entirely, built the in 1990s as a P3. Those tolls are likely here to stay for a while... the portion I'm referring to with the Silver Line extension is the Dulles Toll Road which extends from the Airport heading east.

Either way, having both VA-7 and VA-267 as freeways isn't necessarily a bad thing either. It provides greater access to Loudon County, provides redundancy in the network, and by splitting traffic along both corridors, cuts down on congestion overall. Look at I-95 and MD-295 between Baltimore and DC. Imagine if all that traffic was shoved onto one corridor - traffic would be far worse than it is today without significant widening. I-95 south of the Beltway in Virginia is a good example of what happens when there's zero redundancy in the freeway network.

If you scroll up, you see Loudoun has plans to make 7 a free flowing expressway to Regal Center, and either remove signals altogether or at least put in two phase signals out to the Fairfax Parkway.

And I really don't think the population density and thru traffic in Loudoun would normally warrant a total of 22 freeway lanes. We're not talking about the New Jersey Turnpike here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 01:26:36 PM
^ The Dulles Toll Road carries over 100,000 AADT, and VA-7 carries nearly 60,000 AADT (nearly 100,000 AADT north of VA-28). Both facilities warrant a free-flowing design at minimum.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 01:40:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 01:26:36 PM
^ The Dulles Toll Road carries over 100,000 AADT, and VA-7 carries nearly 60,000 AADT (nearly 100,000 AADT north of VA-28). Both facilities warrant a free-flowing design at minimum.
That's an hourly average traffic flow of 260 per lane. That's 13% of capacity.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2021, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 11:24:44 AM
Agreed. I'm not opposed to the Silver Line extension to the Airport, but I don't feel like the tolls should've been used / extended to fund this project. The tolls were slated to be removed years ago once original bonds were paid off, which they have been.

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

Reply:

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

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

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

Reply:

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

Reply:

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

Comment:

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

Comment:

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

Reply:

QuoteDRPT and WMATA did not commit to use the MWCOG Version 2 model in the Final EIS.    When  the  EIS  process  began  approximately  four  years  ago,  the  decision  to  use  the NVMSIM model was based on the fact that only an early version of the Version 2 model had been developed  and  was  not  yet  available  in  a  calibrated  form.  This  decision  is  documented  in  the Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Results Technical Report (June 2002), prepared in support of the Draft EIS.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on July 04, 2021, 03:41:00 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 01:40:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 01:26:36 PM
^ The Dulles Toll Road carries over 100,000 AADT, and VA-7 carries nearly 60,000 AADT (nearly 100,000 AADT north of VA-28). Both facilities warrant a free-flowing design at minimum.
That's an hourly average traffic flow of 260 per lane. That's 13% of capacity.
I don't know if that's a willful misunderstanding of traffic flow or if you're trolling. 100,000 AADT warrants 4 lanes each way at minimum.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 05:40:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 04, 2021, 03:41:00 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 01:40:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 01:26:36 PM
^ The Dulles Toll Road carries over 100,000 AADT, and VA-7 carries nearly 60,000 AADT (nearly 100,000 AADT north of VA-28). Both facilities warrant a free-flowing design at minimum.
That's an hourly average traffic flow of 260 per lane. That's 13% of capacity.

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


I guess i don't understand. The Santa Monica Freeway has an AADT of 400,000 in some places. Based on this, that would mean it needs 32 lanes. I know it's a congested freeway, but that's pretty ridiculous.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on July 04, 2021, 10:15:10 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 05:40:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 04, 2021, 03:41:00 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 04, 2021, 01:40:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 04, 2021, 01:26:36 PM
^ The Dulles Toll Road carries over 100,000 AADT, and VA-7 carries nearly 60,000 AADT (nearly 100,000 AADT north of VA-28). Both facilities warrant a free-flowing design at minimum.
That's an hourly average traffic flow of 260 per lane. That's 13% of capacity.

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


I guess i don't understand. The Santa Monica Freeway has an AADT of 400,000 in some places. Based on this, that would mean it needs 32 lanes. I know it's a congested freeway, but that's pretty ridiculous.
It would warrant that many, but warrants are based on avoiding congestion. When your AADT is 400k, you're not even thinking of avoiding congestion, you just want to do the best you can. There are 6-lane freeways in the NYC area that carry well over 200k a day, and that really shouldn't be the case, but they're congested 18-20 hours a day. At minimum, your freeway should be sized for about 2300 vehicles/lane in the peak direction in the peak hour (capacity), which should be no less than 8% of your daily volume in an urban area, or 28,750 vehicles/lane per direction. Using that rough metric, 100k ADT would fit in 4 lanes, and it certainly does, but LOS C would be more like 1600 vehicles/lane, which gets you to 6 lanes. 400k ADT would require 7 lanes per direction at minimum, or with LOS C, 10 lanes per direction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 07, 2021, 12:23:07 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 27, 2021, 08:14:56 PM
They also replaced the signs on I-664 North approaching I-64... did not manage to get a picture of those, though they do not include the whole "Downtown Hampton" with the standalone I-64 shield... it's a proper "Norfolk Va Beach" and I-64 East. They also include "Exit Only" with two down arrows for each sign as opposed to single side arrow the old signs had. The signs did not look the cleanest though... especially for a VDOT install who is usually good on the interstate system (arterials are a whole different story... yikes)
Finally got a chance to photograph these new overhead signs on I-664 approaching I-64 in Hampton.

Something about them just feels... cramped.

(https://i.ibb.co/qCjKGfY/664-Hampton.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Hp7D7Dv/664-Hampton1.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: odditude on July 07, 2021, 09:13:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 07, 2021, 12:23:07 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 27, 2021, 08:14:56 PM
They also replaced the signs on I-664 North approaching I-64... did not manage to get a picture of those, though they do not include the whole "Downtown Hampton" with the standalone I-64 shield... it's a proper "Norfolk Va Beach" and I-64 East. They also include "Exit Only" with two down arrows for each sign as opposed to single side arrow the old signs had. The signs did not look the cleanest though... especially for a VDOT install who is usually good on the interstate system (arterials are a whole different story... yikes)
Finally got a chance to photograph these new overhead signs on I-664 approaching I-64 in Hampton.

Something about them just feels... cramped.

not adhering to the whitespace requirements (i.e. insufficient margins/padding) will do that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 08, 2021, 12:40:38 AM
Looks like Historic Aerials has added 1984 satellite imagery to the Richmond metro (they seem to be adding that year to quite a few places). This includes the entire RPT, and shows all the changes on the turnpike after the 1970s reconstruction/expansions (see 1968 vs 1984).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jmacswimmer on July 08, 2021, 10:30:26 AM
Quote from: odditude on July 07, 2021, 09:13:20 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 07, 2021, 12:23:07 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 27, 2021, 08:14:56 PM
They also replaced the signs on I-664 North approaching I-64... did not manage to get a picture of those, though they do not include the whole "Downtown Hampton" with the standalone I-64 shield... it's a proper "Norfolk Va Beach" and I-64 East. They also include "Exit Only" with two down arrows for each sign as opposed to single side arrow the old signs had. The signs did not look the cleanest though... especially for a VDOT install who is usually good on the interstate system (arterials are a whole different story... yikes)
Finally got a chance to photograph these new overhead signs on I-664 approaching I-64 in Hampton.

Something about them just feels... cramped.

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

Not that it actually affects anything, but I'm sad to see the I-664 shield formerly attached to the 1/2-mile overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0193486,-76.3828865,3a,42.8y,46.24h,96.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWqer2m13eccZSWLgbY4y0w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) bite the dust (though I do like that these replacements better spell out which lanes go which direction on I-64).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 08, 2021, 10:33:01 AM
^ Agreed, they're more straight forward for lane guidance as opposed to the simple sideways arrows on the old signs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 08, 2021, 10:35:17 AM
In the two images that sprjus4 posted, the signs in the first image look fine to me and the signs in the second image look compressed. The latter two remind me of when someone adjusts the spacing in a printed document to something less than double spacing in an attempt to cram more text onto the page in order to comply with a page limit. (Which raises the question of why page limits are still a thing when word-count limits are more effective, but that's a separate discussion.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 08, 2021, 12:44:08 PM
That 2nd pair of signs are indeed a bit cramped but still.. I like the signs. Not bad for the Hampton Roads District. It's certainly better than what was there before.

And infinitely better than something like this..

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Twz2YiNULLPtiXHJ6
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 09, 2021, 07:15:43 AM
https://www.nbc12.com/2021/07/08/peta-seeks-safety-designation-stretch-virginia-road-prone-hog-truck-crashes/?fbclid=IwAR2l8OOCtscFpmGKNkJXarjX16IFppNQZHNWnPbVGmNicC_iIIlykpyb5-M

I know this stretch of VA 10 has its issues but IDK.. I'm on the fence with this one.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 09, 2021, 07:24:24 AM
Quote from: plain on July 09, 2021, 07:15:43 AM
https://www.nbc12.com/2021/07/08/peta-seeks-safety-designation-stretch-virginia-road-prone-hog-truck-crashes/?fbclid=IwAR2l8OOCtscFpmGKNkJXarjX16IFppNQZHNWnPbVGmNicC_iIIlykpyb5-M

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

Has PETA ever considered anything like this related to deer?  I understand that deer are not considered pets, but PETA being involved here is strange to me.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 09, 2021, 08:14:06 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 09, 2021, 07:24:24 AM
Quote from: plain on July 09, 2021, 07:15:43 AM
https://www.nbc12.com/2021/07/08/peta-seeks-safety-designation-stretch-virginia-road-prone-hog-truck-crashes/?fbclid=IwAR2l8OOCtscFpmGKNkJXarjX16IFppNQZHNWnPbVGmNicC_iIIlykpyb5-M

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

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

I think they're more concerned with the pigs/hogs that the trucks are hauling. They want them to be safe while they're on their way to Smithfield to be slaughtered :crazy:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 09, 2021, 10:27:35 AM
VDOT posted another nice "Then and Now" image of Gilbert's Corner (clicking to open the tweet allows for clicking on the image to enlarge). I couldn't resist commenting on the signage....

https://twitter.com/1995hoo/status/1413504781121900544
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 09, 2021, 12:41:41 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 09, 2021, 10:27:35 AM
VDOT posted another nice "Then and Now" image of Gilbert's Corner (clicking to open the tweet allows for clicking on the image to enlarge). I couldn't resist commenting on the signage....

Love VDH signage from the 1950's and 1960's.  Very distinctive yet clear.  VDOT signage now is not that different from what its neighboring states do.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 09, 2021, 12:57:04 PM
It's interesting to note the apparent re-forestation along the right-of-way, in place of the former farmland. (Assuming that the photos are oriented in the same direction)

It's always worth noting that, particularly in the East, there's a good chance that the trees you're walking among aren't all that old.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 09, 2021, 02:07:38 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 09, 2021, 12:57:04 PM
It's interesting to note the apparent re-forestation along the right-of-way, in place of the former farmland. (Assuming that the photos are oriented in the same direction)

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

Historic Aerials shows that field starting to have trees again between 1974-81.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 09, 2021, 02:19:10 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 09, 2021, 12:57:04 PM
It's interesting to note the apparent re-forestation along the right-of-way, in place of the former farmland. (Assuming that the photos are oriented in the same direction)

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

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

VDOT is pretty good about posting pictures from as close to the same vantage point as possible when they post these.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 09, 2021, 05:11:15 PM
Figured they would be, but wasn't totally sure.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on July 11, 2021, 09:35:54 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 09, 2021, 10:27:35 AM
VDOT posted another nice "Then and Now" image of Gilbert's Corner (clicking to open the tweet allows for clicking on the image to enlarge). I couldn't resist commenting on the signage....

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

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

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

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Old Dominionite on July 11, 2021, 02:01:43 PM
Did VDOT cut back even more on mowing? I've never seen so many medians and shoulders looking like they've gone months without any maintenance. Aside from the unkempt and unsightly appearance, this ridiculously high vegetation threatens to damage concrete curbs and medians, and will inevitably clog storm drains. The state can do better.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on July 11, 2021, 04:07:56 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on July 11, 2021, 02:01:43 PM
Did VDOT cut back even more on mowing? I've never seen so many medians and shoulders looking like they've gone months without any maintenance. Aside from the unkempt and unsightly appearance, this ridiculously high vegetation threatens to damage concrete curbs and medians, and will inevitably clog storm drains. The state can do better.

Mowing is one of the quickest and easiest ways for states to cut back when they need money for other things.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on July 11, 2021, 04:26:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 11, 2021, 04:07:56 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on July 11, 2021, 02:01:43 PM
Did VDOT cut back even more on mowing? I've never seen so many medians and shoulders looking like they've gone months without any maintenance. Aside from the unkempt and unsightly appearance, this ridiculously high vegetation threatens to damage concrete curbs and medians, and will inevitably clog storm drains. The state can do better.

Mowing is one of the quickest and easiest ways for states to cut back when they need money for other things.
I don't think so.  Mowing contracts are pretty set every two years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 11, 2021, 04:53:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 11, 2021, 04:26:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 11, 2021, 04:07:56 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on July 11, 2021, 02:01:43 PM
Did VDOT cut back even more on mowing? I've never seen so many medians and shoulders looking like they've gone months without any maintenance. Aside from the unkempt and unsightly appearance, this ridiculously high vegetation threatens to damage concrete curbs and medians, and will inevitably clog storm drains. The state can do better.

Mowing is one of the quickest and easiest ways for states to cut back when they need money for other things.
I don't think so.  Mowing contracts are pretty set every two years.

VDOT districts do the mowing contracts and at least one does them as annual renewals. The 2019 RFP I saw does say twice monthly for mowing. 

Mowing has definitely slowed down over the years in Virginia. If I were to guess I would say it was deliberately done the same time rest areas were temporarily shuttered and not returned to a normal schedule when the economy got better.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on July 11, 2021, 09:33:06 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 11, 2021, 04:26:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 11, 2021, 04:07:56 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on July 11, 2021, 02:01:43 PM
Did VDOT cut back even more on mowing? I've never seen so many medians and shoulders looking like they've gone months without any maintenance. Aside from the unkempt and unsightly appearance, this ridiculously high vegetation threatens to damage concrete curbs and medians, and will inevitably clog storm drains. The state can do better.

Mowing is one of the quickest and easiest ways for states to cut back when they need money for other things.
I don't think so.  Mowing contracts are pretty set every two years.

In New York, maybe, but Kentucky bids them out on an annual basis. And a few years ago when faced with a budget shortfall, Kentucky reduced the number of cycles in the existing contract by one (either from five to four, or four to three, I can't really remember).

Kentucky bids out mowing on the interstates, parkways, and other major roads with big ROW areas. The majority of the other roads are mowed as needed by the county crews, with a few exceptions. (In my 10-county area, I know Breathitt County's state roads are mowed by contractors, and I think one of the other counties as well.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 16, 2021, 02:22:06 AM
Washington Post: Fairfax moves toward renaming major highways that honor Confederate generals (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/fairfax-rename-highways-confederate-generals/2021/07/13/f46bc796-e40b-11eb-a41e-c8442c213fa8_story.html)

QuoteThe Fairfax County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday appointed a task force to recommend new names for Lee Highway and Lee Jackson Memorial Highway, part of a broader reckoning over Virginia's veneration of the Civil War.

QuoteThe 30-member task force is expected to begin meeting by August to discuss what to call two of the county's largest thoroughfares, a process that would require residents and businesses along those highways to change their mailing addresses.

QuoteLee Highway is named for Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and Lee Jackson Memorial Highway is named after Lee and Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson.

QuoteAmid calls for greater racial and social equity in Virginia, county officials said the two names are not compatible with the community's values.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 16, 2021, 09:49:58 AM
Without commenting on this particular debate, I've often wondered about the issue of naming roads after people/events and what it means for the future.

For instance, I would argue that the vast and overwhelming majority of Northern VA residents have zero connection to antebellum Virginia. I know speaking for myself personally, that my roots in the country only started in the early 1900s.

So why pick 1860s figures as the basis for road-naming? Why not 1760s, or 1960s?

My own opposition for road renaming usually stems from technical reasons more than anything else...if people are used to "XXX highway", then there's a negative impact (at least for the short-term) in re-naming. On the other hand, I couldn't care less if some second-rate confederate general wasn't honored anymore.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 16, 2021, 10:23:27 AM
As a practical matter, my observation has been that use of the road names for the major arterials like those has decreased substantially over the last 40 years, even well-prior to the current political climate. I've long figured that part of it has to do with how some roads regularly change names. US-29, for example, which is the main route to bear the Lee Highway name, is named Washington Street in Falls Church, and US-50, which is Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway from Fairfax City west for some distance, is named Lee Highway where it runs concurrently with US-29 in Fairfax City and Arlington Boulevard from Fairfax Circle east to the Roosevelt Bridge. (Their concurrency in Fairfax City is also posted as "Fairfax Boulevard," though it's never been clear to me whether the city formally renamed it or whether it's an honorific name.) VA-236 is similar–in Fairfax City it's Main Street, in Fairfax County it's Little River Turnpike, and in the City of Alexandria it's Duke Street. In all these cases, I've noticed a major decline in usage of the names, and I've long thought that part of the reason is that it simplifies things–you don't have to think about what the road name is at any given point if you just give someone the number. (But, with all that said, I'm certainly aware that Van Dorn Street is always called by its name, never its numbers–it has two different numbers–and I wonder when it will be renamed, given that it's named for Confederate General Earl Van Dorn, although I don't think that's generally known.)

I find myself wondering how many people are actually looking at the street signs with the generals' names on them so as to claim to be offended by street names you just plain don't hear being used all that often anymore. I also wonder how much of a financial burden is being foisted on the residents and businesses located along those roads, especially Lee Highway due to its length. I suppose in theory it might be less of a nuisance these days than it would have been 30 years ago when you had to change your listing in the Yellow Pages.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 16, 2021, 10:29:03 AM
https://twitter.com/vadot/status/1416018790597414915
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 16, 2021, 11:23:06 AM
VDOT has released its 2020 traffic data. (https://www.virginiadot.org/info/2020_traffic_data_by_jurisdiction.asp) There is a disclaimer about COVID-19 having an adverse effect on traffic counts.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on July 16, 2021, 12:19:04 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 16, 2021, 11:23:06 AM
VDOT has released its 2020 traffic data. (https://www.virginiadot.org/info/2020_traffic_data_by_jurisdiction.asp) There is a disclaimer about COVID-19 having an adverse effect on traffic counts.

No shit
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 16, 2021, 12:29:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 16, 2021, 10:23:27 AM
As a practical matter, my observation has been that use of the road names for the major arterials like those has decreased substantially over the last 40 years, even well-prior to the current political climate. I've long figured that part of it has to do with how some roads regularly change names. US-29, for example, which is the main route to bear the Lee Highway name, is named Washington Street in Falls Church, and US-50, which is Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway from Fairfax City west for some distance, is named Lee Highway where it runs concurrently with US-29 in Fairfax City and Arlington Boulevard from Fairfax Circle east to the Roosevelt Bridge. (Their concurrency in Fairfax City is also posted as "Fairfax Boulevard," though it's never been clear to me whether the city formally renamed it or whether it's an honorific name.) VA-236 is similar–in Fairfax City it's Main Street, in Fairfax County it's Little River Turnpike, and in the City of Alexandria it's Duke Street. In all these cases, I've noticed a major decline in usage of the names, and I've long thought that part of the reason is that it simplifies things–you don't have to think about what the road name is at any given point if you just give someone the number. (But, with all that said, I'm certainly aware that Van Dorn Street is always called by its name, never its numbers–it has two different numbers–and I wonder when it will be renamed, given that it's named for Confederate General Earl Van Dorn, although I don't think that's generally known.)

I find myself wondering how many people are actually looking at the street signs with the generals' names on them so as to claim to be offended by street names you just plain don't hear being used all that often anymore. I also wonder how much of a financial burden is being foisted on the residents and businesses located along those roads, especially Lee Highway due to its length. I suppose in theory it might be less of a nuisance these days than it would have been 30 years ago when you had to change your listing in the Yellow Pages.

You probably are aware of this, but I'll note that the Postal Service supposedly guarantees mail service in perpetuity to the old street names (i.e. Jefferson Davis Highway -> Richmond Highway).

For what it's worth, I looked up Quantrell, of Quantrell Avenue. First of all, the road is misspelled (assuming it was named for him). It's Williams Quantrill, with an "i'. Second of all, he was a uniquely bad dude (raids on civilians in the western territories), but that's mostly a matter for historians to decide.

For better or worse, I suppose this is why you get bland "Deer Meadow Lane" names in newer suburban developments out in Loudoun County. The old joke I've heard is that you take whatever animal was killed, or trees felled, in order to make room for the housing development. Zero controversy.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on July 16, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Why do Byrds suddenly disappear from the names of highways?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 16, 2021, 01:30:04 PM
this sounds like the setup for a joke punchline...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on July 16, 2021, 01:55:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Why do Byrds suddenly disappear from the names of highways?

Just like me, they long to be, far from you!

(Showing my age by quoting that Carpenters tune from the 70s.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 16, 2021, 02:26:58 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 16, 2021, 12:29:26 PM
You probably are aware of this, but I'll note that the Postal Service supposedly guarantees mail service in perpetuity to the old street names (i.e. Jefferson Davis Highway -> Richmond Highway).

For what it's worth, I looked up Quantrell, of Quantrell Avenue. First of all, the road is misspelled (assuming it was named for him). It's Williams Quantrill, with an "i'. Second of all, he was a uniquely bad dude (raids on civilians in the western territories), but that's mostly a matter for historians to decide.

For better or worse, I suppose this is why you get bland "Deer Meadow Lane" names in newer suburban developments out in Loudoun County. The old joke I've heard is that you take whatever animal was killed, or trees felled, in order to make room for the housing development. Zero controversy.

Regarding the mail delivery, I didn't know that. Interesting. Thanks for the info.

Regarding your final point: There's a community of single-family houses on Route 236 in Fairfax City just west of W.T. Woodson High School that's called "Maple Trace." I remember when they built it because I went to high school at Woodson and grew up a short distance east of there. When the neighborhood was under construction, my mom said they chose the name because of how developers now begin by ripping out all the trees, no matter how old or stately they may be, which means "there's no TRACE of a MAPLE."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 16, 2021, 02:42:27 PM

https://www.arlnow.com/2019/05/15/state-transportation-officials-approve-jefferson-davis-highway-renaming/
(https://www.arlnow.com/2019/05/15/state-transportation-officials-approve-jefferson-davis-highway-renaming/)

Quote"No street numbers will be changed, and the United States Postal Service will, in perpetuity, continue to deliver mail to the businesses and residences along the highway addressed to Jefferson Davis Highway,"  an April county press release on the name change read.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 16, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Thanks. In fairness to me, that article is dated two years ago. I may have read it then (I don't remember whether I did), but it would hardly be a surprise if I didn't remember what it said.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 16, 2021, 03:32:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 16, 2021, 01:55:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Why do Byrds suddenly disappear from the names of highways?

Just like me, they long to be, far from you!

(Showing my age by quoting that Carpenters tune from the 70s.)

On the day that you were born the angles got together
and decided to make a hypotenuse come through...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on July 16, 2021, 03:42:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 11, 2021, 04:53:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 11, 2021, 04:26:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 11, 2021, 04:07:56 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on July 11, 2021, 02:01:43 PM
Did VDOT cut back even more on mowing? I've never seen so many medians and shoulders looking like they've gone months without any maintenance. Aside from the unkempt and unsightly appearance, this ridiculously high vegetation threatens to damage concrete curbs and medians, and will inevitably clog storm drains. The state can do better.

Mowing is one of the quickest and easiest ways for states to cut back when they need money for other things.
I don't think so.  Mowing contracts are pretty set every two years.

VDOT districts do the mowing contracts and at least one does them as annual renewals. The 2019 RFP I saw does say twice monthly for mowing. 

Mowing has definitely slowed down over the years in Virginia. If I were to guess I would say it was deliberately done the same time rest areas were temporarily shuttered and not returned to a normal schedule when the economy got better.

A lot of states cut back on mowing during/after the Great Recession. PennDOT cut back how much they were mowing and how often. It quickly got noticeable. They also curtailed picking up deer carcasses that weren't actually on the roadway itself.

I recall VDOT put out a slideshow at one point about their changes with modifications to the planned mowing cycle. Some minor roads were going to a mowing cycle of every 4 years.

West Virginia uses in-house crews for mowing and never changed their mowing schedule. Frankly, I wish they'd lengthen cycles between mowing and cut back on mowing away from the roadway. The crews could be better used doing pothole patching and other maintenance activities rather than trying to keep everything neat.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 18, 2021, 12:12:18 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 16, 2021, 03:32:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 16, 2021, 01:55:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Why do Byrds suddenly disappear from the names of highways?

Just like me, they long to be, far from you!

(Showing my age by quoting that Carpenters tune from the 70s.)

On the day that you were born the angles got together
and decided to make a hypotenuse come through...

Oh God, I read this and worried that the Hypotenuse guy had come to Virginia...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on July 18, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Why do Byrds suddenly disappear from the names of highways?

Quote from: hbelkins on July 16, 2021, 01:55:29 PM
Just like me, they long to be, far from you!

(Showing my age by quoting that Carpenters tune from the 70s.)

Quote from: Mapmikey on July 16, 2021, 03:32:47 PM
On the day that you were born the angles got together
and decided to make a hypotenuse come through...

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 18, 2021, 12:12:18 PM
Oh God, I read this and worried that the Hypotenuse guy had come to Virginia...

He left a long time ago (I-81).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 18, 2021, 05:45:47 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 18, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Why do Byrds suddenly disappear from the names of highways?

Quote from: hbelkins on July 16, 2021, 01:55:29 PM
Just like me, they long to be, far from you!

(Showing my age by quoting that Carpenters tune from the 70s.)

Quote from: Mapmikey on July 16, 2021, 03:32:47 PM
On the day that you were born the angles got together
and decided to make a hypotenuse come through...

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 18, 2021, 12:12:18 PM
Oh God, I read this and worried that the Hypotenuse guy had come to Virginia...

He left a long time ago (I-81).

He was so much older then, he's younger than that now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2021, 08:43:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 16, 2021, 10:23:27 AM
As a practical matter, my observation has been that use of the road names for the major arterials like those has decreased substantially over the last 40 years, even well-prior to the current political climate. I've long figured that part of it has to do with how some roads regularly change names. US-29, for example, which is the main route to bear the Lee Highway name, is named Washington Street in Falls Church, and US-50, which is Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway from Fairfax City west for some distance, is named Lee Highway where it runs concurrently with US-29 in Fairfax City and Arlington Boulevard from Fairfax Circle east to the Roosevelt Bridge. (Their concurrency in Fairfax City is also posted as "Fairfax Boulevard," though it's never been clear to me whether the city formally renamed it or whether it's an honorific name.) VA-236 is similar–in Fairfax City it's Main Street, in Fairfax County it's Little River Turnpike, and in the City of Alexandria it's Duke Street. In all these cases,

I agree with all of the above. Well-stated. 

But allow me to throw a fly or two in the ointment.

Traffic reports on stations like WTOP (and formerly WAMU) are regional in nature.  Three of the U.S. routes in the region can be found in the Commonwealth of Virginia, in Maryland and in the District of Columbia (in most cases in D.C. the name is used and not the route number). There are a few others like that, such as MD-650 (mostly New Hampshire Avenue) in Prince George's County and Montgomery County and VA-650 (Gallows Road) in Fairfax County; MD-193 (University Boulevard, Greenbelt Road, Glenn Dale Boulevard,  Enterprise Road, and finally Watkins Park Drive in Montgomery County and Prince George's County) and VA-193 (Georgetown Pike) also in Fairfax County. 

And there is sometimes confusion between Georgetown Pike in Fairfax County and MD-187 (Old Georgetown Road) in Montgomery County. 

Finally, we have VA-234 in Prince William County (Dumfries Road, Prince William Parkway, I-66 and Sudley Road) and MD-234 in Charles and St. Mary's Counties (Budd's Creek Road) - MD-234 having been the scene of some terrible head-on fatal wrecks and is one of the few two lane arterial highways in Maryland with a posted limit of 55 MPH.  Only with Charles County having become a real suburb of D.C. and Northern Virginia has  MD-234 become important enough to include in this discussion.

Then we have U.S. 15 at the western edge of the region and U.S. 301 at the eastern and southeastern edge.

For all of these, a traffic reporter needs to provide the route number and the name of the road or the county it is in to tell listeners which road is being discussed (example: "on U.S. 15 in the Lucketts area of Loudoun County a serious crash has the road completely shut down in both directions for the investigation").
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 18, 2021, 09:28:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 18, 2021, 05:45:47 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 18, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2021, 12:36:45 PM
Why do Byrds suddenly disappear from the names of highways?

Quote from: hbelkins on July 16, 2021, 01:55:29 PM
Just like me, they long to be, far from you!

(Showing my age by quoting that Carpenters tune from the 70s.)

Quote from: Mapmikey on July 16, 2021, 03:32:47 PM
On the day that you were born the angles got together
and decided to make a hypotenuse come through...

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 18, 2021, 12:12:18 PM
Oh God, I read this and worried that the Hypotenuse guy had come to Virginia...

He left a long time ago (I-81).

He was so much older then, he's younger than that now.

And now we've made Byrds reappear...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2021, 09:37:06 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 18, 2021, 09:28:31 PM
And now we've made Byrds reappear...

I doubt that Harry Flood Byrd Jr. and Harry Flood Byrd Sr. were ever Eight Miles High (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J74ttSR8lEg).  Harry Sr. died the year that this track came out (1966).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 18, 2021, 09:43:48 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2021, 09:37:06 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 18, 2021, 09:28:31 PM
And now we've made Byrds reappear...

I doubt that Harry Flood Byrd Jr. and Harry Flood Byrd Sr. were ever Eight Miles High (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J74ttSR8lEg).  Harry Sr. died the year that this track came out (1966).

Agreed...but they might well have faded into their own parade...

Though I know that evening's empire has returned into sand
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2021, 10:26:58 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 18, 2021, 09:43:48 PM
Agreed...but they might well have faded into their own parade...

Though I know that evening's empire has returned into sand

You know those lyrics better than I!

I do wonder if by 1966, Harry Sr. (who retired in 1965 - his son Harry Jr. was appointed to replace him in the U.S. Senate) realized that the end was near for his "Organization" (also known as the Byrd Machine), and the election of a liberal Republican,  A. Linwood Holton Jr. in 1969 was a dagger in the heart of the Organization.

In spite of all of the above, Harry Jr. served in the U.S. Senate until 1983 when he retired on his own terms.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 19, 2021, 07:38:19 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2021, 10:26:58 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 18, 2021, 09:43:48 PM
Agreed...but they might well have faded into their own parade...

Though I know that evening's empire has returned into sand

You know those lyrics better than I!

I do wonder if by 1966, Harry Sr. (who retired in 1965 - his son Harry Jr. was appointed to replace him in the U.S. Senate) realized that the end was near for his "Organization" (also known as the Byrd Machine), and the election of a liberal Republican,  A. Linwood Holton Jr. in 1969 was a dagger in the heart of the Organization.

In spite of all of the above, Harry Jr. served in the U.S. Senate until 1983 when he retired on his own terms.

I only knew the first line I cited...while looking it up to make sure I had it right, I noticed the second line I cited.

I am largely unfamiliar with the Byrd machine, having grown up in South Carolina.  The political patriarch I am more familiar with was Strom Thurmond, who was still somehow immensely popular in the late 1980s...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on July 19, 2021, 08:30:55 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 19, 2021, 07:38:19 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2021, 10:26:58 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 18, 2021, 09:43:48 PM
Agreed...but they might well have faded into their own parade...

Though I know that evening's empire has returned into sand

You know those lyrics better than I!

I do wonder if by 1966, Harry Sr. (who retired in 1965 - his son Harry Jr. was appointed to replace him in the U.S. Senate) realized that the end was near for his "Organization" (also known as the Byrd Machine), and the election of a liberal Republican,  A. Linwood Holton Jr. in 1969 was a dagger in the heart of the Organization.

In spite of all of the above, Harry Jr. served in the U.S. Senate until 1983 when he retired on his own terms.

I only knew the first line I cited...while looking it up to make sure I had it right, I noticed the second line I cited.

I am largely unfamiliar with the Byrd machine, having grown up in South Carolina.  The political patriarch I am more familiar with was Strom Thurmond, who was still somehow immensely popular in the late 1980s...
Seemed to me half of SC is named after Thurmond when I was down there last month, not to mention the statue(s).

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on July 19, 2021, 10:45:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 19, 2021, 08:30:55 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 19, 2021, 07:38:19 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 18, 2021, 10:26:58 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 18, 2021, 09:43:48 PM
Agreed...but they might well have faded into their own parade...

Though I know that evening's empire has returned into sand

You know those lyrics better than I!

I do wonder if by 1966, Harry Sr. (who retired in 1965 - his son Harry Jr. was appointed to replace him in the U.S. Senate) realized that the end was near for his "Organization" (also known as the Byrd Machine), and the election of a liberal Republican,  A. Linwood Holton Jr. in 1969 was a dagger in the heart of the Organization.

In spite of all of the above, Harry Jr. served in the U.S. Senate until 1983 when he retired on his own terms.

I only knew the first line I cited...while looking it up to make sure I had it right, I noticed the second line I cited.

I am largely unfamiliar with the Byrd machine, having grown up in South Carolina.  The political patriarch I am more familiar with was Strom Thurmond, who was still somehow immensely popular in the late 1980s...
Seemed to me half of SC is named after Thurmond when I was down there last month, not to mention the statue(s).

Similar to a different Byrd in another state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 19, 2021, 12:57:41 PM
The next CTB meeting is expected to discuss the fun but non-MUTCD-compliant changeable message sign messages across the state.

https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2021/july/ctb_workshop_meeting_july_2021.pdf

Even though they're not MUTCD-compliant, it appears VDOT will likely continue doing them, as there is discrete data that shows people are more likely to get the messages they convey. It also helps that some of them have gone viral (particularly one that attracted the attention of Ludacris recently).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 19, 2021, 01:09:53 PM
QuoteEven though they're not MUTCD-compliant, it appears VDOT will likely continue doing them, as there is discrete data that shows people are more likely to get the messages they convey. It also helps that some of them have gone viral (particularly one that attracted the attention of Ludacris recently).

Honestly, that Ludacris one was hilarious.  It is definitely nice to get a laugh out of some of these messages even though they are serious.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 19, 2021, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 19, 2021, 01:09:53 PM
QuoteEven though they're not MUTCD-compliant, it appears VDOT will likely continue doing them, as there is discrete data that shows people are more likely to get the messages they convey. It also helps that some of them have gone viral (particularly one that attracted the attention of Ludacris recently).

Honestly, that Ludacris one was hilarious.  It is definitely nice to get a laugh out of some of these messages even though they are serious.

Yeah, I personally love them and I'm glad they're working.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on July 20, 2021, 08:16:16 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 19, 2021, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 19, 2021, 01:09:53 PM
QuoteEven though they're not MUTCD-compliant, it appears VDOT will likely continue doing them, as there is discrete data that shows people are more likely to get the messages they convey. It also helps that some of them have gone viral (particularly one that attracted the attention of Ludacris recently).

Honestly, that Ludacris one was hilarious.  It is definitely nice to get a laugh out of some of these messages even though they are serious.

Yeah, I personally love them and I'm glad they're working.

WTVR in Richmond did a story about the messages and the Ludacris one that went viral:

https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/meet-the-team-behind-the-viral-ludacris-vdot-sign

It even mentions the research done here at Virginia Tech to help pick messages that get noticed.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 20, 2021, 10:25:28 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 19, 2021, 12:57:41 PM
Even though they're not MUTCD-compliant,

Can someone point to where they have to be?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 20, 2021, 10:52:34 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 19, 2021, 12:57:41 PM
The next CTB meeting is expected to discuss the fun but non-MUTCD-compliant changeable message sign messages across the state.

https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2021/july/ctb_workshop_meeting_july_2021.pdf

Even though they're not MUTCD-compliant, it appears VDOT will likely continue doing them, as there is discrete data that shows people are more likely to get the messages they convey. It also helps that some of them have gone viral (particularly one that attracted the attention of Ludacris recently).

Thanks for that link. I wonder what the heck "Ludacris" meant and why it was spelled that way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 20, 2021, 12:14:01 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 20, 2021, 10:52:34 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 19, 2021, 12:57:41 PM
The next CTB meeting is expected to discuss the fun but non-MUTCD-compliant changeable message sign messages across the state.

https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2021/july/ctb_workshop_meeting_july_2021.pdf

Even though they're not MUTCD-compliant, it appears VDOT will likely continue doing them, as there is discrete data that shows people are more likely to get the messages they convey. It also helps that some of them have gone viral (particularly one that attracted the attention of Ludacris recently).

Thanks for that link. I wonder what the heck "Ludacris" meant and why it was spelled that way.

Ludacris is a rapper and actor who has been in the Fast and the Furious movies.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 20, 2021, 12:19:30 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 20, 2021, 12:14:01 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 20, 2021, 10:52:34 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 19, 2021, 12:57:41 PM
The next CTB meeting is expected to discuss the fun but non-MUTCD-compliant changeable message sign messages across the state.

https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2021/july/ctb_workshop_meeting_july_2021.pdf

Even though they're not MUTCD-compliant, it appears VDOT will likely continue doing them, as there is discrete data that shows people are more likely to get the messages they convey. It also helps that some of them have gone viral (particularly one that attracted the attention of Ludacris recently).

Thanks for that link. I wonder what the heck "Ludacris" meant and why it was spelled that way.

Ludacris is a rapper and actor who has been in the Fast and the Furious movies.

Yeah, I got that from the .PDF, but I see I made a typo in my post and typed "wonder" when I meant "wondered." I guess if that's the worst typo I make this week, I'll be doing pretty well!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on July 25, 2021, 09:46:56 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 02, 2021, 09:06:22 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 30, 2021, 07:02:59 AM
I guess they've figured out that stopping the building of roads doesn't stop development and the only thing worse than sprawl with highways is sprawl without highways.
Do you hear that, Nassau and Suffolk Counties? How about you, Northwestern Hillsborough County?


I've seen a surprising increase in the acceptance of the need to build more roads in Northern Virginia, and believe it or not even parts of Washington D.C. When I traveled along I-695 in DC for the first time, I was glad they built it, but I got into a couple of traffic jams, and I realized it was too little, too late. The second time, I just flew right through it, as I was doing through the rest of DC that day, which was a huge surprise.
What do you mean Nassau and Suffolk counties, are you suggesting more interstates were supposed to be built?
As far as I know, the only missing roads were a few bridges/tunnels over the LIS.
While LI does have just I-495, it has many many limited access, grade separated parkways.
The big issue with the interstate is that it just is not big enough and should have been made with local/express.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on July 25, 2021, 09:50:03 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 28, 2021, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 28, 2021, 12:35:45 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTNOVA/status/1409548460127358980

This is a big deal as VA-7 is now a limited access freeway from VA-28 all the way to Round Hill and even further west without traffic lights to Berryville. Will be interesting to see now what the next transportation priority for Leesburg is: Widening the rest of Route 7 between Leesburg and Purcellville (including the Leesburg Bypass) to six lanes or constructing one (or both) of the Edwards Ferry Road and Battlefield Parkway interchanges on the US-15 part of the bypass. At the moment all of the projects are at least some what off the ground design wise.

It absolutely should be the Edwards Ferry and Battlefield Parkway interchanges.
I have heard nothing whatsoever about widening VA-7 in western Loudoun and I see no reason whatsoever.
Traffic while steady is free flowing.


Quote from: kernals12 on June 28, 2021, 09:17:07 PM
That new interchange I imagine is going to lead to a real estate boom in Western Loudoun and Clarke Counties.
Absolutely not.  You must not be familiar with the area.
1.  Loudoun has already had their major boom, and in fact the rate of growth is slowing.  Future growth will be heavily concentrated along the new silver line in eastern Loudoun.
2.  Western Loudoun already has had their boom, no interchange is going to change things and in fact the preservation movement there and in Clarke is very big.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 25, 2021, 01:38:42 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 25, 2021, 09:50:03 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on June 28, 2021, 05:02:22 PM

This is a big deal as VA-7 is now a limited access freeway from VA-28 all the way to Round Hill and even further west without traffic lights to Berryville. Will be interesting to see now what the next transportation priority for Leesburg is: Widening the rest of Route 7 between Leesburg and Purcellville (including the Leesburg Bypass) to six lanes or constructing one (or both) of the Edwards Ferry Road and Battlefield Parkway interchanges on the US-15 part of the bypass. At the moment all of the projects are at least some what off the ground design wise.

It absolutely should be the Edwards Ferry and Battlefield Parkway interchanges.
I have heard nothing whatsoever about widening VA-7 in western Loudoun and I see no reason whatsoever.
Traffic while steady is free flowing.

While I agree with you that the US-15 interchanges should take priority, you are wrong about VA-7. Between VA-9 and the Greenway VA-7 had an 2019 ADDT in between 60,000 to 70,000 (enough to warrant a 3rd lane IMO) with widening planned sometime by the end of the decade or sooner if Loudoun can get some more NVTA funding. In addition pre-COVID there were frequently backups/delays in the eastbound direction after the VA-9 interchange (in the AM) and westbound after the Greenway interchange (in the PM). Now west of VA-9 I agree that widening is not necessary as of now.

https://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenter/View/166016/FY-2022-Adopted-Budget---Volume-Two
https://loudounnow.com/2018/09/20/talks-begin-for-next-rt-7-widening-project/
QuoteThe county department of transportation Tuesday hosted a meeting on plans to add a third eastbound lane to Rt. 7 from Rt. 9 to the Dulles Greenway and a third westbound lane from the Dulles Greenway to West Market Street.

The areas are known for their daily rush-hour gridlock. Traffic studies have shown travel speeds as slow as 20 miles per hour, where the speed limit is 55 miles per hour.

According to Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure Preliminary Engineering Manager Jim Zeller, the county has no firm plans for that project yet. It will first need to take into account impacts at the four interchanges along that stretch of road: Rt. 9, West Market Street, South King Street and the Greenway. It will also access its policy for local access from Rt. 7 in that area, and determine whether bridges would have to be widened or replaced bridges or other structures removed.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on August 03, 2021, 02:42:57 PM
Work to widen US-58 between Vesta and Stuart is scheduled to begin in 2 months, with completion expected in late spring 2026.

https://martinsvillebulletin.com/news/local/vdot-ready-to-begin-u-s-58-expansion-over-lovers-leap-mountain/article_f068dbb2-f3c3-11eb-8c0b-af349bf28f8b.html (https://martinsvillebulletin.com/news/local/vdot-ready-to-begin-u-s-58-expansion-over-lovers-leap-mountain/article_f068dbb2-f3c3-11eb-8c0b-af349bf28f8b.html)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 03, 2021, 03:32:09 PM
Over 4 years to widen an 8 mile stretch of non-freeway really shows how tough the terrain is there. Hats off to the contractors. I'm sure this isn't going to be the way VA did widening projects years ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 03, 2021, 03:43:42 PM
Quote from: plain on August 03, 2021, 03:32:09 PM
Over 4 years to widen an 8 mile stretch of non-freeway really shows how tough the terrain is there. Hats off to the contractors. I'm sure this isn't going to be the way VA did widening projects years ago.

The central section looks like they may not do anything to the existing carriageway (graphic at that article shows widths of that roadway will vary, which suggests no improvements made).  A lot of this is on new terrain entirely and the new terrain part is the mountain itself, so lots of earth to move, I'm sure.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 03, 2021, 09:36:31 PM
For some reason I couldn't see the link earlier but now that I used a different browser, definitely on new right of way through the worst part. Indeed a lot more earthwork still than I originally thought.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: seicer on August 03, 2021, 09:56:48 PM
https://www.virginiadot.org/Projects/Salem/asset_upload_file373_170418.pdf

Gotta love that Virginia can't be bothered to ever build out adequate shoulders on the older alignments or to match profiles. It's one thing if it's to appease some scenic aesthetic (of which I'd be in favor of 4' shoulders for both sides), but this is nothing more than cost savings. It can be pretty jarring on other sections of US 58, where it can be downright exciting to drive 55 MPH on some of the twistiest segments and lethargic on the rebuilt sections.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 07, 2021, 11:22:20 AM
While on I-64 east of Richmond yesterday I noticed SURVEY CREWS AHEAD construction signs planted between Exit 205 (VA 249) and Exit 211 (VA 106). Maybe a sign of widening on the horizon?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 07, 2021, 01:44:49 PM
Those signs on I-64 have been there for probably at least 2 years now. As far as I'm aware, any future segments are still not funded.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 07, 2021, 02:16:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 07, 2021, 01:44:49 PM
Those signs on I-64 have been there for probably at least 2 years now. As far as I'm aware, any future segments are still not funded.

I guess I never paid attention to them lmaoo or they added some more
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2021, 02:53:00 AM
WTOP Radio: Virginia contends with Confederate names on side streets (https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/08/virginia-contends-with-confederate-names-on-side-streets/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 12, 2021, 09:34:40 PM
This is bound to piss people off. They're thinking about "15th View"ing the on ramps to I-64 EB at Mallory St and Settlers Landing Rd.

https://www.dailypress.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-hampton-vdot-metering-mallory-settlers-landing-20210812-tuidy655pvbl7nue6oqoqlumd4-story.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on August 12, 2021, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: plain on August 12, 2021, 09:34:40 PM
This is bound to piss people off. They're thinking about "15th View"ing the on ramps to I-64 EB at Mallory St and Settlers Landing Rd.

https://www.dailypress.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-hampton-vdot-metering-mallory-settlers-landing-20210812-tuidy655pvbl7nue6oqoqlumd4-story.html
A terrible idea to anyone remotely familiar with Hampton traffic; this is gonna make life miserable for anyone who works at the VA, the University, or downtown and needs to commute to the Southside.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 12, 2021, 09:49:47 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 12, 2021, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: plain on August 12, 2021, 09:34:40 PM
This is bound to piss people off. They're thinking about "15th View"ing the on ramps to I-64 EB at Mallory St and Settlers Landing Rd.

https://www.dailypress.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-hampton-vdot-metering-mallory-settlers-landing-20210812-tuidy655pvbl7nue6oqoqlumd4-story.html
A terrible idea to anyone remotely familiar with Hampton traffic; this is gonna make life miserable for anyone who works at the VA, the University, or downtown and needs to commute to the Southside.

That is a horrendous idea.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 14, 2021, 10:02:55 AM
"Hall said the ramp closure, similar to a ramp gate at the Ocean View and 15th View juncture in Norfolk, would be a temporary measure during the expansion."

When you boil it down, it's no different than ramp closures that exist on other major road projects.


I would also reiterate something that I was told long and often the two times I was stationed in Norfolk:  Live on the same side of the water as where you work..  And this was years (2 decades in my first duty station case) before the current construction finally began.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 14, 2021, 10:20:27 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2021, 10:02:55 AM
"Hall said the ramp closure, similar to a ramp gate at the Ocean View and 15th View juncture in Norfolk, would be a temporary measure during the expansion."

When you boil it down, it's no different than ramp closures that exist on other major road projects.


I would also reiterate something that I was told long and often the two times I was stationed in Norfolk:  Live on the same side of the water as where you work..  And this was years (2 decades in my first duty station case) before the current construction finally began.

I can vouch this was true 30 years ago.  And not that many more years prior, there were no crossings other than the James River Bridge, so over time people intentionally started cross-commuting down there.

This is also true in the Tidewater area even down to the water between Norfolk and Portsmouth.  In hindsight I wish I had figured out a way to live on the Portsmouth side when I worked at the shipyard.  But my wife was going to ODU much of that time and had to take the bus, so that took bigger priority.

This is also true in the DC metro area.  Despite my own choices here, it would be better for most people to live on the same side of the Potomac as they work, if you don't live and work pretty close to a Metro station.  Though people on this board might find it hard to believe, cross-commuting in the DC area is actually better than it was when I got here 25 years ago.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 14, 2021, 11:01:34 AM
^ From a traffic standpoint, strictly looking at I-64, closing the ramps is a good idea.

However, when you consider the large area in Hampton locally that will be impacted, having to drive in some cases miles of backtracking to reach the interstate, it becomes questionable. It's not like 15th View where it's a local community. It's Hampton University, the VA Hospital, downtown Hampton, and the thousands of homes to the north and east of I-64. How much burden will this put onto the LaSalle interchange?

Have other solutions been considered, such as ramp metering, that Hampton Roads seems to have never discovered yet, or possibly closing off one of the interchanges in questions, not both, to at least provide some level of access?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 14, 2021, 11:45:09 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 14, 2021, 10:20:27 AM
....

This is also true in the DC metro area.  Despite my own choices here, it would be better for most people to live on the same side of the Potomac as they work, if you don't live and work pretty close to a Metro station.  Though people on this board might find it hard to believe, cross-commuting in the DC area is actually better than it was when I got here 25 years ago.

The problem in the DC area is that because you're talking about three completely different jurisdictions, it's more complicated than simply commute-related. That is, there are ample reasons why someone would spurn the easier commute to downtown that he might be able to get if he lives in the District of Columbia. Hard to say too much more without getting political, but I know most of the people who regularly read this thread will understand the point without my having to violate forum rules by getting into a discussion of politics, taxes, schools, crime, etc.

Then, of course, there are two-commute households. When I was growing up and our family moved to where my mom still lives, a short distance east of Fairfax City, she was working part-time not too far from Merrifield and my dad was working downtown. She later got a full-time job in Centreville. So they lived more or less halfway between the two jobs. Made sense to me, although the biggest factor in where we lived was that it ensured my brother and I would attend Frost and Woodson for junior high and high school, respectively. So my parents had jobs on different sides of the river, as it were.

(Edited to add the second paragraph.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2021, 11:53:53 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 14, 2021, 10:20:27 AM
This is also true in the DC metro area.  Despite my own choices here, it would be better for most people to live on the same side of the Potomac as they work, if you don't live and work pretty close to a Metro station.  Though people on this board might find it hard to believe, cross-commuting in the DC area is actually better than it was when I got here 25 years ago.

What about employers that left Montgomery County for Northern Virginia - of which there are many, some going back to the late 1970's and early 1980's?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 14, 2021, 01:15:12 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2021, 11:53:53 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 14, 2021, 10:20:27 AM
This is also true in the DC metro area.  Despite my own choices here, it would be better for most people to live on the same side of the Potomac as they work, if you don't live and work pretty close to a Metro station.  Though people on this board might find it hard to believe, cross-commuting in the DC area is actually better than it was when I got here 25 years ago.

What about employers that left Montgomery County for Northern Virginia - of which there are many, some going back to the late 1970's and early 1980's?

The handful of those people still in the workforce likely aren't with that company anymore.

The serious answer is that of course it is not necessarily better for the overall existence of an employee to be on the same side of the river (as I clearly indicate with my own commutes in Tidewater and the DMV as examples) but for most people, the commute/traffic (the original point) would be better if people did that.

I suspect what actually happens when an employer moves to Virginia from MC is that many employees do the new commute with the idea of finding a new gig in MC.  Then after a while they find that getting a new comparable job wasn't going to happen and/or the new commute is tolerable enough.  The latter was my experience when I changed jobs from the Quantico MCB Sewage Plant (a dead end job) to my current employer.  We looked for housing in Maryland but did not find anything we though we could afford any closer than Frederick MD, which if that is the commute I switch to, then why bother.

It is also true that people in the live in MC/work in Virginia boat have not seen anywhere near the improvement of commuting that people doing the opposite like me have seen.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2021, 09:48:43 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 14, 2021, 01:15:12 PM
I suspect what actually happens when an employer moves to Virginia from MC is that many employees do the new commute with the idea of finding a new gig in MC.  Then after a while they find that getting a new comparable job wasn't going to happen and/or the new commute is tolerable enough.  The latter was my experience when I changed jobs from the Quantico MCB Sewage Plant (a dead end job) to my current employer.  We looked for housing in Maryland but did not find anything we though we could afford any closer than Frederick MD, which if that is the commute I switch to, then why bother.

It is also true that people in the live in MC/work in Virginia boat have not seen anywhere near the improvement of commuting that people doing the opposite like me have seen.

Problem is that Montgomery County has been losing private-sector jobs for at least the past ten years - and before that, private-sector employment in Montgomery was stagnant.  Montgomery County's elected officials did not even try to keep a big federal agency in the county - the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) used to have its main office in the Brookmont area of the county (near the D.C. line), though they had a lot of worker bee staff along the VA-267 corridor.   They could probably have consolidated in Montgomery but chose to move to the Fort Belvoir North area in Fairfax County (there were calls from Montgomery County activists that the old NGA campus be converted to parkland, a demand made frequently in Montgomery, but that was rejected by the federal government).

Edited to fix quote.  -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on August 14, 2021, 11:23:31 PM
https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/vp-nw-hampton-roads-transportation-plan-20210814-edefhf5lt5bibl2dcgskwm3q44-story.html
QuoteThis summer, the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization approved a long-range plan that lays out what changes are needed to maintain the way we move around through 2045. It's the culmination of a five-year process.
QuoteHere are some major takeaways.

Top projects that are happening

Several major projects are already committed for Hampton Roads, meaning everything is in place and in some cases construction is already underway. In the 2045 plan, that includes:

Expanding the HRBT to add twin two-lane tunnels next to the existing bridge-tunnel, as well as widening Interstate 64. One lane and one drivable shoulder in each direction will be designated as high-occupancy toll lanes, the price of which will vary based on demand. (Estimated price tag: $3.8 billion)
Adding a parallel two-lane tunnel to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. ($925 million)
Adding HOT lanes to I-64 from Jefferson Avenue to Bowers Hill. ($806 million)
Widening I-64 from four to six lanes from the 464 to 664 interchanges, including the High Rise Bridge. One lane and one part-time shoulder will be designated as HOT lanes. ($525 million)
Phase 2 of I-64/I-264 interchange improvements between Newtown and Witchduck roads, increasing the number of eastbound lanes from five to six. ($195 million)
Widening the segment of I-64 in Williamsburg from four to six lanes between exits 242 and 234. ($244 million)

Top projects that could be next

Planners used a data tool that includes dozens of different factors – including safety, environmental impact and congestion – to rank candidate projects. Only work that could fit within the budget made it through. Here are a few of the top regional projects that officials hope will come next:

Widening I-664, including the Bowers Hill interchange, and extending HOT lanes to College Drive in Suffolk. (Estimated price tag: $772 million)
Phase 3 of I-64/I-264 interchange improvements, including constructing bridges on I-64 eastbound over Kempsville Road and Virginia Beach Boulevard and I-264 eastbound over Newtown Road. ($510 million)
Replacing the I-64/I-464 loop ramps in Chesapeake with directional ramps. ($339 million)
Widening I-264 from Witchduck Road to Independence Boulevard with one additional lane and converting the shoulder lane into a travel lane. ($669 million)
Updating the I-264/Independence Boulevard interchange, which Virginia Beach officials say has a high rate of crashes. ($208 million)
Installing a full interchange on I-64 at Denbigh Boulevard in Newport News to reduce congestion. ($220 million)
Birthplace of America Trail in Fort Monroe and Suffolk: Extend the existing 55-mile Virginia Capital Trail for the new trail that will provide over 100 miles of regional bike and pedestrian facilities in Hampton Roads. ($25 million)
South Hampton Roads Trail: Expand regional bike and walking trail from Suffolk to the Virginia Beach Oceanfront. ($25 million)

A few of the things that stand out to me here are:
1. The expensive $220 million price tag for the I-64/Denbigh Blvd interchange and $208 million price tag for the I-264/Independence Blvd interchange.
2. The I-264 widening project which I didn't know was necessary or being planned.
3. The lack of mention of some other needed Hampton Roads transportation projects such as the I-64 Phase IV widening.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 15, 2021, 09:14:29 AM
64/Denbigh is right next to the CSX tracks.  That's going to play a factor in the cost given the amount of bridging necessary.

264/Independence is expensive because it's a heavily-used cloverleaf and traffic control during construction is going to be costly and a nightmare.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2021, 10:43:26 PM
I have posted an update on White's Ferry in the Maryland forum here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24933.msg2650998#msg2650998).  I put it there and not in the Virginia thread because the ferry itself is in Maryland and is subject to regulation by the State of Maryland. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2021, 01:56:46 PM
WRIC-TV (Channel 8, Richmond): VDOT removes X-Lite guardrails blamed for deaths from majority of its roads (https://www.wric.com/news/taking-action/taking-action-update-vdot-removes-x-lite-guardrails-blamed-for-deaths-from-majority-of-its-roads/)

QuoteThree years after 8News first exposed concerns with some guardrails piercing through cars, killing and maiming drivers, The Virginia Department of Transportation has expanded its promise to remove them from the roads.

QuotePreviously, VDOT told us it would be removing the guardrails from roads with speed limits of 55 mph or higher. Now, crews have pulled them from all state roads with speeds above 25 mph. It is a sudden shift and 8News has found it may have to do with reports of some horrific accidents at lower speeds.

QuoteGuardrails are supposed to be a safety barrier for a car that leaves the roadway. Yet, multiple families across the country have blamed Lindsay X-Lite guardrails for the deaths of their loved ones. The guardrails have pierced, punctured and sliced through vehicles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 20, 2021, 04:57:56 PM
^I remember hearing about X-Lite a few years ago at work.  I think PennDOT removed it from Bulletin 15 soon afterward.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on August 24, 2021, 07:45:56 PM
It's sad that it's less expensive to widen VA 7 to 6 lanes than it is to keep it 4 lanes but remove all the signalized intersections.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 25, 2021, 08:59:56 AM
It's not sad.  It's reality.  Free-flow requires more right-of-way than 12 feet on each side.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on August 25, 2021, 04:12:00 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 25, 2021, 08:59:56 AM
It's not sad.  It's reality.

Reality can still be sad.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 25, 2021, 07:02:44 PM
WTOP Radio: Virginia police union demands end to ticket-writing quotas (https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/08/virginia-police-union-demands-end-to-ticket-writing-quotas/)

QuoteShould ticket-writing quotas be banned in Virginia? A police union that represents 750 state troopers says it's working with members of the General Assembly to write a law that would make such quotas illegal.

QuoteThe Virginia Police Benevolent Association says quotas shouldn't be allowed because they increase negative interactions with the public and are an outdated and ineffective form of policing. Eliminating quotas, the union said, would decrease the number of arbitrary tickets written and improve relations between police officers and the community.

QuoteState police officials deny that they impose quotas on troopers. But the Richmond Times-Dispatch obtained an email in which a supervisor told his troopers they should write at least five tickets a day.

QuoteThe police acknowledged the email to the newspaper, but said the supervisor was talking about benchmarks – not quotas. Another supervisor – a senior state police commander – also recently told troopers in an email they should be writing at least five tickets a day, or else their evaluations would be poor.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 27, 2021, 03:38:20 PM
^^^

Police agencies routinely deny they have quotas.

However, a very close (now retired and since deceased) friend of mine was a city police officer for many years. His agency was the recipient of a federal overtime grant. He told me a condition of that grant was that they write a certain number of citations each day, when he broke off a chance encounter with me one day while he was on duty. Sure enough, a few minutes later, I passed by him with a driver pulled over (ostensibly for speeding or a seat belt violation).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 28, 2021, 01:46:53 AM
Questions on I-95 in VA:

1) The local/express configuration at 495/95 to MD is 3 local/2 express across the bridge, but it appears there is ample need and space to make it 3 local/3 express, why isn't it this way and are there plans?

2) The 95 widening to Fredericksburg, so after/south of Route 3 is 95 going from 3 local/3 express to just 3 regular lanes?
-I thought they were going to extend this to exit 126 or at least do a 'super ramp' exit there for Rt 1/17.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on August 28, 2021, 02:24:51 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 28, 2021, 01:46:53 AM
1) The local/express configuration at 495/95 to MD is 3 local/2 express across the bridge, but it appears there is ample need and space to make it 3 local/3 express, why isn't it this way and are there plans?

When the new Woodrow Wilson bridges were built, extra room was built for the express lanes, to preserve the option of light rail tracks or bus-only lanes. I don't know of any firm plans to use that extra room.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 28, 2021, 09:45:02 AM
The I-95 HO/T lanes will end (or begin, depending on your point of view) just north of Exit 133. From there to some point south of Exit 130 (VA-3) they'll be using a local/thru configuration like the Wilson Bridge on which the "thru" lanes are not tolled and are instead designed to segregate long-distance traffic from traffic entering or exiting at US-17 and VA-3. I believe there'll be a basketweave-style configuration (somewhat similar to the location of that name in Toronto) to implement the transition between the HO/T lane part of the road and the local/thru area, as HO/T traffic will have the option of continuing straight into the thru lanes or using a ramp to the local lanes, while general-purpose-lanes traffic will likewise have the option of continuing straight into the local lanes of using left-side access to the thru lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 28, 2021, 10:45:35 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 28, 2021, 09:45:02 AM
The I-95 HO/T lanes will end (or begin, depending on your point of view) just north of Exit 133. From there to some point south of Exit 130 (VA-3) they'll be using a local/thru configuration like the Wilson Bridge on which the "thru" lanes are not tolled and are instead designed to segregate long-distance traffic from traffic entering or exiting at US-17 and VA-3. I believe there'll be a basketweave-style configuration (somewhat similar to the location of that name in Toronto) to implement the transition between the HO/T lane part of the road and the local/thru area, as HO/T traffic will have the option of continuing straight into the thru lanes or using a ramp to the local lanes, while general-purpose-lanes traffic will likewise have the option of continuing straight into the local lanes of using left-side access to the thru lanes.
But what happens after Rt 3?
Is it 3 lanes?
What about exit 126 (17/1) superamp?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 28, 2021, 11:31:39 AM
Quote from: oscar on August 28, 2021, 02:24:51 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 28, 2021, 01:46:53 AM
1) The local/express configuration at 495/95 to MD is 3 local/2 express across the bridge, but it appears there is ample need and space to make it 3 local/3 express, why isn't it this way and are there plans?

When the new Woodrow Wilson bridges were built, extra room was built for the express lanes, to preserve the option of light rail tracks or bus-only lanes. I don't know of any firm plans to use that extra room.

WMATA was involved in planning for the new Wilson Bridge, and that left lane (currently not used as a travel lane) was built to accommodate a rail line, should one be desired.  But it is important to note that the design did not include a way to get trains off the bridge and into the National Harbor area in Prince George's County, Maryland which was laid-out and developed in its current form after the bridge plans were finalized.  So there would have to be significant re-engineering and re-design work (and new and expensive flyovers for rail would be needed) to get trains to run to National Harbor.

Last time I heard any discussion of this (quite a few years ago), the Maryland Department of Transportation's response to a possible rail line across the Wilson Bridge was a firm no.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 28, 2021, 11:52:03 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 28, 2021, 10:45:35 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 28, 2021, 09:45:02 AM
The I-95 HO/T lanes will end (or begin, depending on your point of view) just north of Exit 133. From there to some point south of Exit 130 (VA-3) they'll be using a local/thru configuration like the Wilson Bridge on which the "thru" lanes are not tolled and are instead designed to segregate long-distance traffic from traffic entering or exiting at US-17 and VA-3. I believe there'll be a basketweave-style configuration (somewhat similar to the location of that name in Toronto) to implement the transition between the HO/T lane part of the road and the local/thru area, as HO/T traffic will have the option of continuing straight into the thru lanes or using a ramp to the local lanes, while general-purpose-lanes traffic will likewise have the option of continuing straight into the local lanes of using left-side access to the thru lanes.
But what happens after Rt 3?
Is it 3 lanes?
What about exit 126 (17/1) superamp?

I don't know. Try http://Virginiadot.org and look for the page with construction info.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 28, 2021, 12:58:46 PM
Express lanes will also be able to exit directly to US 17 at Exit 133 without getting in the CD lanes or the mainline 95 lanes.

South of VA 3, I-95 will still be 3 lanes.  They are getting ready to do a project to widen the off-ramp at Exit 126 to 2 lanes and extend a transtion lane on US 1-17 south from that ramp in an effort to keep traffic from backing up onto I-95 SB.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 28, 2021, 01:54:52 PM
^ I believe, in addition to that, a project is being planned that would add a 4th southbound lane between VA-3 and US-1.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on August 28, 2021, 04:29:44 PM
Alexandria is planning to widen the Mount Vernon Trail (https://www.arlnow.com/2021/08/02/mount-vernon-trail-expansion-funded-by-virginia-but-years-from-implementation/&ved=2ahUKEwjs49_bxtTyAhVHJt8KHf0dBbsQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Y-UCf-nRgSNpfRBoOU8v2).
Have they never heard of induced demand  :bigass:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on August 28, 2021, 09:58:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 28, 2021, 04:29:44 PM
Alexandria is planning to widen the Mount Vernon Trail (https://www.arlnow.com/2021/08/02/mount-vernon-trail-expansion-funded-by-virginia-but-years-from-implementation/&ved=2ahUKEwjs49_bxtTyAhVHJt8KHf0dBbsQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Y-UCf-nRgSNpfRBoOU8v2).
Have they never heard of induced demand  :bigass:
this is my favorite post of yours
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on August 29, 2021, 08:39:09 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2021, 09:58:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 28, 2021, 04:29:44 PM
Alexandria is planning to widen the Mount Vernon Trail (https://www.arlnow.com/2021/08/02/mount-vernon-trail-expansion-funded-by-virginia-but-years-from-implementation/&ved=2ahUKEwjs49_bxtTyAhVHJt8KHf0dBbsQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Y-UCf-nRgSNpfRBoOU8v2).
Have they never heard of induced demand  :bigass:
this is my favorite post of yours

In order to truly relieve congestion, they need to build an automobile parkway to provide an alternative means of transportation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: SkyPesos on August 29, 2021, 11:09:03 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 28, 2021, 04:29:44 PM
Alexandria is planning to widen the Mount Vernon Trail (https://www.arlnow.com/2021/08/02/mount-vernon-trail-expansion-funded-by-virginia-but-years-from-implementation/&ved=2ahUKEwjs49_bxtTyAhVHJt8KHf0dBbsQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Y-UCf-nRgSNpfRBoOU8v2).
Have they never heard of induced demand  :bigass:
Nice link you sent
(https://i.imgur.com/Iin9lQ8.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on August 29, 2021, 01:45:23 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 29, 2021, 11:09:03 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 28, 2021, 04:29:44 PM
Alexandria is planning to widen the Mount Vernon Trail (https://www.arlnow.com/2021/08/02/mount-vernon-trail-expansion-funded-by-virginia-but-years-from-implementation/&ved=2ahUKEwjs49_bxtTyAhVHJt8KHf0dBbsQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Y-UCf-nRgSNpfRBoOU8v2).
Have they never heard of induced demand  :bigass:
Nice link you sent
(https://i.imgur.com/Iin9lQ8.png)
https://www.arlnow.com/2021/08/02/mount-vernon-trail-expansion-funded-by-virginia-but-years-from-implementation/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 31, 2021, 12:24:27 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 28, 2021, 12:58:46 PM
Express lanes will also be able to exit directly to US 17 at Exit 133 without getting in the CD lanes or the mainline 95 lanes.

South of VA 3, I-95 will still be 3 lanes.  They are getting ready to do a project to widen the off-ramp at Exit 126 to 2 lanes and extend a transtion lane on US 1-17 south from that ramp in an effort to keep traffic from backing up onto I-95 SB.
Will that do much to help?  I can't find for some reason the renderings of the new ramp.


Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2021, 01:54:52 PM
^ I believe, in addition to that, a project is being planned that would add a 4th southbound lane between VA-3 and US-1.
Really?  Where did you see this stated?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 31, 2021, 06:23:46 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 31, 2021, 12:24:27 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 28, 2021, 12:58:46 PM
Express lanes will also be able to exit directly to US 17 at Exit 133 without getting in the CD lanes or the mainline 95 lanes.

South of VA 3, I-95 will still be 3 lanes.  They are getting ready to do a project to widen the off-ramp at Exit 126 to 2 lanes and extend a transtion lane on US 1-17 south from that ramp in an effort to keep traffic from backing up onto I-95 SB.
Will that do much to help?  I can't find for some reason the renderings of the new ramp.


Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2021, 01:54:52 PM
^ I believe, in addition to that, a project is being planned that would add a 4th southbound lane between VA-3 and US-1.
Really?  Where did you see this stated?

The 2013 Fredericksburg Relief Study (https://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/CTB_Study_Handout.pdf) has extending the C/D lanes from VA 3 to US 1 with options for exits at both VA 208 and SR 620 Harrison Rd.

This 2019 Corridor Improvement Plan (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/projects/major_projects/easset_upload_file32291_141080_e.pdf) does float adding a 4th lane

Here is a rendering of the Exit 126 ramp project - https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/Exit_126_Improvements/publichearing_displayone.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 31, 2021, 11:26:11 AM
https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1432706328082976776
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 31, 2021, 12:30:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2021, 11:26:11 AM
https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1432706328082976776

This has been going on here for quite a few years.  ACPD and VSP could issue a lot of summonses here (maybe for reckless driving too) to people that do this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 31, 2021, 12:38:57 PM
It really amazes me people go lengths to do this... there's literally a direct connector ramp to the HO/T lanes from the GP on ramp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 31, 2021, 12:51:46 PM
The thing I used to see there every morning back when I drove downtown to work was people already on I-395 cutting to the right at the top of that ramp to use the acceleration lane as a passing lane; many of them would just continue down the shoulder so as to use the lanes merging from Route 1 to pass more traffic.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 31, 2021, 02:53:45 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1432748419731361794
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 01, 2021, 11:26:31 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 31, 2021, 06:23:46 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 31, 2021, 12:24:27 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 28, 2021, 12:58:46 PM
Express lanes will also be able to exit directly to US 17 at Exit 133 without getting in the CD lanes or the mainline 95 lanes.

South of VA 3, I-95 will still be 3 lanes.  They are getting ready to do a project to widen the off-ramp at Exit 126 to 2 lanes and extend a transtion lane on US 1-17 south from that ramp in an effort to keep traffic from backing up onto I-95 SB.
Will that do much to help?  I can't find for some reason the renderings of the new ramp.


Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2021, 01:54:52 PM
^ I believe, in addition to that, a project is being planned that would add a 4th southbound lane between VA-3 and US-1.
Really?  Where did you see this stated?

The 2013 Fredericksburg Relief Study (https://virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/CTB_Study_Handout.pdf) has extending the C/D lanes from VA 3 to US 1 with options for exits at both VA 208 and SR 620 Harrison Rd.

This 2019 Corridor Improvement Plan (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/projects/major_projects/easset_upload_file32291_141080_e.pdf) does float adding a 4th lane

Here is a rendering of the Exit 126 ramp project - https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/Exit_126_Improvements/publichearing_displayone.pdf
Thanks for that info, and links, but that really confuses me.

So right now, 95 is 6 lanes (3-3) throughout Stafford, Fredericksburg, and Spotsylvania.
Once complete, the construction now will have it so:
-95 is 3-2-3 in Stafford to Route 17
-95 is 3-3-3-3 from Route 17 to Route 3
What will 95 be south of Route 3 to Route 1/17, and from Route 1/17 south to 295?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 02, 2021, 01:13:21 AM
^ 6 lanes (3 each way) for both, as it is built today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Old Dominionite on September 04, 2021, 03:43:21 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 29, 2021, 08:39:09 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2021, 09:58:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 28, 2021, 04:29:44 PM
Alexandria is planning to widen the Mount Vernon Trail (https://www.arlnow.com/2021/08/02/mount-vernon-trail-expansion-funded-by-virginia-but-years-from-implementation/&ved=2ahUKEwjs49_bxtTyAhVHJt8KHf0dBbsQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Y-UCf-nRgSNpfRBoOU8v2).
Have they never heard of induced demand  :bigass:
this is my favorite post of yours

In order to truly relieve congestion, they need to build an automobile parkway to provide an alternative means of transportation.

I think the city will try to make the Mount Vernon Trail wider than Seminary Road...and then boast about it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 06, 2021, 12:36:25 AM
At least pre-covid, the MVT always had a steady stream of bike commuters from South Arlington, Alexandria, and even eastern Fairfax county. It's very useful to get to many of the major business districts in DC and near the Pentagon.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 06, 2021, 12:37:45 AM
Also, I have yet to be stuck in one of these alleged seminary road traffic jams, despite living within earshot of the road...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 07, 2021, 11:56:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 02, 2021, 01:13:21 AM
^ 6 lanes (3 each way) for both, as it is built today.
Ouch, not good.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on September 11, 2021, 12:43:05 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 06, 2021, 12:36:25 AM
At least pre-covid, the MVT always had a steady stream of bike commuters from South Arlington, Alexandria, and even eastern Fairfax county. It's very useful to get to many of the major business districts in DC and near the Pentagon.
A widening certainly seems warranted after looking at Street View; the trail seems barely wider than a footpath in places and I bet it's no fun trying to dodge joggers in the morning.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on September 11, 2021, 12:56:00 PM
Another trail in Northern Virginia, the Washington and Old Dominion (named after the railroad that used to operate on that right-of-way) has been undergoing a widening project in Falls Church, whereby there will be a separate path for walkers/joggers, and bikers/horses*.

I was just out there yesterday, and it's coming along nicely.

*Horseback riding is allowed on the W&OD, but I've never seen it in 10 years of patronizing the trail. I think most equestrian activity is out in Loudoun County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 11, 2021, 10:17:57 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 11, 2021, 12:56:00 PM
*Horseback riding is allowed on the W&OD, but I've never seen it in 10 years of patronizing the trail. I think most equestrian activity is out in Loudoun County.

It's been some 28 years since I lived in downtown Herndon, but we used to walk and bike alongside horses west of there back then.  Not sure how they got into Herndon, but they always seemed to be starting out from the W&OD train station and headed west.  [Back in those days, there were still several big farms in the Frying Pan area and I know there was plenty of horse boarding in that area].
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on September 12, 2021, 07:39:56 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 11, 2021, 12:56:00 PM
*Horseback riding is allowed on the W&OD, but I've never seen it in 10 years of patronizing the trail. I think most equestrian activity is out in Loudoun County.

Understandable, not too many places to tie up your horse while at work in DC these days.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 12, 2021, 08:23:56 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 11, 2021, 12:56:00 PM
*Horseback riding is allowed on the W&OD, but I've never seen it in 10 years of patronizing the trail. I think most equestrian activity is out in Loudoun County.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on September 11, 2021, 10:17:57 PM
It's been some 28 years since I lived in downtown Herndon, but we used to walk and bike alongside horses west of there back then.  Not sure how they got into Herndon, but they always seemed to be starting out from the W&OD train station and headed west.  [Back in those days, there were still several big farms in the Frying Pan area and I know there was plenty of horse boarding in that area].

By the way, it was crazy trying to cross VA-28 at grade on foot or on bicycle back in those days.  I can't imagine how you could have gotten a bunch of horses across all that traffic.  But sometimes we would see them on both sides.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 17, 2021, 03:46:02 PM
WTOP Radio: Ground broken on Rt. 28 widening: Va. leaders seek to "˜put all the pieces together' (https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/09/ground-broken-on-rt-28-widening-va-leaders-seek-to-put-all-the-pieces-together/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AvDave829 on September 19, 2021, 08:09:35 PM
I hope it helps out but it truly needs to be a limited access highway like north of 66.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 22, 2021, 10:51:43 PM
Quote from: AvDave829 on September 19, 2021, 08:09:35 PM
I hope it helps out but it truly needs to be a limited access highway like north of 66.
No it doesn't and that's impractical and unreasonable.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AvDave829 on September 23, 2021, 01:40:50 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 22, 2021, 10:51:43 PM
Quote from: AvDave829 on September 19, 2021, 08:09:35 PM
I hope it helps out but it truly needs to be a limited access highway like north of 66.
No it doesn't and that's impractical and unreasonable.

You would be incorrect. With the amount of volume that that stretch carries and the constant congestion it would make sense. It would be impossible to do it in the current path but it would be nice to have it done one day
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 23, 2021, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: AvDave829 on September 23, 2021, 01:40:50 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 22, 2021, 10:51:43 PM
Quote from: AvDave829 on September 19, 2021, 08:09:35 PM
I hope it helps out but it truly needs to be a limited access highway like north of 66.
No it doesn't and that's impractical and unreasonable.

You would be incorrect. With the amount of volume that that stretch carries and the constant congestion it would make sense. It would be impossible to do it in the current path but it would be nice to have it done one day

Only if it's numbered I-366 with an 85 mph speed limit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 23, 2021, 09:52:23 PM
Update to what was discussed upthread, Hampton approved the temporary ramp closures near the HRBT. After another hurtle, this could come into operation next year.

https://www.wtkr.com/news/hampton-city-council-approves-temporary-closures-of-eastbound-ramps-near-hampton-roads-bridge-tunnel

My mother lives in the Phoebus neighborhood and I often see the gridlock there when I visit, but I still don't like this idea.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 23, 2021, 10:39:37 PM
^ It's going to cut off access from Downtown Hampton and severely overwhelm the LaSalle interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 23, 2021, 11:01:51 PM
Agreed. LaSalle (and Armstead Ave in the area) is already fucked during the rush. I can almost understand closing the Mallory St entrance but the Settlers Landing one too??
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on October 02, 2021, 09:34:32 AM
Quote from: LM117 on September 09, 2019, 08:18:15 AM
A little heads up for those going through Eastville...

https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/eastville-tops-in-state-in-percentage-of-law-enforcement-revenues/ (https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/eastville-tops-in-state-in-percentage-of-law-enforcement-revenues/)

This post came to mind when I saw an interesting piece in a recent article.

https://www.easternshorepost.com/2021/09/16/eastville-to-purchase-bingo-hall-to-help-with-fire-company-finances/ (https://www.easternshorepost.com/2021/09/16/eastville-to-purchase-bingo-hall-to-help-with-fire-company-finances/)

QuoteEastville's water system must be self-sustaining — that is, the revenue the town receives from customers paying their water bills must be enough to cover the cost of operating the system — but it isn't, he said.

The police fine revenue received by Eastville enables the town to keep the water running and stash away more savings for a rainy day, and without it, Eastville's finances would be in "dire straits,"  Caison said.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 04, 2021, 04:48:56 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 02, 2021, 09:34:32 AM
Quote from: LM117 on September 09, 2019, 08:18:15 AM
A little heads up for those going through Eastville...

https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/eastville-tops-in-state-in-percentage-of-law-enforcement-revenues/ (https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/eastville-tops-in-state-in-percentage-of-law-enforcement-revenues/)

This post came to mind when I saw an interesting piece in a recent article.

https://www.easternshorepost.com/2021/09/16/eastville-to-purchase-bingo-hall-to-help-with-fire-company-finances/ (https://www.easternshorepost.com/2021/09/16/eastville-to-purchase-bingo-hall-to-help-with-fire-company-finances/)

QuoteEastville's water system must be self-sustaining — that is, the revenue the town receives from customers paying their water bills must be enough to cover the cost of operating the system — but it isn't, he said.

The police fine revenue received by Eastville enables the town to keep the water running and stash away more savings for a rainy day, and without it, Eastville's finances would be in "dire straits,"  Caison said.

I have observed the Eastville speed trap in operation on U.S. 13 northbound.  Clearly seems to be about raising revenue.

They have unmarked SUVs observing traffic well before the corporate limits (here (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3457987,-75.9405248,3a,75y,115.62h,72.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sktBkGIeFHafZm7v7Nhv_4A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DktBkGIeFHafZm7v7Nhv_4A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D179.57985%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)) on the northbound side and violators are pulled into the PNC Bank (at least when the bank is not open) prior to the signal at  VA-631 (Willow Oak Road). This might be legal because Virginia law usually grants municipal law enforcement some police powers outside of the city or town where they work. I do not know if they run a speed trap on other roads  such as Business U.S. 13 (Courthouse Road). 

Because Eastville is the county seat of Northampton County  the courts and a jail are located east of Business U.S. 13.

All of this are good reasons why county and municipal governments in Virginia should not be allowed to enact traffic laws that shadow those of Virginia and all revenue from traffic law enforcement should go to the Commonwealth - only.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on October 04, 2021, 05:38:56 PM
^ Eastville seems to be taking a page out of Hopewell and Emporia's playbook. 

I agree on your last paragraph. I might've mentioned this before a while back either here or on another thread, but back in 2012, the General Assembly tried to reduce the amount of ticket revenue local governments could keep, but that didn't last long thanks to the former delegate from Hopewell, Riley Ingram. He got that budget amendment repealed after Hopewell started feeling the pain. I had hoped that once the General Assembly changed hands, that the issue would be revisited, but it doesn't look like it. At least the Reckless Driving threshold was raised to 85mph, if nothing else. I thought Hell would freeze over before that ever happened.

I'll give these speed trap towns credit for being upfront and honest about why they're doing it instead of giving the typical "safety" argument. I guess they finally realize they're not kidding anyone anymore, so why bother? :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on October 04, 2021, 05:44:27 PM
Don't forget Waverly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 04, 2021, 08:32:21 PM
These must be more recent endeavors.  Both of my times stationed in Norfolk (where I was a frequent user of 13 along the Eastern Shore), I almost never saw a cop in either Eastville or Waverly.

Though in fairness, we're talking 7 years now since I lived in the region.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 04, 2021, 08:55:26 PM
It doesn't help that in a lot of areas these speed traps exist (usually on the outskirts where it's still rural, rather in the town / slower areas), the speed limits are artificially low to begin with. That first link where it's 55 mph could easily handle 70 mph. But do that, and you're almost getting a reckless ticket.

At minimum, Virginia should revise the existing law to add US-13 to the list of non-limited-access routes that can be posted at 60 mph, and increase those rural areas between towns. This applies to the entire corridor between the CBBT and the Maryland state line. The CBBT could reasonably be bumped to 60 mph as well, it's quite easy to hit 70+ mph without realizing it.

However, that will likely come with resistance from localities and most definitely the CBBT, so it's unrealistic for even a 5 mph increase. Then again, there was resistance when they did that to VA-207 and US-301 a few years back, but it still happened.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 04, 2021, 08:56:57 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2021, 08:32:21 PM
These must be more recent endeavors.  Both of my times stationed in Norfolk (where I was a frequent user of 13 along the Eastern Shore), I almost never saw a cop in either Eastville or Waverly.

Though in fairness, we're talking 7 years now since I lived in the region.

I had not seen a speed trap in Eastville before my last visit through there about 2 or 3 months prior to the outbreak of COVID19.  So it may be a fairly recent innovation.  But you rolled through there more than I.

Over the years, I have frequently seen VSP working radar between the Maryland border and the CBBT north toll barrier, but that is part of their job.  Sometimes the Accomack County and Northampton County SO's would also be out fishing for speeders on U.S. 13, but I wonder if they might not have more interest in illegal drugs, illegal firearms, untaxed liquor and large amounts of cash.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 04, 2021, 09:32:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2021, 08:55:26 PM
At minimum, Virginia should revise the existing law to add US-13 to the list of non-limited-access routes that can be posted at 60 mph, and increase those rural areas between towns. This applies to the entire corridor between the CBBT and the Maryland state line. The CBBT could reasonably be bumped to 60 mph as well, it's quite easy to hit 70+ mph without realizing it.

I'm not sure about raising the speed limit there. Yeah there's some straight alignments between some towns, but some of those have a pretty narrow median (with a ditch in it no less). It's just not the same higher speed quality roadway that it is in DE & MD.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on October 04, 2021, 09:54:40 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2021, 08:32:21 PM
These must be more recent endeavors.  Both of my times stationed in Norfolk (where I was a frequent user of 13 along the Eastern Shore), I almost never saw a cop in either Eastville or Waverly.

Though in fairness, we're talking 7 years now since I lived in the region.
I think we've been through this, Froggie:

https://www.facebook.com/WaverlyVirginaSpeedTrap/community

https://www.pilotonline.com/news/vp-nw-trap-20210417-awlh5d2tjbfofbzfcxzqi43ziu-story.html

https://www.leavittmartinlaw.com/case-results/waverly-va-dismissed-reckless-driving-ticket
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 04, 2021, 10:01:22 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 04, 2021, 05:38:56 PM
I'll give these speed trap towns credit for being upfront and honest about why they're doing it instead of giving the typical "safety" argument. I guess they finally realize they're not kidding anyone anymore, so why bother? :-D

Hopewell still uses the phrase "I-295 Highway Safety Program,"   along what might be a section of Virginia freeway so straight and so wide (at least from U.S. 460  to U.S. 360) that 80 MPH might be a reasonable speed limit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 04, 2021, 10:34:16 PM
Quote from: plain on October 04, 2021, 09:32:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2021, 08:55:26 PM
At minimum, Virginia should revise the existing law to add US-13 to the list of non-limited-access routes that can be posted at 60 mph, and increase those rural areas between towns. This applies to the entire corridor between the CBBT and the Maryland state line. The CBBT could reasonably be bumped to 60 mph as well, it's quite easy to hit 70+ mph without realizing it.

I'm not sure about raising the speed limit there. Yeah there's some straight alignments between some towns, but some of those have a pretty narrow median (with a ditch in it no less). It's just not the same higher speed quality roadway that it is in DE & MD.
It's not like it makes a difference, though. People already are pushing 70-75 mph on those straighter sections, having 60 mph for a few miles here and there wouldn't hurt where it could handle it. No one says it has to go for long distances.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on October 05, 2021, 01:00:32 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 04, 2021, 10:01:22 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 04, 2021, 05:38:56 PM
I'll give these speed trap towns credit for being upfront and honest about why they're doing it instead of giving the typical "safety" argument. I guess they finally realize they're not kidding anyone anymore, so why bother? :-D

Hopewell still uses the phrase "I-295 Highway Safety Program,"   along what might be a section of Virginia freeway so straight and so wide (at least from U.S. 460  to U.S. 360) that 80 MPH might be a reasonable speed limit.

Really? I figured they would've gave up on that phrase long by now after Ingram let the cat out of the bag.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on October 06, 2021, 08:19:12 AM
Quote from: LM117 on October 02, 2021, 09:34:32 AM
Quote from: LM117 on September 09, 2019, 08:18:15 AM
A little heads up for those going through Eastville...

https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/eastville-tops-in-state-in-percentage-of-law-enforcement-revenues/ (https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/eastville-tops-in-state-in-percentage-of-law-enforcement-revenues/)

This post came to mind when I saw an interesting piece in a recent article.

https://www.easternshorepost.com/2021/09/16/eastville-to-purchase-bingo-hall-to-help-with-fire-company-finances/ (https://www.easternshorepost.com/2021/09/16/eastville-to-purchase-bingo-hall-to-help-with-fire-company-finances/)

QuoteEastville's water system must be self-sustaining — that is, the revenue the town receives from customers paying their water bills must be enough to cover the cost of operating the system — but it isn't, he said.

The police fine revenue received by Eastville enables the town to keep the water running and stash away more savings for a rainy day, and without it, Eastville's finances would be in "dire straits,"  Caison said.

To add to this, Eastville PD Major Rob Stubbs gave a little more detailed explanation:

https://www.easternshorepost.com/2021/09/23/eastville-police-major-responds-to-recent-public-comments/ (https://www.easternshorepost.com/2021/09/23/eastville-police-major-responds-to-recent-public-comments/)

QuoteAlso under scrutiny is how much time Eastville police officers spend daily on traffic enforcement and how many tickets they write every month. In July, they issued more than 1,600 traffic citations. That number dropped considerably in August but was still more than 1,000.

Stubbs acknowledged that police fines help keep the town budget balanced and added that "we don't have a choice"  because Eastville's tax structure is different from that of other Eastern Shore towns.

Eastville charges residents real estate and property taxes, but they are "extremely low,"  he noted.

Without police fines, Eastville brings in annual revenue of less than $100,000 — not enough to sustain the town's operations.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on October 06, 2021, 12:53:18 PM
Virginia has now reached an agreement with Transurban to extend the Beltway toll lanes to the AL Bridge. Now it's up to Maryland to keep its promise.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on October 06, 2021, 03:27:26 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 06, 2021, 12:53:18 PM
Virginia has now reached an agreement with Transurban to extend the Beltway toll lanes to the AL Bridge. Now it's up to Maryland to keep its promise.
They need to reach a deal to make them bi-directional on 95 to Fredericksburg and let VA make the main lanes on 95 be either 4 wide OR at least up to interstate standards in PWC.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on October 06, 2021, 04:46:45 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 06, 2021, 03:27:26 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 06, 2021, 12:53:18 PM
Virginia has now reached an agreement with Transurban to extend the Beltway toll lanes to the AL Bridge. Now it's up to Maryland to keep its promise.
They need to reach a deal to make them bi-directional on 95 to Fredericksburg and let VA make the main lanes on 95 be either 4 wide OR at least up to interstate standards in PWC.

They've already looked into that and rejected it.

A more feasible option is removing traffic signals on 234 from 95 to 66.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on October 10, 2021, 12:59:12 AM
And when I was looking at the Meherrin River bridges, my mom always hated, hated, HATED driving on those things. They were over due for a replacement and they were making me bounce up and down in my seat.

After they got replaced, they didn't leave space for another lane... Unless it's not going to get widened in a while.

Now looking at I-95 north of Richmond, it should be 8 lanes by now... I hate driving up there... Way too much traffic to see my father who lives in New Jersey.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 10, 2021, 09:15:33 AM
Two project openings of note in the Fredericksburg area:

1.  The VA 3 Bus bridge over the Rappahannock River at downtown Fredericksburg reopens today after complete rehab and expansion of the 1942 bridge.

2.  Next Wednesday the I-95 SB local/express lanes through the US 17/17 Bus and VA 3 interchanges will open, though some lane closures for finishing work will still occur, in both sets of lanes, some of which look painful.  Everything should be fully open in mainline and the C/D lanes in December.  This should alleviate the backup that stems from a lot of traffic coming from US 17 SB to use I-95 SB.  A good overview of the interim patterns until Decmber can be found here (http://improve95.org/closure/)

It would not surprise me in the least if these C/D lanes will need to be extended to beyond US 1-17 at Exit 126, especially if they ever provide access to Harrison Rd or VA 208.

Well into 2022, the Express lanes extension from SR 610 Garrisonville will tie into the local/express setup.

The I-95 NB local/express project is still in the early stages of construction and is projected to be 2024 before it opens.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 10, 2021, 10:45:55 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 10, 2021, 09:15:33 AM
2.  Next Wednesday the I-95 SB local/express lanes through the US 17/17 Bus and VA 3 interchanges will open, though some lane closures for finishing work will still occur, in both sets of lanes, some of which look painful.
Important to distinguish these lanes, which are through / local non-tolled general purpose lanes, with the reversible express / HO/T lanes being constructed immediately north of the project.

As far as lane closures, it calls for reducing the through lanes from 3 to 2 near VA-3... I feel that will cause some horrible congestion until it's complete.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on October 10, 2021, 01:24:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 10, 2021, 10:45:55 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 10, 2021, 09:15:33 AM
2.  Next Wednesday the I-95 SB local/express lanes through the US 17/17 Bus and VA 3 interchanges will open, though some lane closures for finishing work will still occur, in both sets of lanes, some of which look painful.
Important to distinguish these lanes, which are through / local non-tolled general purpose lanes, with the reversible express / HO/T lanes being constructed immediately north of the project.

As far as lane closures, it calls for reducing the through lanes from 3 to 2 near VA-3... I feel that will cause some horrible congestion until it's complete.
Ugh.... 120,000 vpd yes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 10, 2021, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 10, 2021, 01:24:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 10, 2021, 10:45:55 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 10, 2021, 09:15:33 AM
2.  Next Wednesday the I-95 SB local/express lanes through the US 17/17 Bus and VA 3 interchanges will open, though some lane closures for finishing work will still occur, in both sets of lanes, some of which look painful.
Important to distinguish these lanes, which are through / local non-tolled general purpose lanes, with the reversible express / HO/T lanes being constructed immediately north of the project.

As far as lane closures, it calls for reducing the through lanes from 3 to 2 near VA-3... I feel that will cause some horrible congestion until it's complete.
Ugh.... 120,000 vpd yes.

The AADT of I-95 SB just past VA 3 is 64k (2019).  However, under the new setup, the contributions from US 17 in both directions to I-95 SB and VA 3 in both directions won't be in the lanes with the closed lane.

the two US 17 ramps to I-95 SB AADT is 24.4k (2019) [this traffic is using just one ramp during the construction]
the two VA 3 ramps to I-95 SB AADT add to 11.1k (2019)

So the traffic actually subject to the lane closure is more like 29k, which is not nothing, but maybe not gridlock (one would think if gridlock were going to be the result they would have phased it differently).  For comparison, this is about the same AADT as I-81 NB through the Harrisonburg area...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on October 10, 2021, 06:34:49 PM
Nifty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCSUUgWD_Mo
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 10, 2021, 06:56:27 PM
I note they misidentified VA-3 as US-3 at one point during that video.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 10, 2021, 07:46:13 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 10, 2021, 09:15:33 AM
Next Wednesday the I-95 SB local/express lanes through the US 17/17 Bus and VA 3 interchanges will open, though some lane closures for finishing work will still occur, in both sets of lanes, some of which look painful.  Everything should be fully open in mainline and the C/D lanes in December.  This should alleviate the backup that stems from a lot of traffic coming from US 17 SB to use I-95 SB.  A good overview of the interim patterns until Decmber can be found here (http://improve95.org/closure/)

It would not surprise me in the least if these C/D lanes will need to be extended to beyond US 1-17 at Exit 126, especially if they ever provide access to Harrison Rd or VA 208.

It will be very interesting to see whether or not a new daily southbound bottleneck forms south of VA-3 once this project is largely complete. Can't imagine how 6 lanes merging down into 3 will work out well on a road that has 64,000 southbound AADT. While a project to add a fourth southbound GP lane from southern end of this project to Exit 126 (US-1/US-17) was identified as part of the recent I-95 statewide study, it has not been prioritized for funding yet. Perhaps a new daily backup here would actually increase this project's chances of being funded.

Ideally, this glorified C/D lanes set up would indeed be extended further south and would then IMO become actual Local and Thru lanes similar to the I-270 and I-495 ones in the DC area. In addition to Exit 126 being improved, there would be new "Local" exits at Celebrate Virginia Parkway (Exit 131), Harrison Road (Exit 128), and maybe something even at a new road south of Exit 126 as that area continues to develop/sprawl (these new interchange spots were all studied by FAMPO about a decade ago). While having an interchange at VA-208 would be nice, it would probably be too close to the current Exit 126 (IMO there should've been two separate interchanges at VA-208 and US-17 instead of just one at US-1/US-17 when I-95 was originally built through the Fredericksburg area.)  At a minimum (which is most likely due to lack of funding) you will see I-95 widening to Exit 126 funded in the next couple of years. However, if the Fredericksburg area does ever decide to create a dedicated a regional transportation authority (which so far they have at least considered due to recent smart scale frustrations), then maybe you will see a larger C/D lane extension and/or a new interchange or two. IMO a big contributor to why traffic in Fredericksburg region is so bad is because of a lack of interchanges. Essentially all local traffic is forced to use either congested US-1 or even worse VA-3 which is why both of those interchanges are being upgraded. A Harrison road interchange in particular would really help serve the growing area west of I-95 and take a lot of traffic off of VA-3. The existing Harrison Road bridge is very close to needing to be replaced and thus presents a great opportunity for the state to account for putting an interchange there as a part of that future project. A similar approach to what was done at Exit 140 (where Courthouse Road not only got an upgraded interchange with I-95, but was also widened a couple of miles to the west) would be awesome and is not nearly as close to fictional territory as fully extending the C/D lanes south while also adding a bunch of new interchanges. All in all, I-95 traffic patterns after the Southbound Rappahannock River Crossing Project is fully complete will certainly be interesting to watch. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on October 10, 2021, 08:35:04 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 10, 2021, 06:56:27 PM
I note they misidentified VA-3 as US-3 at one point during that video.
People say "route", so it's not a huge deal. I just say the number highway. 95, 17, 3, 40, etc.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: odditude on October 11, 2021, 04:20:40 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 10, 2021, 08:35:04 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 10, 2021, 06:56:27 PM
I note they misidentified VA-3 as US-3 at one point during that video.
People say "route", so it's not a huge deal. I just say the number highway. 95, 17, 3, 40, etc.

misses like that are a flag for lack of attention to detail. for projects like this, it makes one wonder what other details were missed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on October 12, 2021, 07:29:49 PM
Quote from: odditude on October 11, 2021, 04:20:40 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 10, 2021, 08:35:04 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 10, 2021, 06:56:27 PM
I note they misidentified VA-3 as US-3 at one point during that video.
People say "route", so it's not a huge deal. I just say the number highway. 95, 17, 3, 40, etc.

misses like that are a flag for lack of attention to detail. for projects like this, it makes one wonder what other details were missed.
speaking as a traffic engineer and sign designer, there are very few firms that have competent sign designers and you quickly learn which they are.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 12, 2021, 07:35:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 12, 2021, 07:29:49 PM
Quote from: odditude on October 11, 2021, 04:20:40 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 10, 2021, 08:35:04 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 10, 2021, 06:56:27 PM
I note they misidentified VA-3 as US-3 at one point during that video.
People say "route", so it's not a huge deal. I just say the number highway. 95, 17, 3, 40, etc.

misses like that are a flag for lack of attention to detail. for projects like this, it makes one wonder what other details were missed.
speaking as a traffic engineer and sign designer, there are very few firms that have competent sign designers and you quickly learn which they are.

It's a VDOT video...VDOT has also posted a US 3 shield in the field not that far from I-95 within the last 10 years (since fixed).

The BGS renderings of VA 3 are correct which is all that really matters anyway...

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on October 12, 2021, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 12, 2021, 07:35:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 12, 2021, 07:29:49 PM
Quote from: odditude on October 11, 2021, 04:20:40 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on October 10, 2021, 08:35:04 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 10, 2021, 06:56:27 PM
I note they misidentified VA-3 as US-3 at one point during that video.
People say "route", so it's not a huge deal. I just say the number highway. 95, 17, 3, 40, etc.

misses like that are a flag for lack of attention to detail. for projects like this, it makes one wonder what other details were missed.
speaking as a traffic engineer and sign designer, there are very few firms that have competent sign designers and you quickly learn which they are.

It's a VDOT video...VDOT has also posted a US 3 shield in the field not that far from I-95 within the last 10 years (since fixed).

The BGS renderings of VA 3 are correct which is all that really matters anyway...


It speaks to the rarity of good sign designers in general, public or private.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 12, 2021, 09:49:25 PM
Ummmm... I believe something is missing from this BGS on I-95 SB

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jVAq91wXsNtDG3np7
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 08:45:14 AM
Have they looked at upgrading the PW Parkway to freeway standards from 95 to 66?

A quick google maps search shows that right now, at 8:43 AM EST, the height of the morning rush hour, the fastest way to get from Fredericksburg to Tysons is using 95 and the Beltway. So a new freeway could offer an attractive alternative, and relieve congestion on those stretches of highway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 13, 2021, 09:36:33 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 08:45:14 AM
Have they looked at upgrading the PW Parkway to freeway standards from 95 to 66?

A quick google maps search shows that right now, at 8:43 AM EST, the height of the morning rush hour, the fastest way to get from Fredericksburg to Tysons is using 95 and the Beltway. So a new freeway could offer an attractive alternative, and relieve congestion on those stretches of highway.

Seems highly unlikely ever to happen, mostly due to the amount of development along that road in the vicinity of Potomac Mills Mall (the end closer to I-95). If you wanted a freeway route from I-95 to I-66, Route 234 would be a better option than the Prince William Parkway, because it would be less difficult to upgrade, because it makes more logical sense in terms of a direct route for serving traffic coming from the south (or heading south), and because the Prince William Parkway ultimately joins Route 234 anyway. Look at a map and compare the route for traffic coming up from Fredericksburg via I-95 and Route 234 versus I-95 and the Prince William Parkway. If you go all the way to I-66, you wind up at the same place, but the latter route is much further out of the way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 10:31:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2021, 09:36:33 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 08:45:14 AM
Have they looked at upgrading the PW Parkway to freeway standards from 95 to 66?

A quick google maps search shows that right now, at 8:43 AM EST, the height of the morning rush hour, the fastest way to get from Fredericksburg to Tysons is using 95 and the Beltway. So a new freeway could offer an attractive alternative, and relieve congestion on those stretches of highway.

Seems highly unlikely ever to happen, mostly due to the amount of development along that road in the vicinity of Potomac Mills Mall (the end closer to I-95). If you wanted a freeway route from I-95 to I-66, Route 234 would be a better option than the Prince William Parkway, because it would be less difficult to upgrade, because it makes more logical sense in terms of a direct route for serving traffic coming from the south (or heading south), and because the Prince William Parkway ultimately joins Route 234 anyway. Look at a map and compare the route for traffic coming up from Fredericksburg via I-95 and Route 234 versus I-95 and the Prince William Parkway. If you go all the way to I-66, you wind up at the same place, but the latter route is much further out of the way.

I'm envisioning 234 and 28 becoming part of an Outer Beltway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ahj2000 on October 13, 2021, 10:59:15 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 10:31:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2021, 09:36:33 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 08:45:14 AM
Have they looked at upgrading the PW Parkway to freeway standards from 95 to 66?

A quick google maps search shows that right now, at 8:43 AM EST, the height of the morning rush hour, the fastest way to get from Fredericksburg to Tysons is using 95 and the Beltway. So a new freeway could offer an attractive alternative, and relieve congestion on those stretches of highway.

Seems highly unlikely ever to happen, mostly due to the amount of development along that road in the vicinity of Potomac Mills Mall (the end closer to I-95). If you wanted a freeway route from I-95 to I-66, Route 234 would be a better option than the Prince William Parkway, because it would be less difficult to upgrade, because it makes more logical sense in terms of a direct route for serving traffic coming from the south (or heading south), and because the Prince William Parkway ultimately joins Route 234 anyway. Look at a map and compare the route for traffic coming up from Fredericksburg via I-95 and Route 234 versus I-95 and the Prince William Parkway. If you go all the way to I-66, you wind up at the same place, but the latter route is much further out of the way.

I'm envisioning 234 and 28 becoming part of an Outer Beltway.
234 is kind of far out but is is built already....
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 12:00:44 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on October 13, 2021, 10:59:15 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 10:31:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2021, 09:36:33 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 08:45:14 AM
Have they looked at upgrading the PW Parkway to freeway standards from 95 to 66?

A quick google maps search shows that right now, at 8:43 AM EST, the height of the morning rush hour, the fastest way to get from Fredericksburg to Tysons is using 95 and the Beltway. So a new freeway could offer an attractive alternative, and relieve congestion on those stretches of highway.

Seems highly unlikely ever to happen, mostly due to the amount of development along that road in the vicinity of Potomac Mills Mall (the end closer to I-95). If you wanted a freeway route from I-95 to I-66, Route 234 would be a better option than the Prince William Parkway, because it would be less difficult to upgrade, because it makes more logical sense in terms of a direct route for serving traffic coming from the south (or heading south), and because the Prince William Parkway ultimately joins Route 234 anyway. Look at a map and compare the route for traffic coming up from Fredericksburg via I-95 and Route 234 versus I-95 and the Prince William Parkway. If you go all the way to I-66, you wind up at the same place, but the latter route is much further out of the way.

I'm envisioning 234 and 28 becoming part of an Outer Beltway.
234 is kind of far out but is is built already....
And it connects to VA 28, which already is mostly a freeway and goes by Dulles Airport.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 13, 2021, 02:15:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2021, 09:36:33 AM
Seems highly unlikely ever to happen, mostly due to the amount of development along that road in the vicinity of Potomac Mills Mall (the end closer to I-95). If you wanted a freeway route from I-95 to I-66, Route 234 would be a better option than the Prince William Parkway, because it would be less difficult to upgrade, because it makes more logical sense in terms of a direct route for serving traffic coming from the south (or heading south), and because the Prince William Parkway ultimately joins Route 234 anyway. Look at a map and compare the route for traffic coming up from Fredericksburg via I-95 and Route 234 versus I-95 and the Prince William Parkway. If you go all the way to I-66, you wind up at the same place, but the latter route is much further out of the way.

Quote from: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 10:31:25 AM
I'm envisioning 234 and 28 becoming part of an Outer Beltway.

Quote from: ahj2000 on October 13, 2021, 10:59:15 AM
234 is kind of far out but is is built already....

Quote from: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 12:00:44 PM
And it connects to VA 28, which already is mostly a freeway and goes by Dulles Airport.

Ouch!  Even 20 years ago, it was not an easy trip to take VA-234 to VA-28 and fight your way through Manassas.  It was much easier to take the Prince Bill (now VA-294) to Liberia Avenue and bypass around the east side of Manassas.  I can imagine that anything leading to VA-28 these days is quite slow.  (Back in those days, I was very familiar with both routes and knew when it would work out timewise, so I still used VA-234 to/from VA-28 quite a bit). 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: odditude on October 13, 2021, 06:32:37 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 13, 2021, 02:15:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2021, 09:36:33 AM
Seems highly unlikely ever to happen, mostly due to the amount of development along that road in the vicinity of Potomac Mills Mall (the end closer to I-95). If you wanted a freeway route from I-95 to I-66, Route 234 would be a better option than the Prince William Parkway, because it would be less difficult to upgrade, because it makes more logical sense in terms of a direct route for serving traffic coming from the south (or heading south), and because the Prince William Parkway ultimately joins Route 234 anyway. Look at a map and compare the route for traffic coming up from Fredericksburg via I-95 and Route 234 versus I-95 and the Prince William Parkway. If you go all the way to I-66, you wind up at the same place, but the latter route is much further out of the way.

Quote from: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 10:31:25 AM
I'm envisioning 234 and 28 becoming part of an Outer Beltway.

Quote from: ahj2000 on October 13, 2021, 10:59:15 AM
234 is kind of far out but is is built already....

Quote from: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 12:00:44 PM
And it connects to VA 28, which already is mostly a freeway and goes by Dulles Airport.

Ouch!  Even 20 years ago, it was not an easy trip to take VA-234 to VA-28 and fight your way through Manassas.  It was much easier to take the Prince Bill (now VA-294) to Liberia Avenue and bypass around the east side of Manassas.  I can imagine that anything leading to VA-28 these days is quite slow.  (Back in those days, I was very familiar with both routes and knew when it would work out timewise, so I still used VA-234 to/from VA-28 quite a bit).

remember, VA 28 is only a freeway north of I-66 - and any plans to extend the freeway portion south of Fairfax County or create a freeway bypass on the east side of Manassas have been repeatedly shot down.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 07:29:34 PM
Quote from: odditude on October 13, 2021, 06:32:37 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 13, 2021, 02:15:49 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2021, 09:36:33 AM
Seems highly unlikely ever to happen, mostly due to the amount of development along that road in the vicinity of Potomac Mills Mall (the end closer to I-95). If you wanted a freeway route from I-95 to I-66, Route 234 would be a better option than the Prince William Parkway, because it would be less difficult to upgrade, because it makes more logical sense in terms of a direct route for serving traffic coming from the south (or heading south), and because the Prince William Parkway ultimately joins Route 234 anyway. Look at a map and compare the route for traffic coming up from Fredericksburg via I-95 and Route 234 versus I-95 and the Prince William Parkway. If you go all the way to I-66, you wind up at the same place, but the latter route is much further out of the way.

Quote from: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 10:31:25 AM
I'm envisioning 234 and 28 becoming part of an Outer Beltway.

Quote from: ahj2000 on October 13, 2021, 10:59:15 AM
234 is kind of far out but is is built already....

Quote from: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 12:00:44 PM
And it connects to VA 28, which already is mostly a freeway and goes by Dulles Airport.

Ouch!  Even 20 years ago, it was not an easy trip to take VA-234 to VA-28 and fight your way through Manassas.  It was much easier to take the Prince Bill (now VA-294) to Liberia Avenue and bypass around the east side of Manassas.  I can imagine that anything leading to VA-28 these days is quite slow.  (Back in those days, I was very familiar with both routes and knew when it would work out timewise, so I still used VA-234 to/from VA-28 quite a bit).

remember, VA 28 is only a freeway north of I-66 - and any plans to extend the freeway portion south of Fairfax County or create a freeway bypass on the east side of Manassas have been repeatedly shot down.

But they're going ahead with a western bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 13, 2021, 09:03:13 PM
That's not set in stone either, nevermind that what's being proposed doesn't tie directly into 66...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 13, 2021, 09:36:11 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2021, 09:03:13 PM
That's not set in stone either, nevermind that what's being proposed doesn't tie directly into 66...
And it's not a freeway design to begin with.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 13, 2021, 09:51:26 PM
Should their not be a 3rd control city on that BGS for a 3 west destination.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 11:24:56 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2021, 09:03:13 PM
That's not set in stone either, nevermind that what's being proposed doesn't tie directly into 66...
They're widening VA 28 north of the planned bypass to 6 lanes.

We saw this play out with VA 7. First they widen it from 2 lanes to a 4 lane divided highway, then they widen it to 6 lanes, then they replace signalized intersections with interchanges and before you know it, your country road is now a freeway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 14, 2021, 08:50:29 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 13, 2021, 07:29:34 PM
But they're going ahead with a western bypass.

Ever heard of the Montgomery County, Maryland Agricultural Reserve?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 14, 2021, 08:57:51 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2021, 09:36:33 AM
Seems highly unlikely ever to happen, mostly due to the amount of development along that road in the vicinity of Potomac Mills Mall (the end closer to I-95). If you wanted a freeway route from I-95 to I-66, Route 234 would be a better option than the Prince William Parkway, because it would be less difficult to upgrade, because it makes more logical sense in terms of a direct route for serving traffic coming from the south (or heading south), and because the Prince William Parkway ultimately joins Route 234 anyway. Look at a map and compare the route for traffic coming up from Fredericksburg via I-95 and Route 234 versus I-95 and the Prince William Parkway. If you go all the way to I-66, you wind up at the same place, but the latter route is much further out of the way.

I agree.

The design of VA-294 (Prince William Parkway) is much less like an expressway than VA-286 and VA-289 (Fairfax County Parkway and Franconia-Springfield Parkway respectively) and much more like a suburban arterial.

Only the VA-234 part of Prince William Parkway has the "look and feel" of an expressway.

The part of VA-234 that is Dumfries Road is not an expressway design either, but the right-of-way is wider than most of VA-294.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on October 14, 2021, 09:02:34 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 06, 2021, 04:46:45 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 06, 2021, 03:27:26 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 06, 2021, 12:53:18 PM
Virginia has now reached an agreement with Transurban to extend the Beltway toll lanes to the AL Bridge. Now it's up to Maryland to keep its promise.
They need to reach a deal to make them bi-directional on 95 to Fredericksburg and let VA make the main lanes on 95 be either 4 wide OR at least up to interstate standards in PWC.

They've already looked into that and rejected it.

A more feasible option is removing traffic signals on 234 from 95 to 66.
They rejected what, bi-directional HOT on I-95?
Kinda messed up 66 will have bi-HOT but not 95 when if anything it should be the reverse.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 14, 2021, 07:58:59 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 14, 2021, 09:02:34 AM
They rejected what, bi-directional HOT on I-95?
Kinda messed up 66 will have bi-HOT but not 95 when if anything it should be the reverse.

The reversible managed lanes on I-95 are a legacy of the design of the I-95 Busway (2 reversible lanes) that began operation in 1969 while the reconstruction of VA-350 to I-95 was in process (they were designed and engineered by VDH and its consultants prior to 1969). This ran from the D.C. side of the 14th Street Bridge to a point south of VA-644 (Franconia Road), and the restricted lanes now are along I-395 north of I-495 after this part was renumbered from I-95 to I-395 about 1973 or 1974.

After some years of busway operation the lanes were opened to car-pools (HOV-4) in the late 1970's and the HOV-4 requirement was lowered to HOV-3 not long after.  In the 1980's interim HOV-3 concurrent-flow lanes were extended to Prince William County.  In the 1990's the barrier separated HOV lanes were extended south from VA-644 to VA-234 in stages replacing the inadequate concurrent-flow HOV lanes.

After about 2010, a public-private partnership deal was signed between VDOT and Transurban to convert the I-95 part of the HOV corridor and the far southern part of the I-395 HOV lanes from 2 HOV lanes to mostly three HOV/toll lanes (styled 95Express) and extend to VA-610 in Garrisonville in Stafford County.  Due to legal objections from Arlington County most of I-395 was to remain as HOV-3 lanes for several more years.  Conversion to 95Express happened in  2014.

The rest of the corridor along I-395 was converted to mostly three managed lanes in 2019 (styled 395Express), with about 37 miles of reversible managed lanes in operation now from Garrisonville to the Virginia shore of the Potomac River.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 15, 2021, 12:27:29 AM
The new reversible lanes south of Woodbridge should have been at least designed to accommodate a second carriageway in the opposite direction, but it does not appear that was done.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 15, 2021, 07:04:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 15, 2021, 12:27:29 AM
The new reversible lanes south of Woodbridge should have been at least designed to accommodate a second carriageway in the opposite direction, but it does not appear that was done.

The worst congestion is north of Woodbridge, especially for southbound traffic.

Adding non-reversible lanes would likely make the bottleneck conditions worse, not better.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 15, 2021, 07:17:15 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 15, 2021, 07:04:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 15, 2021, 12:27:29 AM
The new reversible lanes south of Woodbridge should have been at least designed to accommodate a second carriageway in the opposite direction, but it does not appear that was done.

The worst congestion is north of Woodbridge, especially for southbound traffic.

Adding none-reversible lanes would likely make the bottleneck conditions worse, not better.
Not saying build it out, necessarily, but at least have the grading and right of way acquired for a second carriageway in the future.

That way, if ever in the future, the reversible lanes are twinned heading north of Woodbridge, ig could continue south as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 15, 2021, 12:37:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 15, 2021, 07:17:15 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 15, 2021, 07:04:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 15, 2021, 12:27:29 AM
The new reversible lanes south of Woodbridge should have been at least designed to accommodate a second carriageway in the opposite direction, but it does not appear that was done.

The worst congestion is north of Woodbridge, especially for southbound traffic.

Adding none-reversible lanes would likely make the bottleneck conditions worse, not better.
Not saying build it out, necessarily, but at least have the grading and right of way acquired for a second carriageway in the future.

That way, if ever in the future, the reversible lanes are twinned heading north of Woodbridge, ig could continue south as well.

I believe that would need to take homes on one or both sides of I-95 between VA-294 and VA-123.  Where would the transition be from reversible lanes to non-reversible be?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 15, 2021, 01:16:45 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 15, 2021, 12:37:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 15, 2021, 07:17:15 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 15, 2021, 07:04:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 15, 2021, 12:27:29 AM
The new reversible lanes south of Woodbridge should have been at least designed to accommodate a second carriageway in the opposite direction, but it does not appear that was done.

The worst congestion is north of Woodbridge, especially for southbound traffic.

Adding none-reversible lanes would likely make the bottleneck conditions worse, not better.
Not saying build it out, necessarily, but at least have the grading and right of way acquired for a second carriageway in the future.

That way, if ever in the future, the reversible lanes are twinned heading north of Woodbridge, ig could continue south as well.

I believe that would need to take homes on one or both sides of I-95 between VA-294 and VA-123.  Where would the transition be from reversible lanes to non-reversible be?
To be effective, it would need to stretch from I-495 heading southwards and tie directly into the Fredericksburg C/D lanes, similar to how the reversible is being constructed, but obviously in both directions.

You could build a viaduct in the most urban areas to reduce right of way impact.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 19, 2021, 02:22:02 PM
Governor Northam Announces New I-95 Bridge Opens in Fredericksburg (https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2021/october/headline-909977-en.html)

Surprisingly, I did not see this posted...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 19, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 19, 2021, 02:22:02 PM
Governor Northam Announces New I-95 Bridge Opens in Fredericksburg (https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2021/october/headline-909977-en.html)

Surprisingly, I did not see this posted...

Reply #5924 of this thread...

On Saturday, the new SB mainline lanes were backed way up, at least 2 miles from what I presume was the temporary lane drop.  I'll be driving through the very north end of the new setup (local lanes) today for the first time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 19, 2021, 04:39:13 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 19, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 19, 2021, 02:22:02 PM
Governor Northam Announces New I-95 Bridge Opens in Fredericksburg (https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2021/october/headline-909977-en.html)

Surprisingly, I did not see this posted...

Reply #5924 of this thread...

On Saturday, the new SB mainline lanes were backed way up, at least 2 miles from what I presume was the temporary lane drop.  I'll be driving through the very north end of the new setup (local lanes) today for the first time.

Of course, it was at the bottom of page 237.   :banghead:  I kept looking at the beginning of page 238.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 20, 2021, 01:55:37 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1450872707562758144
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on October 20, 2021, 03:32:10 PM
https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/design-contract-ok-d-for-route-28-bypass/article_9d0a6d9c-31d9-11ec-9320-afb458163acb.html

PWC has awarded a design contract to WSP for the Route 28 bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 20, 2021, 08:48:55 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on October 13, 2021, 09:51:26 PM
Should their not be a 3rd control city on that BGS for a 3 west destination.

The actual installed BGSs leading to and at the split have 4 destinations:  Falmouth/Warrenton on the US 17 BGS and Fredericksburg/Culpeper on the VA 3 BGSs
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on October 26, 2021, 05:35:55 PM
https://loudounnow.com/2021/10/26/loudoun-launching-424m-plan-for-rt-7-east-of-rt-28/

Loudoun looks very keen on extending Super 7 (my name) to the Fairfax County border.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 28, 2021, 10:21:27 AM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1453719467767173129
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 28, 2021, 10:24:16 AM
Meanwhile, on I-395 last night....

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1453707358815887367
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on October 28, 2021, 10:40:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 28, 2021, 10:21:27 AM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1453719467767173129

I wouldn't call that "SWVA." It's stretching it to call Martinsville or Roanoke SWVA. Isn't I-77 something of an unofficial cutoff point?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 28, 2021, 11:35:07 AM
I've pretty much always heard Roanoke considered as being where Southwest Virginia begins.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 28, 2021, 11:37:43 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 28, 2021, 10:24:16 AM
Meanwhile, on I-395 last night....

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1453707358815887367

I want to type a reaction to this, but I just cannot without literally going insane.   :pan:

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 28, 2021, 11:35:07 AM
I've pretty much always heard Roanoke considered as being where Southwest Virginia begins.

Yeah I believe that Virginia Tech considers itself as part of southwest Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 28, 2021, 01:50:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 28, 2021, 10:24:16 AM
Meanwhile, on I-395 last night....

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1453707358815887367

I ran out of words already for this shit smdh.



Quote from: hbelkins on October 28, 2021, 10:40:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 28, 2021, 10:21:27 AM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1453719467767173129

I wouldn't call that "SWVA." It's stretching it to call Martinsville or Roanoke SWVA. Isn't I-77 something of an unofficial cutoff point?

I sure wouldn't call it Central VA...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on October 28, 2021, 03:14:18 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 28, 2021, 10:24:16 AM
Meanwhile, on I-395 last night....

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1453707358815887367

Where I live isn't anything to brag about by any means, but shit like this makes me glad I don't live in NOVA.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 28, 2021, 03:42:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 28, 2021, 10:40:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 28, 2021, 10:21:27 AM
https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1453719467767173129

I wouldn't call that "SWVA." It's stretching it to call Martinsville or Roanoke SWVA. Isn't I-77 something of an unofficial cutoff point?

There are numerous businesses, etc. named Southwestern VA... in Martinsville.  A better definition would be US 220/VA 311 as a boundary (the western Virginia border starts going north roughly there).

My thought when I saw this throwback photo is why did they only straighten out one part of VA 40 over there (I did find one other small bit on historic aerials), when the western 20 miles of VA 40 are quite twisty (despite little elevation change).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on October 29, 2021, 10:42:43 AM
^^^

It looks like the straightening also involved building a bridge or a drainage structure. I see guardrails in the distance of the color photo, so it could have been that when there was a need to do the stream crossing, the decision was made to straighten the road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 29, 2021, 12:42:48 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2021, 10:42:43 AM
^^^

It looks like the straightening also involved building a bridge or a drainage structure. I see guardrails in the distance of the color photo, so it could have been that when there was a need to do the stream crossing, the decision was made to straighten the road.

Perhaps...

The 1948 aerial shows no discernible creek crossing structure (was probably just a culvert, though the 1945 Patrick Co map does show a bridge).  The pond just visible on the left side of the modern photo was not there in 1948 (was there in 1955) and the original routing is covered by the other end of the pond.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on October 31, 2021, 01:04:09 AM
I noticed something odd about signage for both Colonial Williamsburg and Busch Gardens on I-64.  VDOT uses a brown border on Exit 53As guide for Busch Gardens while the historic Williamsburg uses a normal white on green.  In many states it would be reversed.  A historic area of a city would get a brown sign while a theme park on green.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 31, 2021, 10:58:40 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 31, 2021, 01:04:09 AM
I noticed something odd about signage for both Colonial Williamsburg and Busch Gardens on I-64.  VDOT uses a brown border on Exit 53As guide for Busch Gardens while the historic Williamsburg uses a normal white on green.  In many states it would be reversed.  A historic area of a city would get a brown sign while a theme park on green.

I think it is because mixed types of destinations are on a single BGS.  The example you cite has been this way over 30 years now.

Here is an attempt to separate these out on a single sign in Northern Virginia.  https://goo.gl/maps/f6dc44apBJwUW7sEA

A better looking job is on I-64 WB approaching Busch Gardens - https://goo.gl/maps/bYiTfB5v6PRsX7v19

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 31, 2021, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 31, 2021, 01:04:09 AM
I noticed something odd about signage for both Colonial Williamsburg and Busch Gardens on I-64.  VDOT uses a brown border on Exit 53As guide for Busch Gardens while the historic Williamsburg uses a normal white on green.  In many states it would be reversed.  A historic area of a city would get a brown sign while a theme park on green.

Quote from: Mapmikey on October 31, 2021, 10:58:40 AM
I think it is because mixed types of destinations are on a single BGS.  The example you cite has been this way over 30 years now.

The point here is that the term "Historic Williamsburg" refers to a living history museum village, which should be a "Brown Sign" destination instead of a control destination on a BGS exit sign (just like Mount Vernon, only way bigger).  VDOT also includes attractions such as Busch Gardens and Kings Dominion on "Brown Signs".  Most other states won't do that (unless the theme park is of historic nature, of which I know no examples).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on October 31, 2021, 02:27:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 28, 2021, 10:24:16 AM
Meanwhile, on I-395 last night....

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1453707358815887367

Absolutely terrible.  There are enough reports of this happening at this location that it is a known problem, yet nothing is being done.

I have some suggestions:

1) Enforcement.  While not generally liking speed/red light cameras, I think the egregiousness of the safety issues here warrant an exception.  I don't believe VA generally allows camera enforement, but legislation shoud be drafted to allow it here.

2) Change toll policies.  For a very long time, the very northern section of the 395 express lanes were open for free for all traffic.  Yes, there were HOV restrictions between the Beltway and Pentagon during rush hour, and that section was reversible flowing only in the direction of dominant traffic flow.  But the very northern section is 2-way and was open to everyone, so much so that a lot of traffic migrated from the general lanes to the express lanes after passing the Pentagon.  The effect of this was evening out the traffic flow so that all lanes of northbound 395 had the same level of backup.

For whatever reason, when the section between the Beltway and Pentagon migrated from rush hour HOV to full-time HOT, VDOT and DDOT allowed for the toll restriction to continue onto the part of the roadway to also include the parts north of the Pentagon, including the 14th street bridge.  No new capacity on this stretch was created by the toll authority, they simply repurposed lanes that were previously open to general traffic 24/7 to toll customers only.  Naturally, this created the horrendous backups on the general lanes that drivers are backing up to try to avoid.  So, if VDOT and DDOT were to remove the toll restriction from the express lanes north of the Pentagon, the resulting backups would be spread evenly over all lanes and the incentive to do this dangerous backup manuever would be removed.

It should be pointed out that almost nobody did this before the toll restrictions changed.  The toll restrictions directly result in causing the backups that we see here, especially outside of morning rush hour.

3) Construction changes to some of the nearby ramps.  The pylons added do not work, so maybe VDOT needs to be a little more drastic:

- Close down this left entrance ramp to the express lanes
- Close down the on-ramps from Pentagon and VA-110 SB onto I-395 N in this area.  Many of the cars that do this backup are entering from one of those two ramps, especially VA-110 SB.
- Create an onramp downstream from this from the general lanes to the express lanes

All of this is significantly expensive, so I would strongly prefer if 1 or 2 were implemented instead of 3.  Plus, making changes to the ramps could produce other problems in this very tricky area where so many highways in NOVA come together
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 31, 2021, 04:01:00 PM
I believe one of the main reasons given for tolling the approach to the bridge* was that not doing so would discourage paying customers from using the express lanes if they slammed to a stop outside the Pentagon every day.

*The bridge itself isn't tolled inbound or outbound, though of course inbound you can't get to it without passing under the last gantry.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on October 31, 2021, 08:28:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 31, 2021, 04:01:00 PM
I believe one of the main reasons given for tolling the approach to the bridge* was that not doing so would discourage paying customers from using the express lanes if they slammed to a stop outside the Pentagon every day.

*The bridge itself isn't tolled inbound or outbound, though of course inbound you can't get to it without passing under the last gantry.

In my book, that's equivalent to tolling the bridge, at least in the inbound direction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 01, 2021, 08:24:11 AM
My mom mentioned this when we had dinner with her and my brother on Saturday, but she didn't know any details: School zone speed cameras making an appearance in Fairfax City. (https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2021/11/slow-down-fairfax-city-speed-cameras-near-schools-now-watching/)

I have trouble picturing where they would put one near Frost (which is where I went to junior high) because the school is up at a dead-end part of Pickett Road where there's no thru traffic because the school is the only thing up there. Maybe they mean it will be one camera along Main Street within the city limits in the general area of Frost and Woodson. (Route 236, Main Street, is within city limits there, but both Frost and Woodson are outside city limits in Fairfax County.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on November 01, 2021, 01:05:54 PM
Quote from: plain on July 09, 2021, 07:15:43 AM
https://www.nbc12.com/2021/07/08/peta-seeks-safety-designation-stretch-virginia-road-prone-hog-truck-crashes/?fbclid=IwAR2l8OOCtscFpmGKNkJXarjX16IFppNQZHNWnPbVGmNicC_iIIlykpyb5-M

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

i guess i'm a little confused... peta is concerned that these hogs are being killed ... on their way to being killed? i mean, i hate to see an animal suffer, but in a short time (if they're on va-10, i'm assuming they're smithfield-bound) is it really going to matter?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on November 02, 2021, 11:29:12 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 31, 2021, 10:58:40 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 31, 2021, 01:04:09 AM
I noticed something odd about signage for both Colonial Williamsburg and Busch Gardens on I-64.  VDOT uses a brown border on Exit 53As guide for Busch Gardens while the historic Williamsburg uses a normal white on green.  In many states it would be reversed.  A historic area of a city would get a brown sign while a theme park on green.

I think it is because mixed types of destinations are on a single BGS.  The example you cite has been this way over 30 years now.

Here is an attempt to separate these out on a single sign in Northern Virginia.  https://goo.gl/maps/f6dc44apBJwUW7sEA

A better looking job is on I-64 WB approaching Busch Gardens - https://goo.gl/maps/bYiTfB5v6PRsX7v19



Florida would use split color panels.  Though VDOT's way is interesting and nice too.  However, FDOT (where I am from) would definitely sign theme parks as regular control cities on green signs.  Brown is for historical places only as well as parks.

Yes I know how VDOT signs theme parks as I have seen Kings Dominion for ages on my trips to and from FL to NJ and been to Busch Gardens in Williamsburg many times in the eighties as a kid on family trips.  However, for a while the exit for VA 199 W Bound did sign Busch Gardens with Williamsburg and Jamestown as normal.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 02, 2021, 12:14:52 PM
Kentucky has used split-color signs before. I'm pretty sure I've seen a sign with three colors (brown, green, and blue) on it.

In Kentucky, at least, some of those brown tourist attraction signs are paid for by the entities shown on the signs.

https://transportation.ky.gov/TrafficOperations/Pages/Sign-Programs-and-Standards.aspx
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 02, 2021, 12:35:46 PM
Virginia sometimes uses other sorts of split-color signs. There's this one on the Beltway, for example, which I regard as erroneous because the word "and" should not be capitalized: https://goo.gl/maps/QxXgsPUtfA1e4oNGA

Here's one near Charlottesville on which the blue used to refer to the Monticello visitors' center: https://goo.gl/maps/yuHrj1CQ15SaXQy29
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 02, 2021, 12:38:14 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 02, 2021, 12:35:46 PM
Virginia sometimes uses other sorts of split-color signs. There's this one on the Beltway, for example, which I regard as erroneous because the word "and" should not be capitalized: https://goo.gl/maps/QxXgsPUtfA1e4oNGA


Could be named after someone...you've never heard of the famous Virginian, Mr. Ampers And?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 05, 2021, 06:56:05 AM
Am I the only person here who thinks these signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6583048,-77.46057,3a,75y,105.52h,93.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJHdBRYldSuYA5AFp2MFORA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) would be better suited on an overhead sign gantry? Or at least mounted on the overpass?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on November 05, 2021, 07:16:35 AM
VDOT have been actively removing BGSs from overpasses for a few years now. I guess they don't want the added weight on them. Some of them were placed on separate gantries while others were just ground mounted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 05, 2021, 08:17:36 AM
It leads to some dumb results sometimes, too. These signs near Springfield Mall (https://goo.gl/maps/QBqdKaEdhVdd42916) used to be mounted to the overpass and were moved to a gantry that pushed them closer to the mast arm for the traffic lights. Same thing coming the other way leaving the Metrorail station. (https://goo.gl/maps/LgaZTjCz8kqMV7ndA) (That interchange and road pattern is slated for big-time changes if/when they extend Frontier Drive to Loisdale Road, so maybe these signs will be replaced again.)

In D-Dey65's post, you can see the markings on the overpass where the signs used to be mounted. A click back to the older Street View images shows how both signs used to be up there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 05, 2021, 08:33:20 AM
They started removing BGSs from overpasses shortly after the 2011 Mineral earthquake. Don't know if that timing is coincidental or not.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 05, 2021, 10:05:09 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 05, 2021, 08:33:20 AM
They started removing BGSs from overpasses shortly after the 2011 Mineral earthquake. Don't know if that timing is coincidental or not.

Maryland started taking them down at about the same time.  The Mineral quake was felt in much of Maryland.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on November 05, 2021, 10:42:42 AM
At risk of getting political: What impact do we think the new governor will have on Virginia's transportation priorities?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 05, 2021, 10:51:25 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 05, 2021, 10:42:42 AM
At risk of getting political: What impact do we think the new governor will have on Virginia's transportation priorities?

No idea. While I admit I generally muted the campaign ads on TV (mainly because both sides' ads were mostly negative attack ads instead of anything productive), I don't think transportation was a big issue in this year's campaign. Didn't hear much from either side about it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 05, 2021, 11:02:03 AM
Only thing transportation related I've seen about the incoming governor is he wants to repeal a recent gas tax increase.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on November 05, 2021, 03:48:45 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 05, 2021, 10:05:09 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 05, 2021, 08:33:20 AM
They started removing BGSs from overpasses shortly after the 2011 Mineral earthquake. Don't know if that timing is coincidental or not.

Maryland started taking them down at about the same time.  The Mineral quake was felt in much of Maryland.
NJ Tpk. Authority has been gradually removing them since... either then or a couple of years before then.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 05, 2021, 08:02:20 PM
In past correspondence I've had with MnDOT on the subject, they mentioned that research suggests having signs directly mounted to the overpass tends to weaken the overpass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 05, 2021, 08:41:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 05, 2021, 11:02:03 AM
Only thing transportation related I've seen about the incoming governor is he wants to repeal a recent gas tax increase.

I hadn't heard that, but I did hear he wants to do a gas tax holiday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 05, 2021, 09:00:36 PM
A WaPo article from today (https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/11/05/youngkin-virginia-transportation/) about Youngkin's transportation policy, or lack thereof.  As noted upthread, he hasn't said much nor was it a major issue in the Governor's race.  What little we know can be boiled down into four things:


Not sure how he intends to invest more when he wants to cut the gas tax...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on November 05, 2021, 10:54:10 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 05, 2021, 09:00:36 PM
A WaPo article from today (https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/11/05/youngkin-virginia-transportation/) about Youngkin's transportation policy, or lack thereof.  As noted upthread, he hasn't said much nor was it a major issue in the Governor's race.  What little we know can be boiled down into four things:

  • Transportation decisions should be "data driven".
  • Suspending a recent $0.05/gal gas tax increase.
  • "Fixing" the DMV.
  • Invest more in roads and highways.

Not sure how he intends to invest more when he wants to cut the gas tax...

LOL
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 06, 2021, 06:20:53 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 02, 2021, 12:14:52 PM
Kentucky has used split-color signs before. I'm pretty sure I've seen a sign with three colors (brown, green, and blue) on it.

In Kentucky, at least, some of those brown tourist attraction signs are paid for by the entities shown on the signs.

https://transportation.ky.gov/TrafficOperations/Pages/Sign-Programs-and-Standards.aspx
The hell with this. I want to see NYSDOT use split green and brown signs at Exit 18 on the Southern State Parkway.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on November 07, 2021, 09:45:00 AM
I got to drive the full length of the GW parkway yesterday and it is very lovely. Also, I was amazed how empty the express lanes on 95 were.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: SSOWorld on November 07, 2021, 08:03:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 07, 2021, 09:45:00 AM
I got to drive the full length of the GW parkway yesterday and it is very lovely. Also, I was amazed how empty the express lanes on 95 were.
Because the express lanes cost an arm and a leg to drive!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on November 07, 2021, 08:50:20 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 07, 2021, 08:03:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 07, 2021, 09:45:00 AM
I got to drive the full length of the GW parkway yesterday and it is very lovely. Also, I was amazed how empty the express lanes on 95 were.
Because the express lanes cost an arm and a leg to drive!
Between my parents and I, we had an HOV 3+ carpool but we were worried about how we would get off them.

Today though, with my sister joining us, we did use the beltway express lanes up to I-66. Driving down that highway really gives you an idea of the scale of the express lane project
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on November 07, 2021, 09:07:08 PM
Does anyone have some information about the plans to extend the GW parkway to Great Falls in the 50s and 60s?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 07, 2021, 09:27:02 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 07, 2021, 08:03:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 07, 2021, 09:45:00 AM
I got to drive the full length of the GW parkway yesterday and it is very lovely. Also, I was amazed how empty the express lanes on 95 were.
Because the express lanes cost an arm and a leg to drive!

It is plausible he went by not long after the lanes switched directions, which they do on Saturdays
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on November 07, 2021, 09:34:21 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 07, 2021, 09:27:02 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 07, 2021, 08:03:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 07, 2021, 09:45:00 AM
I got to drive the full length of the GW parkway yesterday and it is very lovely. Also, I was amazed how empty the express lanes on 95 were.
Because the express lanes cost an arm and a leg to drive!

It is plausible he went by not long after the lanes switched directions, which they do on Saturdays

Traffic was really bad on 95 NB and yet the lanes were SB.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 08, 2021, 07:35:59 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 07, 2021, 09:34:21 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 07, 2021, 09:27:02 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on November 07, 2021, 08:03:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 07, 2021, 09:45:00 AM
I got to drive the full length of the GW parkway yesterday and it is very lovely. Also, I was amazed how empty the express lanes on 95 were.
Because the express lanes cost an arm and a leg to drive!

It is plausible he went by not long after the lanes switched directions, which they do on Saturdays

Traffic was really bad on 95 NB and yet the lanes were SB.

With rare exceptions, they follow a regular schedule for reversal–it's based on time, not traffic. Very rarely, they'll reverse them at special times if there's a special event going on, but the key words there are "very rarely"–and they'll never have, for example, the lanes south of the Beltway going northbound and the I-395 lanes inside the Beltway going southbound.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: RoadPelican on November 08, 2021, 07:07:14 PM
New Governor Youngkin probably will invest more money in widening rural highways at the expense of projects in urban areas.  I remember when Larry Hogan got elected Governor in Maryland he used money allocated for the Purple Line in Montgomery County to widen State Routes 113 & 404 on the Eastern Shore.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 08, 2021, 09:14:57 PM
There will be a push from his party for just that, but Youngkin is also from Northern Virginia and is very aware of it's status as economic engine and perennial traffic pit.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on November 08, 2021, 10:34:51 PM
Quote from: RoadPelican on November 08, 2021, 07:07:14 PM
New Governor Youngkin probably will invest more money in widening rural highways at the expense of projects in urban areas.  I remember when Larry Hogan got elected Governor in Maryland he used money allocated for the Purple Line in Montgomery County to widen State Routes 113 & 404 on the Eastern Shore.
Gov. Hogan fulfilled a campaign promise by having his Transpo Secy Pete Rahn ask each of the 23 counties what was their most pressing unfunded road need. These projects were funded, including 4 laning a stretch of MD-404 in Talbot and Caroline Counties, and a stretch of US-113 in Worcester County. The $2 billion in funding came from cancelling the Red Line in Baltimore (2.64 billion), and reducing state aid to the Montgomery/Prince Georges Countys' Purple Line (700 million to 168 million). (No, the math doesn't add up completely.) Indeed, these projects were mostly in rural areas at the expense of mass transit projects in highly populated areas.

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/hogan-state-will-not-proceed-with-red-line-as-it-s-currently-designed/7094342

Back to Virginia........

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 09, 2021, 11:18:03 AM
One could argue that the widening of 404 was done for the benefit of urban-area residents, as it's a highly-traveled route from Annapolis/Baltimore/suburban DC to the beaches.

As for Virginia, one has to determine what the major priorities are in a transportation program. Reducing congestion? Improving safety? Economic development? Better connectivity? The first consideration skews toward urban areas, and in some instances, rural interstates such as I-81.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2021, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 06, 2021, 06:20:53 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 02, 2021, 12:14:52 PM
Kentucky has used split-color signs before. I'm pretty sure I've seen a sign with three colors (brown, green, and blue) on it.

In Kentucky, at least, some of those brown tourist attraction signs are paid for by the entities shown on the signs.

https://transportation.ky.gov/TrafficOperations/Pages/Sign-Programs-and-Standards.aspx
The hell with this. I want to see NYSDOT use split green and brown signs at Exit 18 on the Southern State Parkway.



NJDOT does it well here.

Oh, I guess my home state is most definitely guilty of using wrong color signs. Brown for a shopping center?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on November 09, 2021, 09:51:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 09, 2021, 11:18:03 AM
As for Virginia, one has to determine what the major priorities are in a transportation program. Reducing congestion? Improving safety? Economic development? Better connectivity? The first consideration skews toward urban areas, and in some instances, rural interstates such as I-81.

I would think/hope that with this new funding Virginia will finally be able to finish widening I-64 between Williamsburg and Richmond. I think everyone in the state can agree on that being a priority both urban and rural.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on November 09, 2021, 09:52:14 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on November 08, 2021, 10:34:51 PM
Quote from: RoadPelican on November 08, 2021, 07:07:14 PM
New Governor Youngkin probably will invest more money in widening rural highways at the expense of projects in urban areas.  I remember when Larry Hogan got elected Governor in Maryland he used money allocated for the Purple Line in Montgomery County to widen State Routes 113 & 404 on the Eastern Shore.
Gov. Hogan fulfilled a campaign promise by having his Transpo Secy Pete Rahn ask each of the 23 counties what was their most pressing unfunded road need. These projects were funded, including 4 laning a stretch of MD-404 in Talbot and Caroline Counties, and a stretch of US-113 in Worcester County. The $2 billion in funding came from cancelling the Red Line in Baltimore (2.64 billion), and reducing state aid to the Montgomery/Prince Georges Countys' Purple Line (700 million to 168 million). (No, the math doesn't add up completely.) Indeed, these projects were mostly in rural areas at the expense of mass transit projects in highly populated areas.

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/hogan-state-will-not-proceed-with-red-line-as-it-s-currently-designed/7094342

Back to Virginia........
Disappointing, so cancelling the Red-Line was consequential?  I was under the impression the Red Line never would happen because no way was MD going to get the Purple Line as well at the same time frame.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on November 10, 2021, 07:29:36 PM
If Youngkin wants to focus more on projects outside of NOVA, I'd suggest he finally get started on Virginia's portion of I-87. It's laughable that Hampton Roads, one of the nation's most important maritime hubs, has just one regional freeway.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 10, 2021, 11:56:07 PM
^ Speaking from long personal experience (having been stationed in Norfolk twice), traffic by and large doesn't want to parallel the coast...it wants to go to/from inland.  A stronger argument could be made for upgrading 58 or 460 than for building "I-87"...though don't tell sprjus4 that...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ran4sh on November 11, 2021, 04:23:38 PM
But I-87 goes inland, to Raleigh
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on November 11, 2021, 06:01:36 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 10, 2021, 11:56:07 PM
^ Speaking from long personal experience (having been stationed in Norfolk twice), traffic by and large doesn't want to parallel the coast...it wants to go to/from inland.  A stronger argument could be made for upgrading 58 or 460 than for building "I-87"...though don't tell sprjus4 that...

agree. lived there when i was much younger, tho not that long (smithfield) and even at 15, i was wondering my god how does everyone get out of here if there's a hurricane or something?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 12, 2021, 10:53:02 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on November 11, 2021, 04:23:38 PM
But I-87 goes inland, to Raleigh

Because of Albemarle Sound, you're not really going inland until Williamstown.  You're also largely heading TOWARDS the hurricanes heading south from Norfolk instead of away.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 13, 2021, 08:12:20 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on November 11, 2021, 04:23:38 PM
But I-87 goes inland, to Raleigh

Quote from: froggie on November 12, 2021, 10:53:02 AM
Because of Albemarle Sound, you're not really going inland until Williamstown.  You're also largely heading TOWARDS the hurricanes heading south from Norfolk instead of away.

Interesting point.  There is definitely an emphasis on Hurricane Evacuation Routes out of the Tidewater and Hampton Roads areas.  Same is true for Wilmington, North Carolina.  But for some reason, there isn't near as much emphasis for large cities along I-95 where it graces the East Coast.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 13, 2021, 08:44:36 PM
By the time you reach 95, at least from central Jersey down through the Carolinas, your primary hurricane concern isn't wind or storm surge but is the rain.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ran4sh on November 13, 2021, 09:43:25 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 13, 2021, 08:12:20 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on November 11, 2021, 04:23:38 PM
But I-87 goes inland, to Raleigh

Quote from: froggie on November 12, 2021, 10:53:02 AM
Because of Albemarle Sound, you're not really going inland until Williamstown.  You're also largely heading TOWARDS the hurricanes heading south from Norfolk instead of away.

Interesting point.  There is definitely an emphasis on Hurricane Evacuation Routes out of the Tidewater and Hampton Roads areas.  Same is true for Wilmington, North Carolina.  But for some reason, there isn't near as much emphasis for large cities along I-95 where it graces the East Coast.

Because hurricanes become weaker when they reach colder areas. There aren't many hurricanes that have reached the large Northeastern I-95 cities with enough strength that would call for an evacuation. (Never mind the logistics of evacuating a large city to smaller inland areas - this is the reason they never evacuate Miami along I-75 to southwest Florida, as SW FL isn't capable of handling the amount of people in Miami.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on November 15, 2021, 10:02:50 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on November 13, 2021, 09:43:25 PM

Because hurricanes become weaker when they reach colder areas.

Sandy says "hi."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ran4sh on November 15, 2021, 11:42:19 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on November 15, 2021, 10:02:50 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on November 13, 2021, 09:43:25 PM

Because hurricanes become weaker when they reach colder areas.

Sandy says "hi."


Hurricanes can be weak and still cause damage from flooding
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: RoadPelican on November 15, 2021, 02:21:38 PM
And let's not forget Sandy happened in late October and still did immense damage along the Jersey Shore.  Plus, the point about Hurricanes entering colder areas is not valid because most hurricanes occur in August and September when all of the northeast is still warm.

Growing up in Maryland, my parents said the best time to go to Ocean City was in September because the water temperature was still at or just under it's peak high of around 80 degrees.  It's amazing how many people travel down the ocean on Memorial Day Weekend when the water temp is only in the UPPER 50s!!!!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on November 15, 2021, 07:09:29 PM
Quote from: RoadPelican on November 15, 2021, 02:21:38 PM
And let's not forget Sandy happened in late October and still did immense damage along the Jersey Shore.  Plus, the point about Hurricanes entering colder areas is not valid because most hurricanes occur in August and September when all of the northeast is still warm.

Growing up in Maryland, my parents said the best time to go to Ocean City was in September because the water temperature was still at or just under it's peak high of around 80 degrees.  It's amazing how many people travel down the ocean on Memorial Day Weekend when the water temp is only in the UPPER 50s!!!!
Yep, something about longer daylight brings people out in late May/early June whereas mid September is actually better water temps if you catch warm enough air.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 15, 2021, 09:02:14 PM
Part of the issue with the remnants of Sandy was that it interacted with a very strong cold front moving across the country.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 19, 2021, 11:41:34 PM
The I-64 Segment III widening project on the Peninsula is now just about complete.

All 3 eastbound lanes from MM 233 to MM 242 are now open to traffic, and all 3 westbound lanes will be open by next week.

All Eastbound Lanes to Open Throughout I-64 Widening Segment III Project (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/I-64-WIDENING--ALL-EASTBOUND-LANES-TO-OPEN-THROUGHOUT-I-64-WIDENING-SEGMENT-III-PROJECT.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=RWg6B9VFKk4)
QuoteYORK COUNTY — Starting as early as the afternoon on Nov. 19, motorists on I-64 east will begin to experience safer, improved travels just in time for the Thanksgiving holiday with the opening of all three newly completed eastbound travel lanes between Route 199/Newman Road (exit 234) and Route 199/Humelsine Parkway (exit 242).

This significant milestone of the I-64 Widening Segment III Project adds an additional 6 miles of interstate widening and improvements to the 2 miles previously opened eastbound last June, as well as connects to the nearly 13 miles previously widened through the first and second I-64 Widening Project Segments completed in 2017 and 2019.

Crews are working diligently towards the full opening of the remaining 8 miles of travel lanes westbound–including the remaining portion of the new westbound Queens Creek bridge–scheduled to open as early as mid-week next week.

Following the openings of the third travel lanes in each direction, lane closures may continue to take place as needed to finish final construction and maintenance items over the next few weeks.

To learn more about the I-64 Widening Segment III Project, please visit: http://i64widening.org/learn_more/segment_3.asp.

Following the completion of this project, only 28 miles will remain between Richmond and Williamsburg that will still be 4 lanes. There are not any actively planned projects on this segment due to lack of funding, so for the time being, I-64 will finally be free of any major construction zones north of I-664 all the way to I-295.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 24, 2021, 07:31:27 AM
^ Looking at traffic cams, it appears that all 6 lanes are now fully open to traffic, both directions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 24, 2021, 02:17:05 PM
All Westbound Lanes to Open Throughout I-64 Widening Segment III Project (http://i64widening.org/news_information/default.asp)
Quote All three newly completed travel lanes on I-64 west between exits 234 and 242 to open as early as Nov. 24 following completion of new Queens Creek bridges

Starting as early as Nov. 24, Peninsula motorists on I-64 may add another thing to be thankful for this Thanksgiving holiday–an improved, safer driving experience on I-64 with the opening of a new, third travel lane westbound throughout the I-64 Widening Segment III Project. This comes less than one week after all the eastbound travel lanes opened to traffic, marking the completion of interstate widening from two to three travel lanes in each direction between Route 199/Newman Road (exit 234) and Route 199/Humelsine Parkway (exit 242) in York County.

Along with this opening of all westbound travel lanes also marks the completion of the two fully reconstructed interstate bridges over scenic Queens Creek, now widened with three travel lanes in each direction open as well.

This significant milestone of the I-64 Widening Segment III Project adds an additional 8 miles of interstate widening and improvements to the nearly 13 miles previously widened through the first and second I-64 Widening Project Segments completed in 2017 and 2019.

Following these new lane openings in each direction, day- and nighttime lane closures will continue to take place as needed to finish final construction and maintenance items over the next few weeks. The I-64 Widening Segment III Project is anticipated to be complete in its entirety by the end of this year.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 29, 2021, 06:07:05 PM
https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1465434639816867845?s=21
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on November 30, 2021, 06:27:19 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 29, 2021, 06:07:05 PM
https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1465434639816867845?s=21

You'd think the cops would be catching on to this shit by now...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 30, 2021, 10:35:17 AM
Plus it's illegal for a truck of that size to enter the express lanes, period–no vehicles with more than two axles are permitted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 30, 2021, 12:01:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 30, 2021, 10:35:17 AM
Plus it's illegal for a truck of that size to enter the express lanes, period–no vehicles with more than two axles are permitted.

I still see semis in the 95 express lanes almost every week.  Not as many on the 495 lanes as there used to be...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 30, 2021, 12:20:26 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 30, 2021, 12:01:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 30, 2021, 10:35:17 AM
Plus it's illegal for a truck of that size to enter the express lanes, period–no vehicles with more than two axles are permitted.

I still see semis in the 95 express lanes almost every week.  Not as many on the 495 lanes as there used to be...

Doesn't really surprise me. They were allowed for many years, except for near the old southern end around Dumfries where they've always been banned due to the weigh station.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 01, 2021, 01:57:51 PM
Now he's starting to post crashes on the other side of I-395 when people decide to swerve wildly across multiple lanes in an attempt to access southbound Route 1 through Crystal City.

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1466100082269372427
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 01, 2021, 04:18:39 PM
For the SB crash, here's the dumbest part: they could've just stayed right and used the exit for the Pentagon and easily made their way back around to Pentagon City and US 1 SB.

I'm actually shocked that more vehicles weren't involved here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 01, 2021, 08:56:05 PM
I friend of mine in Newport News tipped me off to something he saw on the news today about I-64 in Norfolk. VDOT is having a virtual meeting tomorrow about converting the shoulders to Express Shoulder Lanes, but between I-564 and I-264 (eastern). My thing is the existing HOV Express Lanes in the median on this stretch is still very underutilized. I couldn't find the story on that news station's site (WAVY) but I found it from VDOT.

https://www.64expresslanes.org/under_design/norfolk.asp


What I did find in WAVY's site was this about a possible new Kings Highway Bridge in Suffolk, but still has no funding.

https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/suffolk/suffolk-city-staff-recommends-rebuilding-kings-highway-bridge-on-new-route/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 02, 2021, 12:29:39 AM
Quote from: plain on December 01, 2021, 08:56:05 PM
I friend of mine in Newport News tipped me off to something he saw on the news today about I-64 in Norfolk. VDOT is having a virtual meeting tomorrow about converting the shoulders to Express Shoulder Lanes, but between I-564 and I-264 (eastern). My thing is the existing HOV Express Lanes in the median on this stretch is still very underutilized. I couldn't find the story on that news station's site (WAVY) but I found it from VDOT.

https://www.64expresslanes.org/under_design/norfolk.asp
I wouldn't say underutilized necessarily, it gets decent usage during peak hours, but this project is a waste, IMO. Not only in terms of usage in the off peak direction, but money too.

My biggest gripe of the project, however, isn't the HO/T concept. It's the design. Instead of properly reconstructing the entire highway to accommodate a full left paved shoulder that can be used as a part time HO/T lane, they are simply shifting the right shoulder to the shoulder. The typical section of the project calls for a two foot right shoulder along the entire project limits in the general purpose lanes, including the Chesapeake Blvd bridge replacement. Additionally, the project will retain the already dangerous left entrance ramp from Tidewater Drive heading westbound, that will now dump into the express lanes directly.

The idea that they want to eliminate the right paved shoulder entirely, full time, on a 7 mile segment of 6 lane urban interstate highway is extremely dangerous, IMO, and blatantly violates any sort of modern highway design along with interstate standards. And the retention of the left entrance is not helping things either. Both of these elements just makes it seem like it's being done on the cheap (still over $300 million however), and rushed, given they want this done before 2025.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 08, 2021, 03:07:26 PM
John Mosby and William Byrd highways are no more. Their new names are the Little River Turnpike and the Leesburg Pike respectively, which are really just their original names before segregationists changed them. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/loudoun-county-renames-john-mosby-and-harry-byrd-highways/ar-AARCh6m?ocid=msedgntp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 08, 2021, 04:39:43 PM
Harry Byrd, not William Byrd.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on December 08, 2021, 10:26:28 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 08, 2021, 03:07:26 PM
John Mosby and William Byrd highways are no more. Their new names are the Little River Turnpike and the Leesburg Pike respectively, which are really just their original names before segregationists changed them. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/loudoun-county-renames-john-mosby-and-harry-byrd-highways/ar-AARCh6m?ocid=msedgntp)

What about Jefferson Davis Highway in Arlington?  What about it statewide on US 1 along with Lee Highway on US 11, 211, and 29?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: odditude on December 08, 2021, 11:19:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 08, 2021, 10:26:28 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 08, 2021, 03:07:26 PM
John Mosby and William Byrd highways are no more. Their new names are the Little River Turnpike and the Leesburg Pike respectively, which are really just their original names before segregationists changed them. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/loudoun-county-renames-john-mosby-and-harry-byrd-highways/ar-AARCh6m?ocid=msedgntp)

What about Jefferson Davis Highway in Arlington?  What about it statewide on US 1 along with Lee Highway on US 11, 211, and 29?

this was a Loudoun County change, not statewide.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 09, 2021, 07:38:55 AM
Arlington already renamed their portion of Jeff Davis Highway as Richmond Highway.

Fairfax County is exploring renaming Lee Highway and Lee—Jackson Memorial Highway. I expect Loudoun's action will result in the latter becoming Little River Turnpike.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 09, 2021, 10:11:08 AM
^ Presuming you're referring to the US 50 portion.  I thought the VA 236 portion was already Little River Turnpike.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 09, 2021, 10:11:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 08, 2021, 10:26:28 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 08, 2021, 03:07:26 PM
John Mosby and William Byrd highways are no more. Their new names are the Little River Turnpike and the Leesburg Pike respectively, which are really just their original names before segregationists changed them. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/loudoun-county-renames-john-mosby-and-harry-byrd-highways/ar-AARCh6m?ocid=msedgntp)

What about Jefferson Davis Highway in Arlington?  What about it statewide on US 1 along with Lee Highway on US 11, 211, and 29?

All of what used to be Jeff Davis Highway (US 1 and US 301) will be known as Emancipation Highway by state law effective on January 1st wherever a locality hasn't given it some other name.

US 1 is now Richmond Highway in Arlington, Alexandria (where it isn't Patrick St and Henry St), Fairfax, and Prince William (soon), as well as in the City of Richmond (where it isn't Brook Rd, Azalea Av, Chamberlayne Av, Belvidere St, or Cowardin Av).

Fredericksburg is letting the name become Emancipation Highway.

Caroline and Chesterfield are simply naming the road "Route 1", even though Jeff Davis Hwy in Chesterfield is also US 301.

US 1 has always had local names (or no name) everywhere else it runs - Washington Hwy in Hanover, Brook Rd in Henrico, Boulevard in Colonial Heights, several streets in Petersburg, and Boydton Plank Rd in Dinwiddie and Brunswick.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 09, 2021, 10:41:25 AM
Quote from: froggie on December 09, 2021, 10:11:08 AM
^ Presuming you're referring to the US 50 portion.  I thought the VA 236 portion was already Little River Turnpike.


No part of Lee—Jackson Memorial Highway is part of VA-236. You're correct that VA-236 in Fairfax County is Little River Turnpike (I know that quite well–I grew up in a neighborhood accessible only via Route 236; my mom still lives there). In Fairfax City, of course, it becomes Main Street (and North Street for a short stretch), but Route 236 ends at the crossroads in Fairfax City where it meets US-29 and US-50, the intersection where Best Products used to be and just east of the row of car dealers. If you continue straight from westbound 236 at that intersection, you're on US-50; US-50 then remains Main Street according to some business addresses, or Fairfax Boulevard according to newer street signs and some other business addresses, until you hit the county line. At that point it becomes Lee—Jackson Memorial Highway. It's that section, from Fairfax City west to the Loudoun County line, that is likely to be renamed Little River Turnpike.


Edited to add something I forgot to say earlier: While I'm not big on the whole renaming fad in general, I have to think there's some sense in restoring the name Little River Turnpike at least as far west as Aldie. Little River is the name of an actual river and it passes under the road in question in Aldie at that spiffy-looking bridge with the stone walls on either side. You can trace the river's 23.4-mile route on Google Maps if you're so inclined; it rises just east of Marshall, flows up to Aldie, and flows into Goose Creek near Oatlands. The road is named for that river, so it makes some level of sense to restore the name so as to serve the area where the river is actually located.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 10, 2021, 08:47:25 AM
I was driving down in the Tidewater area last week, and it got me thinking about the Norfolk-area interstate numbering plan.

Is there are rationale for having I-64 end where it does? I'm going to guess that maybe I-64 was the original interstate in the area, and made a fishhook shape, and that the rest of I-664 and the others came in later.

That said, you don't have to change illogical numbering plans (e.g. DC with 395 et. al.)

I would argue:

I-64 ends in Hampton VA at the Coliseum.
I-664 constitutes the Hampton Roads Beltway, a perfect loop of I-664 only.
I-564, I-264, and I-494 remain as-is.

And then you still have several options for 3DI spurs/bypasses for future growth, if needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 10, 2021, 09:07:52 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 10, 2021, 08:47:25 AM
I was driving down in the Tidewater area last week, and it got me thinking about the Norfolk-area interstate numbering plan.

Is there are rationale for having I-64 end where it does? I'm going to guess that maybe I-64 was the original interstate in the area, and made a fishhook shape, and that the rest of I-664 and the others came in later.

That said, you don't have to change illogical numbering plans (e.g. DC with 395 et. al.)

I would argue:

I-64 ends in Hampton VA at the Coliseum.
I-664 constitutes the Hampton Roads Beltway, a perfect loop of I-664 only.
I-564, I-264, and I-494 remain as-is.

And then you still have several options for 3DI spurs/bypasses for future growth, if needed.

I-664 came substantially later. The bridge-tunnel opened in 1992; the segment from what's now Exit 10 down to the interchange with I-64 and I-264 opened in 1993.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 10, 2021, 09:13:49 AM
I figured that was the case....thanks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 10, 2021, 09:30:48 AM
The numbering scheme gets brought up in the local media at least once a year.  Long story short, changing things would be just as confusing as leaving them as-is.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 10, 2021, 09:46:26 AM
Renumbering was seriously considered in the 1990s:

In May 1996 (CTB), VDOT presented 4 options to renumber the interstates in the Hampton Roads area:
1. Extend I-664 around to I-264/VA 44 and replace VA 44 with I-64
2. Extend I-664 around to I-264/VA 44 and replace VA 44 with I-664
3. Replace I-664 with I-64 and replace VA 44 with I-64; Replace I-64 across HRBT to I-264/VA 44 with I-664
4. Replace I-664 with I-64 and replace VA 44 with I-64; Replace I-64 across HRBT to I-264/VA 44 with I-864
The CTB deferred action to June 1996 whereby they elected to defer again. There was no further mention of anything related to this until they renumbered VA 44 as I-264 in Aug 1997.

I have not seen anything in CTB minutes since then...

I thought option 1 made the most sense of the 4 above...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on December 10, 2021, 03:31:38 PM
https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1469399165306388481
Today's action...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ran4sh on December 11, 2021, 10:25:37 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 10, 2021, 09:46:26 AM
Renumbering was seriously considered in the 1990s:

In May 1996 (CTB), VDOT presented 4 options to renumber the interstates in the Hampton Roads area:
1. Extend I-664 around to I-264/VA 44 and replace VA 44 with I-64
2. Extend I-664 around to I-264/VA 44 and replace VA 44 with I-664
3. Replace I-664 with I-64 and replace VA 44 with I-64; Replace I-64 across HRBT to I-264/VA 44 with I-664
4. Replace I-664 with I-64 and replace VA 44 with I-64; Replace I-64 across HRBT to I-264/VA 44 with I-864
The CTB deferred action to June 1996 whereby they elected to defer again. There was no further mention of anything related to this until they renumbered VA 44 as I-264 in Aug 1997.

I have not seen anything in CTB minutes since then...

I thought option 1 made the most sense of the 4 above...

I agree, if there were to be a renumbering I would pick option 1 also, as it extends I-64 to Virginia Beach along the most logical existing route. (The most confusing part of the existing numbering, at least for those who are not from the area, is how I-64 East ends facing west, and I'm aware that I-64 is posted without east/west directions south of I-264, but that is not an ideal solution.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 15, 2021, 06:33:55 PM
The Forest Hill Ave reconstruction in Richmond is FINALLY complete. Seriously could've done without installing the WOODEN UTILITY POLES IN THE MEDIAN though. Seriously Richmond we're supposed to be moving AWAY from this dumb shit!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on December 16, 2021, 12:51:28 PM
Quote from: plain on December 15, 2021, 06:33:55 PM
The Forest Hill Ave reconstruction in Richmond is FINALLY complete. Seriously could've done without installing the WOODEN UTILITY POLES IN THE MEDIAN though. Seriously Richmond we're supposed to be moving AWAY from this dumb shit!

Utility lines are expensive to bury. You have the materials and labor costs for trenching the new line, the work to keep existing lines in service as you transition, plus the cost of replacing all of your transformers and other pole-mounted gadgetry. Putting the new poles in the median is an odd choice, I assume constrained by ROW, but relocating existing above-ground utilities tends to be the default option for a reason.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 18, 2021, 05:17:02 AM
Well it turns out I drove new passing lanes on VA 3 in Westmoreland County when I clinched it Thursday.  (https://virginiadot.org/newsroom/fredericksburg/2021/passing-lanes-open-on-route-3-in-westmoreland-county12-3-2021.asp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on December 20, 2021, 12:10:09 PM
Locals aren't happy with plans for an interchange at VA 234/VA 294/BUSINESS 234.

https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/route-234-brentsville-plan-draws-criticism/article_f02004a8-5f4a-11ec-9ac9-0b28457a0c02.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 20, 2021, 12:16:25 PM
For some reason, I can't help but feel that interchange design is overly complicated for what it needs to be.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 20, 2021, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 20, 2021, 12:16:25 PM
For some reason, I can't help but feel that interchange design is overly complicated for what it needs to be.

Yeah. I don't doubt that an interchange there would be helpful, but this design seems needlessly complicated.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 21, 2021, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 20, 2021, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 20, 2021, 12:16:25 PM
For some reason, I can't help but feel that interchange design is overly complicated for what it needs to be.

Yeah. I don't doubt that an interchange there would be helpful, but this design seems needlessly complicated.

$55 million for the removal of two lights on the Prince William Parkway sounds like a pretty good deal to me, especially when you compare it to the still unfunded interchange at Sudely Manor Drive (would also remove the light at Wellington Road) that was projected last time I checked to cost more than three times this ($180 million). Regarding the complexity of the interchange, I actually think that this design was the cheapest alternative in which you could still get full grade separation for VA-234. Seems to me that most of the "unhappiness" is coming bike advocates who want the currently planned at-grade trail crossings on the exit ramps to be eliminated which imo is understandable, but just hopefully not at a cost of $8 million or more.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 22, 2021, 04:54:06 PM
How terrible is I-95 going south in NoVA these days on a typical weekday morning? Heading to NC tomorrow and need to decide between that and US-301. Checking traffic this morning didn't look too promising. Did VDOT ever change the traffic pattern at Exit 130, or is it still squeezing down to a few lanes?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on December 22, 2021, 07:49:42 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 22, 2021, 04:54:06 PM
How terrible is I-95 going south in NoVA these days on a typical weekday morning? Heading to NC tomorrow and need to decide between that and US-301. Checking traffic this morning didn't look too promising. Did VDOT ever change the traffic pattern at Exit 130, or is it still squeezing down to a few lanes?

Not horrible typically, BUT tomorrow will have extra getaway traffic, so I doubt tomorrow will be typical.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 22, 2021, 07:52:40 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 22, 2021, 04:54:06 PM
How terrible is I-95 going south in NoVA these days on a typical weekday morning? Heading to NC tomorrow and need to decide between that and US-301. Checking traffic this morning didn't look too promising. Did VDOT ever change the traffic pattern at Exit 130, or is it still squeezing down to a few lanes?

Suggest checking this right before you have to decide - https://www.sigalert.com/Map.asp?lat=38.2658&lon=-77.04977&z=3

Traffic can also be seen at https://wtop.com/traffic/

I don't know if they have gotten rid of the temporary lane drop on the mainline of I-95 just south of VA 3.  Project website gives a general Dec 2021 as the expected date to do it.  The nearest camera is inconclusive at night.

It will almost certainly be busy.  I left work early today and 95 in both directions at 2 pm between Fredericksburg and the beltway were terrible.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 22, 2021, 09:28:17 PM
I-64 widening on Peninsula complete as VDOT marks end of 26-mile project: "˜A life-changing event' (https://www.dailypress.com/virginiagazette/va-vg-i-64-expansion-1222-20211220-fjfnrynetnbyhnvypy74hsu4vy-story.html#nt=tertiarynavbar&nt=ticker)
QuoteYORK – The Virginia Department of Transportation commemorated the completion of its six-year Interstate 64 widening project, built in three segments, with a ceremonial ribbon-cutting Monday morning on the Peninsula.

The event, which took place under the newly constructed bypass bridge along the Colonial Parkway in York, brought out state officials including state Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine, U.S. Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Norfolk, state Sen. Monty Mason, D-Williamsburg, VDOT Commissioner Stephen Brich, Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Chair and Hampton Mayor Donnie Tuck and HRTA Commissioner Thomas Shepperd – all of whom played a role in the project's completion.

"Today marks the completion of the third segment of the I-64 widening project adding a third lane for 8 miles,"  Valentine said. "The widening of I-64 is an investment in the vitality of the Port of Virginia, industry, workforce, tourism, the mobility of our citizens and the economic competitiveness of this region."

The $520 million project, which began in 2015, includes 26 miles of I-64 widened with the addition of a third lane from Exit 234 to Exit 255. The project went through Newport News and York and James City counties. According to Valentine, it was a bipartisan effort that was delivered on time and on budget.

With roughly 5,000 to 7,000 trucks passing between Richmond and Hampton Roads along I-64 each day, the purpose of the expansion was to help relieve congestion and increase reliability for commuters.

"This is literally a life-changing event for people in Hampton Roads, Newport News, Williamsburg and Richmond and our guests and our tourism park visitors who come here each and every week,"  Mason said during the ceremony. "This is the gold standard."

According to Mason, the project would not have been possible without the numerous hands that helped design, engineer and construct the roadway as well as the taxpayers who funded its completion.

The Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission, a group comprised of locally elected officials formed in 2014 through legislative action, determines how regional money will be invested in transportation projects.

To date, the commission has invested $4.7 billion into the region's infrastructure – $311 million of which went toward the widening project.

According to Tuck, HRTAC was the largest funding partner in all of the I-64 widening projects and the commission plans to continue its efforts to alleviate congestion across Hampton Roads.

"While this is the final of the three Peninsula I-64 projects funded by HRTAC, more interstate improvements are still to come,"  Tuck said.

In spring 2015, VDOT began the first segment of the widening project which included $101.5 million committed to widening the interstate between Exit 247 to Exit 255 in Newport News. Contracting firm Shirley Contracting Co. LLC completed the segment in December 2017. According to Brich, contractors completed the first segment on time and on budget.

The second segment of the widening project began in fall 2016 and included a roadway widening from Exit 247 to Exit 242 in York. The contracting firm Allan Myers Va. Inc. completed the project in fall 2019 at an approximate cost of $176 million.

The third and final segment, which added an additional lane between Exit 234 at Lightfoot and Exit 242 in York, began in summer 2018. With a total estimated cost of $244 million, Shirley Contracting LLC completed the project in November.

With local, state and federal funding for the project, Luria said the project was a bipartisan effort that saw support from both sides of the aisle. Additionally, Luria said she anticipates future projects following the committed $110 billion federal infrastructure package dedicated to the states' roads, bridges and tunnels.

"I think this is something we should all be proud of as Virginians today,"  Luria said.

The 26 mile figure isn't quite accurate - the 3 segments on the Peninsula totaled to 21 miles. I believe they are getting the 26 mile figure from including the Exit 200 to 205 widening that occurred outside of Richmond back in 2019. The point still stands, however.

There are now roughly 28 miles of 4 lane interstate highway remaining between Exit 205 and 234 that need to be widened to 6 lanes.

I drove through the completed project (Segment 3) roughly a month ago, it was a smooth ride with easily free flowing traffic, and the speed limit was restored back to 70 mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 29, 2021, 01:49:05 AM
It was just completed a month ago, but new December 2021 Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2747687,-76.6593008,3a,75y,319.7h,78.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spOavDCWuZO89AZxW5EV3ug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) is now available showing the completed westbound lanes of I-64 Segment 3.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on December 29, 2021, 03:36:28 PM
The new High Rise bridge is coming along nicely...

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7580547,-76.2980077,3a,69.3y,109.73h,90.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZQD590n-OhSD6spLOcx1xQ!2e0!5s20211201T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 29, 2021, 06:03:57 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 29, 2021, 03:36:28 PM
The new High Rise bridge is coming along nicely...

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7580547,-76.2980077,3a,69.3y,109.73h,90.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZQD590n-OhSD6spLOcx1xQ!2e0!5s20211201T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
Meanwhile the landside widening continues at a snails pace. It's at least 1-2 years behind original schedule now, the whole project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jaxrunner on December 30, 2021, 01:38:37 AM
The new widened I 64 looks great. I was stationed in Hampton Roads 10 years ago and remember all the accidents that occurred on that stretch of highway. Always seemed to be bad at MM 254 where the road goes from 8 lanes down to 4 and around Busch Gardens. The one think that really makes it look different is the trees in the median gone. Looks like a new highway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 30, 2021, 07:32:52 AM
Quote from: Jaxrunner on December 30, 2021, 01:38:37 AM
The new widened I 64 looks great. I was stationed in Hampton Roads 10 years ago and remember all the accidents that occurred on that stretch of highway. Always seemed to be bad at MM 254 where the road goes from 8 lanes down to 4 and around Busch Gardens. The one think that really makes it look different is the trees in the median gone. Looks like a new highway.
It truly has made a significant difference. That whole segment used to a major bottleneck - more so than the rural segment west of Williamsburg, and now it just flies at 75-80 mph even during peak hours.

I especially recall all the congestion that occurred when that first segment was under construction, all the rush hour traffic screeching to a halt when 8 lanes dropped to 4 at Jefferson, then an inconsistent flow until you got towards Yorktown and Williamsburg. All of those issues are virtually nonexistent anymore, and it's great.

Another slight issue that was occurring before was the Segment 3 work zone bottling traffic down to 55-65 mph, and the fact that heavy traffic would never accelerate to the 70 mph speed limit once you got passed VA-199 and the work zone ended. Hopefully now with the speed limit never dropping anymore and no more work zones, it isn't as bad of an issue. I've only driven it once since it's been complete, and traffic seemed to hold 75-80 mph even once it condensed to 4 lanes. Hopefully that's the norm nowadays - at least until the next segment gets funded and underway which cannot happen any sooner.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 30, 2021, 11:13:33 PM
While going through the Valentine Museum's archives once again earlier for some pics, I came across another shot of the RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP on I-95. There's no date, but the NY Box-style rail is in the median, so I would put this between 1976 (or more likely 1981) and 1986.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211231/ca4bdc6cd020f115a2b5a32aef3848b7.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

EDIT: Then again, that might have been the Jersey barrier, but the median looks grassy. This could be right around 1985-86.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 31, 2021, 08:35:07 AM
Great find. Thanks for posting.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 03, 2022, 10:42:25 AM
The scene this morning near, but not quite at, our favorite spot on I-395.

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1478027295487148039
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 04, 2022, 11:08:08 AM
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1478341593002397698
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 04, 2022, 11:18:14 AM
CNN reports that Sen. Kaine was among the people stuck. To me the big issue would not be fuel, food, or water–it would be the cold.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 04, 2022, 11:32:57 AM
^ Yes, Senator Kaine was tweeting about how he was stuck on northbound 95:

https://twitter.com/timkaine/status/1478357477158756352?s=20

NBC's White House Correspondent also tweeted overnight, but finally was able to start moving after 11 hours.

https://twitter.com/JoshNBCNews/status/1478256123006406664?s=20
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 04, 2022, 11:57:51 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 04, 2022, 11:08:08 AM
[snipped the image]

So who screwed up? A lot of blame is being put on drivers who were on the road when they should have stayed home. We started to hear about the severity of the storm on Saturday with a Winter Storm Warning issued on Sunday (although we only got about 2" in Blacksburg despite the 4-6" forecast). There seemed to be plenty of warnings in other places with shut-down notices coming out Sunday night. On Twitter, someone wondered why the road wasn't pre-treated, but someone else pointed out that it was raining before the front brought the temperature down enough to snow. What about the tractor trailer drivers who caused all this? They may have needed to be somewhere, but what did they do (or not do) that caused the pileup from multiple jackknifed trucks? Hopefully some people learned some lessons about winter driving and preparation.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 04, 2022, 12:13:53 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 04, 2022, 11:57:51 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 04, 2022, 11:08:08 AM
[snipped the image]

So who screwed up? A lot of blame is being put on drivers who were on the road when they should have stayed home. We started to hear about the severity of the storm on Saturday with a Winter Storm Warning issued on Sunday (although we only got about 2" in Blacksburg despite the 4-6" forecast). There seemed to be plenty of warnings in other places with shut-down notices coming out Sunday night. On Twitter, someone wondered why the road wasn't pre-treated, but someone else pointed out that it was raining before the front brought the temperature down enough to snow. What about the tractor trailer drivers who caused all this? They may have needed to be somewhere, but what did they do (or not do) that caused the pileup from multiple jackknifed trucks? Hopefully some people learned some lessons about winter driving and preparation.

Bruce in Blacksburg


It was basically the perfect storm. It started as rain, so VDOT couldn't pretreat the roads. Yes, a winter storm warning was issued, but the storm greatly overachieved. From a meteorological standpoint, given the fact that it was in the 70s over the weekend and there was a good amount of warm air in the upper atmosphere, it should've taken a lot longer for the snow to accumulate, and even though model forecasts were calling for high amounts of snow (as much as 18" in some spots), it just didn't appear likely that there would be that much accumulation (the most aggressive forecasts called for 4-8"). Unfortunately, Fredericksburg got over 14" of snow and there was a wide swath of snowfall totals of over 12" across that portion of the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 04, 2022, 12:22:56 PM
The forecast for my area of Fairfax County was three to five inches. We got 11.8.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 04, 2022, 01:49:12 PM
Not much could've been done to stop this. The state actively warned people about the worsening conditions through media outlets but that's not reaching people driving through from out of state, which of course there are a lot of on I-95. Plus a lot of people were getting stuck on the exit ramps themselves, further trapping people on the highway. If they did make it off, they were stuck on the surface roads (my cousin being one of them).

I-64 west of Richmond was also closed for hours, the culprit there being downed trees. As of this post, that road is back open again except for delays EB between Gum Spring and Oilville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 04, 2022, 01:59:36 PM
Looks like the disaster has spread to the alternate routes of US-1 and US-301. US-17 and VA-3 aren't looking too good either. Meanwhile in North Jersey, not a flake of snow fell.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 04, 2022, 02:11:57 PM
Anybody remember the "Blizzard of '93".  The same thing happened on the Beltway in Northern Virginia:  3 inches of rain, followed by 6 inches of snow, followed by 1/2-inch of rain, followed by an extremely hard freeze.  If I remember correctly, the freeze hit in early afternoon (someone please check this).  Most folks from out-of-state simply abandoned their vehicles on the Beltway and started walking around aimlessly in the slop while cars were playing shuffleboard on the ice.  The hard freeze lasted for days and it was very difficult to remove all of the stranded vehicles.

I lived in an apartment complex in NoVa at the time, and all of the cars in the parking lot got frozen stuck in 8-inches of ice plus for about three days.  I was apparently the only person in the complex with a mattox, and so I pick-axed my way out before nightfall the same day.  That evening, I tried to drive around Reston and Herndon to see the damage but it was brutal trying to jump between the 6-inch ruts and the packed ice (formerly slushy tire trails).  But I did go to work the next day, and (surprise) I was the only person that made it to the office.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 04, 2022, 02:48:19 PM
The 1993 storm was in March, if I recall correctly. Huge storm that walloped most of the Southeast. I remember UVA basketball was leading UNC in the ACC Tournament semifinals when a snow-related power failure hit the Charlotte Coliseum. The teams retreated to the locker rooms and then UNC came back to win.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 04, 2022, 03:09:08 PM
A lot of this snow went farther east than anticipated. My location was in the 1-2" range and we got nothing except just enough to be visible on rooftops and vehicles. Nothing on the ground here. The forecast was for a heavy wet snow that might cause power outages in far southeastern Kentucky near the Virginia state line, but I didn't hear of any.

Lots of people are angry at Youngkin for not calling out the National Guard to help get stranded drivers off the roads. Never mind that Youngkin hasn't even been sworn in yet and Northam is still governor.

But no matter who the governor is, this is a perfect case for calling out the NG to pull stuck/wrecked vehicles off the road so it can be plowed and salted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 04, 2022, 03:14:33 PM
The fly in the ointment there is the NG troops would be stuck on the roads as well trying to get to their stations to mobilize.  Only way to avoid that would have been to activate them BEFOREHAND, but as Will noted the storm wasn't forecasted to be as strong as it wound up being.

It reminds me a bit of "Commuteageddon" in DC in early 2011, where a day of rain (so no pretreatment) turned quickly into thundersleet (yes, that happened) then a heavy wet snow.  Multiple abandoned vehicles in the DC area from that one, especially on the GW Pkwy.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 04, 2022, 03:56:26 PM
There was some lady on the news whose flight home from Orlando had been cancelled so many times that she gave up and rented a car and then got stuck on I-95. Ouch.

Following up on what froggie says, I don't doubt the construction on a significant portion of the I-95 segment in question is a further-exacerbating problem. I haven't been on I-95 south of Fairfax County since our trip to Florida this past May and June when we drove it in both directions, so things have surely changed somewhat, but I have no doubt there are places where the shoulder width is either reduced or eliminated and is affected by jersey walls or other barriers. No doubt that affects the ability of emergency responders to access the scene and probably have a negative effect on drainage (such that any snow melt pools and then refreezes if traffic isn't going by to keep it melted). The single-worst set of jackknifed trucks that was mentioned on the news here was on that downhill stretch near the airport north of Exit 136 (Centreport Parkway). That's in the heart of the construction zone for the HO/T lane extension project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 04, 2022, 04:09:35 PM
Just drove up I-95 last Friday. Bulk of shoulder closures are between Exit 130 and 136.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 04, 2022, 04:14:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2022, 03:56:26 PM
There was some lady on the news whose flight home from Orlando had been cancelled so many times that she gave up and rented a car and then got stuck on I-95. Ouch.

Following up on what froggie says, I don't doubt the construction on a significant portion of the I-95 segment in question is a further-exacerbating problem. I haven't been on I-95 south of Fairfax County since our trip to Florida this past May and June when we drove it in both directions, so things have surely changed somewhat, but I have no doubt there are places where the shoulder width is either reduced or eliminated and is affected by jersey walls or other barriers. No doubt that affects the ability of emergency responders to access the scene and probably have a negative effect on drainage (such that any snow melt pools and then refreezes if traffic isn't going by to keep it melted). The single-worst set of jackknifed trucks that was mentioned on the news here was on that downhill stretch near the airport north of Exit 136 (Centreport Parkway). That's in the heart of the construction zone for the HO/T lane extension project.

Construction north of Centreport Pkwy has no impacts on 95 these days, especially southbound.

All it takes is one jack knifed truck to block all the lanes and that ends any hope of plowing the road as cars are occupying the road that was getting more and more heavy snow.  There were numerous reports of these over a very long stretch of 95. 

Commutageddon 2011 was a similar principle - everyone was thrown out of the office around the same time which was just the right time to get stuck in many parts of the DC area and plows/treatment couldn't be accomplished.  On that particular event I could read the tea leaves and I left a couple hours earlier than the mass of feds and I got home with little issue.

The common denominator is rain at the beginning, though I will argue that the current snow event came very large and very quickly where pre-treatment would not have held up given the heavy snowfall rate in the Fredericksburg area.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on January 04, 2022, 04:14:46 PM
I can speak a bit about the meteorology aspect...

This storm was a bit of a surprise, as while a few models started to show a storm back on Friday, the usually high-quality European model didn't show a big storm until Saturday night. Watches were sent out early Sunday morning and warnings were issued in the afternoon. Snowfall forecasts were continually increasing during this time and all the way through early Monday morning. That said, there was still lots of uncertainty about just where the heaviest snow would fall, and given the multiple days of warm weather in advance, there was uncertainty about how much would end up sticking. As mentioned by others, the precip started as rain, so no chance to pre-treat.  Then came the actual snow, which ended up producing as much as the most bullish guidance suggested, which was 3" per hour for several hours along the I-95 corridor. Snow crews just can't keep up with that, even without traffic, and rumors suggest that a lot of folks didn't take the storm seriously, so traffic was much higher than hoped for.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 04, 2022, 04:18:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 04, 2022, 03:09:08 PM
Lots of people are angry at Youngkin for not calling out the National Guard to help get stranded drivers off the roads. Never mind that Youngkin hasn't even been sworn in yet and Northam is still governor.

I haven't seen that at all. Most people are angry at Northam for not even addressing the situation until this morning, and his statement wasn't much of a statement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 04, 2022, 08:47:28 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 04, 2022, 04:18:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 04, 2022, 03:09:08 PM
Lots of people are angry at Youngkin for not calling out the National Guard to help get stranded drivers off the roads. Never mind that Youngkin hasn't even been sworn in yet and Northam is still governor.

I haven't seen that at all. Most people are angry at Northam for not even addressing the situation until this morning, and his statement wasn't much of a statement.

"Youngkin" was trending on Twitter earlier today. The tweets were either criticism of Youngkin for not doing anything, or noting that the people criticizing Youngkin had misplaced their anger at him instead of Northam.

A friend of mine posted a video of driving along I-64, I think between Richmond and Charlottesville. Basically only one lane was open, and it kept zig-zagging because of snow piles and fallen/bent-over trees laden with heavy snow.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on January 04, 2022, 09:17:15 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 04, 2022, 02:48:19 PM
The 1993 storm was in March, if I recall correctly. Huge storm that walloped most of the Southeast.

I was in Florida for the 1993 storm, part of a team trying an antitrust case. There was a weekend break in the trial. Many of my colleagues, as well as opposing counsel, flew back to D.C. for the weekend. Big mistake, flying into the worst of the storm. The defendant's large legal team wound up chartering a bus from D.C. to Richmond Int'l Airport, and a flight to Tampa, to make it back to court in time.

I and another lawyer opted to stay in Florida that weekend (most of our work was done, but we still needed to help out during week 2 of the trial). I got in a few hours of beach time before the storm hit Florida, but thereafter lots of coastal flooding in Fort Myers, so we didn't come away unscathed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 05, 2022, 10:35:25 AM
You couldn't make this up if you tried. The job announcement linked below opened on Monday.

Such timing. Such EXQUISITE timing! (https://www.daybook.com/jobs/M5qtJjb732MwZHySG)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 05, 2022, 12:10:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2022, 10:35:25 AM
You couldn't make this up if you tried. The job announcement linked below opened on Monday.

Such timing. Such EXQUISITE timing! (https://www.daybook.com/jobs/M5qtJjb732MwZHySG)

I guess the ex-employee isn't gonna vote for Tim Kaine in 2024. :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 05, 2022, 12:54:17 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 05, 2022, 12:10:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2022, 10:35:25 AM
You couldn't make this up if you tried. The job announcement linked below opened on Monday.

Such timing. Such EXQUISITE timing! (https://www.daybook.com/jobs/M5qtJjb732MwZHySG)

I guess the ex-employee isn't gonna vote for Tim Kaine in 2024. :-D

Is this a civil service position or a political appointment? How long has the position been vacant?

Here, the public information officer positions in the highway districts are civil service (merit system) jobs. The PIO position in the Pikeville district has been vacant since Sept. 30 due to the retirement of the former PIO. The impending vacancy was known for at least two months if not longer. To my knowledge, the job has not yet been posted for applicants. The chief district engineer is temporarily writing press releases, I'm sending them out to recipients, and a hodgepodge of us (me, the CDE there, and personnel in Public Affairs in Frankfort) are doing social media posts.

So it's possible that the VDOT job has been open for awhile and since the bureaucracy moves so slowly, it just got posted yesterday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 05, 2022, 01:14:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2022, 12:54:17 PM
Quote from: LM117 on January 05, 2022, 12:10:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2022, 10:35:25 AM
You couldn't make this up if you tried. The job announcement linked below opened on Monday.

Such timing. Such EXQUISITE timing! (https://www.daybook.com/jobs/M5qtJjb732MwZHySG)

I guess the ex-employee isn't gonna vote for Tim Kaine in 2024. :-D

Is this a civil service position or a political appointment? How long has the position been vacant?

Here, the public information officer positions in the highway districts are civil service (merit system) jobs. The PIO position in the Pikeville district has been vacant since Sept. 30 due to the retirement of the former PIO. The impending vacancy was known for at least two months if not longer. To my knowledge, the job has not yet been posted for applicants. The chief district engineer is temporarily writing press releases, I'm sending them out to recipients, and a hodgepodge of us (me, the CDE there, and personnel in Public Affairs in Frankfort) are doing social media posts.

So it's possible that the VDOT job has been open for awhile and since the bureaucracy moves so slowly, it just got posted yesterday.

It's a civil service position, it's on the state job listing (https://virginiajobs.peopleadmin.com/postings/260798), so more than likely this is a coincidence. It's a funny coincidence, but a coincidence nonetheless.

This is also not the PIO position, the current Northern Virginia District PIO doesn't seem likely to go anywhere any time soon.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 05, 2022, 02:09:15 PM
Of course it's just a coincidence. But it's just funny.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 06, 2022, 09:48:22 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2022, 12:54:17 PM

Is this a civil service position or a political appointment? How long has the position been vacant?

It is a state classified employee position in pay band 5 (out of 9) and it looks like it is more of a management position that helps develop the overall messages for the district. The PIO would be part of the system to spread that message.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 06, 2022, 01:40:13 PM
Pulled over from the US-301 Nice Memorial Bridge thread:

Quote from: chrisdiaz on January 05, 2022, 01:49:41 AM
Throughout the day today I had been continually checking google maps traffic conditions at the bridge. At one point, there was a 5 mile long dark red traffic jam on the Virginia side heading north, presumably in an attempt to avoid the mess that was I-95. I'm glad that the new bridge is adding lanes because there needs to be more redundancy in Potomac River crossings outside the DC metro.

Quote from: RoadPelican on January 06, 2022, 08:59:39 AM
I remember about 15 years ago I was traveling north on I-95 on a Sunday afternoon in the Summer (big mistake!).  I got into congestion somewhere between Richmond and Fredericksburg on I-95 so I took VA Route 3 to US 301 and thought I had effectively bypassed the congestion but then I got into backup on US 301 right before the Potomac River (4 lanes merge into 2).  It was pretty long at least 2 miles, but 5 is pretty bad in the winter.  It shows you how much Northern VA and Southern MD has grown in 15 years.  A US 301 freeway upgrade would be GREAT!  But at least they are addressing that merge bottleneck.

As mentioned by others upthread, both US-1 and US-301/VA-2 are neither suitable alternatives when I-95 is shut down (for obvious reasons).  I've always taken US-522 as an outlet valve, eventually working my way over to US-15/US-29 and beyond, if necessary.  I would rather spend 6 hours cruising around the beautiful Virginia countryside that 8 hours or more stuck between Richmond and Northern Virginia.  If one is going all the way to New York, simply focus on how to get to Harrisburg the fastest way.  If going to Baltimore (or even Suburban Maryland), try to focus on getting to Frederick the fastest way (even if it means heading west of the Blue Ridge through eastern West Virginia).  Philly and New Jersey are a mixed bag, but a couple of in between options I've used more than once are US-30 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike. 

It was easier to develop these habits during the NMSL-55 days, but the rules seem to work even better with the alternative routes having higher speeds (as compared to near zero along the I-95 corridor).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on January 06, 2022, 04:32:57 PM
I see 15/29 being the best bet, at least in winter.  If conditions are worse in the mountains, getting over to I-81 might not be the easiest thing.  In this case, at least you could have taken 29 to I-66 and cut back over to DC.

For Philly/NY, heading up 15 to Frederick and heading east on I-70 to Baltimore would at least get you back to 95 (or you could head up 83 to the Turnpike).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ahj2000 on January 07, 2022, 06:38:11 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on January 06, 2022, 01:40:13 PM
Pulled over from the US-301 Nice Memorial Bridge thread:

Quote from: chrisdiaz on January 05, 2022, 01:49:41 AM
Throughout the day today I had been continually checking google maps traffic conditions at the bridge. At one point, there was a 5 mile long dark red traffic jam on the Virginia side heading north, presumably in an attempt to avoid the mess that was I-95. I'm glad that the new bridge is adding lanes because there needs to be more redundancy in Potomac River crossings outside the DC metro.

Quote from: RoadPelican on January 06, 2022, 08:59:39 AM
I remember about 15 years ago I was traveling north on I-95 on a Sunday afternoon in the Summer (big mistake!).  I got into congestion somewhere between Richmond and Fredericksburg on I-95 so I took VA Route 3 to US 301 and thought I had effectively bypassed the congestion but then I got into backup on US 301 right before the Potomac River (4 lanes merge into 2).  It was pretty long at least 2 miles, but 5 is pretty bad in the winter.  It shows you how much Northern VA and Southern MD has grown in 15 years.  A US 301 freeway upgrade would be GREAT!  But at least they are addressing that merge bottleneck.

As mentioned by others upthread, both US-1 and US-301/VA-2 are neither suitable alternatives when I-95 is shut down (for obvious reasons).  I've always taken US-522 as an outlet valve, eventually working my way over to US-15/US-29 and beyond, if necessary.  I would rather spend 6 hours cruising around the beautiful Virginia countryside that 8 hours or more stuck between Richmond and Northern Virginia.  If one is going all the way to New York, simply focus on how to get to Harrisburg the fastest way.  If going to Baltimore (or even Suburban Maryland), try to focus on getting to Frederick the fastest way (even if it means heading west of the Blue Ridge through eastern West Virginia).  Philly and New Jersey are a mixed bag, but a couple of in between options I've used more than once are US-30 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike. 

It was easier to develop these habits during the NMSL-55 days, but the rules seem to work even better with the alternative routes having higher speeds (as compared to near zero along the I-95 corridor).
All this shows–there's a lot of redundancy in the Interstate system further northeast...but nothing to bypass the DC Metro. The Beltway is terrible, 301 freeway for the win! If it connected all the way up to Delaware using DE 1 to return to 95, that'd be fantastic. If it only went to Bowie, took MD-3 to I-97, that'd still take off a ton of people. (Ideally, with my option B here, the whole 301/MD-3 thing would be I-97's extension, and the little tail of 97 left over would be like an I-197. But I digress, as this is not Fictional.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on January 10, 2022, 06:44:41 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on January 07, 2022, 06:38:11 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on January 06, 2022, 01:40:13 PM
Pulled over from the US-301 Nice Memorial Bridge thread:

Quote from: chrisdiaz on January 05, 2022, 01:49:41 AM
Throughout the day today I had been continually checking google maps traffic conditions at the bridge. At one point, there was a 5 mile long dark red traffic jam on the Virginia side heading north, presumably in an attempt to avoid the mess that was I-95. I'm glad that the new bridge is adding lanes because there needs to be more redundancy in Potomac River crossings outside the DC metro.

Quote from: RoadPelican on January 06, 2022, 08:59:39 AM
I remember about 15 years ago I was traveling north on I-95 on a Sunday afternoon in the Summer (big mistake!).  I got into congestion somewhere between Richmond and Fredericksburg on I-95 so I took VA Route 3 to US 301 and thought I had effectively bypassed the congestion but then I got into backup on US 301 right before the Potomac River (4 lanes merge into 2).  It was pretty long at least 2 miles, but 5 is pretty bad in the winter.  It shows you how much Northern VA and Southern MD has grown in 15 years.  A US 301 freeway upgrade would be GREAT!  But at least they are addressing that merge bottleneck.

As mentioned by others upthread, both US-1 and US-301/VA-2 are neither suitable alternatives when I-95 is shut down (for obvious reasons).  I've always taken US-522 as an outlet valve, eventually working my way over to US-15/US-29 and beyond, if necessary.  I would rather spend 6 hours cruising around the beautiful Virginia countryside that 8 hours or more stuck between Richmond and Northern Virginia.  If one is going all the way to New York, simply focus on how to get to Harrisburg the fastest way.  If going to Baltimore (or even Suburban Maryland), try to focus on getting to Frederick the fastest way (even if it means heading west of the Blue Ridge through eastern West Virginia).  Philly and New Jersey are a mixed bag, but a couple of in between options I've used more than once are US-30 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike. 

It was easier to develop these habits during the NMSL-55 days, but the rules seem to work even better with the alternative routes having higher speeds (as compared to near zero along the I-95 corridor).
All this shows–there's a lot of redundancy in the Interstate system further northeast...but nothing to bypass the DC Metro. The Beltway is terrible, 301 freeway for the win! If it connected all the way up to Delaware using DE 1 to return to 95, that'd be fantastic. If it only went to Bowie, took MD-3 to I-97, that'd still take off a ton of people. (Ideally, with my option B here, the whole 301/MD-3 thing would be I-97's extension, and the little tail of 97 left over would be like an I-197. But I digress, as this is not Fictional.)

We need both the eastern and western bypasses of the DC area.  The eastern bypass, while not entirely freeway, is at least marked as  a continuous route US 301.  Yes, as you've said, a freeway routing of US 301 and MD-3 will at least provide a DC bypass to bring traffic from Richmond and further south to Baltimore.  It will lead to the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, which is really underutilized as most northeast corridor traffic is using the Ft McHenry Tunnnel, and will get you to I-95 north of Baltimore, which tends to handle traffic nicely except at commuting hours.

Eastern shore freeway along the northern stretch of US 301, while nice, would not be as necessary for these purposes.  It still won't be able to avoid the mess at the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on January 11, 2022, 12:07:56 PM
Governor-elect Youngkin has picked Sheppard Miller III to be the next Secretary of Transportation.

https://www.wavy.com/news/politics/virginia-politics/youngkin-taps-retired-norfolk-businessman-for-transportation-secretary/ (https://www.wavy.com/news/politics/virginia-politics/youngkin-taps-retired-norfolk-businessman-for-transportation-secretary/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 17, 2022, 10:37:18 AM
Gov. Northam in one of his final acts puts in motion plans to complete U.S. 460 to Kentucky. It won't be completed until 2026 though.

"Governor Ralph Northam today announced a comprehensive agreement to construct the $207 million Route 460/121 Poplar Creek "Phase B"  project in Buchanan County.

"The project – known as Corridor Q – is part of the National Highway System. Poplar Creek Phase B is just under two miles in length and will be a two-lane roadway with climbing lanes as needed, stretching from the east end of U.S. 460/121 Poplar Creek Phase A near U.S. 604 (Poplar Creek Road) to existing U.S. 460 at Grundy.

"While the majority of funds used for the Corridor Q projects in Buchanan County to date have been state matched federal funds, the advancement of the construction of Poplar Creek Phase B at this time was made possible by flexibility provided by the 2020 Transportation Omnibus Legislation, the governor's office said.

"A distinctive feature of the Corridor Q projects in Buchanan County is the use of the coal synergy process. VDOT and its public-private partner Bizzack Construction LLC, incorporated the coal synergy process into the majority of the projects, reducing road-building costs by using larger earth-moving machinery traditionally used by coal companies to prepare the road bed to rough grade, and allowing the company to recover merchantable coal reserves during the road bed preparation."

https://cardinalnews.org/2022/01/14/northam-announces-final-phase-of-460-construction-in-buchanan-county/

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 17, 2022, 04:45:57 PM
So there will be a two-lane gap in what otherwise would be a four-lane between Pikeville and Roanoke?

And wasn't the coal company-state partnership the same type of deal that was struck down in West Virginia for the US 52 King Coal Highway project?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 17, 2022, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2022, 04:45:57 PM
And wasn't the coal company-state partnership the same type of deal that was struck down in West Virginia for the US 52 King Coal Highway project?

But the King Coal public-private partnership turned out to be deemed illegally sole sourced.  If that wasn't bad enough, another case determined that wages on that project were subject to the Davis-Bacon Act (prevailing wages are to be paid on Federally-funded projects).  That coal contractor was Nicewonder Contracting, who just recently completed a similar public-private partnership project to construct the new [Mingo Regional] Airport (a.k.a. Appalachian Regional Airport), as well as donating the previously reclaimed mine for the Mingo Central High School (completed 2011).  Nicewonder has been part of Alpha Metallurgical since 2005, but Don Nicewonder still has a strong hand in the business.  None of this rings as a scandal, but who knows?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 08:20:39 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2022, 04:45:57 PM
So there will be a two-lane gap in what otherwise would be a four-lane between Pikeville and Roanoke?

And wasn't the coal company-state partnership the same type of deal that was struck down in West Virginia for the US 52 King Coal Highway project?
I really think it should be upgraded to interstate standards to reflect I-73 and I-74 going on it to bypass the Charleston traffic and provide better access to the Midwest...

That being said, I wish VDOT just signs I-74 now to Wytheville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 23, 2022, 08:22:19 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 08:20:39 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2022, 04:45:57 PM
So there will be a two-lane gap in what otherwise would be a four-lane between Pikeville and Roanoke?

And wasn't the coal company-state partnership the same type of deal that was struck down in West Virginia for the US 52 King Coal Highway project?
I really think it should be upgraded to interstate standards to reflect I-73 and I-74 going on it to bypass the Charleston traffic and provide better access to the Midwest...

That being said, I wish VDOT just signs I-74 now to Wytheville.
I-73 and I-74 are likely never going to leave North Carolina to begin with, let alone get north of I-81.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 24, 2022, 01:34:07 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 23, 2022, 08:22:19 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 08:20:39 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2022, 04:45:57 PM
So there will be a two-lane gap in what otherwise would be a four-lane between Pikeville and Roanoke?

And wasn't the coal company-state partnership the same type of deal that was struck down in West Virginia for the US 52 King Coal Highway project?
I really think it should be upgraded to interstate standards to reflect I-73 and I-74 going on it to bypass the Charleston traffic and provide better access to the Midwest...

That being said, I wish VDOT just signs I-74 now to Wytheville.
I-73 and I-74 are likely never going to leave North Carolina to begin with, let alone get north of I-81.

I-73 still has a shot, but just to Roanoke.

I-74, not so much.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 24, 2022, 02:37:23 PM
So a weird bill is currently in the Virginia House Transportation Committee. It proposes to petition AASHTO to reroute US 60 along I-64 between Exits 50 and 55 (extending an existing concurrency), then southward along US 11 to the interchange with current US 60.

What's weird about that? They want to renumber the original segment US 850.

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+ful+HB31
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 24, 2022, 02:42:16 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 24, 2022, 02:37:23 PM
So a weird bill is currently in the Virginia House Transportation Committee. It proposes to petition AASHTO to reroute US 60 along I-64 between Exits 50 and 55 (extending an existing concurrency), then southward along US 11 to the interchange with current US 60.

What's weird about that? They want to renumber the original segment US 850.

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+ful+HB31

I think I would prefer US 60-1 (remember US 17-1) over US 850.  US 850 is just a wee bit sure of the 300-mile rule.   :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 24, 2022, 02:46:10 PM
Congressman Don Beyer might like the "850" number (despite no longer being engaged in his other line of work).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 24, 2022, 03:12:48 PM
The rerouting makes as little sense as does the renumbering. a more logical rerouting would be I-64 to I-81 to the existing US 60 exit, and call existing 60 Business 60.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 24, 2022, 03:45:28 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2022, 03:12:48 PM
The rerouting makes as little sense as does the renumbering. a more logical rerouting would be I-64 to I-81 to the existing US 60 exit, and call existing 60 Business 60.

I agree, if they're going to extend the US 60/I-64 concurrency they might as well go all the way east of Lexington and change existing US 60 to US 60 BUSINESS.

I really don't know where US 850 came from, unless they meant to say SR 850, which would make more sense since that's the number for the segment of Midland Trail that used to be US 60 before it was put on I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 24, 2022, 04:22:32 PM
Note it says to the US 11-60 jct in Downtown Lexington, which implies using US 11 Business through VMI to Downtown...

Concur it makes no sense to reroute if not going I-64 to I-81.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 24, 2022, 05:18:50 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 24, 2022, 02:37:23 PM
So a weird bill is currently in the Virginia House Transportation Committee. It proposes to petition AASHTO to reroute US 60 along I-64 between Exits 50 and 55 (extending an existing concurrency), then southward along US 11 to the interchange with current US 60.

What's weird about that? They want to renumber the original segment US 850.

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+ful+HB31

Most certainly a typo.  SR-850 is the old US-60 routing west of Lexington, which just happens to end at Exit 50 (the east end of the US-60 concurrency with I-64).  However, given that this is a General Assembly bill it could be formalized as US-850 and then disapproved by AASHTO.  Never a dull moment.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on January 26, 2022, 02:20:44 PM
Federal money is coming to upgrade two Virginia highways. Sen. Mark Warner is touting his role in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which includes specific targeted funds.

"I wanted to reach out briefly to share another major funding announcement from this law — $20 million to help connect Virginia's Appalachian region to national interstates via the Appalachian Development Highway System. This is a direct, targeted investment that will go straight to helping improve, expand, and connect local highways in rural Virginia. It's an important move that will help increase access to all parts of the Commonwealth and create jobs in the process."

The graphic in the email shows Virginia interstates (leaving off I-77 north from Wytheville) and U.S. 460 from Christiansburg west and U.S. 48 west from Strasburg. The email offers no other details. It appears that this extra funding is in addition to what has already been tagged in the infrastructure act: Appalachian Development Highway System: $102,835,469

Bruce in Blacksburg

(https://brucebharper.info/varoads/WarnerMap.png)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 26, 2022, 07:29:34 PM
Chesterfield County is looking at developing part of the Magnolia Green community as a technology park in order to generate funding for the VA 76/Powhite Parkway extension to US 360 near Skinquarter. Not sure how practical this is but Magnolia Green is one of the fastest developing areas of the county.

https://www.chesterfield.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=2549&fbclid=IwAR0oJScl5R4k-_UKNZSnZUdqdHICemimtST8Gg5WW2J0KA1pRTl-zW33W9s
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 27, 2022, 04:22:27 AM
I wish VDOT and the county would hurry up already and make the extension a reality. Over the past 20+ years this went from a serious consideration to nothing to a maybe to we might finally do something to well let's just make it a boulevard to nah to we might do it.

It's not going to get cheaper the longer it gets pushed back. And seriously, why are they still showing that unnecessary routing south of US 360 back to I-95? Just stop it at US 360.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 27, 2022, 05:01:40 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on January 26, 2022, 02:20:44 PM
Federal money is coming to upgrade two Virginia highways. Sen. Mark Warner is touting his role in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which includes specific targeted funds.

"I wanted to reach out briefly to share another major funding announcement from this law — $20 million to help connect Virginia's Appalachian region to national interstates via the Appalachian Development Highway System. This is a direct, targeted investment that will go straight to helping improve, expand, and connect local highways in rural Virginia. It's an important move that will help increase access to all parts of the Commonwealth and create jobs in the process."

The graphic in the email shows Virginia interstates (leaving off I-77 north from Wytheville) and U.S. 460 from Christiansburg west and U.S. 48 west from Strasburg. The email offers no other details. It appears that this extra funding is in addition to what has already been tagged in the infrastructure act: Appalachian Development Highway System: $102,835,469

Bruce in Blacksburg

(https://brucebharper.info/varoads/WarnerMap.png)

Maybe some more Corridor Q-ing for US 460? Continue what's near the KY border?

As for US 48, probably a 4-lane arterial, at least it'll sort of match the WV side. Knowing VA, I don't see much in the way of limited access.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 27, 2022, 05:54:30 PM
Quote from: plain on January 27, 2022, 04:22:27 AM
And seriously, why are they still showing that unnecessary routing south of US 360 back to I-95? Just stop it at US 360.

That's the East-West "Freeway" (actually a 2-lane road), which was canceled last year. It still appears because Chesterfield County hasn't revised their comprehensive plan since then.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 27, 2022, 05:57:04 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 24, 2022, 04:22:32 PM
Note it says to the US 11-60 jct in Downtown Lexington, which implies using US 11 Business through VMI to Downtown...

Concur it makes no sense to reroute if not going I-64 to I-81.

The bill was amended to remove the "downtown Lexington" part (suggesting that they meant the US 11/US 60 interchange east of Lexington), but it's a moot point now since the bill died in committee.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2022, 06:00:34 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 27, 2022, 05:54:30 PM
Quote from: plain on January 27, 2022, 04:22:27 AM
And seriously, why are they still showing that unnecessary routing south of US 360 back to I-95? Just stop it at US 360.

That's the East-West "Freeway" (actually a 2-lane road), which was canceled last year. It still appears because Chesterfield County hasn't revised their comprehensive plan since then.
Shouldn't the design of the Powhite Parkway extension seamlessly tie into US-360 to the west then, now that the East-West freeway is canceled?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 27, 2022, 10:00:58 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 24, 2022, 04:22:32 PM
Note it says to the US 11-60 jct in Downtown Lexington, which implies using US 11 Business through VMI to Downtown...

Concur it makes no sense to reroute if not going I-64 to I-81.

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 27, 2022, 05:57:04 PM
The bill was amended to remove the "downtown Lexington" part (suggesting that they meant the US 11/US 60 interchange east of Lexington), but it's a moot point now since the bill died in committee.

Does that necessarily kill the project?  This is not such an expensive change that VDOT can't eat the cost now and reap the benefits later.  Or maybe reap the benefits now, as I suspect that this old section of US-60 is way overdue for replacement signage.  Anyhow, there's only the reassurance signs along I-64 for one more exit, the changes to BGS for both exits, and new signage for a short section of Lee Highway before the turn back onto The Midland Trail.  It is likely that this type of rerouting would be an easy pass for AASHTO Special Committee.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 28, 2022, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 26, 2022, 07:29:34 PM
Chesterfield County is looking at developing part of the Magnolia Green community as a technology park in order to generate funding for the VA 76/Powhite Parkway extension to US 360 near Skinquarter. Not sure how practical this is but Magnolia Green is one of the fastest developing areas of the county.

https://www.chesterfield.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=2549&fbclid=IwAR0oJScl5R4k-_UKNZSnZUdqdHICemimtST8Gg5WW2J0KA1pRTl-zW33W9s
I wish I could see more details of some of the proposed roads in the map. Some of them look like what are currently very minor roads that would be expanded.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 28, 2022, 08:07:08 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on January 27, 2022, 10:00:58 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 24, 2022, 04:22:32 PM
Note it says to the US 11-60 jct in Downtown Lexington, which implies using US 11 Business through VMI to Downtown...

Concur it makes no sense to reroute if not going I-64 to I-81.

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 27, 2022, 05:57:04 PM
The bill was amended to remove the "downtown Lexington" part (suggesting that they meant the US 11/US 60 interchange east of Lexington), but it's a moot point now since the bill died in committee.

Does that necessarily kill the project?  This is not such an expensive change that VDOT can't eat the cost now and reap the benefits later.  Or maybe reap the benefits now, as I suspect that this old section of US-60 is way overdue for replacement signage.  Anyhow, there's only the reassurance signs along I-64 for one more exit, the changes to BGS for both exits, and new signage for a short section of Lee Highway before the turn back onto The Midland Trail.  It is likely that this type of rerouting would be an easy pass for AASHTO Special Committee.

There is nothing preventing VDOT or the CTB from rerouting US 60 if they wanted to. The bill would have forced them to. The only constraint is that they cannot remove more than 150 miles from the primary system in any one year, nor add more than 50 miles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 28, 2022, 09:26:39 AM
Quote from: Takumi on January 28, 2022, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 26, 2022, 07:29:34 PM
Chesterfield County is looking at developing part of the Magnolia Green community as a technology park in order to generate funding for the VA 76/Powhite Parkway extension to US 360 near Skinquarter. Not sure how practical this is but Magnolia Green is one of the fastest developing areas of the county.

https://www.chesterfield.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=2549&fbclid=IwAR0oJScl5R4k-_UKNZSnZUdqdHICemimtST8Gg5WW2J0KA1pRTl-zW33W9s
I wish I could see more details of some of the proposed roads in the map. Some of them look like what are currently very minor roads that would be expanded.

Unfortunately the PDF version (https://www.chesterfield.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1322/Thoroughfare-Plan-PDF) of the thoroughfare plan isn't any more detailed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 28, 2022, 09:59:58 AM
IIRC, a past-years version of that thoroughfare plan had yet another freeway....from the East-West southward into Dinwiddle County.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 28, 2022, 10:45:03 AM
Quote from: plain on December 30, 2021, 11:13:33 PM
While going through the Valentine Museum's archives once again earlier for some pics, I came across another shot of the RUNAWAY TRUCK RAMP on I-95. There's no date, but the NY Box-style rail is in the median, so I would put this between 1976 (or more likely 1981) and 1986.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211231/ca4bdc6cd020f115a2b5a32aef3848b7.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

EDIT: Then again, that might have been the Jersey barrier, but the median looks grassy. This could be right around 1985-86.
Is that the Belvidere Toll Booth in Richmond?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 28, 2022, 10:48:40 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 28, 2022, 10:45:03 AM
Is that the Belvidere Toll Booth in Richmond?

It is; the offramp to Belvidere Street is off to the lower left.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 28, 2022, 10:03:37 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 28, 2022, 09:26:39 AM
Quote from: Takumi on January 28, 2022, 12:35:32 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 26, 2022, 07:29:34 PM
Chesterfield County is looking at developing part of the Magnolia Green community as a technology park in order to generate funding for the VA 76/Powhite Parkway extension to US 360 near Skinquarter. Not sure how practical this is but Magnolia Green is one of the fastest developing areas of the county.

https://www.chesterfield.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=2549&fbclid=IwAR0oJScl5R4k-_UKNZSnZUdqdHICemimtST8Gg5WW2J0KA1pRTl-zW33W9s
I wish I could see more details of some of the proposed roads in the map. Some of them look like what are currently very minor roads that would be expanded.

Unfortunately the PDF version (https://www.chesterfield.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1322/Thoroughfare-Plan-PDF) of the thoroughfare plan isn't any more detailed.
It’s a little bit easier to see what some of the roads are, at least. Some notables:

-the western expansion of Woolridge looks like it would connect with the Powhite extension again, or at least come very close to it if it ends at Duval Road. (There’s another dotted line that goes almost due west of the Duval/Woolridge/Powhite interchange and then turns southeast back to 360, but the map makes no way of telling if that’s more Woolridge.)
-Duval Road looks to have a southwest extension, paralleling 360 down to a road that would connect 360 to the end of Pear Orchard Road at Chesterfield Berry Farm.
-Minor roads like Sappony Road and Deer Range Road have long extensions proposed.
-A connection of the two segments of Reedy Branch Road. I think this has been on the books for nearly a century, if not longer.
-A northern extension of Halloway Avenue in Matoaca that would tie into the subdivision currently being build behind Matoaca High School. This road would ultimately connect to Branders Bridge Road somewhere.
-A western extension of Happy Hill Road to around the Bradley Bridge/Lewis intersection. Would require some property acquisition on both ends.
-An eastern extension of Genito Road to Newbys Bridge Road. Notably it shows this as a 70 foot collector road as opposed to an arterial.
-a road extending north from the East-West Freeway and heading towards western Chester, in the path of what appears to be Womack Road. Obviously this won’t happen now, but it also shows a northward extension of Womack to VA 144.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on January 31, 2022, 12:14:27 AM
Out of curiosity, are there plans to put up a Jersey barrier on US 15 between Leesburg and MD? Obviously there's no way in hell this'll ever be upgraded (can't ruin those precious vineyards!), but as it stands it's always a tense 13 miles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on January 31, 2022, 12:33:34 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 31, 2022, 12:14:27 AM
Out of curiosity, are there plans to put up a Jersey barrier on US 15 between Leesburg and MD? Obviously there's no way in hell this'll ever be upgraded (can't ruin those precious vineyards!), but as it stands it's always a tense 13 miles.

What is it with vineyards occupying valuable real estate, in Washington DC and the Bay Area?

I'm glad I don't drink.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: odditude on January 31, 2022, 07:12:38 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2022, 12:33:34 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 31, 2022, 12:14:27 AM
Out of curiosity, are there plans to put up a Jersey barrier on US 15 between Leesburg and MD? Obviously there's no way in hell this'll ever be upgraded (can't ruin those precious vineyards!), but as it stands it's always a tense 13 miles.

What is it with vineyards occupying valuable real estate, in Washington DC and the Bay Area?

I'm glad I don't drink.

if the vineyards occupy valuable real estate, they must be producing enough revenue to make keeping vs selling the correct economic decision for the owners.

whether or not you personally drink, alcohol production can make decent money.

also, at least in NOVA, if it wasn't a vineyard it would likely soon be datacenters (as long as there is a substation nearby).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on January 31, 2022, 07:48:30 PM
Quote from: odditude on January 31, 2022, 07:12:38 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2022, 12:33:34 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 31, 2022, 12:14:27 AM
Out of curiosity, are there plans to put up a Jersey barrier on US 15 between Leesburg and MD? Obviously there's no way in hell this'll ever be upgraded (can't ruin those precious vineyards!), but as it stands it's always a tense 13 miles.

What is it with vineyards occupying valuable real estate, in Washington DC and the Bay Area?

I'm glad I don't drink.

if the vineyards occupy valuable real estate, they must be producing enough revenue to make keeping vs selling the correct economic decision for the owners.

whether or not you personally drink, alcohol production can make decent money.

also, at least in NOVA, if it wasn't a vineyard it would likely soon be datacenters (as long as there is a substation nearby).

More likely, they're protected by zoning laws and property tax breaks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 31, 2022, 09:14:48 PM
Why don't you try citing facts for a change instead of posting your unfounded personal biases?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: noelbotevera on January 31, 2022, 09:36:01 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2022, 12:33:34 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 31, 2022, 12:14:27 AM
Out of curiosity, are there plans to put up a Jersey barrier on US 15 between Leesburg and MD? Obviously there's no way in hell this'll ever be upgraded (can't ruin those precious vineyards!), but as it stands it's always a tense 13 miles.

What is it with vineyards occupying valuable real estate, in Washington DC and the Bay Area?

I'm glad I don't drink.
For someone who lives in Boston and posts in the Virginia thread, you sure seem to know the answer. Don't know why you bother asking.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on January 31, 2022, 10:22:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2022, 07:48:30 PM
Quote from: odditude on January 31, 2022, 07:12:38 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2022, 12:33:34 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 31, 2022, 12:14:27 AM
Out of curiosity, are there plans to put up a Jersey barrier on US 15 between Leesburg and MD? Obviously there's no way in hell this'll ever be upgraded (can't ruin those precious vineyards!), but as it stands it's always a tense 13 miles.

What is it with vineyards occupying valuable real estate, in Washington DC and the Bay Area?

I'm glad I don't drink.

if the vineyards occupy valuable real estate, they must be producing enough revenue to make keeping vs selling the correct economic decision for the owners.

whether or not you personally drink, alcohol production can make decent money.

also, at least in NOVA, if it wasn't a vineyard it would likely soon be datacenters (as long as there is a substation nearby).

More likely, they're protected by zoning laws and property tax breaks.
most likely, you're wrong
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kkt on January 31, 2022, 11:25:10 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2022, 07:48:30 PM
Quote from: odditude on January 31, 2022, 07:12:38 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2022, 12:33:34 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 31, 2022, 12:14:27 AM
Out of curiosity, are there plans to put up a Jersey barrier on US 15 between Leesburg and MD? Obviously there's no way in hell this'll ever be upgraded (can't ruin those precious vineyards!), but as it stands it's always a tense 13 miles.

What is it with vineyards occupying valuable real estate, in Washington DC and the Bay Area?

I'm glad I don't drink.

if the vineyards occupy valuable real estate, they must be producing enough revenue to make keeping vs selling the correct economic decision for the owners.

whether or not you personally drink, alcohol production can make decent money.

also, at least in NOVA, if it wasn't a vineyard it would likely soon be datacenters (as long as there is a substation nearby).

More likely, they're protected by zoning laws and property tax breaks.

Vineyards do produce a whole lot of value from the land.  They chase out other agricultural uses, for example the Alexander Valley where the town of Philo is in Mendocino County used to be almost all orchards in the 1950s and 1960s, and has gradually changed to almost all vineyards.  Possibly if dense housing were allowed that would be produced instead, but there are several reasons for not putting dense housing there.  Start with it would be serving commuters to the San Francisco Bay Area and it's a heck of a long commute there and they would soon be demanding larger freeways to make it easier to get there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 01, 2022, 10:46:21 AM
It's been a long time since I lived in Loudoun County, but like other parts of the country you must utilize large tracts of land for agricultural purposes or get taxed at the residential land use rates.  Two of my colleagues purchased 10-acre tracts in Loudoun back in the early 1990s:  one set up a vineyard (his lifelong dream) and the other set up a horse farm (his daughter's dream).  I suspect that the horse farm concept didn't meet the state or county's tax requirements for income, so the horse farm added some goats and cows.

Old-time Loudoun residents are fiesty about land use (and many are very wealthy).  However, I'm surprised that all of the newcomers to Loudoun haven't voted for improved highways.  It's one of the few places where there are many new [expressways] through subdivisions and commercial areas, but most of the main roads are still narrow two-lane roads.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on February 01, 2022, 11:40:42 AM
Vineyards are increasingly becoming tourist attractions.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 01, 2022, 10:31:02 PM
Does Virginia have a "farmland preservation" program where a government agency can buy out the development rights?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 02, 2022, 10:56:08 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 01, 2022, 10:31:02 PM
Does Virginia have a "farmland preservation" program where a government agency can buy out the development rights?

Yes, similar to North Carolina, Virginia has a conservation easement program whereby certain state entities and any private conservancy group can pay for permanent easement rights on large parcels of land.  I seriously doubt that those 10-acre mini-ranches could participate in those efforts, but there is a movement within Virginia to create a self-owner conservancy that would change the land deed to enforce the same type of requirements.  This works similar to how covenants are written into deeds for homeowner associations.  However, none of those requirements are exempt from the possible use of eminent domain by another government agency (like VDOT).  But those covenants might stop forestry lands from being bulldozed for a school complex.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on February 03, 2022, 08:29:35 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 02, 2022, 10:56:08 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 01, 2022, 10:31:02 PM
Does Virginia have a "farmland preservation" program where a government agency can buy out the development rights?

Yes, similar to North Carolina, Virginia has a conservation easement program whereby certain state entities and any private conservancy group can pay for permanent easement rights on large parcels of land.

There is the Agricultural and Forestal District Act that allows landowners to protect their land from development pressure. This is different than a conservation easement but does have the same aim of protecting open land from encroaching development.

QuoteAgricultural/Forestal Districts are rural conservation zones reserved for the production of agricultural products, timber,
and the maintenance of open space land as an important economic and environmental resource. Districts are voluntary.
They are initiated by a landowner or group of landowners as a mutual undertaking with the local government.
By establishing a District, property owners agree not to convert their farm, forestland and other open space lands to more
intense commercial, industrial or residential uses for a term of 4 to 10 years. In return, the county and Commonwealth
agree not to take actions or make infrastructure investments that will place increased pressure on landowners to convert
land in the district to more intense land uses during the term of the District.
(see https://www.vafb.com/Portals/FBA/PDFs_and_Resources/membership_at_work/Agricultural%20-%20Forestal%20Districts%20FAQ%20Sheet%2011-1-17.pdf for an FAQ about the program)


Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 04, 2022, 08:31:49 AM
There was a public meeting last night about Chesterfield's Upper Magnolia Green development - which includes the Powhite Parkway extension to US 360 in Skinquarter - and there was substantial community opposition. I'm skeptical the extension will ever get built...which is about how I normally feel anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 05, 2022, 08:47:28 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 04, 2022, 08:31:49 AM
There was a public meeting last night about Chesterfield's Upper Magnolia Green development - which includes the Powhite Parkway extension to US 360 in Skinquarter - and there was substantial community opposition. I'm skeptical the extension will ever get built...which is about how I normally feel anyway.

I've recently seen signs opposing the Magnolia megasite appearing in people's yards in Chester and Matoaca...areas that were also vocally opposed to the previous megasite proposal and the E-W freeway. Maybe a compromise will be reached at some point where the extension will be built as a surface road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 20, 2022, 05:25:01 PM
Improvements coming to the Jamestown-Scotland Ferry

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/jamestown-ferry-gets-2-million-for-modernization-effort/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 04, 2022, 10:37:49 PM
An official project page has been made on VDOT's website for the proposed interchange along US-58 at the SPSA Regional Landfill. This would eliminate a dangerous at-grade crossing on the 6 lane highway between Suffolk and Bowers Hill that effectively functions as a 60 mph freeway.

According to this, the project will cost around $40 million and be complete by 2026.

In Design: Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) Interchange Improvements Project
(https://virginiadot.org/projects/hampton-roads/spsa-interchange-improvements.asp)
QuoteThe Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) Interchange Improvements project is located in the City of Suffolk. The proposed project will replace the at-grade crossing with Route 13/58/460 with a flyover ramp for the eastbound traffic entering SPSA Regional Landfill. The project is located from approximately 2.54 miles west of Suffolk City Limits to approximately 0.43 miles east of Route 13/58/460.

The principal arterial in this corridor has three general purpose lanes in each direction. The proposed design includes a right exit in the eastbound direction to the SPSA landfill entrance. This ramp will include a proposed bridge over Route 13/58/460.

Some of the major components of the SPSA Interchange Improvements project include:

* New Ramp
* New flyover bridge over Route 13/58/460
* Drainage Design
* Right of Way Impacts
* Utility Relocations

Cost and Schedule
* Total estimated cost: $39,266,210
* Estimated completion date: Spring 2026
(https://virginiadot.org/Projects/Hampton_Roads/asset_upload_file524_191699.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: plain on February 20, 2022, 05:25:01 PM
Improvements coming to the Jamestown-Scotland Ferry

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/jamestown-ferry-gets-2-million-for-modernization-effort/

I took the ferry from Scotland to Jamestown this morning. Noticed a lot of yard signs on VA 31 north of Surry opposing a road widening. I assume this is a proposed project distinct from the funding mentioned above. There also appeared to be construction already underway at the north shore (i.e. Jamestown) slips.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:43:04 PM
I've recently noticed some newer street signs in Prince William and Chesterfield Counties that include the secondary route number (like you see in North Carolina) and -- consequently -- eliminate the need for a separate white blade sign. Anyone know if this a pilot project or a type of new partnership between the counties and VDOT? While I think the white blade signs have some navigational benefit for major secondary routes, as well as in rural areas, I think they're a waste of money in suburban neighborhoods and along minor residential streets. Affixing the route number to the street sign in these areas makes more sense.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 06, 2022, 07:46:06 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:43:04 PM
I've recently noticed some newer street signs in Prince William and Chesterfield Counties that include the secondary route number (like you see in North Carolina) and -- consequently -- eliminate the need for a separate white blade sign. Anyone know if this a pilot project or a type of new partnership between the counties and VDOT? While I think the white blade signs have some navigational benefit for major secondary routes, as well as in rural areas, I think they're a waste of money in suburban neighborhoods and along minor residential streets. Affixing the route number to the street sign in these areas makes more sense.

This has been going on in Prince William County for at least 15 years...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 06, 2022, 07:48:29 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:43:04 PM
I've recently noticed some newer street signs in Prince William and Chesterfield Counties that include the secondary route number (like you see in North Carolina) and -- consequently -- eliminate the need for a separate white blade sign. Anyone know if this a pilot project or a type of new partnership between the counties and VDOT? While I think the white blade signs have some navigational benefit for major secondary routes, as well as in rural areas, I think they're a waste of money in suburban neighborhoods and along minor residential streets. Affixing the route number to the street sign in these areas makes more sense.

Streetblade installations vary throughout North Carolina, but outside of municipalities they are installed and maintained by the various NCDOT districts.  I'm pretty sure that VDOT still uses the little white signs attached to Stop signs for SR state secondary routes, and the streetblades are installed and maintained by the municipalities and counties themselves (or other jurisdictions).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Old Dominionite on March 07, 2022, 02:07:25 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 06, 2022, 07:46:06 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:43:04 PM
I've recently noticed some newer street signs in Prince William and Chesterfield Counties that include the secondary route number (like you see in North Carolina) and -- consequently -- eliminate the need for a separate white blade sign. Anyone know if this a pilot project or a type of new partnership between the counties and VDOT? While I think the white blade signs have some navigational benefit for major secondary routes, as well as in rural areas, I think they're a waste of money in suburban neighborhoods and along minor residential streets. Affixing the route number to the street sign in these areas makes more sense.

This has been going on in Prince William County for at least 15 years...

Well, this goes to show how often I'm in Prince William County.  :D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 07, 2022, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 07, 2022, 02:07:25 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 06, 2022, 07:46:06 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:43:04 PM
I've recently noticed some newer street signs in Prince William and Chesterfield Counties that include the secondary route number (like you see in North Carolina) and -- consequently -- eliminate the need for a separate white blade sign. Anyone know if this a pilot project or a type of new partnership between the counties and VDOT? While I think the white blade signs have some navigational benefit for major secondary routes, as well as in rural areas, I think they're a waste of money in suburban neighborhoods and along minor residential streets. Affixing the route number to the street sign in these areas makes more sense.

This has been going on in Prince William County for at least 15 years...

Well, this goes to show how often I'm in Prince William County.  :D

It seems to depend on the county. A number of counties in the Charlottesville area do the same thing, and Powhatan County used to do it but I don't think they do anymore. Stafford County recently started doing it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 07, 2022, 09:24:14 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 07, 2022, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 07, 2022, 02:07:25 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 06, 2022, 07:46:06 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:43:04 PM
I've recently noticed some newer street signs in Prince William and Chesterfield Counties that include the secondary route number (like you see in North Carolina) and -- consequently -- eliminate the need for a separate white blade sign. Anyone know if this a pilot project or a type of new partnership between the counties and VDOT? While I think the white blade signs have some navigational benefit for major secondary routes, as well as in rural areas, I think they're a waste of money in suburban neighborhoods and along minor residential streets. Affixing the route number to the street sign in these areas makes more sense.

This has been going on in Prince William County for at least 15 years...

Well, this goes to show how often I'm in Prince William County.  :D

It seems to depend on the county. A number of counties in the Charlottesville area do the same thing, and Powhatan County used to do it but I don't think they do anymore. Stafford County recently started doing it.

Chesterfield County have definitely been using them since the 1990's at least.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 07, 2022, 09:30:18 AM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: plain on February 20, 2022, 05:25:01 PM
Improvements coming to the Jamestown-Scotland Ferry

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/jamestown-ferry-gets-2-million-for-modernization-effort/

I took the ferry from Scotland to Jamestown this morning. Noticed a lot of yard signs on VA 31 north of Surry opposing a road widening. I assume this is a proposed project distinct from the funding mentioned above. There also appeared to be construction already underway at the north shore (i.e. Jamestown) slips.

Those residents might be misinformed about something or just heard some rumors or something. The only "widening" I can see happening there is maybe a better shoulder. Definitely no additional lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 07, 2022, 10:07:29 AM
Quote from: plain on March 07, 2022, 09:24:14 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 07, 2022, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 07, 2022, 02:07:25 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 06, 2022, 07:46:06 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:43:04 PM
I've recently noticed some newer street signs in Prince William and Chesterfield Counties that include the secondary route number (like you see in North Carolina) and -- consequently -- eliminate the need for a separate white blade sign. Anyone know if this a pilot project or a type of new partnership between the counties and VDOT? While I think the white blade signs have some navigational benefit for major secondary routes, as well as in rural areas, I think they're a waste of money in suburban neighborhoods and along minor residential streets. Affixing the route number to the street sign in these areas makes more sense.

This has been going on in Prince William County for at least 15 years...

Well, this goes to show how often I'm in Prince William County.  :D

It seems to depend on the county. A number of counties in the Charlottesville area do the same thing, and Powhatan County used to do it but I don't think they do anymore. Stafford County recently started doing it.

Chesterfield County have definitely been using them since the 1990's at least.

I note that some of the jurisdictions that use those signs (Albemarle County is one) will put "PRIVATE" when the road is owned and maintained by someone other than the government, such as an HOA.

It's mildly interesting to me that I live on an HOA street and no street number is posted on the stop sign down the end of the block, whereas the next street over–which is also an HOA street–does have a street number posted on one of the ubiquitous white rectangular signs (Fairfax County doesn't put the route number on the street sign).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 07, 2022, 12:15:40 PM
Quote from: plain on March 07, 2022, 09:30:18 AM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: plain on February 20, 2022, 05:25:01 PM
Improvements coming to the Jamestown-Scotland Ferry

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/jamestown-ferry-gets-2-million-for-modernization-effort/

I took the ferry from Scotland to Jamestown this morning. Noticed a lot of yard signs on VA 31 north of Surry opposing a road widening. I assume this is a proposed project distinct from the funding mentioned above. There also appeared to be construction already underway at the north shore (i.e. Jamestown) slips.

Those residents might be misinformed about something or just heard some rumors or something. The only "widening" I can see happening there is maybe a better shoulder. Definitely no additional lanes.

Likely referring to adding a bike lane from the ferry to Surry...

https://www.smithfieldtimes.com/2021/07/06/federal-money-earmarked-for-surry-bike-trail/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 07, 2022, 12:55:44 PM
Quote from: plain on March 07, 2022, 09:24:14 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 07, 2022, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 07, 2022, 02:07:25 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 06, 2022, 07:46:06 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:43:04 PM
I've recently noticed some newer street signs in Prince William and Chesterfield Counties that include the secondary route number (like you see in North Carolina) and -- consequently -- eliminate the need for a separate white blade sign. Anyone know if this a pilot project or a type of new partnership between the counties and VDOT? While I think the white blade signs have some navigational benefit for major secondary routes, as well as in rural areas, I think they're a waste of money in suburban neighborhoods and along minor residential streets. Affixing the route number to the street sign in these areas makes more sense.

This has been going on in Prince William County for at least 15 years...

Well, this goes to show how often I'm in Prince William County.  :D

It seems to depend on the county. A number of counties in the Charlottesville area do the same thing, and Powhatan County used to do it but I don't think they do anymore. Stafford County recently started doing it.

Chesterfield County have definitely been using them since the 1990's at least.
Yep. Started in the early 90s. You can still find some of the older, smaller signs they used prior to that scattered around the county. Despite this, some new assemblies have the white number sign.

York County is another county that does it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 07, 2022, 03:07:27 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 07, 2022, 12:55:44 PM
Quote from: plain on March 07, 2022, 09:24:14 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 07, 2022, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 07, 2022, 02:07:25 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 06, 2022, 07:46:06 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:43:04 PM
I've recently noticed some newer street signs in Prince William and Chesterfield Counties that include the secondary route number (like you see in North Carolina) and -- consequently -- eliminate the need for a separate white blade sign. Anyone know if this a pilot project or a type of new partnership between the counties and VDOT? While I think the white blade signs have some navigational benefit for major secondary routes, as well as in rural areas, I think they're a waste of money in suburban neighborhoods and along minor residential streets. Affixing the route number to the street sign in these areas makes more sense.

This has been going on in Prince William County for at least 15 years...

Well, this goes to show how often I'm in Prince William County.  :D

It seems to depend on the county. A number of counties in the Charlottesville area do the same thing, and Powhatan County used to do it but I don't think they do anymore. Stafford County recently started doing it.

Chesterfield County have definitely been using them since the 1990's at least.
Yep. Started in the early 90s. You can still find some of the older, smaller signs they used prior to that scattered around the county. Despite this, some new assemblies have the white number sign.

York County is another county that does it.

Interestingly, some signs labeling route numbers (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2866626,-76.6862804,3a,75y,40.04h,89.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_TqfjqtG1imo90tQRcQfkQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) have also popped up in the City of Williamsburg, despite there being no SR's in the city limits.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 07, 2022, 11:56:49 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 07, 2022, 12:15:40 PM
Quote from: plain on March 07, 2022, 09:30:18 AM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: plain on February 20, 2022, 05:25:01 PM
Improvements coming to the Jamestown-Scotland Ferry

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/jamestown-ferry-gets-2-million-for-modernization-effort/

I took the ferry from Scotland to Jamestown this morning. Noticed a lot of yard signs on VA 31 north of Surry opposing a road widening. I assume this is a proposed project distinct from the funding mentioned above. There also appeared to be construction already underway at the north shore (i.e. Jamestown) slips.

Those residents might be misinformed about something or just heard some rumors or something. The only "widening" I can see happening there is maybe a better shoulder. Definitely no additional lanes.

Likely referring to adding a bike lane from the ferry to Surry...

https://www.smithfieldtimes.com/2021/07/06/federal-money-earmarked-for-surry-bike-trail/

Seems like they're afraid that the bike lane is going to lead to the rural character there being disturbed, which I don't see happening bike lane or not.



Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 07, 2022, 03:07:27 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 07, 2022, 12:55:44 PM
Quote from: plain on March 07, 2022, 09:24:14 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 07, 2022, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 07, 2022, 02:07:25 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 06, 2022, 07:46:06 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:43:04 PM
I've recently noticed some newer street signs in Prince William and Chesterfield Counties that include the secondary route number (like you see in North Carolina) and -- consequently -- eliminate the need for a separate white blade sign. Anyone know if this a pilot project or a type of new partnership between the counties and VDOT? While I think the white blade signs have some navigational benefit for major secondary routes, as well as in rural areas, I think they're a waste of money in suburban neighborhoods and along minor residential streets. Affixing the route number to the street sign in these areas makes more sense.

This has been going on in Prince William County for at least 15 years...

Well, this goes to show how often I'm in Prince William County.  :D

It seems to depend on the county. A number of counties in the Charlottesville area do the same thing, and Powhatan County used to do it but I don't think they do anymore. Stafford County recently started doing it.

Chesterfield County have definitely been using them since the 1990's at least.
Yep. Started in the early 90s. You can still find some of the older, smaller signs they used prior to that scattered around the county. Despite this, some new assemblies have the white number sign.

York County is another county that does it.

Interestingly, some signs labeling route numbers (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2866626,-76.6862804,3a,75y,40.04h,89.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_TqfjqtG1imo90tQRcQfkQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) have also popped up in the City of Williamsburg, despite there being no SR's in the city limits.

You're correct in there being no Secondaries in the city, but being that 143 is Primary, it's good.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 08, 2022, 12:43:36 AM
Quote from: plain on March 07, 2022, 11:56:49 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 07, 2022, 12:15:40 PM
Quote from: plain on March 07, 2022, 09:30:18 AM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: plain on February 20, 2022, 05:25:01 PM
Improvements coming to the Jamestown-Scotland Ferry

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/jamestown-ferry-gets-2-million-for-modernization-effort/

I took the ferry from Scotland to Jamestown this morning. Noticed a lot of yard signs on VA 31 north of Surry opposing a road widening. I assume this is a proposed project distinct from the funding mentioned above. There also appeared to be construction already underway at the north shore (i.e. Jamestown) slips.

Those residents might be misinformed about something or just heard some rumors or something. The only "widening" I can see happening there is maybe a better shoulder. Definitely no additional lanes.

Likely referring to adding a bike lane from the ferry to Surry...

https://www.smithfieldtimes.com/2021/07/06/federal-money-earmarked-for-surry-bike-trail/

Seems like they're afraid that the bike lane is going to lead to the rural character there being disturbed, which I don't see happening bike lane or not.
It hasn't seemed to change anything on VA-5.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on March 18, 2022, 08:56:06 AM
Work is starting on the next section of I-81 in the Roanoke Valley to add additional lanes to a congested section of the interstate. When done, this will tie in with the new lanes added from I-581 south to just north of exit 141. The new lanes will end just south of exit 137, the first Salem exit when heading north from Christiansburg, roughly about where the speed limit drops from 65 to 60. Plastic erosion barriers are already being installed on the outside of the northbound lanes in preparation for the shoulder work.

"The purpose of this project is to provide additional capacity and improve safety by adding an additional lane in both directions of Interstate 81 between mile markers 136.6 and 141.8.

Starting in February 2022 and continuing into the early summer, work on this project, the first widening project of the Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Program, will begin. Work will start on the inside and outside shoulders along a five mile section of both northbound and southbound Interstate 81 in Roanoke County and the city of Salem. The shoulder strengthening is a part of $179 million design-build project to widen both directions of I-81 between mile markers 136.6 and 141.8 from two to three lanes."  https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/interstate-81-widening-exit-137-to-141---roanoke-county-and-city-of-salem.asp

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 18, 2022, 01:18:48 PM
In the news today:

https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2022/03/john-t-til-hazel-legendary-developer-who-transformed-northern-virginia-dies-at-91/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on March 19, 2022, 08:38:19 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on March 18, 2022, 08:56:06 AM
Work is starting on the next section of I-81 in the Roanoke Valley to add additional lanes to a congested section of the interstate. When done, this will tie in with the new lanes added from I-581 south to just north of exit 141. The new lanes will end just south of exit 137, the first Salem exit when heading north from Christiansburg, roughly about where the speed limit drops from 65 to 60. Plastic erosion barriers are already being installed on the outside of the northbound lanes in preparation for the shoulder work.

"The purpose of this project is to provide additional capacity and improve safety by adding an additional lane in both directions of Interstate 81 between mile markers 136.6 and 141.8.

Starting in February 2022 and continuing into the early summer, work on this project, the first widening project of the Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Program, will begin. Work will start on the inside and outside shoulders along a five mile section of both northbound and southbound Interstate 81 in Roanoke County and the city of Salem. The shoulder strengthening is a part of $179 million design-build project to widen both directions of I-81 between mile markers 136.6 and 141.8 from two to three lanes."  https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/interstate-81-widening-exit-137-to-141---roanoke-county-and-city-of-salem.asp

Bruce in Blacksburg


And it looks like a hearing is planned about widening I-81 up near I-66

https://virginiadot.org/newsroom/staunton/2022/vdot-schedules-public-hearing-to-widen-i-81-southbound-near-strasburg3-18-2022.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on March 23, 2022, 10:22:43 AM
Northampton County put the brakes on VDOT's two proposed R-cuts for US-13 in Exmore.

https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/northampton-nixes-vdot-proposal-for-first-rcuts-on-rt-13/ (https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/northampton-nixes-vdot-proposal-for-first-rcuts-on-rt-13/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on March 24, 2022, 11:57:34 AM
VDOT is planning on three new truck climbing lanes, two in Washington Co. One is near MM 32 NB near Glade Spring, the other near MM 34 SB near the Smyth Co. line, and the third near Exit 39 near Seven Mile Ford in Smyth Co.

VDOT has a series of podcasts about improvements on I-81, this one is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOxM57QKcfs

Bruce in Blacksburg


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 25, 2022, 12:46:26 PM
Are these climbing lanes part of the I-81 package they'd announced a year or so ago?  Or are they even newer than that?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on March 26, 2022, 03:35:18 PM
I don't see it here, so I am assuming that the proposed US 33 Extension into NC on Facebook is a crazy idea. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 26, 2022, 04:10:02 PM
^Well if you want to share that idea with us in Fictional, that would be fine.   ;-)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on March 26, 2022, 06:47:56 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 26, 2022, 04:10:02 PM
^Well if you want to share that idea with us in Fictional, that would be fine.   ;-)

No, I was wondering if that crazy idea was true. Not my suggestion nor my proposal, but the way this Facebook post said it like it was true.

In fact I am inclined to say no, it's not as no one mentioned it.  However that doesn't mean either it is or isn't.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 26, 2022, 08:49:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2022, 06:47:56 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 26, 2022, 04:10:02 PM
^Well if you want to share that idea with us in Fictional, that would be fine.   ;-)

No, I was wondering if that crazy idea was true. Not my suggestion nor my proposal, but the way this Facebook post said it like it was true.

In fact I am inclined to say no, it's not as no one mentioned it.  However that doesn't mean either it is or isn't.

I responded with the thought of,  "This is so absurd that it should have originally been posted in fictional" because I am pretty certain that a US 33 Extension into NC is not a thing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 26, 2022, 09:33:45 PM
Difficult to evaluate without actually seeing it.

No CTB meeting has floated extending US 33 anywhere, though in modern times the CTB generally doesn't have that kind of information anymore.  US route changes seem to be learned only through AASHTO applications after the fact or someone runs into new postings in the field.

That said, there is no logic to extending US 33 south or southeast from Richmond.  Only potential paths are VA 10 or VA 35 and neither need to be a US route corridor.  Now, an extension east over VA 33 to US 17?  That would make some sense.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on March 27, 2022, 11:39:39 AM
Yeah well it can't hurt to ask. Plus we have Fritzowl here making such weird ideas, I was wondering if it was something like him on Facebook ( I'm sure he is not using that handle or user name there), so I'm not going to ask a question about an extension of an existing highway extension on Fictional Highways for an answer.

If I was promoting the idea or suggesting one myself yes.  My bad, I should have asked the question straight out.  However, when using my phone at work with only a few minutes I tend to rush it and not complete my intention.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 27, 2022, 11:55:12 AM
The Virginia Highways Project has just completed a huge update!

The AASHO database has been poured over and items related to Virginia have been incorporated into the site.

27 new US route designations were found (including bannered routes) , 2 new interstate designations and 1 new Y state route as well.

All US route families were broken into individual pages with the additional information and more mapscans.

How does US 221 relate to US 9, US 33, US 86, US 360 and US 460?
Where was the first US 33/VA 33 transition point?
How is it that US 17-1 is NOT the weirdest designation considered for that corridor?
Did Virginia ever request an official US Y route?
What were the mystery US route corridors?

Many terrific nuggets to be found...

The AASHO database also had a draft of the 1933 great renumbering, and there are some differences.  Routes affected were VA 9, VA 10, VA 25, VA 40, VA 48, VA 52, VA 61, VA 86 and VA 109.

Also all the state routes 321-340 were broken into individual pages with more info/mapscans.

All can be found at the Virginia Hwys Page (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/index.htm)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on March 27, 2022, 02:34:21 PM
Where was this US 33 extension proposed? I'm in several road groups on FB but have not seen it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 27, 2022, 05:48:28 PM
Without viewing the site, I do know that once a street I used to live on, Huntington Ave in Newport News, had the designation US 60Y
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 27, 2022, 06:28:36 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on March 27, 2022, 05:48:28 PM
Without viewing the site, I do know that once a street I used to live on, Huntington Ave in Newport News, had the designation US 60Y

Virginia had several US Y routes but to my knowledge they only requested one from AASHO once (1940s) and it was denied.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2022, 11:52:29 PM
Drove I-81 today from 77 up. The first few hours were MISERABLE. Every time a truck passed another truck it would back up half a mile of cars. There was literally a miles-long queue that I took 2 hours to work my way up to the front, caused by truck after truck and slow car after slow car gradually bollocksing things up. The ONE 3-lane stretch of 81 NB ended that. Still... desperately needs to be widened throughout the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on March 28, 2022, 08:36:57 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 25, 2022, 12:46:26 PM
Are these climbing lanes part of the I-81 package they'd announced a year or so ago?  Or are they even newer than that?

These projects are part of the I-81 Improvement Plan, along with various other projects that are starting to show up. Design and funding started a few years ago and we are starting to see results. Other small items, like improved markings of curves, etc., have already been completed in some areas. It will be a long process. A lot more could have been completed by now had the right plans been agreed to back when the first major study was done (one sticking point was the idea of truck-only lanes that no one could really get behind, so the whole package died a slow death).

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 28, 2022, 09:08:01 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 27, 2022, 11:55:12 AM
The Virginia Highways Project has just completed a huge update!

The AASHO database has been poured over and items related to Virginia have been incorporated into the site.

27 new US route designations were found (including bannered routes) , 2 new interstate designations and 1 new Y state route as well.

All US route families were broken into individual pages with the additional information and more mapscans.

How does US 221 relate to US 9, US 33, US 86, US 360 and US 460?
Where was the first US 33/VA 33 transition point?
How is it that US 17-1 is NOT the weirdest designation considered for that corridor?
Did Virginia ever request an official US Y route?
What were the mystery US route corridors?

Many terrific nuggets to be found...

The AASHO database also had a draft of the 1933 great renumbering, and there are some differences.  Routes affected were VA 9, VA 10, VA 25, VA 40, VA 48, VA 52, VA 61, VA 86 and VA 109.

Also all the state routes 321-340 were broken into individual pages with more info/mapscans.

All can be found at the Virginia Hwys Page (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/index.htm)

"FLAGAVALINA Hwy" is something else. Interesting stuff, looking forward to reading it all.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 29, 2022, 09:13:47 PM
https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/officials-tout-upcoming-route-234-brentsville-road-improvements/article_bb027ffa-af11-11ec-a5b0-8b07d662602f.html
QuoteWork is officially underway on the much-maligned Route 234-Brentsville Road intersection, with officials from the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority and Prince William County breaking ground Monday on a new $55 million interchange that will eventually remove the two back-to-back traffic lights at the interchange.

The county plans to build two new bridges to separate Route 234, Brentsville Road and the Prince William Parkway (Route 294). A continuous green-T intersection will allow for one direction of travel on 234 to pass through uninterrupted, and the bridges will divert traffic moving north and south over the parkway, carrying vehicles to and from Brentsville Road without any stops. Three new traffic lights, including the green-T intersection, will connect Prince William Parkway and Bradley Cemetery Way, maintaining a free-flow of traffic on the parkway.

The project is being fully funded by the NVTA in the hopes of improving the flow of traffic and better connecting U.S. 1, Interstate 95 and Interstate 66. The improvement was first conceptualized by the Virginia Department of Transportation in 1994, with traffic along the corridor increasing steadily in the decades since. According to VDOT data from 2019, the section of Route 234 between U.S. 29 and Dumfries Road carries about 47,000 trips on an average weekday, while the section of 234 from Prince William Parkway to Olympic Drive carries roughly 43,000.

At a groundbreaking ceremony along 234 in what's being used as a staging ground by Wagman Construction — the project's design-build contractor — Board of County Supervisors Chair Ann Wheeler said the 234 corridor is vital for Prince William residents.

"This project is also an integral part of larger mobility plans in the western end of Prince William County, along the Route 234 corridor ... Ultimately, this project is designed to reduce congestion bottlenecks on Route 234-Brentsville by allowing free-flow traffic for the most congested movements,"  Wheeler told those assembled Monday morning. "It will also improve the multimodal transportation network within the Coles district, where we are today, due to construction of shared-use paths for pedestrians and cyclists in and out of the interchange."

Glad to see this surprisingly cheap project getting underway as it, along with the new Balls Ford Road interchange will improve the VA-234 corridor tremendously. However, in order to maximize these benefits, PWC needs to find a way to fund the Sudley Manor Drive Interchange/Wellington Road Bridge project ASAP as the recent cuts to the state/regional transportation budget will likely only make this beneficial project ($180 million last time I checked) more and more unlikely. Would be disappointed but not surprised if the county ends up resorting to a solution similar to that at University Blvd.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on March 29, 2022, 10:24:18 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 29, 2022, 09:13:47 PM
https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/officials-tout-upcoming-route-234-brentsville-road-improvements/article_bb027ffa-af11-11ec-a5b0-8b07d662602f.html
QuoteWork is officially underway on the much-maligned Route 234-Brentsville Road intersection, with officials from the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority and Prince William County breaking ground Monday on a new $55 million interchange that will eventually remove the two back-to-back traffic lights at the interchange.

The county plans to build two new bridges to separate Route 234, Brentsville Road and the Prince William Parkway (Route 294). A continuous green-T intersection will allow for one direction of travel on 234 to pass through uninterrupted, and the bridges will divert traffic moving north and south over the parkway, carrying vehicles to and from Brentsville Road without any stops. Three new traffic lights, including the green-T intersection, will connect Prince William Parkway and Bradley Cemetery Way, maintaining a free-flow of traffic on the parkway.

The project is being fully funded by the NVTA in the hopes of improving the flow of traffic and better connecting U.S. 1, Interstate 95 and Interstate 66. The improvement was first conceptualized by the Virginia Department of Transportation in 1994, with traffic along the corridor increasing steadily in the decades since. According to VDOT data from 2019, the section of Route 234 between U.S. 29 and Dumfries Road carries about 47,000 trips on an average weekday, while the section of 234 from Prince William Parkway to Olympic Drive carries roughly 43,000.

At a groundbreaking ceremony along 234 in what's being used as a staging ground by Wagman Construction — the project's design-build contractor — Board of County Supervisors Chair Ann Wheeler said the 234 corridor is vital for Prince William residents.

"This project is also an integral part of larger mobility plans in the western end of Prince William County, along the Route 234 corridor ... Ultimately, this project is designed to reduce congestion bottlenecks on Route 234-Brentsville by allowing free-flow traffic for the most congested movements,"  Wheeler told those assembled Monday morning. "It will also improve the multimodal transportation network within the Coles district, where we are today, due to construction of shared-use paths for pedestrians and cyclists in and out of the interchange."

Glad to see this surprisingly cheap project getting underway as it, along with the new Balls Ford Road interchange will improve the VA-234 corridor tremendously. However, in order to maximize these benefits, PWC needs to find a way to fund the Sudley Manor Drive Interchange/Wellington Road Bridge project ASAP as the recent cuts to the state/regional transportation budget will likely only make this beneficial project ($180 million last time I checked) more and more unlikely. Would be disappointed but not be surprised if the county ends up resorting to a solution similar to that at University Blvd.
We're getting closer to 28/234 becoming Virginia's portion of an Outer Beltway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 31, 2022, 08:15:59 AM
https://twitter.com/WTOPtraffic/status/1509491829527437314
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 31, 2022, 08:54:33 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 31, 2022, 08:15:59 AM
https://twitter.com/WTOPtraffic/status/1509491829527437314

If everyone doing that turns left at the top of the ramp that might not be too hazardous on Gallows Rd but if anyone wants to turn right to go to US 29, that would be trouble if the folks turning left from the Outer Loop HOT lanes ramp don't see what is going on...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on March 31, 2022, 05:58:05 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on March 29, 2022, 09:13:47 PM
https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/officials-tout-upcoming-route-234-brentsville-road-improvements/article_bb027ffa-af11-11ec-a5b0-8b07d662602f.html
QuoteWork is officially underway on the much-maligned Route 234-Brentsville Road intersection, with officials from the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority and Prince William County breaking ground Monday on a new $55 million interchange that will eventually remove the two back-to-back traffic lights at the interchange.

The county plans to build two new bridges to separate Route 234, Brentsville Road and the Prince William Parkway (Route 294). A continuous green-T intersection will allow for one direction of travel on 234 to pass through uninterrupted, and the bridges will divert traffic moving north and south over the parkway, carrying vehicles to and from Brentsville Road without any stops. Three new traffic lights, including the green-T intersection, will connect Prince William Parkway and Bradley Cemetery Way, maintaining a free-flow of traffic on the parkway.

The project is being fully funded by the NVTA in the hopes of improving the flow of traffic and better connecting U.S. 1, Interstate 95 and Interstate 66. The improvement was first conceptualized by the Virginia Department of Transportation in 1994, with traffic along the corridor increasing steadily in the decades since. According to VDOT data from 2019, the section of Route 234 between U.S. 29 and Dumfries Road carries about 47,000 trips on an average weekday, while the section of 234 from Prince William Parkway to Olympic Drive carries roughly 43,000.

At a groundbreaking ceremony along 234 in what's being used as a staging ground by Wagman Construction — the project's design-build contractor — Board of County Supervisors Chair Ann Wheeler said the 234 corridor is vital for Prince William residents.

"This project is also an integral part of larger mobility plans in the western end of Prince William County, along the Route 234 corridor ... Ultimately, this project is designed to reduce congestion bottlenecks on Route 234-Brentsville by allowing free-flow traffic for the most congested movements,"  Wheeler told those assembled Monday morning. "It will also improve the multimodal transportation network within the Coles district, where we are today, due to construction of shared-use paths for pedestrians and cyclists in and out of the interchange."

Glad to see this surprisingly cheap project getting underway as it, along with the new Balls Ford Road interchange will improve the VA-234 corridor tremendously. However, in order to maximize these benefits, PWC needs to find a way to fund the Sudley Manor Drive Interchange/Wellington Road Bridge project ASAP as the recent cuts to the state/regional transportation budget will likely only make this beneficial project ($180 million last time I checked) more and more unlikely. Would be disappointed but not surprised if the county ends up resorting to a solution similar to that at University Blvd.


I had fun looking it up now. What a change from existing! Semi-continuous flow intersections, rerouting Brentsville Rd. to tie into Business VA 234 instead of VA 294. I can only imagine how it'll help 234 in rush hour.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 05, 2022, 08:11:56 AM
Something prompted me to think of the discussion earlier in this thread about the wrong-way ramp usage on the Willoughby Spit.

Quote from: plain on May 21, 2021, 01:34:47 PM
Someone remind me again what the plan is for that particular spot in regards to the HRBT expansion project. I'm wondering if that gate (or the interchange for that matter) will continue to exist afterwards.

Here's what it looked like last October. (https://goo.gl/maps/qCZAA6at3TPd3afg9)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on April 05, 2022, 01:27:30 PM
After-action report on the big snowstorm that snarled I-95.

https://www.virginiadot.org/After_Action/Jan_2022_Winter_Weather_AAR_March_31_POST_EXECUTIVE_REVIEW_FINAL.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 05, 2022, 02:34:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 05, 2022, 08:11:56 AM
Something prompted me to think of the discussion earlier in this thread about the wrong-way ramp usage on the Willoughby Spit.

Quote from: plain on May 21, 2021, 01:34:47 PM
Someone remind me again what the plan is for that particular spot in regards to the HRBT expansion project. I'm wondering if that gate (or the interchange for that matter) will continue to exist afterwards.
Here's what it looked like last October. (https://goo.gl/maps/qCZAA6at3TPd3afg9)

Unrelated, but if you go down the road a bit, you can see GMSV coverage of the new US 60/VA 168 configuration.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: elsmere241 on April 06, 2022, 03:30:07 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 27, 2022, 11:52:29 PM
Drove I-81 today from 77 up. The first few hours were MISERABLE. Every time a truck passed another truck it would back up half a mile of cars. There was literally a miles-long queue that I took 2 hours to work my way up to the front, caused by truck after truck and slow car after slow car gradually bollocksing things up. The ONE 3-lane stretch of 81 NB ended that. Still... desperately needs to be widened throughout the state.

OK, so I know to avoid it on my trip this summer.  My wife and I took it on a Saturday in summer 2018 and it was miserable.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on April 06, 2022, 05:55:18 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 27, 2022, 11:52:29 PM
Drove I-81 today from 77 up. The first few hours were MISERABLE. Every time a truck passed another truck it would back up half a mile of cars. There was literally a miles-long queue that I took 2 hours to work my way up to the front, caused by truck after truck and slow car after slow car gradually bollocksing things up. The ONE 3-lane stretch of 81 NB ended that. Still... desperately needs to be widened throughout the state.

Quote from: elsmere241 on April 06, 2022, 03:30:07 PM
OK, so I know to avoid it on my trip this summer.  My wife and I took it on a Saturday in summer 2018 and it was miserable.

How about planning more for more driving time in the Shenandoah Valley?  When I get tired of the truck traffic on I-81, I'll either settle in behind the trucks and enjoy the scenery or head over to US-11 and US-340 and drive through the scenery. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: wriddle082 on April 06, 2022, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on April 06, 2022, 05:55:18 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 27, 2022, 11:52:29 PM
Drove I-81 today from 77 up. The first few hours were MISERABLE. Every time a truck passed another truck it would back up half a mile of cars. There was literally a miles-long queue that I took 2 hours to work my way up to the front, caused by truck after truck and slow car after slow car gradually bollocksing things up. The ONE 3-lane stretch of 81 NB ended that. Still... desperately needs to be widened throughout the state.

Quote from: elsmere241 on April 06, 2022, 03:30:07 PM
OK, so I know to avoid it on my trip this summer.  My wife and I took it on a Saturday in summer 2018 and it was miserable.

How about planning more for more driving time in the Shenandoah Valley?  When I get tired of the truck traffic on I-81, I'll either settle in behind the trucks and enjoy the scenery or head over to US-11 and US-340 and drive through the scenery. 

Three years ago when I was heading home to SC down I-81 south, not long after I entered VA, Waze diverted me to US 11 south at Strasburg, and I stayed on it for at least 30 miles.  When it directed me to cut back over to 81, I decided to stay on 11 a little bit longer.  It had occasional passing lanes, and the scenery was even more pleasant than what I would have encountered on 81.  I was in the middle of a very long trip so it didn't phase me to slow down just a little bit for my sanity.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on April 06, 2022, 10:18:31 PM
If you don't mind a slower pace, a functional alternative to I-81 at least in the Harrisonburg vicinity is via VA 257 (Exit 240), VA 42, and SR 614 to Edinburg at Exit 279.  Though it has traffic signals and goes through Harrisonburg, VA 42 has the added benefit of being 4 lanes from Bridgewater through Harrisonburg to Broadway.

While VA 42 is a fairly good road south of Bridgewater (at least down to Goshen), it veers further away from I-81 as you go south and thus becomes harder to get back to (or from) I-81.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 06, 2022, 10:53:31 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 05, 2022, 02:34:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 05, 2022, 08:11:56 AM
Something prompted me to think of the discussion earlier in this thread about the wrong-way ramp usage on the Willoughby Spit.

Quote from: plain on May 21, 2021, 01:34:47 PM
Someone remind me again what the plan is for that particular spot in regards to the HRBT expansion project. I'm wondering if that gate (or the interchange for that matter) will continue to exist afterwards.
Here's what it looked like last October. (https://goo.gl/maps/qCZAA6at3TPd3afg9)

Unrelated, but if you go down the road a bit, you can see GMSV coverage of the new US 60/VA 168 configuration.

That 15th View Ramp definitely needed to be modified after that fiasco with that tractor trailer.

Really can't say I'm a fan of what they did to the Ocean View/Tidewater intersection but I know why the bridge is gone. No more mention of VA 168 there either (though a trailblazer does appear after making the turn onto Tidewater).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 07, 2022, 05:59:39 AM
Quote from: froggie on April 06, 2022, 10:18:31 PM
If you don't mind a slower pace, a functional alternative to I-81 at least in the Harrisonburg vicinity is via VA 257 (Exit 240), VA 42, and SR 614 to Edinburg at Exit 279.  Though it has traffic signals and goes through Harrisonburg, VA 42 has the added benefit of being 4 lanes from Bridgewater through Harrisonburg to Broadway.

While VA 42 is a fairly good road south of Bridgewater (at least down to Goshen), it veers further away from I-81 as you go south and thus becomes harder to get back to (or from) I-81.


Also if you want a scenic view break, you should clinch VA 263.  The scenery at the west end in Orkney Springs was so good that I wanted to stay the night instead of turn around and head east.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 07, 2022, 11:46:57 AM
Quote from: froggie on April 06, 2022, 10:18:31 PM
If you don't mind a slower pace, a functional alternative to I-81 at least in the Harrisonburg vicinity is via VA 257 (Exit 240), VA 42, and SR 614 to Edinburg at Exit 279.  Though it has traffic signals and goes through Harrisonburg, VA 42 has the added benefit of being 4 lanes from Bridgewater through Harrisonburg to Broadway.

While VA 42 is a fairly good road south of Bridgewater (at least down to Goshen), it veers further away from I-81 as you go south and thus becomes harder to get back to (or from) I-81.


I would add that VA-39 heading southeast from Goshen back to I-81 is a fairly scenic drive through Goshen Pass, though it may be advisable to avoid that road (as well as VA-42 between VA-254 and Goshen) on weekends during the summer because of very heavy charter bus traffic. The National Capital Area Council operates Boy Scout camps at the Goshen Scout Reservation off VA-39 east of Goshen and they use charter buses to transport the campers to and from the campgrounds.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 22, 2022, 02:38:00 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 04, 2022, 08:31:49 AM
There was a public meeting last night about Chesterfield's Upper Magnolia Green development - which includes the Powhite Parkway extension to US 360 in Skinquarter - and there was substantial community opposition. I'm skeptical the extension will ever get built...which is about how I normally feel anyway.

The Chesterfield County Planning Commission voted 3-2 to approve the Upper Magnolia Green plan, which now heads to the Board of Supervisors for a full vote. There continues to be heavy community opposition to the plan and it probably will not pass - if it doesn't, the Powhite Parkway extension is dead.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 27, 2022, 11:39:02 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 22, 2022, 02:38:00 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 04, 2022, 08:31:49 AM
There was a public meeting last night about Chesterfield's Upper Magnolia Green development - which includes the Powhite Parkway extension to US 360 in Skinquarter - and there was substantial community opposition. I'm skeptical the extension will ever get built...which is about how I normally feel anyway.

The Chesterfield County Planning Commission voted 3-2 to approve the Upper Magnolia Green plan, which now heads to the Board of Supervisors for a full vote. There continues to be heavy community opposition to the plan and it probably will not pass - if it doesn't, the Powhite Parkway extension is dead.
I don't think the Extension would truly be dead because of that, but it would be incredibly foolish to not build it in any case. The road has been needed for a while now, and the longer VDOT/county officials sit on the issue the worst it will be for that part of the county. There's more development in the pipeline just for US 360 alone, which is going to make it and the interchange with VA 288 even worse than it is now. The commuters need a bypass of that area in the worst way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on April 28, 2022, 05:29:09 PM
https://publicinput.com/Portal/N2538

Map of the improvements: https://rkk.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e042a03eb7b64af7bd6499bccce87fab

The preferred alternative for the Bowers Hill Interchange Study is Alternative C, which adds one managed lane and a part-time drivable shoulder in each direction on I-664, which is consistent with the other managed lanes projects happening around the region.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: wriddle082 on April 28, 2022, 07:38:19 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on April 28, 2022, 05:29:09 PM
https://publicinput.com/Portal/N2538

Map of the improvements: https://rkk.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e042a03eb7b64af7bd6499bccce87fab

The preferred alternative for the Bowers Hill Interchange Study is Alternative C, which adds one managed lane and a part-time drivable shoulder in each direction on I-664, which is consistent with the other managed lanes projects happening around the region.

I feel like improvements should focus more on US 58 than I-664.  The US 58 portion of the Suffolk Bypass needs at least three lanes in each direction, and the improvements that recently started just west of the bypass need to be continued further west to at least the Suffolk/Southampton line.  The truck traffic along this stretch going to/from the Port of Virginia to/from I-95 and I-85 is starting to become unbearable through Suffolk.  Also, they need to reconstruct the ancient I-95/US 58 cloverleaf in Emporia, but that's probably asking for too much.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 28, 2022, 08:36:12 PM
I-664 definitely could use an additional lane (each direction), I drive it enough to know it's in trouble. But there's still going to be that rush hour bottleneck at the MMMBT...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on April 28, 2022, 08:41:49 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on April 28, 2022, 05:29:09 PM
https://publicinput.com/Portal/N2538

Map of the improvements: https://rkk.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e042a03eb7b64af7bd6499bccce87fab

The preferred alternative for the Bowers Hill Interchange Study is Alternative C, which adds one managed lane and a part-time drivable shoulder in each direction on I-664, which is consistent with the other managed lanes projects happening around the region.
And it acknowledges the reality of the bottleneck at the MMMBT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 28, 2022, 08:56:42 PM
Quote from: plain on April 28, 2022, 08:36:12 PM
I-664 definitely could use an additional lane (each direction), I drive it enough to know it's in trouble. But there's still going to be that rush hour bottleneck at the MMMBT...
Unfortunately, that lane is going to merely an express / HOT lane. It is in line with what VDOT is doing in the Hampton Roads region for any new widening projects.

I-664 would function perfectly with 6 or 8 general purpose lanes, and before any induced demand argument arises, take a look at many 8 lane urban segments in the region that flow 65-70+ mph during rush hour without any problems and carry 100,000+ AADT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on April 28, 2022, 09:10:24 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2022, 08:56:42 PM
Quote from: plain on April 28, 2022, 08:36:12 PM
I-664 definitely could use an additional lane (each direction), I drive it enough to know it's in trouble. But there's still going to be that rush hour bottleneck at the MMMBT...

Unfortunately, that lane is going to merely an express / HOT lane. It is in line with what VDOT is doing in the Hampton Roads region for any new widening projects.


I-664 would function perfectly with 6 or 8 general purpose lanes, and before any induced demand argument arises, take a look at many 8 lane urban segments in the region that flow 65-70+ mph during rush hour without any problems and carry 100,000+ AADT.

Is the HRBT just chopped liver to you?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 28, 2022, 09:12:00 PM
^ The HRBT is the exact same thing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 28, 2022, 09:38:08 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on April 28, 2022, 07:38:19 PM
I feel like improvements should focus more on US 58 than I-664.  The US 58 portion of the Suffolk Bypass needs at least three lanes in each direction,
It's questionable that the entire bypass needs 6 lanes, though I can certainly understand east of either the US-460 or VA-10/32 interchanges.

The AADT between US-460 and VA-32 is 45,000, increasing to 55,000 east of there, then dropping back to around 47,000 east of VA-642. This is likely due to the fact the US-58 bypass is the only crossing of the Nansemond River in miles either direction. A good "small" project could be to add an auxiliary lane between VA-32 and VA-642 which would include widening / replacing the bridges over the river. That would cover roughly 1 mile. The next segment would be east of VA-642 to the eastern end of the bypass, around 2 miles, tying into the existing 6 lane arterial segment.

The need west of VA-32 or US-460 is certainly less, that stretch only carrying around 40,000 AADT which is plenty adequate on a 4 lane freeway. Any backups are caused due to the arterial segment to the west queuing, not the freeway itself.

Thankfully, the busiest portion of US-58, the stretch between Suffolk and Bowers Hill, was built out to 6 lanes in the 1970s and is more than adequate lane wise. Access control is another problem - though not nearly as big especially congestion wise, though it's slowly getting fixed. A flyover / interchange (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hampton-roads/spsa-interchange-improvements.asp) at the SPSA Regional Landfill is planned to begin in 2026 which would eliminate a dangerous left turn for trucks from the west to the facility, that currently have to cross 3 high-speed lanes of traffic.

The city of Chesapeake is pursuing a project in the near term that would add a series of RCUTs and close some median crossings closer to the airport just west of Bowers Hill.
https://smartportal.virginiahb2.org/#/public/applications/2022/smartScale/view/F30-0000007226-R01

Included in that link is a study that recommends constructing a full diamond interchange in the airport vicinity in the long term.

Quote
and the improvements that recently started just west of the bypass need to be continued further west to at least the Suffolk/Southampton line.  The truck traffic along this stretch going to/from the Port of Virginia to/from I-95 and I-85 is starting to become unbearable through Suffolk.
It's also questionable if the ongoing 6 lane arterial widening needs to extend beyond its current terminus. While that area is an issue, a true long term solution is needed - an interstate grade facility on new location bypassing that entire segment between Suffolk and Holland.

VDOT completed a study (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/us_58_arterial_management_plan.asp) for the US-58 corridor between the western end of the Suffolk bypass and west of I-95 a few years ago. While recommendations were largely limited to spot upgrades such as innovative intersections, closing some crossings, etc. two pages of the final study report (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Rt_58_Arterial_Management_Study/US_58_Hampton_Roads_APP_FINAL_06-12-19.pdf) were dedicated to analyzing the potential of upgrading / relocating the entire corridor to interstate standards. VDOT estimated around $2.3 - $3.5 billion for such a project.

Additionally, the HRTPO has completed a "gateway analysis" over the past few months which analyzed three major potential projects - upgrading US-58 to interstate standards east of I-95 ("I-58"), upgrading US-17 to interstate standards to NC (I-87), and widening I-64 to Richmond. That report estimated $3 billion for an "I-58" project.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/040622%20TTAC%2010_Presentation%20Hampton%20Roads%20Gateways%20Analysis.pdf

As a start, I would like to see a project pursued for a freeway connection between the western end of the Suffolk Bypass and the Holland or Franklin bypasses. The segment between Emporia and Courtland should be the last priority.
Quote
Also, they need to reconstruct the ancient I-95/US 58 cloverleaf in Emporia, but that's probably asking for too much.
That area would be an interesting one to address, especially if US-58 is ever to be upgraded to a full freeway out to I-95. I imagine some sort of hybrid of using the existing bypass then splitting off to the north slightly near US-301 to a new freeway-to-freeway interchange with I-95, then tying back to the existing US-58 west of Emporia.

The US-58 corridor study referenced above recommended reconstructing that junction into a diverging diamond interchange.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: wriddle082 on April 29, 2022, 02:45:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 28, 2022, 09:38:08 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on April 28, 2022, 07:38:19 PM
I feel like improvements should focus more on US 58 than I-664.  The US 58 portion of the Suffolk Bypass needs at least three lanes in each direction,
It's questionable that the entire bypass needs 6 lanes, though I can certainly understand east of either the US-460 or VA-10/32 interchanges.

The AADT between US-460 and VA-32 is 45,000, increasing to 55,000 east of there, then dropping back to around 47,000 east of VA-642. This is likely due to the fact the US-58 bypass is the only crossing of the Nansemond River in miles either direction. A good "small" project could be to add an auxiliary lane between VA-32 and VA-642 which would include widening / replacing the bridges over the river. That would cover roughly 1 mile. The next segment would be east of VA-642 to the eastern end of the bypass, around 2 miles, tying into the existing 6 lane arterial segment.

The need west of VA-32 or US-460 is certainly less, that stretch only carrying around 40,000 AADT which is plenty adequate on a 4 lane freeway. Any backups are caused due to the arterial segment to the west queuing, not the freeway itself.

Thankfully, the busiest portion of US-58, the stretch between Suffolk and Bowers Hill, was built out to 6 lanes in the 1970s and is more than adequate lane wise. Access control is another problem - though not nearly as big especially congestion wise, though it's slowly getting fixed. A flyover / interchange (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hampton-roads/spsa-interchange-improvements.asp) at the SPSA Regional Landfill is planned to begin in 2026 which would eliminate a dangerous left turn for trucks from the west to the facility, that currently have to cross 3 high-speed lanes of traffic.

The city of Chesapeake is pursuing a project in the near term that would add a series of RCUTs and close some median crossings closer to the airport just west of Bowers Hill.
https://smartportal.virginiahb2.org/#/public/applications/2022/smartScale/view/F30-0000007226-R01

Included in that link is a study that recommends constructing a full diamond interchange in the airport vicinity in the long term.

Maybe it was just the roadwork on the west side of Suffolk, but the last time I was through there (and I'll be through there again in about an hour or so), Waze detoured me off of the Suffolk Bypass at Pitchkettle Rd and sent me on a couple of other streets back to 58 at Kenyon Rd.  The traffic light right after US 13 splits off had trucks backed up for at least a mile, and it was a similar situation in Emporia at the one traffic light before the I-95 cloverleaf (but I was able to sneak around most of them).

The stretch near the airport and landfill don't bother me nearly as much because they're three lanes in each direction, but I do see a need for a diamond at the airport, and maybe they can reconfigure the interchange with US 58 Business to allow for a new access point to the landfill.

Quote
Quote
and the improvements that recently started just west of the bypass need to be continued further west to at least the Suffolk/Southampton line.  The truck traffic along this stretch going to/from the Port of Virginia to/from I-95 and I-85 is starting to become unbearable through Suffolk.
It's also questionable if the ongoing 6 lane arterial widening needs to extend beyond its current terminus. While that area is an issue, a true long term solution is needed - an interstate grade facility on new location bypassing that entire segment between Suffolk and Holland.

VDOT completed a study (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/us_58_arterial_management_plan.asp) for the US-58 corridor between the western end of the Suffolk bypass and west of I-95 a few years ago. While recommendations were largely limited to spot upgrades such as innovative intersections, closing some crossings, etc. two pages of the final study report (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/Rt_58_Arterial_Management_Study/US_58_Hampton_Roads_APP_FINAL_06-12-19.pdf) were dedicated to analyzing the potential of upgrading / relocating the entire corridor to interstate standards. VDOT estimated around $2.3 - $3.5 billion for such a project.

Additionally, the HRTPO has completed a "gateway analysis" over the past few months which analyzed three major potential projects - upgrading US-58 to interstate standards east of I-95 ("I-58"), upgrading US-17 to interstate standards to NC (I-87), and widening I-64 to Richmond. That report estimated $3 billion for an "I-58" project.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/040622%20TTAC%2010_Presentation%20Hampton%20Roads%20Gateways%20Analysis.pdf

As a start, I would like to see a project pursued for a freeway connection between the western end of the Suffolk Bypass and the Holland or Franklin bypasses. The segment between Emporia and Courtland should be the last priority.

Agreed.  Not nearly as heavy from Emporia to Courtland.

Quote
Quote
Also, they need to reconstruct the ancient I-95/US 58 cloverleaf in Emporia, but that's probably asking for too much.
That area would be an interesting one to address, especially if US-58 is ever to be upgraded to a full freeway out to I-95. I imagine some sort of hybrid of using the existing bypass then splitting off to the north slightly near US-301 to a new freeway-to-freeway interchange with I-95, then tying back to the existing US-58 west of Emporia.

The US-58 corridor study referenced above recommended reconstructing that junction into a diverging diamond interchange.

Yeah I can see a DDI working here
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on May 03, 2022, 05:33:44 PM
https://www.potomaclocal.com/2022/05/03/i-95-e-zpass-lanes-extension-to-fredericksburg-delayed-1-year/

The I-95 express lanes extension to Fredericksburg has been delayed by a year due to "supply chain issues".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Declan127 on May 09, 2022, 07:57:10 PM
Don't know if this has been addressed, but there seems to be a sign replacement on 95 NB just past I-85 (might be wrong) that as of mid-April just had the BGS on the side of the road uncovered facing 95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on May 10, 2022, 09:24:20 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on May 03, 2022, 05:33:44 PM
https://www.potomaclocal.com/2022/05/03/i-95-e-zpass-lanes-extension-to-fredericksburg-delayed-1-year/

The I-95 express lanes extension to Fredericksburg has been delayed by a year due to "supply chain issues".

ugh. I'm sick of hearing about supply chain issues. Can we start calling them "supply ropes"?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on May 20, 2022, 02:54:41 PM
So I'm confused on the ultimate 95 HOT lane configuration.

1.  Where is the 95 HOT lanes supposed to end in Stafford?
-When it ends, will 95 be just 3 lanes in each direction or will the HOT lane end directly connect to the 95 local/thru section at Route 17?

2.  The 95 local/thru going south, right now, seems to be a poor end design.
-It goes from being 3+3, to after Route 3 3+2 then a quick merge to just 3 lanes before the 126 exit.
-This is NOT the final design, is it, because my god the bottleneck.

IMO
#1.  95 should stay local/thru to exit 126, which should have an additional separate exit for 17 south
#2.  If not, then 95 needs to be 4 lanes to 126
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 20, 2022, 05:19:45 PM
^ The I-95 reversible HO/T lanes will terminate in Fredericksburg. Going southbound, one lane will merge into the "through"  general purpose lanes, and the other will flyover to connect with the "local"  lanes. Going northbound, it will be the same entering from the local/thru into the HO/T lanes.

As far as the southbound merge, I agree. I don't believe there are any immediate plans to address this, but they do eventually want to add a 4th lane southbound to US-17. That is not a fictional concept.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on May 20, 2022, 06:43:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2022, 05:19:45 PM
^ The I-95 reversible HO/T lanes will terminate in Fredericksburg. Going southbound, one lane will merge into the "through"  general purpose lanes, and the other will flyover to connect with the "local"  lanes. Going northbound, it will be the same entering from the local/thru into the HO/T lanes.

As far as the southbound merge, I agree. I don't believe there are any immediate plans to address this, but they do eventually want to add a 4th lane southbound to US-17. That is not a fictional concept.

Thanks.
My god, what a HORRIBLE merge that will be after Route 3.
It is bad enough a lane is lost at Route 3.

Frankly why not just extend the Thru/Local to 126, and as I said, 126 NEEDS a separate exit for 17S, it can't siphon off with Rt 1 any longer.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 21, 2022, 12:18:32 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 20, 2022, 06:43:31 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 20, 2022, 05:19:45 PM
^ The I-95 reversible HO/T lanes will terminate in Fredericksburg. Going southbound, one lane will merge into the "through"  general purpose lanes, and the other will flyover to connect with the "local"  lanes. Going northbound, it will be the same entering from the local/thru into the HO/T lanes.

As far as the southbound merge, I agree. I don't believe there are any immediate plans to address this, but they do eventually want to add a 4th lane southbound to US-17. That is not a fictional concept.

Thanks.
My god, what a HORRIBLE merge that will be after Route 3.
It is bad enough a lane is lost at Route 3.

Frankly why not just extend the Thru/Local to 126, and as I said, 126 NEEDS a separate exit for 17S, it can't siphon off with Rt 1 any longer.

Agreed that the merge south of VA-3 is not ideal and will eventually need to be addressed in the form of a 4th southbound lane within the next 10 years. In regards to a separate exit for US-17, I would also add Celebrate Virginia Parkway, Harrison Road, and Courthouse Road (VA-208) to that list of possibilities as well. VA-3 west of I-95 is becoming increasingly unbearable and there needs to be other alternatives. If new exits were added (and there have been studies on this), then extending the Thru/Local lanes to just south of Exit 126 would be the way to go. Fredericksburg imo could use more I-95 exits that take pressure off of US-1 and VA-3. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 21, 2022, 09:37:18 AM
Here is the 2013 study (https://virginiadot.org/projects/fredericksburg/fredericksburg_area_congestion_relief_study.asp) covering a lot of the recent posts on I-95 issues through the Fredericksburg area.

Some figures to look at:

AADT (2019 - pre-pandemic and also pre-local lanes)

I-95 SB after 136: 68k
I-95 SB after 133: 75k
I-95 SB after 130: 64k
I-95 SB after 126: 53k

To estimate how the current local/express lanes change this:

off-ramps to any direction at Exits 130-133:
I-95 SB to US 17 NB - 6600
I-95 SB to US 17 SB - 6000
I-95 SB to VA 3 EB - 6900
I-95 SB to VA 3 WB - 19000

So, in theory, the 68k at the SB split to local/express gives:
I-95 local entry - 38500
I-95 express entry - 29500

on-ramps to I-95 SB:
US 17 NB to I-95 SB - 3400
US 17 SB to I-95 SB - 21000
VA 3 EB to I-95 SB - 8100
VA 3 WB to I-95 SB - 3000

This gives the following:
I-95 SB express end - 29500
I-95 SB local end - 35500
Combined is 65k (difference from the 64k above likely from people entering at US 17 and exiting at VA 3).

So this suggests the express lanes should be merging into the local?

The local configuration has the drop from 3 to 2 before the VA 3 EB onramp, so 27400 are a part of that merge to then accept 8100 from the other VA 3 ramp (which merges shortly after).  Then there is 4000 ft to lose those 2 thru lanes, most of which is after the local lanes end.  This is almost certainly too short during some of the day.

Extending the local lanes past Exit 126 would give:

I-95 SB to US 1-17: 20000
US 1 to I-95 SB: 5400

So there would be only 9500 in the express lanes with 40900 local lanes at a new south endpoint.  This is a little short of the 53000 shown as the AADT on the 2019.  Doing this would seem to make sense to have the express lanes drop lanes instead of the local.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on May 22, 2022, 08:28:48 PM
I think what makes most sense is to after exit 130 have it be 5 lanes in each direction until 126 with a separate exit for 17 (call it 125).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 24, 2022, 04:41:20 PM
https://richmond.com/sports/professional/commanders-buy-land-draw-up-plans-for-3-billion-mini-city-stadium-complex-in-woodbridge/article_4358a499-6f98-5147-92e4-55a627100993.html
QuoteThe Washington Commanders have purchased 200 acres of land in Woodbridge that could be the home of their new stadium project, a $3 billion "mini-city" that would contain a number of entertainment, residential and workspace components.

Renderings obtained by The Richmond Times-Dispatch show a futuristic stadium that can change colors, a translucent roof that would allow natural light while climate-controlled, and a new team headquarters.

The land, near Potomac Mills off I-95, was purchased for $100 million, but sources with knowledge of the team's plans were quick to point out on Monday that the location has not been picked yet, and other potential sites remain in play - in Virginia, Maryland and D.C.

A bill that will provide state support for a potential stadium is expected to pass in the coming weeks along with the state budget, formalizing Virginia's contribution to the project at an estimated $350 million.

The project is modeled in part after The Battery in Atlanta, the home of the Atlanta Braves. It's anchored by the team, but that also has a number of other components to draw year-round traffic.
QuoteOne major question mark on a project in Prince William County will be traffic, given that the segment of I-95 that runs through Occoquan is routinely one of the most backed-up sections of roadway on the East Coast.

Surovell noted that there has long been interest in extending Metro service to Potomac Mills, but so far the regional authorities have been lukewarm, at best, to the idea.

Sources with knowledge of the stadium design said there would be ample parking built into the Commanders' project, with additional entrance and exit lanes built into I-95 and the I-95 Express Lanes. It is considered extremely unlikely that a Metro expansion would happen before the stadium's opening date.

Traffic wise there is no way in hell that this location would be better than the current traffic situation at FedEx Field. At least the Loudoun and Potomac Shores locations would have good access to transit (Silver Line Metro and VRE). Ultimately, because I no longer think that the team will ever move back to D.C, I would have to go with the Loudoun location as my preferred option. I just don't see how putting a stadium along the I-95 corridor (south of the ever congested Occoquan bottleneck) could feasibly not be a traffic nightmare.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 24, 2022, 06:32:03 PM
Thankfully I will be retired when they could start playing in a new stadium.

It's hard to imagine a more horrible location for a stadium and mini-city that would accompany it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on May 24, 2022, 07:50:28 PM
They could make the Commanders pay for some of the highway improvements needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 26, 2022, 09:02:34 AM
Don't forget VRE doesn't run on Sunday. It's a peak-direction weekday-only service. Of course that could change someday, but don't hold your breath, and it wouldn't much help anyone not located near the Fredericksburg Line (the one that serves Woodbridge) because of how the system is configured.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 27, 2022, 08:39:52 AM
Quote from: plain on April 27, 2022, 11:39:02 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 22, 2022, 02:38:00 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 04, 2022, 08:31:49 AM
There was a public meeting last night about Chesterfield's Upper Magnolia Green development - which includes the Powhite Parkway extension to US 360 in Skinquarter - and there was substantial community opposition. I'm skeptical the extension will ever get built...which is about how I normally feel anyway.

The Chesterfield County Planning Commission voted 3-2 to approve the Upper Magnolia Green plan, which now heads to the Board of Supervisors for a full vote. There continues to be heavy community opposition to the plan and it probably will not pass - if it doesn't, the Powhite Parkway extension is dead.
I don't think the Extension would truly be dead because of that, but it would be incredibly foolish to not build it in any case. The road has been needed for a while now, and the longer VDOT/county officials sit on the issue the worst it will be for that part of the county. There's more development in the pipeline just for US 360 alone, which is going to make it and the interchange with VA 288 even worse than it is now. The commuters need a bypass of that area in the worst way.

UPDATE: Despite heavy opposition, the Chesterfield County Board Of Supervisors have approved the rezoning needed for the Upper Magnolia Green development.

With this there is now a good chance we will see the extension of the Powhite Parkway sooner than later.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/05/27/chesterfield-supervisors-approve-zoning-for-upper-magnolia-green-tech-park/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 27, 2022, 10:21:11 AM
Quote from: plain on May 27, 2022, 08:39:52 AM
Quote from: plain on April 27, 2022, 11:39:02 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on April 22, 2022, 02:38:00 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 04, 2022, 08:31:49 AM
There was a public meeting last night about Chesterfield's Upper Magnolia Green development - which includes the Powhite Parkway extension to US 360 in Skinquarter - and there was substantial community opposition. I'm skeptical the extension will ever get built...which is about how I normally feel anyway.

The Chesterfield County Planning Commission voted 3-2 to approve the Upper Magnolia Green plan, which now heads to the Board of Supervisors for a full vote. There continues to be heavy community opposition to the plan and it probably will not pass - if it doesn't, the Powhite Parkway extension is dead.
I don't think the Extension would truly be dead because of that, but it would be incredibly foolish to not build it in any case. The road has been needed for a while now, and the longer VDOT/county officials sit on the issue the worst it will be for that part of the county. There's more development in the pipeline just for US 360 alone, which is going to make it and the interchange with VA 288 even worse than it is now. The commuters need a bypass of that area in the worst way.

UPDATE: Despite heavy opposition, the Chesterfield County Board Of Supervisors have approved the rezoning needed for the Upper Magnolia Green development.

With this there is now a good chance we will see the extension of the Powhite Parkway sooner than later.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/05/27/chesterfield-supervisors-approve-zoning-for-upper-magnolia-green-tech-park/

I was just coming here to post this. Hopefully if the extension gets built, and the Bailey Bridge Road connector extending south from Commonwealth Centre Parkway also gets built, that region will see some traffic relief.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on May 27, 2022, 01:10:36 PM
Great news. Hull Street is a mess all the way from Chippenham to at least Hampton Park, except for the little lull around Pocoshock/Amberleigh. This should help a lot.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 31, 2022, 08:48:53 PM
US 11 southbound overlay with I-81 near Buchanan has been changed to leave I-81 at Exit 169 instead of Exit 168, whose off-ramp has been removed. US 11 south follows the frontage road from Exit 169.

US 11 northbound is unchanged and still enters at the Exit 168 location.

VDOT has studied building a roadway as the NB frontage road to eliminate the on-ramp at Exit 168 but I don't know if that is coming.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on May 31, 2022, 08:49:42 PM
Looks like funding has been identified for widening I-64 on the Peninsula between MM234 and MM205:

"˜It is a giant step.' Virginia budget deal would boost funds to widen I-64 between Williamsburg and Richmond

https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-i64-20220531-npu322fok5bk5phdvyui26vsim-story.html

Quote
The budget deal before legislators includes far more than either House of Delegates or state Senate budget writers proposed earlier this year to widen Interstate 64 between Richmond and Williamsburg.

The budget deal finalized last week sets $310 million – and hints at even more down the road – for a project that should speed traffic through the Peninsula and cut the driving time from Norfolk to the state capital.

The idea is to draw down federal and regional authorities' money for what's expected to be a $750 million project to add a third lane in each direction between Bottoms Bridge, at mile marker 205, and the northern interchange with Route 199, at mile marker 234.

"This gets us started; it is a giant step,"  said state Sen. Monty Mason, D-Williamsburg.

"It's what we've talked about all the time, keeping the momentum on this project ... We want to get this done now, rather than wait for about 10 years – you know what happens to the cost of things if you wait,"  he said.

Formally, the deal sets $210 million for the project for fiscal year 2022, which ends June 30, and another $110 million to be spent in fiscal year 2024.

If revenues hold up, the idea is that the state would eventually kick in another $150 million, which is the likely maximum of any federal infrastructure dollars for the project, Mason said.

Also possibly in the mix are funds from the new Central Virginia Transportation Authority, which uses regional sales, gasoline and diesel tax surcharges to accelerate projects around the Richmond area. The authority has a request from New Kent to commit $397 million to widen I-64 in that county – that is, from mile 205 to mile 223.

The original fiscal 2022 spending plan, proposed by outgoing Gov. Ralph Northam and accepted by the state Senate, said the work on I-64 between Bottoms Bridge and 199 for that year would be financed by any funds left over from the Hampton Roads high occupancy toll lane project.

Basically, a surplus hoped for from the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission's funds, which come from this region's gas tax surcharge didn't materialize because of rising interest rates. That surcharge has financed a major part of the expansion of the HRBT as well as the HOT lanes on I-64.

The governor's budget for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 did not set any specific amount for I-64 widening.

The House budget writers amended these budget proposals to set $30 million for the work in fiscal 2022 and $20 million over the next two years.

The state Senate, however, proposed spending $190 million in the budget for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 for I-64 widening between Route 199 and the New Kent County line – that is, to mile marker 223, not quite as far as Bottoms Bridge.

Mason said VDOT has told him the higher funding means it could get out a request for proposals for design and construction of the widening out sometime this year. That would put the work for the whole 29 miles between Bottoms Bridge and Route 199 on a fast track, he said.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 31, 2022, 10:01:03 PM
That is great news. Hopefully they can get ground broken on Segment 4 - extending between Route 199 and the James City County / New Kent County line - by next year, and get the whole 29 miles done by the end of the decade.

It's sorely needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on May 31, 2022, 10:08:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2022, 10:01:03 PM
That is great news. Hopefully they can get ground broken on Segment 4 - extending between Route 199 and the James City County / New Kent County line - by next year, and get the whole 29 miles done by the end of the decade.

It's sorely needed.
Really?  Not just in beach season?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 31, 2022, 10:10:35 PM
Traffic is the worst during peak weekends, but from driving that stretch of I-64 numerous times all times of year, the traffic is heavy on any given day. Often to the point it's moving at or below 70 mph with inconsistent speeds.

The 6 lane segments on the other hand move 75-80+ mph, vehicles more spaced out, much more free flow. And even during peak periods, rarely congested.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on May 31, 2022, 10:11:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2022, 10:10:35 PM
Traffic is the worst during peak weekends, but from driving that stretch of I-64 numerous times all times of year, the traffic is heavy on any given day. Often to the point it's moving at or below 70 mph with inconsistent speeds.

The 6 lane segments on the other hand move 75-80+ mph, vehicles more spaced out, much more free flow. And even during peak periods, rarely congested.
I mean, if it's moving 55 mph that is free flowing and hardly pressing...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 31, 2022, 10:20:16 PM
^ Much like your arguments for the NJTP... clearly it's not being bought.

And again, drive it during peak times. It's stop and go. Not "free-flowing" .
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on June 01, 2022, 12:40:39 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 31, 2022, 10:11:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2022, 10:10:35 PM
Traffic is the worst during peak weekends, but from driving that stretch of I-64 numerous times all times of year, the traffic is heavy on any given day. Often to the point it's moving at or below 70 mph with inconsistent speeds.

The 6 lane segments on the other hand move 75-80+ mph, vehicles more spaced out, much more free flow. And even during peak periods, rarely congested.
I mean, if it's moving 55 mph that is free flowing and hardly pressing...
wrong, read about level of service
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 01, 2022, 11:38:00 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 31, 2022, 10:11:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2022, 10:10:35 PM
Traffic is the worst during peak weekends, but from driving that stretch of I-64 numerous times all times of year, the traffic is heavy on any given day. Often to the point it's moving at or below 70 mph with inconsistent speeds.

The 6 lane segments on the other hand move 75-80+ mph, vehicles more spaced out, much more free flow. And even during peak periods, rarely congested.
I mean, if it's moving 55 mph that is free flowing and hardly pressing...

It's been a number of years since I've been on I-64 between Richmond and Va. Beach (mainly on a Friday night traveling to a weekend soccer tournament), but it sounds like not much has changed. I was more stressed on that section than at any time on I-81. There wasn't a good mix of traffic -- the right lane moved at a speed under the limit and the left lane moved at a speed well over the limit. If one moved to the right lane to get rid of a tailgater, you had to drop from 70 to 50 real quick to fit into the hole you found. You were stuck poking along until there was a sufficient opening in the left lane to move back to avoid the slow movers. Throw in the random driver in the left lane who managed to find a large hole so they could drive at 55 to get around the cars doing 50 and the left lane quickly stacked up. Yo-yo travel is anything but "free flowing" on that two-lane section.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on June 01, 2022, 12:44:40 PM
How horrible. This widening is just going to induce more people to see Colonial Williamsburg and learn about Norfolk's rich naval history and lead to more commerce at the port.

/s
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: J N Winkler on June 01, 2022, 01:34:47 PM
I haven't been back to Virginia in over 20 years, but at one point I had one-year free admission to Colonial Williamsburg and milked it hard over summer weekend day trips from the DC area.  I-64 between Richmond and Hampton Roads was bad even back then.  Although US 17 and US 301 offer a continuous four lanes from Hampton Roads to just east of DC, they don't form a suitable alternative to the I-95/I-64 itinerary because the four-lane section of US 17 in Virginia is built to rural arterial (not true expressway) standards and so is stoplight-infested.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 01, 2022, 04:20:38 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 31, 2022, 08:49:42 PM
Looks like funding has been identified for widening I-64 on the Peninsula between MM234 and MM205:

"˜It is a giant step.' Virginia budget deal would boost funds to widen I-64 between Williamsburg and Richmond

https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/dp-nw-i64-20220531-npu322fok5bk5phdvyui26vsim-story.html

Quote
The budget deal before legislators includes far more than either House of Delegates or state Senate budget writers proposed earlier this year to widen Interstate 64 between Richmond and Williamsburg.

The budget deal finalized last week sets $310 million – and hints at even more down the road – for a project that should speed traffic through the Peninsula and cut the driving time from Norfolk to the state capital.

The idea is to draw down federal and regional authorities' money for what's expected to be a $750 million project to add a third lane in each direction between Bottoms Bridge, at mile marker 205, and the northern interchange with Route 199, at mile marker 234.

"This gets us started; it is a giant step,"  said state Sen. Monty Mason, D-Williamsburg.

"It's what we've talked about all the time, keeping the momentum on this project ... We want to get this done now, rather than wait for about 10 years – you know what happens to the cost of things if you wait,"  he said.

Formally, the deal sets $210 million for the project for fiscal year 2022, which ends June 30, and another $110 million to be spent in fiscal year 2024.

If revenues hold up, the idea is that the state would eventually kick in another $150 million, which is the likely maximum of any federal infrastructure dollars for the project, Mason said.

Also possibly in the mix are funds from the new Central Virginia Transportation Authority, which uses regional sales, gasoline and diesel tax surcharges to accelerate projects around the Richmond area. The authority has a request from New Kent to commit $397 million to widen I-64 in that county – that is, from mile 205 to mile 223.

The original fiscal 2022 spending plan, proposed by outgoing Gov. Ralph Northam and accepted by the state Senate, said the work on I-64 between Bottoms Bridge and 199 for that year would be financed by any funds left over from the Hampton Roads high occupancy toll lane project.

Basically, a surplus hoped for from the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission's funds, which come from this region's gas tax surcharge didn't materialize because of rising interest rates. That surcharge has financed a major part of the expansion of the HRBT as well as the HOT lanes on I-64.

The governor's budget for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 did not set any specific amount for I-64 widening.

The House budget writers amended these budget proposals to set $30 million for the work in fiscal 2022 and $20 million over the next two years.

The state Senate, however, proposed spending $190 million in the budget for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 for I-64 widening between Route 199 and the New Kent County line – that is, to mile marker 223, not quite as far as Bottoms Bridge.

Mason said VDOT has told him the higher funding means it could get out a request for proposals for design and construction of the widening out sometime this year. That would put the work for the whole 29 miles between Bottoms Bridge and Route 199 on a fast track, he said.

The budget passed the General Assembly today and is likely to be signed by the governor, so that will be a huge help.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 02, 2022, 09:30:39 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2022, 10:20:16 PM
^ Much like your arguments for the NJTP... clearly it's not being bought.

And again, drive it during peak times. It's stop and go. Not "free-flowing" .
No, my point on the NJTP is right, it doesn't need widened south of exit 3, as it is always free flowing (65+) aside from a few times.

Now, 64 in VA IS bad but my question, how bad is it really outside of summer beach season?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on June 02, 2022, 10:18:59 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 02, 2022, 09:30:39 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2022, 10:20:16 PM
^ Much like your arguments for the NJTP... clearly it's not being bought.

And again, drive it during peak times. It's stop and go. Not "free-flowing" .
No, my point on the NJTP is right, it doesn't need widened south of exit 3, as it is always free flowing (65+) aside from a few times.

Now, 64 in VA IS bad but my question, how bad is it really outside of summer beach season?

Still pretty bad even in the middle of the winter during the week.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 02, 2022, 10:29:09 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 02, 2022, 09:30:39 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2022, 10:20:16 PM
^ Much like your arguments for the NJTP... clearly it's not being bought.

And again, drive it during peak times. It's stop and go. Not "free-flowing" .
No, my point on the NJTP is right, it doesn't need widened south of exit 3, as it is always free flowing (65+) aside from a few times.
My point still stands - your argument isn't being bought. The section is being widened to 6 lanes.

The same applies for I-64.

Quote
Now, 64 in VA IS bad but my question, how bad is it really outside of summer beach season?
Pretty bad, as answered above. I suppose you aren't interested to entertain this, however, because if it's moving above 0 mph, in your mind, it's adequate.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on June 02, 2022, 09:47:33 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 02, 2022, 09:30:39 AM
Now, 64 in VA IS bad but my question, how bad is it really outside of summer beach season?

This study from 2011 should answer your questions.
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/hampton_roads/64_deis/Traffic_and_Transportation_Technical_Memorandum_10-23-12.pdf

TLDR: MM205-234 rated LOS E during the summer weekend peak, LOS B/C during non-summer weekday peak. The widened segment (MM234-255) rated LOS E during the summer weekend peak and LOS D during the non-summer weekday peak.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 02, 2022, 10:37:03 PM
^ To clarify, the LOS on the widened segment was pre widening. Traffic conditions have moved from heavily congested to virtually never congested, always free flow.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 03, 2022, 07:17:32 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 02, 2022, 10:29:09 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 02, 2022, 09:30:39 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 31, 2022, 10:20:16 PM
^ Much like your arguments for the NJTP... clearly it's not being bought.

And again, drive it during peak times. It's stop and go. Not "free-flowing" .
No, my point on the NJTP is right, it doesn't need widened south of exit 3, as it is always free flowing (65+) aside from a few times.
My point still stands - your argument isn't being bought. The section is being widened to 6 lanes.

The same applies for I-64.

Quote
Now, 64 in VA IS bad but my question, how bad is it really outside of summer beach season?
Pretty bad, as answered above. I suppose you aren't interested to entertain this, however, because if it's moving above 0 mph, in your mind, it's adequate.
No actually free flowing is when google  maps shows green.  And the NJTP south of exit 3 is almost always that both on google and when I drive, but what do I know.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 03, 2022, 09:31:40 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 03, 2022, 07:17:32 AM
No actually free flowing is when google  maps shows green.

So Google is now the arbiter of traffic? Don't let this get out too far or lots of state DOTs will be laying off engineers left and right, keeping one person to monitor the Google map colors.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 06, 2022, 10:24:23 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 03, 2022, 09:31:40 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 03, 2022, 07:17:32 AM
No actually free flowing is when google  maps shows green.

So Google is now the arbiter of traffic? Don't let this get out too far or lots of state DOTs will be laying off engineers left and right, keeping one person to monitor the Google map colors.
Google maps and my own observations firsthand.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on June 06, 2022, 01:35:17 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 03, 2022, 09:31:40 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 03, 2022, 07:17:32 AM
No actually free flowing is when google  maps shows green.

So Google is now the arbiter of traffic? Don't let this get out too far or lots of state DOTs will be laying off engineers left and right, keeping one person to monitor the Google map colors.
That's...that's not how traffic studies work...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 06, 2022, 04:01:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 06, 2022, 01:35:17 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 03, 2022, 09:31:40 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 03, 2022, 07:17:32 AM
No actually free flowing is when google  maps shows green.

So Google is now the arbiter of traffic? Don't let this get out too far or lots of state DOTs will be laying off engineers left and right, keeping one person to monitor the Google map colors.
That's...that's not how traffic studies work...
I'm sure any TS would show the LOS to be fine.

Show me the LOS for the NJTP south of exit 3 and compare it to the LOS of the 95/295 split in DE or the I-95 LOS in Harford County, MD and you will see why I say this is not a priority.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 06, 2022, 04:48:01 PM
You're in the wrong thread to talk about the New Jersey Turnpike... and I don't think this repetitive argument is needed there either to be honest... you're beating a dead horse.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 06, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
You know what pisses me off about the I-64 widening from 205 to Williamsburg?
That I-64 will now be 3 lanes each way, the same as I-95 from I-295 to Lorton!
This is insane!!!!!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 06, 2022, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 06, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
You know what pisses me off about the I-64 widening from 205 to Williamsburg?
That I-64 will now be 3 lanes each way, the same as I-95 from I-295 to Lorton!
This is insane!!!!!
Is there an issue with that?

I-95 is overcapacity with 6 lanes and has the warrants for 8 lanes.

I-64 is overcapacity with 4 lanes and has the warrants for 6 lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: J N Winkler on June 06, 2022, 05:38:57 PM
Because LOS is measured over a 15-minute period, on almost any freeway you can see LOS A at 4 AM.  (California I-405 may be slightly worse--LOS B, perhaps?)  Thus, traffic provision tends to be decided using LOS at some generally accepted threshold, such as the 30th highest hour in the year.  With 24 summer weekend days per year and I-64 between Richmond and Hampton Roads not coming close to operating at LOS B (the common target for design hour volume on rural facilities during the era of first Interstate construction) in any of them as far back as the mid-1990's, I'd say the widening was long overdue.  The question in my mind is actually whether eight or more lanes would be necessary to carry the DHV at LOS B or better.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 06, 2022, 05:42:11 PM
^ I feel like 6 lanes will be adequate in the rural areas for a while, though the recently expanded segments, at least south of VA-199 (segments 1-2) do still get quite heavy (albeit moving 75+ mph) and could eventually use 8 lane widening in the future - certainly not a priority now. The rural segment is and should be the top priority for any widening, that stretch is far worse.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 07, 2022, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 06, 2022, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 06, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
You know what pisses me off about the I-64 widening from 205 to Williamsburg?
That I-64 will now be 3 lanes each way, the same as I-95 from I-295 to Lorton!
This is insane!!!!!
Is there an issue with that?

I-95 is overcapacity with 6 lanes and has the warrants for 8 lanes.

I-64 is overcapacity with 4 lanes and has the warrants for 6 lanes.
YES.
I-95 needs to be widened IMMEDIATELY!

How can rural Virginia Peninsula have the same # of lanes on their regional interstate as NOVA on their massive east coast interstate?!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on June 07, 2022, 04:36:20 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 06, 2022, 07:46:06 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on March 06, 2022, 03:43:04 PM
I've recently noticed some newer street signs in Prince William and Chesterfield Counties that include the secondary route number (like you see in North Carolina) and -- consequently -- eliminate the need for a separate white blade sign. Anyone know if this a pilot project or a type of new partnership between the counties and VDOT? While I think the white blade signs have some navigational benefit for major secondary routes, as well as in rural areas, I think they're a waste of money in suburban neighborhoods and along minor residential streets. Affixing the route number to the street sign in these areas makes more sense.

This has been going on in Prince William County for at least 15 years...

I'm probably a bit late in responding but -- Prince William County has actually been including the SR numbers on green street name blades for about 30 years. When Hoadly Rd was widened in the mid-1990s, the little white SR signs were not installed at intersections. It wasn't until 15-20 years ago, though, that it became more common for them not to be regularly installed when stop signs or other sign posts get replaced, or upon completion of road construction. That being said, a lot of the SR white signs remain at numerous intersections around the county and new ones get posted every so often -- most recently a new SR-782 sign was installed on VA-28 at Residency Rd, just south of Manassas, as part of the VA-28 widening. While I get the point it saves money and that most people know roads by their names and not the route number, the numbers aren't quite as visible and the practice has also resulted in many signalized intersections having no posting whatsoever of route numbers.

Even more recently, SR signs are being removed to post new street name signs above stop signs.

Chesterfield, Powhatan, and York Counties are similar to Prince William, but most of the other counties mentioned still have white rectangular route signs posted at most/all intersections. I like how Albemarle county has a white background for the SR route on their street sign blades.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 07, 2022, 06:23:00 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 07, 2022, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 06, 2022, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 06, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
You know what pisses me off about the I-64 widening from 205 to Williamsburg?
That I-64 will now be 3 lanes each way, the same as I-95 from I-295 to Lorton!
This is insane!!!!!
Is there an issue with that?

I-95 is overcapacity with 6 lanes and has the warrants for 8 lanes.

I-64 is overcapacity with 4 lanes and has the warrants for 6 lanes.
YES.
I-95 needs to be widened IMMEDIATELY!

How can rural Virginia Peninsula have the same # of lanes on their regional interstate as NOVA on their massive east coast interstate?!
By the time I-64 is done, I-64 will be adequately built out to handle its traffic. I-95 won't be.

I would still like to see an interstate highway or controlled access facility constructed along the US-301 corridor to supplement I-95, however, that's a pipe dream. Then again, so is widening I-95 it seems. The Express Lanes extension to Fredericksburg should fix some of the issues. However, arguably I-95 still needs dual HO/T lanes alongside 8 general purpose lanes from at least VA-234 north, ideally all the way to Fredericksburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 07, 2022, 07:00:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 07, 2022, 06:23:00 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 07, 2022, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 06, 2022, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 06, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
You know what pisses me off about the I-64 widening from 205 to Williamsburg?
That I-64 will now be 3 lanes each way, the same as I-95 from I-295 to Lorton!
This is insane!!!!!
Is there an issue with that?

I-95 is overcapacity with 6 lanes and has the warrants for 8 lanes.

I-64 is overcapacity with 4 lanes and has the warrants for 6 lanes.
YES.
I-95 needs to be widened IMMEDIATELY!

How can rural Virginia Peninsula have the same # of lanes on their regional interstate as NOVA on their massive east coast interstate?!
By the time I-64 is done, I-64 will be adequately built out to handle its traffic. I-95 won't be.

I would still like to see an interstate highway or controlled access facility constructed along the US-301 corridor to supplement I-95, however, that's a pipe dream. Then again, so is widening I-95 it seems. The Express Lanes extension to Fredericksburg should fix some of the issues. However, arguably I-95 still needs dual HO/T lanes alongside 8 general purpose lanes from at least VA-234 north, ideally all the way to Fredericksburg.

This is what infuriates me, I-64 will be 6 lanes wide but so will I-95, why the hell isn't 95 a top priority?
It needs to be:

1.  4GP from the Beltway to PWC PKWY with 3 HOT in each direction
2.  3 GP and 3 HOT from PWC PKWY to Garrisonville
3.  3 GP and 2 HOT from Garrisonville to Rt17
4.  And then from Rt 3 to exit 126 4 GP and 2 local lanes with a new RT 17 only exit
5.  And really....4 GP lanes from 126 to 295
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 08, 2022, 06:05:25 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 07, 2022, 07:00:21 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 07, 2022, 06:23:00 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 07, 2022, 03:47:29 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 06, 2022, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 06, 2022, 04:59:53 PM
You know what pisses me off about the I-64 widening from 205 to Williamsburg?
That I-64 will now be 3 lanes each way, the same as I-95 from I-295 to Lorton!
This is insane!!!!!
Is there an issue with that?

I-95 is overcapacity with 6 lanes and has the warrants for 8 lanes.

I-64 is overcapacity with 4 lanes and has the warrants for 6 lanes.
YES.
I-95 needs to be widened IMMEDIATELY!

How can rural Virginia Peninsula have the same # of lanes on their regional interstate as NOVA on their massive east coast interstate?!
By the time I-64 is done, I-64 will be adequately built out to handle its traffic. I-95 won't be.

I would still like to see an interstate highway or controlled access facility constructed along the US-301 corridor to supplement I-95, however, that's a pipe dream. Then again, so is widening I-95 it seems. The Express Lanes extension to Fredericksburg should fix some of the issues. However, arguably I-95 still needs dual HO/T lanes alongside 8 general purpose lanes from at least VA-234 north, ideally all the way to Fredericksburg.

This is what infuriates me, I-64 will be 6 lanes wide but so will I-95, why the hell isn't 95 a top priority?
It needs to be:

1.  4GP from the Beltway to PWC PKWY with 3 HOT in each direction
2.  3 GP and 3 HOT from PWC PKWY to Garrisonville
3.  3 GP and 2 HOT from Garrisonville to Rt17
4.  And then from Rt 3 to exit 126 4 GP and 2 local lanes with a new RT 17 only exit
5.  And really....4 GP lanes from 126 to 295

The answers to some of your questions are found here:  http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/projects/cip/i-95_cip_final_report_092021.pdf

They estimated adding 1 GP lane in each direction from Thornburg to the DC Beltway is $12.5B and that doing so wouldn't actually improve things that much.  They appear to be focusing on intermodal improvements to get vehicles off the road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 08, 2022, 07:07:00 AM
^ I-495 to the Occoquan River has already been widened to 8 lanes, there's no need to widen that section again with general purpose lanes.

As for the rest, start with extending the 4th southbound lane at least a few exits, to hopefully relieve that bottleneck that often backs miles up each day because of a lane drop.

Complete a full environmental impact statement on widening this segment, and go beyond a simple "improvement plan" .
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 08, 2022, 07:29:27 AM
Wow. Seems like the kind of issues that could've been resolved if they bring back some of the road proposals that were cancelled in '77.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 08, 2022, 10:30:11 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 07, 2022, 03:47:29 PM
YES.
I-95 needs to be widened IMMEDIATELY!

How can rural Virginia Peninsula have the same # of lanes on their regional interstate as NOVA on their massive east coast interstate?!

Seek help.

By your "logic" about "rural" Virginia, those of us who live and use I-81 are SOL when it comes to improvements and we should just live with our "free flowing" (most of the time, except on weekends, holidays, college breaks, daily truck wrecks . . .) two lanes so the money is better spent in Northern Virginia.

Sorry, no.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 08, 2022, 11:55:24 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 08, 2022, 10:30:11 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 07, 2022, 03:47:29 PM
YES.
I-95 needs to be widened IMMEDIATELY!

How can rural Virginia Peninsula have the same # of lanes on their regional interstate as NOVA on their massive east coast interstate?!

Seek help.

By your "logic" about "rural" Virginia, those of us who live and use I-81 are SOL when it comes to improvements and we should just live with our "free flowing" (most of the time, except on weekends, holidays, college breaks, daily truck wrecks . . .) two lanes so the money is better spent in Northern Virginia.

Sorry, no.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Agreed.

That stretch of I-64 should be a top priority, IMO, then I-81. That segment of I-64 is worse than any part of I-81.

Granted, I do agree some improvements to I-95, such as extending the 4th lane a few more miles south would be good candidate projects, but my point still stands.

But a full overhaul to I-95 is questionable given the needs of other corridors, priority wise. Express lanes being bi-directional would be a significant relief to always allow reliable travel in either direction, and could be funded by a P3, as the existing HO/T lanes are.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 08, 2022, 12:22:01 PM
I think any future widening on both I-64 and I-95 should begin from the Richmond area going outward.

Start with I-64 from Bottoms Bridge going eastward to at least Exit 220 (VA 33 East). After the segment around Williamsburg was completed, this section is actually the one that still sees the most backups.

For 95, after the Fredericksburg C/D lanes are finished, there's no doubt in my mind that the section between I-295 and Exit 104 (VA 207) will be the most congestion prone.

This is mostly based on my driving experience on both interstates over the years, plus collecting traffic data.

The segments of I-64 between VA 33 and VA 199 (Lightfoot) and I-95 between VA 207 and US1/17 (Massapponax) sees the least amount of congestion, based on my experience.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 08, 2022, 07:00:56 PM
Quote from: plain on June 08, 2022, 12:22:01 PM
I think any future widening on both I-64 and I-95 should begin from the Richmond area going outward.

Start with I-64 from Bottoms Bridge going eastward to at least Exit 220 (VA 33 East). After the segment around Williamsburg was completed, this section is actually the one that still sees the most backups.

For 95, after the Fredericksburg C/D lanes are finished, there's no doubt in my mind that the section between I-295 and Exit 104 (VA 207) will be the most congestion prone.

This is mostly based on my driving experience on both interstates over the years, plus collecting traffic data.

The segments of I-64 between VA 33 and VA 199 (Lightfoot) and I-95 between VA 207 and US1/17 (Massapponax) sees the least amount of congestion, based on my experience.
Agreed.  95 needs to be high priority.

I also have noticed that for some reason 95 between 17 and 207 is the least congested; why is it that at 207 it picks up given it is very rural?
My guess has been people from Rte 301 who bypassed 95 through MD coming back.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 08, 2022, 07:03:41 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 08, 2022, 10:30:11 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 07, 2022, 03:47:29 PM
YES.
I-95 needs to be widened IMMEDIATELY!

How can rural Virginia Peninsula have the same # of lanes on their regional interstate as NOVA on their massive east coast interstate?!

Seek help.

By your "logic" about "rural" Virginia, those of us who live and use I-81 are SOL when it comes to improvements and we should just live with our "free flowing" (most of the time, except on weekends, holidays, college breaks, daily truck wrecks . . .) two lanes so the money is better spent in Northern Virginia.

Sorry, no.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Seek help yourself.
I never said that, but I-95 is a major east coast route which serves not only by far the most populous region on VA, NoVA, but as well as the entire eastern seaboard with long distance traffic compared to I-64 which between Richmond and Hampton Roads is very rural and a more regional route.
It is absolutely insane that I-95 would be allowed in a populous region like NoVA for a long distance route be as wide as I-64 or I-81.

Sorry but 95/Northern VA rightfully justify getting to be improved to be like the NJTP with 12 lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 07:13:13 PM
Let's imagine that Maryland's next governor decided to cancel the 495/270 widening. How do you think Richmond would retaliate for breaking a promise which Virginia has upheld?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 08, 2022, 07:19:19 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 07:13:13 PM
Let's imagine that Maryland's next governor decided to cancel the 495/270 widening. How do you think Richmond would retaliate for breaking a promise which Virginia has upheld?
Not gonna happen, the business community will not let it go down.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 07:49:24 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 08, 2022, 07:19:19 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 07:13:13 PM
Let's imagine that Maryland's next governor decided to cancel the 495/270 widening. How do you think Richmond would retaliate for breaking a promise which Virginia has upheld?
Not gonna happen, the business community will not let it go down.
What do you mean not gonna happen? You mean Maryland won't cancel the project or Virginia won't retaliate?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 08, 2022, 08:08:17 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 08, 2022, 07:00:56 PM
Quote from: plain on June 08, 2022, 12:22:01 PM
I think any future widening on both I-64 and I-95 should begin from the Richmond area going outward.

Start with I-64 from Bottoms Bridge going eastward to at least Exit 220 (VA 33 East). After the segment around Williamsburg was completed, this section is actually the one that still sees the most backups.

For 95, after the Fredericksburg C/D lanes are finished, there's no doubt in my mind that the section between I-295 and Exit 104 (VA 207) will be the most congestion prone.

This is mostly based on my driving experience on both interstates over the years, plus collecting traffic data.

The segments of I-64 between VA 33 and VA 199 (Lightfoot) and I-95 between VA 207 and US1/17 (Massapponax) sees the least amount of congestion, based on my experience.
Agreed.  95 needs to be high priority.

I also have noticed that for some reason 95 between 17 and 207 is the least congested; why is it that at 207 it picks up given it is very rural?
My guess has been people from Rte 301 who bypassed 95 through MD coming back.

That very well might be some of it, but there's also the fact that King's Dominion is situated along the interchange with VA 30 (Exit 98), which further messes that stretch of I-95 up especially during the summer.

Also, Caroline County has been increasing in population, much of the growth is in the southern part of the county (which is where Exit 104 is located), and the entire county is a part of the Richmond Metro, not NOVA.

Most of the segment of I-64 in question is in New Kent County, and New Kent is also growing, and that growth is in the western part of the county.

What I'm trying to say is while these segments may be rural, it's not as rural nowadays as you think.


But here's the main difference between the NJTP and trying to 12-lane I-95 through most of NOVA: there's no room, which is where a lot of money needed for such a project will come into play. There is a lot of development abutting the highway in NOVA, especially north of Dumfries... Maybe if it would've been widened a long time ago like the Turnpike was then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but alas.


As for I-81, yes much of it is rural, but much of it is also a complete clusterfuck. I-81 is and should be a priority.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 09, 2022, 04:59:45 AM
Raytheon is moving its corporate HQ down I-95 to Arlington.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 09, 2022, 06:48:17 AM
Quote from: plain on June 08, 2022, 08:08:17 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 08, 2022, 07:00:56 PM
Quote from: plain on June 08, 2022, 12:22:01 PM
I think any future widening on both I-64 and I-95 should begin from the Richmond area going outward.

Start with I-64 from Bottoms Bridge going eastward to at least Exit 220 (VA 33 East). After the segment around Williamsburg was completed, this section is actually the one that still sees the most backups.

For 95, after the Fredericksburg C/D lanes are finished, there's no doubt in my mind that the section between I-295 and Exit 104 (VA 207) will be the most congestion prone.

This is mostly based on my driving experience on both interstates over the years, plus collecting traffic data.

The segments of I-64 between VA 33 and VA 199 (Lightfoot) and I-95 between VA 207 and US1/17 (Massapponax) sees the least amount of congestion, based on my experience.
Agreed.  95 needs to be high priority.

I also have noticed that for some reason 95 between 17 and 207 is the least congested; why is it that at 207 it picks up given it is very rural?
My guess has been people from Rte 301 who bypassed 95 through MD coming back.

That very well might be some of it, but there's also the fact that King's Dominion is situated along the interchange with VA 30 (Exit 98), which further messes that stretch of I-95 up especially during the summer.

Also, Caroline County has been increasing in population, much of the growth is in the southern part of the county (which is where Exit 104 is located), and the entire county is a part of the Richmond Metro, not NOVA.

Most of the segment of I-64 in question is in New Kent County, and New Kent is also growing, and that growth is in the western part of the county.

What I'm trying to say is while these segments may be rural, it's not as rural nowadays as you think.


But here's the main difference between the NJTP and trying to 12-lane I-95 through most of NOVA: there's no room, which is where a lot of money needed for such a project will come into play. There is a lot of development abutting the highway in NOVA, especially north of Dumfries... Maybe if it would've been widened a long time ago like the Turnpike was then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but alas.


As for I-81, yes much of it is rural, but much of it is also a complete clusterfuck. I-81 is and should be a priority.
I-81 should be a priority, but not as much as I-95.
It is just insane it's a six lane wide highway.

It NEEDS to be:
-8 GP lanes to Dumfries, 3HOT lanes each way
-6 GP lanes to G'ville, 3 HOT lanes each way
-6 GP lanes to 16, 2 HOT lanes each way
-Local/Thru from Rte 3 to exit 126 with a new exit 126C for Rt 17
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 07:18:27 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 09, 2022, 04:59:45 AM
Raytheon is moving its corporate HQ down I-95 to Arlington.

But they said this won't result in any employees leaving Massachusetts for Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 09, 2022, 10:52:35 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 08, 2022, 07:03:41 PM
Seek help yourself.
I never said that, but I-95 is a major east coast route which serves not only by far the most populous region on VA, NoVA, but as well as the entire eastern seaboard with long distance traffic compared to I-64 which between Richmond and Hampton Roads is very rural and a more regional route.
It is absolutely insane that I-95 would be allowed in a populous region like NoVA for a long distance route be as wide as I-64 or I-81.

Sorry but 95/Northern VA rightfully justify getting to be improved to be like the NJTP with 12 lanes.

Based on what I emphasized above, perhaps you should have a chat with South Carolina about I-95 being only two lanes. It carries that same long-distance traffic and most of the time it does it poorly.

As to I-81, it carries long-distance traffic (lots and lots of trucks) between the south and the northeast. Adding more lanes to it should have more priority than adding still more lanes to I-95.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 09, 2022, 11:03:46 AM
^ I could be wrong, but doesn't I-81 have more truck traffic than I-95?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 09, 2022, 02:57:43 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 09, 2022, 10:52:35 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 08, 2022, 07:03:41 PM
Seek help yourself.
I never said that, but I-95 is a major east coast route which serves not only by far the most populous region on VA, NoVA, but as well as the entire eastern seaboard with long distance traffic compared to I-64 which between Richmond and Hampton Roads is very rural and a more regional route.
It is absolutely insane that I-95 would be allowed in a populous region like NoVA for a long distance route be as wide as I-64 or I-81.

Sorry but 95/Northern VA rightfully justify getting to be improved to be like the NJTP with 12 lanes.

Based on what I emphasized above, perhaps you should have a chat with South Carolina about I-95 being only two lanes. It carries that same long-distance traffic and most of the time it does it poorly.

As to I-81, it carries long-distance traffic (lots and lots of trucks) between the south and the northeast. Adding more lanes to it should have more priority than adding still more lanes to I-95.
Wrong again, you seem to have that ROVA inferiority complex, even though NOVA is the reason VA is VA and not Kentucky.

I-95 in SC is much more acceptable being 2 lanes because I-95 south of Richmond sees a tremendous drop in volume that doesn't really pick up til Florida.  I-95 in SC is mainly for long-distance only, whereas 95 north of Richmond is for metro Richmond, metro DC, long distance FL traffic, AND Phil/NYC/NE.  Comparing those two is apples and oranges.

Moreover, IF I-95 were actually built to the standards it needs to be, 12 lanes, in Northern VA, then fewer people would seek the I-81 route.

Sorry but a top 8 US market, and the Acela corridor has priority over rural SW VA, as it should.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 09, 2022, 03:05:25 PM
Where are you from, bluecountry?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 09, 2022, 03:10:54 PM
FFX/NY
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex4897 on June 09, 2022, 05:37:11 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 09, 2022, 02:57:43 PM
I-95 in SC is much more acceptable being 2 lanes because I-95 south of Richmond sees a tremendous drop in volume that doesn't really pick up til Florida.

Someone's never experienced the jams approaching the Georgia line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 09, 2022, 06:24:30 PM
Quote from: Alex4897 on June 09, 2022, 05:37:11 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 09, 2022, 02:57:43 PM
I-95 in SC is much more acceptable being 2 lanes because I-95 south of Richmond sees a tremendous drop in volume that doesn't really pick up til Florida.

Someone's never experienced the jams approaching the Georgia line.
I'm wondering what's going to happen in a few years when I-95's 8 lanes in North Carolina hits any of the 4 locations will it drop to 4 lanes on a peak weekend.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 09, 2022, 08:37:48 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 09, 2022, 02:57:43 PM
Moreover, IF I-95 were actually built to the standards it needs to be, 12 lanes, in Northern VA, then fewer people would seek the I-81 route.

I-81 and I-95 do not compete for the same traffic. They go totally different places and serve totally different areas of the country. I-95 is primarily an Atlantic coast route. I-81 serves (and please don't anyone go off on a tangent on how a route cannot serve a state it does not enter) pretty much everything to the southwest of Virginia. The I-15/40/81/78 corridor is the preferred trucking corridor from the LA area to the NYC area. I-81 could really stand to be three lanes all the way from I-40 to I-78.

I'm guessing you have never been caught behind two micropassing trucks on I-81 in Virginia where one of the truckers disobeys the regulatory sign that directs traffic operating below the posted speed limit to stay in the right lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: wriddle082 on June 10, 2022, 01:17:13 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 09, 2022, 06:24:30 PM
Quote from: Alex4897 on June 09, 2022, 05:37:11 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 09, 2022, 02:57:43 PM
I-95 in SC is much more acceptable being 2 lanes because I-95 south of Richmond sees a tremendous drop in volume that doesn't really pick up til Florida.

Someone's never experienced the jams approaching the Georgia line.
I'm wondering what's going to happen in a few years when I-95's 8 lanes in North Carolina hits any of the 4 locations will it drop to 4 lanes on a peak weekend.

What a lot of folks don't realize about SC in general is that one major N-S corridor that funnels snowbird traffic just flat out ends in the middle of the state: I-77.  That traffic has to go to some other road.  A very small percentage jumps off onto I-20, mostly west, but the vast majority goes to I-26 east in order to reach I-95 south.  And therein lies the biggest problems.  The route between Columbia and Savannah along 26 east and 95 south pretty much stays miserable on the weekends.  They design/build widened a few miles of it leaving Columbia a few years ago but it most definitely wasn't enough.  Anyway the big priorities for SC should be 6 lane widening all of 26 from 385 in Clinton all the way to Charleston, including 8 lanes through the Columbia area, and 6 lanes for 95 from Georgia to I-26.  Then maybe 6-lanes from Florence to the BC line if it starts to become more of a problem.  The stretch of 95 between 26 and 20 will probably still be OK with four lanes for a bit longer.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 10, 2022, 09:06:57 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 09, 2022, 08:37:48 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 09, 2022, 02:57:43 PM
Moreover, IF I-95 were actually built to the standards it needs to be, 12 lanes, in Northern VA, then fewer people would seek the I-81 route.

I-81 and I-95 do not compete for the same traffic. They go totally different places and serve totally different areas of the country. I-95 is primarily an Atlantic coast route. I-81 serves (and please don't anyone go off on a tangent on how a route cannot serve a state it does not enter) pretty much everything to the southwest of Virginia. The I-15/40/81/78 corridor is the preferred trucking corridor from the LA area to the NYC area. I-81 could really stand to be three lanes all the way from I-40 to I-78.

I'm guessing you have never been caught behind two micropassing trucks on I-81 in Virginia where one of the truckers disobeys the regulatory sign that directs traffic operating below the posted speed limit to stay in the right lane.

I have actually, 95 is a much bigger priority and I can say many snowbirds use 81 due to 95 being so bad.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 10, 2022, 09:13:04 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 09, 2022, 06:24:30 PM
Quote from: Alex4897 on June 09, 2022, 05:37:11 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 09, 2022, 02:57:43 PM
I-95 in SC is much more acceptable being 2 lanes because I-95 south of Richmond sees a tremendous drop in volume that doesn't really pick up til Florida.

Someone's never experienced the jams approaching the Georgia line.
I'm wondering what's going to happen in a few years when I-95's 8 lanes in North Carolina hits any of the 4 locations will it drop to 4 lanes on a peak weekend.

I'd guess it'll be similar to what happens now on northbound I-95 in Georgia approaching the South Carolina state line when it slows to a crawl due to lane drops.

Regarding hbelkins's comment, the points he makes underscore the reason I-81 has been called the "NAFTA Highway" (even recognizing NAFTA has been superseded by the USMCA).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 10, 2022, 11:06:12 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 10, 2022, 09:13:04 AM
I'd guess it'll be similar to what happens now on northbound I-95 in Georgia approaching the South Carolina state line when it slows to a crawl due to lane drops.
The worse part IMO will be the Fayetteville Bypass. It will be 8 lanes on either side only to narrow to 4 along the bypass portion.

Hopefully that part can get addressed ASSP so there is a continuous ~60 mile 8 lane portion with only drops on the ends and not in the middle.

The northern portion will be probably less problematic since the lane drop will be where a lot of vehicles will split towards I-40 West, whereas the southern end at I-74 doesn't have a lot of vehicles switching highways, the most would stay on I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 10, 2022, 01:09:38 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on June 10, 2022, 01:17:13 AM
What a lot of folks don't realize about SC in general is that one major N-S corridor that funnels snowbird traffic just flat out ends in the middle of the state: I-77.  That traffic has to go to some other road.  A very small percentage jumps off onto I-20, mostly west, but the vast majority goes to I-26 east in order to reach I-95 south.  And therein lies the biggest problems.  The route between Columbia and Savannah along 26 east and 95 south pretty much stays miserable on the weekends.

...and weekdays, and holidays, and any day ending in 'y'. While getting off topic for Virginia (other than the impact on I-95), an extension of I-77 from Columbia, via I-20 to Augusta then south to Valdosta, Ga. would provide an alternate route over the I-26/I-95 mess, especially for those headed to I-75 and the west coast of Florida. This would also be a way for midwest traffic to avoid the mess that is Atlanta.

As to my alleged "ROVA inferiority complex" -- FU. I-81 was recognized years ago as a major problem due to the limits of two lanes. Solutions were proposed but scrapped and the problem has only gotten worse. Ask any long-distance trucker how their day goes when one of their colleagues jackknifes his rig or puts it in a ditch and shuts down both lanes for hours. Moving freight is more important than getting bureaucrats to and from their office.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 10, 2022, 03:19:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 10, 2022, 11:06:12 AM
The worse part IMO will be the Fayetteville Bypass. It will be 8 lanes on either side only to narrow to 4 along the bypass portion.

Hopefully that part can get addressed ASSP so there is a continuous ~60 mile 8 lane portion with only drops on the ends and not in the middle.

The northern portion will be probably less problematic since the lane drop will be where a lot of vehicles will split towards I-40 West, whereas the southern end at I-74 doesn't have a lot of vehicles switching highways, the most would stay on I-95.

Assuming that you are talking about I-295 in North Carolina (and not I-95 between the eventual ends of I-295), this route was never intended to be a bypass for through traffic.  Once completed, traffic on the south end of I-295 will be primarily headed for Fort Bragg (via the base access road) and Sanford (via NC-87), plus local traffic west of Fayetteville.  On the other hand, the northern part of I-295 will handle Fort Bragg traffic plus the local traffic west of Fayetteville.  I'd be surprised if the northern part of I-295 needs to be widened anytime soon, and when it does it still won't get ranked very high on the STIP list.

On the other hand, I might still use I-295 as a full bypass sometime just to see something new along the way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 10, 2022, 06:16:55 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 10, 2022, 09:13:04 AM
Regarding hbelkins's comment, the points he makes underscore the reason I-81 has been called the "NAFTA Highway" (even recognizing NAFTA has been superseded by the USMCA).

I'd only heard that term used for I-69.

Quote from: VTGoose on June 10, 2022, 01:09:38 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on June 10, 2022, 01:17:13 AM
What a lot of folks don't realize about SC in general is that one major N-S corridor that funnels snowbird traffic just flat out ends in the middle of the state: I-77.  That traffic has to go to some other road.  A very small percentage jumps off onto I-20, mostly west, but the vast majority goes to I-26 east in order to reach I-95 south.  And therein lies the biggest problems.  The route between Columbia and Savannah along 26 east and 95 south pretty much stays miserable on the weekends.

...and weekdays, and holidays, and any day ending in 'y'. While getting off topic for Virginia (other than the impact on I-95), an extension of I-77 from Columbia, via I-20 to Augusta then south to Valdosta, Ga. would provide an alternate route over the I-26/I-95 mess, especially for those headed to I-75 and the west coast of Florida. This would also be a way for midwest traffic to avoid the mess that is Atlanta.

As to my alleged "ROVA inferiority complex" -- FU. I-81 was recognized years ago as a major problem due to the limits of two lanes. Solutions were proposed but scrapped and the problem has only gotten worse. Ask any long-distance trucker how their day goes when one of their colleagues jackknifes his rig or puts it in a ditch and shuts down both lanes for hours. Moving freight is more important than getting bureaucrats to and from their office.


A neighbor wintered in Florida for several years. He took to using I-26 to I-95 to avoid Atlanta on his drives there and back. So there is precedent for people using parts of that corridor as a bypass of an x5 interstate -- just not 95.

I remember the proposals to build truck-only lanes for I-81 that would have interchanges only at major intersecting routes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 10, 2022, 08:17:01 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 10, 2022, 03:19:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 10, 2022, 11:06:12 AM
The worse part IMO will be the Fayetteville Bypass. It will be 8 lanes on either side only to narrow to 4 along the bypass portion.

Hopefully that part can get addressed ASSP so there is a continuous ~60 mile 8 lane portion with only drops on the ends and not in the middle.

The northern portion will be probably less problematic since the lane drop will be where a lot of vehicles will split towards I-40 West, whereas the southern end at I-74 doesn't have a lot of vehicles switching highways, the most would stay on I-95.

Assuming that you are talking about I-295 in North Carolina (and not I-95 between the eventual ends of I-295), this route was never intended to be a bypass for through traffic.  Once completed, traffic on the south end of I-295 will be primarily headed for Fort Bragg (via the base access road) and Sanford (via NC-87), plus local traffic west of Fayetteville.  On the other hand, the northern part of I-295 will handle Fort Bragg traffic plus the local traffic west of Fayetteville.  I'd be surprised if the northern part of I-295 needs to be widened anytime soon, and when it does it still won't get ranked very high on the STIP list.

On the other hand, I might still use I-295 as a full bypass sometime just to see something new along the way.

He was referring to 95's lane drops in each direction at the 95 Bus interchanges, thus 95's bypass of Fayetteville.

2019 AADT 95 just north of Exit 40 - 40000
95 between Exit 33 and Exit 40 - 55500

Oddly traffic counts north and south of Exit 56 are the same each year for several years running which is non-sensical. In 2010, about 25% of traffic was to/from Exit 56

Also when 295 is open south of Exit 40 that will take a fair amount of traffic away from the lane drop northbound.

So maybe it won't be too bad most of the time. IIRC NC wants to 6 lane 95 around Fayetteville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 10, 2022, 10:54:41 PM
^ Yes, that was what I was referring to, the I-95 portion around Fayetteville, not I-295. I-295 acts as a radial beltway and a local route for Fayetteville, not long distance traffic.

NCDOT's proposal was 8 lanes I believe, not 6 lanes. 6 lanes on I-95 was proposed south of I-74 and north of Kenny I believe.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 11, 2022, 10:11:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 09, 2022, 11:03:46 AM
^ I could be wrong, but doesn't I-81 have more truck traffic than I-95?

As a percentage of traffic, I-81 in the Christiansburg-Roanoke area has 21-25% truck traffic whereas I-95 between Richmond and Fredericksburg has 9-14%.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: wriddle082 on June 11, 2022, 02:04:04 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 11, 2022, 10:11:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 09, 2022, 11:03:46 AM
^ I could be wrong, but doesn't I-81 have more truck traffic than I-95?

As a percentage of traffic, I-81 in the Christiansburg-Roanoke area has 21-25% truck traffic whereas I-95 between Richmond and Fredericksburg has 9-14%.

Yeah I feel like I-95 doesn't have nearly as much manufacturing or distribution along it as I-81, I-85, I-75, or other E-W interstates that link up with sea ports.  As a result, I've always had an easier time driving to FL via 95 versus 75, which usually has more trucks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 11, 2022, 02:33:06 PM
I-95 definitely carries a lot of trucks, especially north of I-295. It just also happens to carry a lot of passenger vehicles to go along with it..

I've been bogged down on I-81 several times. Most, if not all of it in VA needs to be 6 lanes, which could also involve increasing its concurrency with I-77 to 8.

I-95 north of I-295 definitely needs to be 8, that's no question.

I-81 definitely has a higher percentage of trucks but still not as much overall traffic. But 4 lanes along its entirety is an absolute drag. Especially with more and more people using it to get around Bal/Wsh as time goes on.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 11, 2022, 05:42:01 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 10, 2022, 01:09:38 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on June 10, 2022, 01:17:13 AM
What a lot of folks don't realize about SC in general is that one major N-S corridor that funnels snowbird traffic just flat out ends in the middle of the state: I-77.  That traffic has to go to some other road.  A very small percentage jumps off onto I-20, mostly west, but the vast majority goes to I-26 east in order to reach I-95 south.  And therein lies the biggest problems.  The route between Columbia and Savannah along 26 east and 95 south pretty much stays miserable on the weekends.

...and weekdays, and holidays, and any day ending in 'y'. While getting off topic for Virginia (other than the impact on I-95), an extension of I-77 from Columbia, via I-20 to Augusta then south to Valdosta, Ga. would provide an alternate route over the I-26/I-95 mess, especially for those headed to I-75 and the west coast of Florida. This would also be a way for midwest traffic to avoid the mess that is Atlanta.

As to my alleged "ROVA inferiority complex" -- FU. I-81 was recognized years ago as a major problem due to the limits of two lanes. Solutions were proposed but scrapped and the problem has only gotten worse. Ask any long-distance trucker how their day goes when one of their colleagues jackknifes his rig or puts it in a ditch and shuts down both lanes for hours. Moving freight is more important than getting bureaucrats to and from their office.

FU too brother.
95 is way more important and NOVA is way more important.
That stretch of 95 is awful on Saturdays and Sundays all year, when bureaucrats aren't going to the office.
It handles long distance east coast traffic and the metro area of the US Capital, so you show your ignorance and inferiority complex with that comment.

95 is the most critical corridor I would argue nationwie, way more important than SW VA, and again, if 95 ran better more trucks would take that route.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 11, 2022, 06:04:30 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 11, 2022, 05:42:01 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 10, 2022, 01:09:38 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on June 10, 2022, 01:17:13 AM
What a lot of folks don't realize about SC in general is that one major N-S corridor that funnels snowbird traffic just flat out ends in the middle of the state: I-77.  That traffic has to go to some other road.  A very small percentage jumps off onto I-20, mostly west, but the vast majority goes to I-26 east in order to reach I-95 south.  And therein lies the biggest problems.  The route between Columbia and Savannah along 26 east and 95 south pretty much stays miserable on the weekends.

...and weekdays, and holidays, and any day ending in 'y'. While getting off topic for Virginia (other than the impact on I-95), an extension of I-77 from Columbia, via I-20 to Augusta then south to Valdosta, Ga. would provide an alternate route over the I-26/I-95 mess, especially for those headed to I-75 and the west coast of Florida. This would also be a way for midwest traffic to avoid the mess that is Atlanta.

As to my alleged "ROVA inferiority complex" -- FU. I-81 was recognized years ago as a major problem due to the limits of two lanes. Solutions were proposed but scrapped and the problem has only gotten worse. Ask any long-distance trucker how their day goes when one of their colleagues jackknifes his rig or puts it in a ditch and shuts down both lanes for hours. Moving freight is more important than getting bureaucrats to and from their office.

FU too brother.
95 is way more important and NOVA is way more important.
That stretch of 95 is awful on Saturdays and Sundays all year, when bureaucrats aren't going to the office.
It handles long distance east coast traffic and the metro area of the US Capital, so you show your ignorance and inferiority complex with that comment.

95 is the most critical corridor I would argue nationwie, way more important than SW VA, and again, if 95 ran better more trucks would take that route.

I seriously think you're underestimating the importance of I-81. Yes I-95 is the most slogged interstate overall, but I-81 is most definitely something that shouldn't be ignored. Anyone who's driven it knows it's been in trouble for a while now. It is a very important corridor and it's just going to get worse if something isn't done about it soon, especially the stretch through VA. This isn't just some interstate in the middle of nowhere, this is an extremely important corridor.

The stretch in question just happens to be in a state where a lot of money is needed for infrastructure improvements statewide. VA has a lot of things it has to deal with.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on June 11, 2022, 06:04:36 PM
I'm with HB: I-69 = NAFTA
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 11, 2022, 06:35:21 PM
Quote from: plain on June 11, 2022, 06:04:30 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 11, 2022, 05:42:01 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 10, 2022, 01:09:38 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on June 10, 2022, 01:17:13 AM
What a lot of folks don't realize about SC in general is that one major N-S corridor that funnels snowbird traffic just flat out ends in the middle of the state: I-77.  That traffic has to go to some other road.  A very small percentage jumps off onto I-20, mostly west, but the vast majority goes to I-26 east in order to reach I-95 south.  And therein lies the biggest problems.  The route between Columbia and Savannah along 26 east and 95 south pretty much stays miserable on the weekends.

...and weekdays, and holidays, and any day ending in 'y'. While getting off topic for Virginia (other than the impact on I-95), an extension of I-77 from Columbia, via I-20 to Augusta then south to Valdosta, Ga. would provide an alternate route over the I-26/I-95 mess, especially for those headed to I-75 and the west coast of Florida. This would also be a way for midwest traffic to avoid the mess that is Atlanta.

As to my alleged "ROVA inferiority complex" -- FU. I-81 was recognized years ago as a major problem due to the limits of two lanes. Solutions were proposed but scrapped and the problem has only gotten worse. Ask any long-distance trucker how their day goes when one of their colleagues jackknifes his rig or puts it in a ditch and shuts down both lanes for hours. Moving freight is more important than getting bureaucrats to and from their office.

FU too brother.
95 is way more important and NOVA is way more important.
That stretch of 95 is awful on Saturdays and Sundays all year, when bureaucrats aren't going to the office.
It handles long distance east coast traffic and the metro area of the US Capital, so you show your ignorance and inferiority complex with that comment.

95 is the most critical corridor I would argue nationwie, way more important than SW VA, and again, if 95 ran better more trucks would take that route.

I seriously think you're underestimating the importance of I-81. Yes I-95 is the most slogged interstate overall, but I-81 is most definitely something that shouldn't be ignored. Anyone who's driven it knows it's been in trouble for a while now. It is a very important corridor and it's just going to get worse if something isn't done about it soon, especially the stretch through VA. This isn't just some interstate in the middle of nowhere, this is an extremely important corridor.

The stretch in question just happens to be in a state where a lot of money is needed for infrastructure improvements statewide. VA has a lot of things it has to deal with.
I agree that 81 shouldn't be ignored, but it's behind 95 in line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 11, 2022, 09:08:14 PM
I haven't heard a single credible argument by bluecountry because all he says is, essentially, "I say so and I'm right." Kind of reminds me of "I think this is needed."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on June 11, 2022, 09:23:27 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 11, 2022, 09:08:14 PM
I haven't heard a single credible argument by bluecountry because all he says is, essentially, "I say so and I'm right." Kind of reminds me of "I think this is needed."
there's my plan
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2022, 08:42:10 AM
Well, speaking as somebody who has driven I-95 in all of Virginia and more, I say I-95 needs an extra lane from Petersburg to Georgia. One problem with doing so is that it would force both the Virginia and North Carolina Welcome Centers further away from the road, and the entrances to both of them would start across the state lines. Or at least the entrance to the Virginia Welcome Center would.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 12, 2022, 08:43:44 AM
Why would it be a problem for a welcome center entrance to start on the other side of the state line? What difference does that make?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2022, 09:01:20 AM
Well, Northampton County and the State of North Carolina would have to accept the extension from north of the border, but I don't think they'd be so uncooperative about that. It would still have to happen, because there's no room to do it any other way.


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 12, 2022, 09:57:35 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2022, 09:01:20 AM
Well, Northampton County and the State of North Carolina would have to accept the extension from north of the border, but I don't think they'd be so uncooperative about that. It would still have to happen, because there's no room to do it any other way.


The I-95 NB Virginia Welcome Center entrance ramp already starts 0.1 miles south of the state line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 12, 2022, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2022, 08:42:10 AM
Well, speaking as somebody who has driven I-95 in all of Virginia and more, I say I-95 needs an extra lane from Petersburg to Georgia. One problem with doing so is that it would force both the Virginia and North Carolina Welcome Centers further away from the road, and the entrances to both of them would start across the state lines. Or at least the entrance to the Virginia Welcome Center would.
I disagree, 95 south of Petersburg is perfectly fine.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on June 12, 2022, 07:14:39 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 12, 2022, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2022, 08:42:10 AM
Well, speaking as somebody who has driven I-95 in all of Virginia and more, I say I-95 needs an extra lane from Petersburg to Georgia. One problem with doing so is that it would force both the Virginia and North Carolina Welcome Centers further away from the road, and the entrances to both of them would start across the state lines. Or at least the entrance to the Virginia Welcome Center would.
I disagree, 95 south of Petersburg is perfectly fine.
I disagree with your disagreement
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 12, 2022, 08:55:34 PM
It's too bad someone on this forum hasn't done an analysis of I-95.

Oh (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257) wait (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24186.msg2381115#msg2381115)...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on June 13, 2022, 12:27:04 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 12, 2022, 09:57:35 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2022, 09:01:20 AM
Well, Northampton County and the State of North Carolina would have to accept the extension from north of the border, but I don't think they'd be so uncooperative about that. It would still have to happen, because there's no room to do it any other way.


The I-95 NB Virginia Welcome Center entrance ramp already starts 0.1 miles south of the state line.
Also, both of the off ramps to the Welcome Centers on I-77 at the VA/NC line begin in the others' state.

Concerning the I-95 widening, it really needs to be widened from I-26 south to the Georgia line.  Traffic backups are a common occurrence in both directions of I-95--I should know as I have been through them while travelling to and from the Savannah area on visits to my in-laws, which I will do again this coming weekend.

I-95 from Petersburg to NC, I-81 throughout the Commonwealth, and I-64 east of Richmond all need to be widened to, at minimum, six lanes.  Expanding to six lanes has alleviated most of the congestion that used to plague I-75 and I-65 throughout Kentucky.  I am sure that the widening of I-64 has alleviated much of the congestion between Williamsburg and Hampton as sprjus4 has observed. 

I know that there are higher traffic counts on the above Interstates mentioned than on I-75 or I-65.  Because of where I live currently, I have not had the opportunity to travel these freeways in quite some time (15 years).  Even then, the need for widening was quite evident.  VDOT has worked on improving both I-95 and I-64 in sections, however, it seems that I-81 has been given the shaft as far as widening. 

Of course, to improve Interstate highways money is needed.  How much is available to complete the different needs?  :hmmm:  I guess these widenings will be completed when they get completed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 13, 2022, 10:54:19 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 13, 2022, 12:27:04 AM
Concerning the I-95 widening, it really needs to be widened from I-26 south to the Georgia line.  Traffic backups are a common occurrence in both directions of I-95--I should know as I have been through them while travelling to and from the Savannah area on visits to my in-laws, which I will do again this coming weekend.

Been there, done that for the last seven years -- son, daughter-in-law, and now grandson lived in Apollo Beach, Fl. outside Tampa and just moved to St. Petersburg after a year and a half in Baton Rouge. I-95 in South Carolina (and I-26 to Columbia) is like I-64 is/was with two lanes full of drivers all trying to go different speeds (and none of them consistently, other than when standing still).

QuoteI know that there are higher traffic counts on the above Interstates mentioned than on I-75 or I-65.  Because of where I live currently, I have not had the opportunity to travel these freeways in quite some time (15 years).  Even then, the need for widening was quite evident.  VDOT has worked on improving both I-95 and I-64 in sections, however, it seems that I-81 has been given the shaft as far as widening. 

Of course, to improve Interstate highways money is needed.  How much is available to complete the different needs?  :hmmm:  I guess these widenings will be completed when they get completed.

The Northam administration finally recognized that something needed to be done to I-81, so those counties and cities that are along the corridor are paying a few more cents in gas tax, with the money going specifically to improvements. Additional lanes are being added (a bit piecemeal, but in identified problem areas), acceleration/deceleration lanes are being extended, signage is being upgraded/increased, and other projects are on the list of fixes. It will take a while but the work has been needed for years. See https://www.improve81.org

From the overview on that site:

"As a critical north-south backbone of the East Coast's freight network, the I-81 corridor is vital to the efficient movement of goods through Virginia. More than one-third of all trucks and nearly 50% of the state's value of goods are transported along the 325-mile corridor. I-81 has the highest per capita truck volume in Virginia.

Within Virginia, I-81 connects 30 colleges and universities, 21 cities and towns and 13 counties, and parallels the Blue Ridge Parkway making this program critical to supporting job growth and economic vitality while reducing congestion, enhancing safety and reliability, and improving quality of life for everyone in our region."

Does bluecountry have companion data to back up his obsession with NOVA and I-95 or does he just blow smoke?

Bruce in Blacksburg (the important part of Virginia)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 13, 2022, 10:58:11 AM
Quote from: VPIGoose on June 13, 2022, 10:54:19 AM
....

Does bluecountry have companion data to back up his obsession with NOVA and I-95 or does he just blow smoke?

Check out his comments about the New Jersey Turnpike elsewhere on the forum. He's one of those people who digs in his heels and acts as though his opinion is fact and anyone who dares disagree is uninformed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 13, 2022, 11:20:21 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 12, 2022, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2022, 08:42:10 AM
Well, speaking as somebody who has driven I-95 in all of Virginia and more, I say I-95 needs an extra lane from Petersburg to Georgia. One problem with doing so is that it would force both the Virginia and North Carolina Welcome Centers further away from the road, and the entrances to both of them would start across the state lines. Or at least the entrance to the Virginia Welcome Center would.
I disagree, 95 south of Petersburg is perfectly fine.

95 is fine without the extra lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 14, 2022, 09:07:34 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 13, 2022, 10:58:11 AM
Check out his comments about the New Jersey Turnpike elsewhere on the forum. He's one of those people who digs in his heels and acts as though his opinion is fact and anyone who dares disagree is uninformed.

The reincarnation of Scott Kozel. Didn't matter if you saw something in person or had direct personal knowledge of something, if it didn't fit his world-space it didn't matter. He (and a couple of others) were responsible for days of flame wars on misc.transport.road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on June 14, 2022, 09:15:10 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 14, 2022, 09:07:34 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 13, 2022, 10:58:11 AM
Check out his comments about the New Jersey Turnpike elsewhere on the forum. He's one of those people who digs in his heels and acts as though his opinion is fact and anyone who dares disagree is uninformed.

The reincarnation of Scott Kozel. Didn't matter if you saw something in person or had direct personal knowledge of something, if it didn't fit his world-space it didn't matter. He (and a couple of others) were responsible for days of flame wars on misc.transport.road.
Kozel's gotta Kozel.  We like him anyway. :D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 14, 2022, 09:39:53 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 14, 2022, 09:07:34 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 13, 2022, 10:58:11 AM
Check out his comments about the New Jersey Turnpike elsewhere on the forum. He's one of those people who digs in his heels and acts as though his opinion is fact and anyone who dares disagree is uninformed.

The reincarnation of Scott Kozel. Didn't matter if you saw something in person or had direct personal knowledge of something, if it didn't fit his world-space it didn't matter. He (and a couple of others) were responsible for days of flame wars on misc.transport.road.


You can find some of his arguments with sprjus4 here on this forum. I will readily concede that Kozel is quite knowledgeable about Virginia highways and transportation and that his website contains a lot of useful research (it would be nice if he were to update it, but perhaps his interests have moved elsewhere, he doesn't have time, or he no longer has access to relevant sources). On the other hand, he's certainly one of the more "stubborn" (to be polite) forum members over the years.

Notwithstanding how he can dig in his heels, I'd rather have a discussion with him than with certain other more recent forum members who also dig in their heels, and the main reason is that Kozel is at least generally a somewhat rational fellow when it comes to things like road proposals and the like–he recognizes when a fictional idea doesn't have a kernel of truth and he would not insist that such ideas be treated as factual. But I understand he stopped posting because of disagreements with the moderators.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 14, 2022, 10:22:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 12, 2022, 07:14:39 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 12, 2022, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2022, 08:42:10 AM
Well, speaking as somebody who has driven I-95 in all of Virginia and more, I say I-95 needs an extra lane from Petersburg to Georgia. One problem with doing so is that it would force both the Virginia and North Carolina Welcome Centers further away from the road, and the entrances to both of them would start across the state lines. Or at least the entrance to the Virginia Welcome Center would.
I disagree, 95 south of Petersburg is perfectly fine.
I disagree with your disagreement

Data says otherwise.  That section is cruise control all the way.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 13, 2022, 11:20:21 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 12, 2022, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2022, 08:42:10 AM
Well, speaking as somebody who has driven I-95 in all of Virginia and more, I say I-95 needs an extra lane from Petersburg to Georgia. One problem with doing so is that it would force both the Virginia and North Carolina Welcome Centers further away from the road, and the entrances to both of them would start across the state lines. Or at least the entrance to the Virginia Welcome Center would.
I disagree, 95 south of Petersburg is perfectly fine.

95 is fine without the extra lanes.
Good call.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 14, 2022, 10:26:00 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 13, 2022, 10:54:19 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 13, 2022, 12:27:04 AM
Concerning the I-95 widening, it really needs to be widened from I-26 south to the Georgia line.  Traffic backups are a common occurrence in both directions of I-95--I should know as I have been through them while travelling to and from the Savannah area on visits to my in-laws, which I will do again this coming weekend.

Been there, done that for the last seven years -- son, daughter-in-law, and now grandson lived in Apollo Beach, Fl. outside Tampa and just moved to St. Petersburg after a year and a half in Baton Rouge. I-95 in South Carolina (and I-26 to Columbia) is like I-64 is/was with two lanes full of drivers all trying to go different speeds (and none of them consistently, other than when standing still).

QuoteI know that there are higher traffic counts on the above Interstates mentioned than on I-75 or I-65.  Because of where I live currently, I have not had the opportunity to travel these freeways in quite some time (15 years).  Even then, the need for widening was quite evident.  VDOT has worked on improving both I-95 and I-64 in sections, however, it seems that I-81 has been given the shaft as far as widening. 

Of course, to improve Interstate highways money is needed.  How much is available to complete the different needs?  :hmmm:  I guess these widenings will be completed when they get completed.

The Northam administration finally recognized that something needed to be done to I-81, so those counties and cities that are along the corridor are paying a few more cents in gas tax, with the money going specifically to improvements. Additional lanes are being added (a bit piecemeal, but in identified problem areas), acceleration/deceleration lanes are being extended, signage is being upgraded/increased, and other projects are on the list of fixes. It will take a while but the work has been needed for years. See https://www.improve81.org

From the overview on that site:

"As a critical north-south backbone of the East Coast's freight network, the I-81 corridor is vital to the efficient movement of goods through Virginia. More than one-third of all trucks and nearly 50% of the state's value of goods are transported along the 325-mile corridor. I-81 has the highest per capita truck volume in Virginia.

Within Virginia, I-81 connects 30 colleges and universities, 21 cities and towns and 13 counties, and parallels the Blue Ridge Parkway making this program critical to supporting job growth and economic vitality while reducing congestion, enhancing safety and reliability, and improving quality of life for everyone in our region."

Does bluecountry have companion data to back up his obsession with NOVA and I-95 or does he just blow smoke?

Bruce in Blacksburg (the important part of Virginia)
I have lived/been in the area for 30 years.  I see it daily with my own car, and on google maps.
IT NEEDS TO BE BI-DIRECTIONAL HOT - 3 lanes to 234 and 2 to 17 both ways AND 4 GP lanes from 234 to beltway.

Nobody said 81 didn't matter but 95 matters far far far far far far far more and everybody but a ROVA with a Napoleon complex knows.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 14, 2022, 10:28:19 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 13, 2022, 10:58:11 AM
Quote from: VPIGoose on June 13, 2022, 10:54:19 AM
....

Does bluecountry have companion data to back up his obsession with NOVA and I-95 or does he just blow smoke?


Check out his comments about the New Jersey Turnpike elsewhere on the forum. He's one of those people who digs in his heels and acts as though his opinion is fact and anyone who dares disagree is uninformed.
Wrong.  I drive the NJTP monthly, I NEVER have issues or delays in South Jersey aside from the occasional back-up at exit 4.  Oh sure, I can be at 65 mph vs 85 but that is NOT cause for construction, that's free flowing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 14, 2022, 10:30:35 AM
^^ On the flip side, one could argue that from a freight perspective, I-81 is more (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/state_info/virginia/images/hi_res_pdf/va_trkflow_2012.pdf) important (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/state_info/virginia/images/hi_res_pdf/va_state_trkflow_2012.pdf) than I-95 by a noticeable factor.  The data disagrees with you here, bluecountry.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 14, 2022, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 14, 2022, 10:28:19 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 13, 2022, 10:58:11 AM
Quote from: VPIGoose on June 13, 2022, 10:54:19 AM
....

Does bluecountry have companion data to back up his obsession with NOVA and I-95 or does he just blow smoke?


Check out his comments about the New Jersey Turnpike elsewhere on the forum. He's one of those people who digs in his heels and acts as though his opinion is fact and anyone who dares disagree is uninformed.
Wrong.  I drive the NJTP monthly, I NEVER have issues or delays in South Jersey aside from the occasional back-up at exit 4.  Oh sure, I can be at 65 mph vs 85 but that is NOT cause for construction, that's free flowing.


You're the one who's wrong, in this context, because you're just further underscoring why the boldfaced text is correct.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 14, 2022, 10:34:17 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 14, 2022, 10:30:35 AM
^^ On the flip side, one could argue that from a freight perspective, I-81 is more (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/state_info/virginia/images/hi_res_pdf/va_trkflow_2012.pdf) important (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/state_info/virginia/images/hi_res_pdf/va_state_trkflow_2012.pdf) than I-95 by a noticeable factor.  The data disagrees with you here, bluecountry.
No it doesn't, 95 has far more volume an delays and serves a much more populated local, regional, and long distance shed.
Moreover, many use 81 to avoid 95, if 95 were the way it should be then fewer would be on 81.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 14, 2022, 10:36:20 AM
There are more perspectives to look at than just driving, bluecountry.  As the FHWA data I linked to shows, I-81 is more important than I-95 for freight.

And again, you prove the obstinence that others have pointed out in this thread.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 14, 2022, 11:35:36 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 14, 2022, 10:34:17 AM
Moreover, many use 81 to avoid 95, if 95 were the way it should be then fewer would be on 81.

No they don't. I-81 is NOT an alternate route for I-95. It's too far out of the way and serves different places. If 95 is congested, you won't save any time and will spend more in gas trying to find a route over to 81 and then making your way back to 95.

The real alternative to 95 in that area is US 301. A secondary alternate is US 13 and the CBBT.

And this whole argument reeks of something I hate. The "haves" continue to benefit while the "have-nots" are ignored. There's been all kinds of money pumped in to work on 95 from Fredericksburg north to solve congestion issues. And here you are wanting to spend even more on that road when there are definite needs elsewhere, 81 being the most glaring of them. Keep throwing money at NOVA and I-95 and just let I-81 be a complete mess with micropassing trucks, short acceleration lanes, and all the other issues it has.

We get the same thing in Kentucky. All kinds of money being spent in Louisville and northern Kentucky and you can't even get to some places without going way out of your way, or taking a torturous two-lane mountain route. Draw a straight line from Harlan to Richmond or Lexington, and then look at what the best, most modern route is.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 14, 2022, 12:00:17 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 14, 2022, 10:34:17 AM
many use 81 to avoid 95

This may be one of the most asinine things I've ever seen on this forum.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 14, 2022, 01:04:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 14, 2022, 11:35:36 AM
And this whole argument reeks of something I hate. The "haves" continue to benefit while the "have-nots" are ignored. There's been all kinds of money pumped in to work on 95 from Fredericksburg north to solve congestion issues. And here you are wanting to spend even more on that road when there are definite needs elsewhere, 81 being the most glaring of them. Keep throwing money at NOVA and I-95 and just let I-81 be a complete mess with micropassing trucks, short acceleration lanes, and all the other issues it has.

We get the same thing in Kentucky. All kinds of money being spent in Louisville and northern Kentucky and you can't even get to some places without going way out of your way, or taking a torturous two-lane mountain route. Draw a straight line from Harlan to Richmond or Lexington, and then look at what the best, most modern route is.

This kind of thinking can be dangerous, though, and it is often a catch-22.  Yes, the more rural areas certainly have needs, and the needs along I-81 have been well documented.  But on the flip side, the "haves" (as you put it) are often the economic engines that support the rest of the state...Fairfax County alone produces ~15% of state sales tax and ~20% of state income tax revenue for Virginia.  Traffic congestion can and does negatively impact that economic engine.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 14, 2022, 02:34:55 PM
Also, mountains don't vote.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 14, 2022, 04:32:25 PM
The only people I-81 in Virginia is a viable alternative to I-95 might be those who are in Columbia SC or Charlotte NC when they are deciding how to get to New York City or further north.

People who live in NOVA sometimes use I-81 to avoid I-95 but only from Harrisburg PA northward.  This is frequently floated by travel advisors during the holiday season.

Also remember that *some* of the disparity in road funding in NOVA (as well as Tidewater) comes from those regions self-funding extra stuff, which VDOT is obligated to spend on those areas.  As has been noted earlier, I-81 is now being addressed partly by self-funding along the I-81 corridor.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 14, 2022, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 14, 2022, 01:04:38 PM
This kind of thinking can be dangerous, though, and it is often a catch-22.  Yes, the more rural areas certainly have needs, and the needs along I-81 have been well documented.  But on the flip side, the "haves" (as you put it) are often the economic engines that support the rest of the state...Fairfax County alone produces ~15% of state sales tax and ~20% of state income tax revenue for Virginia.  Traffic congestion can and does negatively impact that economic engine.

I agree with this -- but . . .  The traffic congestion in NOVA can be reduced by increasing/improving alternative transportation -- the Metro -- trains and buses, VRE, increased carpooling, even pushing for increased work from home to reduce the need for people to commute. This really isn't possible in Southwest Virginia (to a point). Yes, there are daily buses running from this region to Washington, there is a daily Amtrak train from Roanoke to Washington and points beyond, multiple trips of the Smartway Bus between Roanoke and Blacksburg, and (until Gov. Youngkin screwed it up) telecommuting to various points and places that eased some congestion (I have colleagues who live in Roanoke and don't miss the daily commute to and from Blacksburg on I-81). But as the overview for the I-81 Improvement Project points out, "More than one-third of all trucks and nearly 50% of the state's value of goods are transported along the 325-mile corridor. I-81 has the highest per capita truck volume in Virginia." bluecountry doesn't want to accept that detail, he just relies on his own driving and Google maps. Good thing he isn't in charge.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2022, 06:24:46 PM
If someone is coming from the west and wants to connect to one of the major cities in the Northeast Corridor, guess what highway they are going to take.... I-81. Granted I don't have experience with I-81 in VA, but I have driven the road further north in PA and its pretty damned busy. One of the highways that splits off and heads east with a bulk of the freight traffic is I-78 and nobody is going to say that isn't a busy/major trucking route!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on June 14, 2022, 09:24:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2022, 06:24:46 PM
If someone is coming from the west and wants to connect to one of the major cities in the Northeast Corridor, guess what highway they are going to take.... I-81. Granted I don't have experience with I-81 in VA, but I have driven the road further north in PA and its pretty damned busy. One of the highways that splits off and heads east with a bulk of the freight traffic is I-78 and nobody is going to say that isn't a busy/major trucking route!
And I'm also on this side. I'm not the only person I know who will use I-81 from NC to NJ/NY/New England (via 78-287 or 84) to avoid I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on June 14, 2022, 10:01:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 14, 2022, 09:24:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2022, 06:24:46 PM
If someone is coming from the west and wants to connect to one of the major cities in the Northeast Corridor, guess what highway they are going to take.... I-81. Granted I don't have experience with I-81 in VA, but I have driven the road further north in PA and its pretty damned busy. One of the highways that splits off and heads east with a bulk of the freight traffic is I-78 and nobody is going to say that isn't a busy/major trucking route!
And I'm also on this side. I'm not the only person I know who will use I-81 from NC to NJ/NY/New England (via 78-287 or 84) to avoid I-95.
I think one's origin/destination matters as well as one being willing to spend more hours bypassing than they would just staying on I-95.

NC is a big place.  Starting off in the Outer Banks and heading out to I-81 is pretty severe.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on June 14, 2022, 10:30:12 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2022, 10:01:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 14, 2022, 09:24:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2022, 06:24:46 PM
If someone is coming from the west and wants to connect to one of the major cities in the Northeast Corridor, guess what highway they are going to take.... I-81. Granted I don't have experience with I-81 in VA, but I have driven the road further north in PA and its pretty damned busy. One of the highways that splits off and heads east with a bulk of the freight traffic is I-78 and nobody is going to say that isn't a busy/major trucking route!
And I'm also on this side. I'm not the only person I know who will use I-81 from NC to NJ/NY/New England (via 78-287 or 84) to avoid I-95.
I think one's origin/destination matters as well as one being willing to spend more hours bypassing than they would just staying on I-95.

NC is a big place.  Starting off in the Outer Banks and heading out to I-81 is pretty severe.

It is barely longer for me to go - let's just say I-287, I-78, I-81, I-77 from CT to Charlotte vs. I-95. So yes it depends.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 15, 2022, 07:43:30 AM
From Fairfax County I've used the I-66 to I-81 to I-77 route to get to Charlotte two times, both of them because I was bored with the I-95 to I-85 route. Both times I-77 was worse than I-81 was, but both times that was also because of big wrecks (and, the first time, it was also because I was stupid and didn't account for the fact that the football game for which I was heading to Charlotte was against West Virginia, so seemingly the entire population of said state was on I-77 giving everyone from Virginia the finger, throwing debris out the window at us, etc.). Nowadays I'd use US-29 to Greensboro instead. It's the opposite of both Interstates, at least once you're south of I-64. Next to nobody on the road.

Most people I know actively avoid I-81 when giving directions and will say, when asked, that I-81 may look faster but is just plain unpleasant to drive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 15, 2022, 09:39:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 15, 2022, 07:43:30 AM
From Fairfax County I've used the I-66 to I-81 to I-77 route to get to Charlotte two times, both of them because I was bored with the I-95 to I-85 route. Both times I-77 was worse than I-81 was, but both times that was also because of big wrecks (and, the first time, it was also because I was stupid and didn't account for the fact that the football game for which I was heading to Charlotte was against West Virginia, so seemingly the entire population of said state was on I-77 giving everyone from Virginia the finger, throwing debris out the window at us, etc.). Nowadays I'd use US-29 to Greensboro instead. It's the opposite of both Interstates, at least once you're south of I-64. Next to nobody on the road.

Most people I know actively avoid I-81 when giving directions and will say, when asked, that I-81 may look faster but is just plain unpleasant to drive.

I-77 south of I-81 is another Southwest Va. interstate that needs some love. At a minimum, there are several sections (especially southbound) that need a truck-climbing lane. Two trucks micro-passing can back up traffic for a mile. I-77 in North Carolina is a whole 'nother thing. Apparently there is something in the state constitution that requires some portion of the highway to be under construction at all times. There have been multiple sections where the pavement was replaced down to the sub-base, then there was the years of construction around Charlotte to add the express lanes. Current fun is at Statesville with the massive rebuild of the I-40 interchange and [needed] addition of a third lane south of I-40 through Statesville.

I-81 is a schizophrenic highway -- sometimes even on the same day. At times it behaves and traffic moves right along. Other days can see multiple wrecks with long tie-ups because there is no good alternative way around them. I've driven in the middle of a slug of traffic and a few miles down the road am almost alone on the highway. It is also a bit seasonal, with flatland tourists who don't know what to do when faced with the up-and-down hills, plus the mess at Thanksgiving when all the college students are going home at the same time and returning at the same time.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 15, 2022, 09:46:40 AM
QuoteI-81 is a schizophrenic highway -- sometimes even on the same day. At times it behaves and traffic moves right along. Other days can see multiple wrecks with long tie-ups because there is no good alternative way around them. I've driven in the middle of a slug of traffic and a few miles down the road am almost alone on the highway. It is also a bit seasonal, with flatland tourists who don't know what to do when faced with the up-and-down hills, plus the mess at Thanksgiving when all the college students are going home at the same time and returning at the same time.

Virginia Tech has historically been off the entire Thanksgiving week so at least there is some discrepancy in regard to the college students leaving, but they do all return at the same time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 15, 2022, 10:01:18 AM
Quote from: VPIGoose on June 15, 2022, 09:39:00 AM
....

I-81 is a schizophrenic highway -- sometimes even on the same day. At times it behaves and traffic moves right along. ....

I think in some ways it's just a crapshoot as to what other traffic you happen to be near on the road. I've had perfectly pleasant trips on I-81 when I've managed to travel between the "clumps" of traffic that result from the trucks. The trick there, I think, is to try to adjust your speed to avoid catching the clump ahead of you (even if doing so means perhaps going a bit slower than you might prefer) while not going too slowly to allow yourself to be caught by the clump behind you. But sometimes you just plain can't avoid it and then you almost always wind up getting stuck.

The level of stupidity displayed by some car drivers never ceases to make me shake my head. I recall one trip on I-81 when we were descending one of the steeper grades and some woman in a Civic pulled out in to pass a truck, but in doing so she pulled in front of another truck in the left lane that was going a lot faster than she was, and she didn't speed up. If there's anywhere I will always try to avoid pulling in front of a truck, it's on a significant downhill grade. Thankfully, the faster truck driver was able to avoid a collision and was also able to avoid having to take to the shoulder. I have no doubt that sort of thing is one of the more common reasons for the big wrecks of the sort you mention in the part of your comment that I've omitted in the quote above.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 15, 2022, 02:14:53 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2022, 10:01:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 14, 2022, 09:24:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2022, 06:24:46 PM
If someone is coming from the west and wants to connect to one of the major cities in the Northeast Corridor, guess what highway they are going to take.... I-81. Granted I don't have experience with I-81 in VA, but I have driven the road further north in PA and its pretty damned busy. One of the highways that splits off and heads east with a bulk of the freight traffic is I-78 and nobody is going to say that isn't a busy/major trucking route!
And I'm also on this side. I'm not the only person I know who will use I-81 from NC to NJ/NY/New England (via 78-287 or 84) to avoid I-95.
I think one's origin/destination matters as well as one being willing to spend more hours bypassing than they would just staying on I-95.

NC is a big place.  Starting off in the Outer Banks and heading out to I-81 is pretty severe.

Quote from: Alps on June 14, 2022, 10:30:12 PM
It is barely longer for me to go - let's just say I-287, I-78, I-81, I-77 from CT to Charlotte vs. I-95. So yes it depends.

Quote from: 1995hoo on June 15, 2022, 07:43:30 AM
From Fairfax County I've used the I-66 to I-81 to I-77 route to get to Charlotte two times, both of them because I was bored with the I-95 to I-85 route. Both times I-77 was worse than I-81 was, but both times that was also because of big wrecks (and, the first time, it was also because I was stupid and didn't account for the fact that the football game for which I was heading to Charlotte was against West Virginia, so seemingly the entire population of said state was on I-77 giving everyone from Virginia the finger, throwing debris out the window at us, etc.). Nowadays I'd use US-29 to Greensboro instead. It's the opposite of both Interstates, at least once you're south of I-64. Next to nobody on the road.

Most people I know actively avoid I-81 when giving directions and will say, when asked, that I-81 may look faster but is just plain unpleasant to drive.

All good points. I would certainly consider US 29 as a viable alternative route from the DC area to the Triad or beyond, given that I prefer surface routes to interstates. And a route involving I-81 and I-77 to Charlotte is equivalent to I-95 and I-85.

The Outer Banks? This is where US 13/CBBT is handy for traffic from Wilmington/Philly/NJ/NYC. Going to Washington or Baltimore? US 17 to US 301 works.

There are instances where I-81 might be a good alternative to I-95, depending on your origin and destination. But for local or regional traffic, it makes no sense. If I'm in Charleston or Savannah and I want to drive to NYC, I doubt very seriously that I'm going to use any part of I-81. And definitely not if I'm in Rocky Mount and trying to get to Baltimore.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on June 15, 2022, 06:56:13 PM
The only time I've used 81 as an alternative to 95 was at the peak of Springfield Interchange construction 20 years ago, going to Harrisburg. 95 to 17 to 66 to 81.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 16, 2022, 07:19:42 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 14, 2022, 11:35:36 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 14, 2022, 10:34:17 AM
Moreover, many use 81 to avoid 95, if 95 were the way it should be then fewer would be on 81.

No they don't. I-81 is NOT an alternate route for I-95. It's too far out of the way and serves different places. If 95 is congested, you won't save any time and will spend more in gas trying to find a route over to 81 and then making your way back to 95.

The real alternative to 95 in that area is US 301. A secondary alternate is US 13 and the CBBT.

And this whole argument reeks of something I hate. The "haves" continue to benefit while the "have-nots" are ignored. There's been all kinds of money pumped in to work on 95 from Fredericksburg north to solve congestion issues. And here you are wanting to spend even more on that road when there are definite needs elsewhere, 81 being the most glaring of them. Keep throwing money at NOVA and I-95 and just let I-81 be a complete mess with micropassing trucks, short acceleration lanes, and all the other issues it has.

We get the same thing in Kentucky. All kinds of money being spent in Louisville and northern Kentucky and you can't even get to some places without going way out of your way, or taking a torturous two-lane mountain route. Draw a straight line from Harlan to Richmond or Lexington, and then look at what the best, most modern route is.

You are wrong.
Ask anybody from NY/NE going long distance to NC and points south, like FL.  They absolutely use I-81 to avoid the 95 BS in VA.

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 14, 2022, 12:00:17 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 14, 2022, 10:34:17 AM
many use 81 to avoid 95

This may be one of the most asinine things I've ever seen on this forum.
Clearly you don't venture much beyond the Mason-Dixon line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 16, 2022, 07:20:12 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 14, 2022, 01:04:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 14, 2022, 11:35:36 AM
And this whole argument reeks of something I hate. The "haves" continue to benefit while the "have-nots" are ignored. There's been all kinds of money pumped in to work on 95 from Fredericksburg north to solve congestion issues. And here you are wanting to spend even more on that road when there are definite needs elsewhere, 81 being the most glaring of them. Keep throwing money at NOVA and I-95 and just let I-81 be a complete mess with micropassing trucks, short acceleration lanes, and all the other issues it has.

We get the same thing in Kentucky. All kinds of money being spent in Louisville and northern Kentucky and you can't even get to some places without going way out of your way, or taking a torturous two-lane mountain route. Draw a straight line from Harlan to Richmond or Lexington, and then look at what the best, most modern route is.

This kind of thinking can be dangerous, though, and it is often a catch-22.  Yes, the more rural areas certainly have needs, and the needs along I-81 have been well documented.  But on the flip side, the "haves" (as you put it) are often the economic engines that support the rest of the state...Fairfax County alone produces ~15% of state sales tax and ~20% of state income tax revenue for Virginia.  Traffic congestion can and does negatively impact that economic engine.
Yea, Bruce wants to spite the hand that feeds him, and the country.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 16, 2022, 07:36:06 AM
"You're wrong because I say you're wrong" is not a convincing style of argument.

As I said earlier, you're one of those people who digs in your heels and acts as though your opinion is fact and anyone who dares disagree is uninformed. You still haven't even attempted to rebut that statement; all you've done is reinforce its accuracy.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 16, 2022, 09:18:23 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 16, 2022, 07:36:06 AM
"You're wrong because I say you're wrong" is not a convincing style of argument.

As I said earlier, you're one of those people who digs in your heels and acts as though your opinion is fact and anyone who dares disagree is uninformed. You still haven't even attempted to rebut that statement; all you've done is reinforce its accuracy.

Cheeky little guy, isn't he? He just told hbelkins he is wrong -- not someone to pick a fight with. I've "known" hbelkins since misc.transport.road days and I respect his comments and opinion. I wonder where on Goggle Maps one finds details about New Yorkers using I-81 to avoid I-95?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 16, 2022, 09:48:40 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 16, 2022, 09:18:23 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 16, 2022, 07:36:06 AM
"You're wrong because I say you're wrong" is not a convincing style of argument.

As I said earlier, you're one of those people who digs in your heels and acts as though your opinion is fact and anyone who dares disagree is uninformed. You still haven't even attempted to rebut that statement; all you've done is reinforce its accuracy.

Cheeky little guy, isn't he? He just told hbelkins he is wrong -- not someone to pick a fight with. I've "known" hbelkins since misc.transport.road days and I respect his comments and opinion. I wonder where on Goggle Maps one finds details about New Yorkers using I-81 to avoid I-95?

And even had lunch with you (and Rush Wickes) when I spent a week in Blacksburg for a training session back in 2003.

He said ask "anybody." Well, Steve (from NJ but might as well be the metro NYC area) said he uses I-81 if he's going to specific places in NC, but who in general would go that far out of their way if they were going to, say, Jacksonville? Those folks are more likely to use US 13 or US 301.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 16, 2022, 10:16:14 AM
Based on my observations over the years, I think if you ask "anybody," the vast majority won't know any route other than the immediate I-95 corridor. People always used to be astonished when the Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock ran a column discussing the various alternate routes to New York, including heading to Harrisburg and using I-78 (which, I guess, does involve a short distance on I-81, so there you go). People didn't know those other routes existed. That doesn't surprise me, either. Consider how many people think the New Jersey Turnpike is I-95 for its full length.

With that said, sometime I might like to use the I-81/I-26 combination on a trip to or from Florida because I understand the highway between Asheville and I-81 is extremely scenic. But the extra time and distance makes it impractical, especially if Ms1995hoo is with me (she would be exceptionally vocal about it). I do get it on a southbound trip–it's 380 miles to the Tennessee state line via I-81 versus 173 miles via I-95 (a little more if we take I-295 around Richmond). I understand why mentally it feels like you're not getting anywhere if you're still in Virginia over five hours after leaving home when normally you've reached North Carolina about two and a half hours after leaving.

Edited to add: To be clear, in the scenario posed in that second paragraph, it's not that I would "like" to use I-81 so much as it is that I want to drive that segment of I-26 and I-81 is by far the most practical route to use between here and there–though I might cut across to or from US-29 either from Roanoke/Lynchburg on US-460 or further north on I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 16, 2022, 01:02:13 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 16, 2022, 10:16:14 AMbecause I understand the highway between Asheville and I-81 is extremely scenic.

It is, although I wouldn't want to it in icy or snowy conditions (even rain). I found it comparable to some of the very steep stretches of I-68, such as right after Sideling Hill.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 16, 2022, 01:05:48 PM
This is getting off topic, but I'm reminded of an article I read a number of years back talking about how New Yorkers knew their "regular" subway route pretty well, but once it came time to going somewhere else, or trying an alternate route (if relevant), their knowledge and confidence dropped off considerably. Mind you that this included regular riders, not first-time tourists.

I think it speaks to the fact that people know "their" route, particularly if they picked it up from their youth, or word-of-mouth. I still remember routes that we took to family in western and eastern PA growing up, and my "mental GPS" still reverts to those, unless I find objective reasons to divert from it.

Plus, throw in the fact that many people simply wouldn't think to consider alternate routes unless explicitly advised to do so (much less consider alternate routes simply for it being "scenic" or "different" or anything else).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 16, 2022, 02:01:55 PM
This discussion made me curious about travel time. It generally takes us about ten hours of driving, 11 hours total, to go the 690 miles from home to the JAX Airport exit in Florida using I-95 the whole way except for around Richmond and Petersburg (I-295 there). So I decided to compare the travel time to the same location if I used I-66 west to I-81.

Via I-81 to I-77 to I-26 near Columbia, picking up I-95 directly from I-26 in South Carolina, Google Maps quotes 11:50 of driving time (without stops), 795 miles. That's not necessarily horrible, but it's not really any better as to travel time than taking US-29 to Greensboro and then dropping south via Rockingham and Cheraw to pick up I-95 at Florence, and the US-29 route is a far more pleasant drive than I-81 is.

Via I-81 to I-26, again picking up I-95 directly from I-26 in South Carolina, Google Maps estimates 13:45 of driving time (without stops), 902 miles.

If I drag the route to use I-75 in Tennessee (I-81 to I-40 to I-75), Google has me head to Macon, then onto I-16 and then various state and US highways to pick up I-95 near Brunswick, Georgia. Total driving time of 15:31 (without stops), 1019 miles.

Not hard at all to see why, regardless of what bluecountry purports to think, I-81 is not a reasonable alternative to I-95 for a trip to Florida. It just plain goes too far west. Even if I were headed to Florida's west coast, I-81 is still out of the way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 16, 2022, 03:19:05 PM
I think it may have been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but I suppose the main advantage would be from motorists who are already west of I-81, and can use it to find their nearest connector to shoot east. But at that point, that isn't even really a shortcut or secret route.

It's probably fair to concede, however, that I-81 could be a useful, limited contingency route in lieu of I-95. I'm thinking in instance of hurricanes or a HAZMAT issue near one of the coastal ports, where major stretches of the highway are flat-out shut down.

Obviously that runs into the issue of
1) Bad weather could also affect I-81 itself
2) I-81 could not absorb nearly all of I-95's throughput
3) There are alternatives to I-95 itself. Not just US-1/13/301, but also regional bypasses, such as the B-W Parkway, the NYC area Parkways, etc, that could all be strung together.

I will say that - I went up to Vermont the other week, and I had initially figured I would use I-81 to both shunpike and avoid traffic, but at the last second I topped off my EZ-Pass and did the gauntlet up the NJ Turnpike and NYS Thruway. I really didn't hit anything bad, and I'm now concluding that my tolls helped pay for a faster trip.

EDIT: I finally bothered to pull up a map, and really once you get to I-64 in VA, and points south, the two Interstates really start to diverge. It gets increasingly hard to justify the routing the further south you go. Whereas a truck taking on cargo at the port of Baltimore only needs to go about 75 miles west to pick up I-81.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 16, 2022, 03:29:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 16, 2022, 02:01:55 PM
This discussion made me curious about travel time. It generally takes us about ten hours of driving, 11 hours total, to go the 690 miles from home to the JAX Airport exit in Florida using I-95 the whole way except for around Richmond and Petersburg (I-295 there). So I decided to compare the travel time to the same location if I used I-66 west to I-81.

Via I-81 to I-77 to I-26 near Columbia, picking up I-95 directly from I-26 in South Carolina, Google Maps quotes 11:50 of driving time (without stops), 795 miles. That's not necessarily horrible, but it's not really any better as to travel time than taking US-29 to Greensboro and then dropping south via Rockingham and Cheraw to pick up I-95 at Florence, and the US-29 route is a far more pleasant drive than I-81 is.

Via I-81 to I-26, again picking up I-95 directly from I-26 in South Carolina, Google Maps estimates 13:45 of driving time (without stops), 902 miles.

If I drag the route to use I-75 in Tennessee (I-81 to I-40 to I-75), Google has me head to Macon, then onto I-16 and then various state and US highways to pick up I-95 near Brunswick, Georgia. Total driving time of 15:31 (without stops), 1019 miles.

Not hard at all to see why, regardless of what bluecountry purports to think, I-81 is not a reasonable alternative to I-95 for a trip to Florida. It just plain goes too far west. Even if I were headed to Florida's west coast, I-81 is still out of the way.

Getting to the west coast of Florida is a challenge for anyone east of Atlanta. There is no good way to get there from the north. For 5 years we traveled to Apollo Beach (southeast of Tampa right off I-75), then shifted to St. Petersburg in December when the kids moved back there from Baton Rouge. The most direct route (at least for us on the good side of the state) is I-81 to I-77 to Columbia, then the slog down I-26 and I-95 through S. Carolina and into Georgia where 95 opens up into three lanes. After trying I-4 a couple of times in both directions (and giving up on that route), we were routed on I-295 to I-10 to U.S. 301 at Baldwin to run south to Ocala and I-75. On a whim coming home on trip, I stayed on U.S. 301 and discovered that Google/Garmin was missing a great route. It is a wide-open 4-lane highway that runs right to I-95 at Yulee and avoids Jacksonville.

Despite what Google and Garmin (the Honda nav system) say, it is near impossible to complete the trip in the 12 hours both systems claim -- mainly due to traffic. The only time in all our travels that we did the trip in 11:45 was two years ago returning home after our grandson was born. The pandemic lockdown had just kicked in so on that Sunday we cruised up I-4 and the rest of the route with little to no traffic. Otherwise it is 14 hours (including stops) and has been longer due to standstill traffic in South Carolina. I contend that I-77 needs to be extended south, running concurrent with I-20 from Columbia to Augusta, then cutting south to Valdosta, Ga. and I-75. But Georgia seems to be stuck on adding more lanes to "fix" Atlanta and doesn't seem to want to offer better alternative.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on June 16, 2022, 03:32:07 PM
An 8-hour drive time itinerary is really 9 for me (see below). 10 hours would probably stretch to 11.5. I think anything more than that is stretching the bounds of reasonability.

2 hours
[5 minute bathroom and stretch break]
2 hours
[30 minutes for lunch]
2 hours
[5 minute break]
2 hours
[20+ minutes for traffic, contingencies, etc]
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 16, 2022, 03:59:30 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 16, 2022, 07:19:42 AM
Ask anybody from NY/NE going long distance to NC and points south, like FL.  They absolutely use I-81 to avoid the 95 BS in VA.

I asked my wife, who last year went from VT down to FL and back.  Took I-95.  Guess where she had problems (hint:  it *WASN'T* VA)

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 16, 2022, 03:19:05 PM
I will say that - I went up to Vermont the other week, and I had initially figured I would use I-81 to both shunpike and avoid traffic, but at the last second I topped off my EZ-Pass and did the gauntlet up the NJ Turnpike and NYS Thruway. I really didn't hit anything bad, and I'm now concluding that my tolls helped pay for a faster trip.

My preferred route from DC to Vermont went by way of Baltimore-York-Lancaster-Redding-Allentown-Delaware Water Gap-Newburgh-Albany.  If I didn't feel like slogging along 209 between Stroudsburg and Milford I'd take 78-287.  Given that most (if not all) of the passing zones on 209 no longer exist and there's no longer a good connection between River Rd and 209 (I'd use River Rd to avoid the signals and tourist traffic on 209 between Stroudsburg and Bushkill), I'd probably stick with the Interstates now.

But never touched 81.  No need to when there are adequate 4-lane or mostly-4-lane corridors between 81 and 95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 16, 2022, 04:24:29 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 16, 2022, 03:59:30 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 16, 2022, 07:19:42 AM
Ask anybody from NY/NE going long distance to NC and points south, like FL.  They absolutely use I-81 to avoid the 95 BS in VA.

I asked my wife, who last year went from VT down to FL and back.  Took I-95.  Guess where she had problems (hint:  it *WASN'T* VA)
When did she go through DC? Because while yes there are other priorities than I-95, I-95 is definitely not perfect, especially south of the Beltway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 16, 2022, 04:29:24 PM
Back in 2019 when we took a trip north, our first overnight stop was in Schenectady and I took US-50 over the Bay Bridge, US-301 north to DE-1, I-95 north to I-476, I-476 to I-81, and I-81 to I-88 up to Schenectady. The main reasons for that route were to drive the new US-301 in Delaware, to drive the Northeast Extension since I'd previously used only a small piece of its southern end, and to clinch I-88 because I'd never used it before. Aside from a slowdown on I-95 in Pennsylvania and some washboard pavement on I-88, it was an excellent route and I would use that route if we were to head that way again, tolls notwithstanding. The Northeast Extension was empty and quiet for a lot of the drive, much more enjoyable than I-81 between Harrisburg and Scranton.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on June 16, 2022, 07:19:32 PM
That's great.  As somebody from NYC/NE I can tell you many many do take 81 to avoid 95 when going to the Carolina's and FL, this is just a fact.
This is also tangential to what was the main subject, that I-95 in Northern VA and Fredericksburg is wholly inadequate, that the current improvements are laughably insufficient, and that this road needs to given the proper width that it warrants given:
-It is the only interstate N-S route for the DC to Northeast and DC to FL/SE
-That the outer beltway bypass was never built, nor was an I-97 extension

The traffic is arguably worse on Saturdays and Sundays in this corridor, and it is frustrating when you see a huge median and both sides of the road filled with trees; this is not like southern CT where it is going through Stamford/Norwalk/the Gold Coast, the room is there.

VT Goose was making the old 'there are other parts of VA with issues, 95 has had enough, time for us to get our share,' and I really object to that kind of backwards thinking.

Bottom line, 95 sucks in Northern VA, and we need a real improvement, not the 'joke' of one way HOT lanes, a small auxiliary 4th lane to the PWC PKWY SB, and the local/thru that ends before Route 1 with no direct exit to Rt 17.  That is such a joke.

95 needs:
1.  4 GP lanes from the Beltway to 234
2.  Bi-directional 3 HOT lanes from the Beltway to Rt 610
3.  The local/thru configuration to extend to exit 126 with the following:
       A.  Exit 130 being able to access both the local and thru
       B.  Exit 126 being split into
                 i. Exit C for access from 95 NB/SB to Rt 1 SB
                ii. Exit B for access from 95 NB/SB to Rt 1 N
                iii. Exit A for access from 95 NB/SB to Rt 17S

And this needs to be the top priority statewide.  NJ did it right with the NJTP, and VA must as well.
I would go further and argue (knowing this is so so far fetched) that

1. From exit 126 to 295, 95 should be 4 GP in each direction, and if needed, tolled. 
I would rather it be 4 GP with tolls then have 3 GP free.
You could make this argument that this stretch is very rural, long distance traffic not unlike Central NJ, so this would be equity.
Moreover, there is an alternate with Rt 1.

I mean, the Mass Pike is tolled in a similar stretch from 84 to 495, and they have likewise Rt 20.
Va needs a real solution, and this takes importance over SW VA, I don't believe in 'NOVA has gotten their spoils, time for us to get ours,' sorry no.  It's what is the biggest priority and that would be the economic engine and spine of Megalopolis.  Not fringe Appalachia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on June 17, 2022, 12:56:40 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 16, 2022, 07:19:32 PM
That's great.  As somebody from NYC/NE I can tell you many many do take 81 to avoid 95 when going to the Carolina's and FL, this is just a fact.

You have a valid citation for this "fact"? "Because I said so" isn't valid.

Quote
Va needs a real solution, and this takes importance over SW VA, I don't believe in 'NOVA has gotten their spoils, time for us to get ours,' sorry no.  It's what is the biggest priority and that would be the economic engine and spine of Megalopolis.  Not fringe Appalachia.

"fringe Appalachia"? Again, FU. Smarter people than you don't agree with this northern sentiment and set out a few years ago to fix things (just like they did for Tidewater, which you seem to ignore as another important part of the Commonwealth). Both areas are paying an additional gas tax with the funds going to fix problems on I-81 and in Tidewater. Given your rants, it seems this is a waste of money and all those funds should accrue to your pet hang-up, fixing I-95 to your standards. Like I said before, it's a good thing you aren't in charge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alex4897 on June 17, 2022, 02:30:38 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on June 17, 2022, 12:56:40 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 16, 2022, 07:19:32 PM
That's great.  As somebody from NYC/NE I can tell you many many do take 81 to avoid 95 when going to the Carolina's and FL, this is just a fact.

You have a valid citation for this "fact"? "Because I said so" isn't valid.

Quote
Va needs a real solution, and this takes importance over SW VA, I don't believe in 'NOVA has gotten their spoils, time for us to get ours,' sorry no.  It's what is the biggest priority and that would be the economic engine and spine of Megalopolis.  Not fringe Appalachia.

"fringe Appalachia"? Again, FU. Smarter people than you don't agree with this northern sentiment and set out a few years ago to fix things (just like they did for Tidewater, which you seem to ignore as another important part of the Commonwealth). Both areas are paying an additional gas tax with the funds going to fix problems on I-81 and in Tidewater. Given your rants, it seems this is a waste of money and all those funds should accrue to your pet hang-up, fixing I-95 to your standards. Like I said before, it's a good thing you aren't in charge.

He's proven himself unwilling to research even the slightest amount of publicly available information himself on the Delaware thread, and unwilling to digest said information when other people find it for him multiple times. You won't get citations because he's stuck in a bubble of his own limited personal experiences.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on June 17, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 16, 2022, 03:59:30 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 16, 2022, 07:19:42 AM
Ask anybody from NY/NE going long distance to NC and points south, like FL.  They absolutely use I-81 to avoid the 95 BS in VA.

I asked my wife, who last year went from VT down to FL and back.  Took I-95.  Guess where she had problems (hint:  it *WASN'T* VA)

I'm going to guess she took 91 down to 95. So I'm also going to guess that her issues were either in the NYC metro area, or the two-lane sections in NC and SC.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 18, 2022, 08:07:30 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 16, 2022, 07:19:32 PM
That's great.  As somebody from NYC/NE I can tell you many many do take 81 to avoid 95 when going to the Carolina's and FL, this is just a fact.

Quote from: VTGoose on June 17, 2022, 12:56:40 PM
You have a valid citation for this "fact"? "Because I said so" isn't valid.

Sorry to enter a heated argument.  Here's my take on the differential.

As I've mentioned many times on various AARoads threads, I have used I-81/I-78 as the primary means to travel from NoVa/Richmond/Durham -to- Newark/New York on numerous trips over the past 30 years or so.  I also commuted weekly from Northwest Virginia for more than two years back in the mid-1990s, and would use I-95 occasionally.  In many cases, it wasn't because I didn't want to travel on I-95.  But even on Sunday evenings on non-holiday/non-beach weeks, it was still better to use I-81/I-78.  Granted, after moving out of Northern Virginia then I was only 25 minutes away from I-81 (as compared to 50 minutes away from the Capital Beltway).

The main rationale that I was using was maximum trip time.  Freeflow, back then I-81/I-95 was only 25 minutes longer than Beltway/I-95 (and about 95 minutes longer than US-15/US-340/I-70/I-695/I-95).  But I always added 2 hours travel time on I-95 to account for accidents and lane closures, whereas I only needed to add 30 minutes using I-81/I-78.  Nowadays, the mileage is almost identical on all three routes and the time on I-81/I-78 is only 15 minutes longer.  No brainer.

From Richmond, I was more likely to take US-522/US-29/US-15 to Harrisburg, almost completely avoiding I-81.  But from here in Central Carolina, I-81/I-78 still works better.  Using I-95, Newark is roughly 490 miles from here and takes just a hair over 7 hours free flow.  Using US-29/I-64/I-81/I-78, Newark is more like 550 miles and takes 85 minutes longer.  But using my normal rationale, that's enough of a difference to avoid I-95 most of the time.  However, I do need to factor in the slow truck traffic along I-81 between Staunton and Winchester.

Anyhow, I am curious how this argument makes any difference in the argument whether VDOT should prioritize expenditures for I-95 over I-81.  It seems to me that, if indeed, some folks like me can use I-81 as a bypass for I-95 that the widening of I-81 to six lanes gets a boost.  (There's also a huge shoulder-chip problem when Virginia falls behind West Virginia and Maryland, but that is a different argument).

For the record, I'm not opposed to using I-95 for travel.  I commuted twice-a-week from here to Dulles for about 3 years and threaded the needle to catch the Shirley Reversible after it opened up to all traffic at 9AM (back then).  Also, when I was travelling to NYC after 9/11 it was less time to drive from here to BWI and take Amtrak up than it was to fly to LaGuardia (always 4 hours on the tarmac there, and sometimes 4 hours on the tarmac here).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 18, 2022, 10:29:37 PM
Forgot to mention that I-77 has way more truck traffic nowadays.  Going northbound on Wednesday, I noticed that VDOT has removed the "No Truck Left Lane" restriction going up Fancy Gap grade.  Got hit with trucks running triple-wide numerous times (running 40MPH or less in the left lane), plus one time where the trucks were running 4-wide passing a 10MPH truck on the shoulder (fortunately, 55MPH in the left lane).  Slow trucks are also getting pretty aggressive, pulling into the left lane at 35MPH in dense traffic trying to get around slower trucks (in both directions).  Way worse than anything I've ever seen on I-81, but fortunately it's not as long of a distance.  Not sure why the problem goes away after entering West Virginia.

Running southbound today wasn't much different.  But I wasn't aware that there was so much beach traffic northbound on I-77 these days.  We passed five different congestion slowdowns with backups more than one mile, including the usual backup at Big Walker Mountain Tunnel that extended over three miles onto I-81 southbound (total backup almost 10 miles). 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 19, 2022, 09:14:47 AM
Killing to no truck in the far left lane is absurd.  Who came up with that.  But yes, when shuttling between Hickory and Pittsburgh, I note a steady stream of trucks coming off of 74 on to 77 nb.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 19, 2022, 11:17:35 AM
Removing the restriction of no trucks in left lane when 3+ lanes and speed limit of 65+ requires changing state law (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-803.1/).

Unless the law was just changed and the state's website is yet to be updated OR the speed limit (shown in 2019 GMSV as variable but 65 that day) is dropped below 65 mph, removing this restriction is illegal.

Note that a 2009 study (https://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/10-r12.pdf) recommended ditching this law but as best I can tell the study did not address climbing lanes or I-77 at Fancy Gap specifically.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 20, 2022, 06:57:24 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 19, 2022, 11:17:35 AM
Removing the restriction of no trucks in left lane when 3+ lanes and speed limit of 65+ requires changing state law (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-803.1/).

Unless the law was just changed and the state's website is yet to be updated OR the speed limit (shown in 2019 GMSV as variable but 65 that day) is dropped below 65 mph, removing this restriction is illegal.

Note that a 2009 study (https://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/10-r12.pdf) recommended ditching this law but as best I can tell the study did not address climbing lanes or I-77 at Fancy Gap specifically.

Wonder if they are using the technicality that speed limits on I-77 going up to Fancy Gap are variable (and not always set at 65MPH)?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 20, 2022, 10:23:23 AM
^ Are we also sure that sign simply was temporarily removed from being hit, knocked over, etc. and simply hadn't been put back?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 20, 2022, 10:49:46 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 20, 2022, 10:23:23 AM
^ Are we also sure that sign simply was temporarily removed from being hit, knocked over, etc. and simply hadn't been put back?

Not 100% sure, but the trucks were triple-wide as soon as the Truck Climbing Lane started and that got me looking for "No Trucks Left Lane" signs all the rest of the way up.  It's been about 3 years since I had been up that way, but once-upon-a-time I recall seeing those signs about every mile or so.  Maybe someone here remembers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on June 20, 2022, 12:07:23 PM
Quick check of GSV shows trucks in all 3 lanes back in late 2019 but shows the restriction signage only at the bottom of the hill.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 23, 2022, 07:57:53 PM
Browsing through some pics I saved and came across this, a photo of I-64 in Hampton. This is at LaSalle Ave (former VA 167). In the background the partial interchange with the Newport News Connector (now I-664) is visible. I forgot where I got this from (somewhere on the 'net) and I don't know what year this might have been taken but it's definitely pre-1980.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220623/067501e34a59c1f3ce3c7858fd1aa8d5.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on June 23, 2022, 08:45:55 PM
It's at some point after 1968.  The building in the bottom left corner (at the time a school, now part of the local YMCA) did not have the building/parking lot expansion as shown until after that year.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 23, 2022, 09:24:50 PM
The 1977 topo on historic aerials is also a photo and the building is not on it, so the photo is from between 1977-82
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 23, 2022, 11:00:58 PM
The amount of traffic and the fact that I-664 hadn't started construction yet also have me thinking sometime in the 1970's. Now that I think about it, I've seen another angle of that construction somewhere, I'll try and dig it up.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 24, 2022, 10:40:18 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 11, 2019, 03:41:53 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 15, 2019, 08:09:10 PM
Route changes coming:


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

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

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

The CTB did add these segments to the primary highway system today. They did not specify a route designation.

The arcgis site confirms these street additions are part of VA 318
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 24, 2022, 04:17:25 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 24, 2022, 10:40:18 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 11, 2019, 03:41:53 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 15, 2019, 08:09:10 PM
Route changes coming:


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

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

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

The CTB did add these segments to the primary highway system today. They did not specify a route designation.

The arcgis site confirms these street additions are part of VA 318

Interestingly, this map also shows US 250 ending at 23rd St (in an overlap with "Urban Road 60", which extends from US 60 along 21st St, then to Broad St, then running along Government Rd back to US 60).

The map also shows eastbound US 33 turning off Broad onto Hancock and ending at Leigh (VA 33), while westbound VA 33 turns off Leigh onto Harrison to end at Broad. There is a note on the US 33 segment on Hancock saying "cleaned gaps/conflicts".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 24, 2022, 05:28:44 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2022, 10:01:09 PM
I think one's origin/destination matters as well as one being willing to spend more hours bypassing than they would just staying on I-95.

NC is a big place.  Starting off in the Outer Banks and heading out to I-81 is pretty severe.
Makes sense to me. There have been very few times I felt I needed to take anything but I-95 (with the exception of some nearby US Routes, not to mention I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike) to get to the New York Tri-State Area from Florida. The one time I was even on I-81 to bypass I-95 was at the recommendation from a friend of my father's, who lived in Atlanta at the time. We took I-75 into Georgia, leaving only at Macon for I-475. then took I-285 to I-85 in the Atlanta Metro Area. From there we went up I-85 to I-77 and finally to I-81. Our way to NYC from there was I-80 to I-95 in Teaneck. It was a longer way around, but we saw some interesting sites along the way. As far as I'm concerned, the one reason I'd even want to go to I-81 in Virginia would be to go to the Virginia Museum of Transportation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 26, 2022, 12:21:21 AM
Anyway. I don't remember whether I mentioned this in the past, but I drove through Northern Virginia on my return trip from the November 2021 vacation to NYC. The reason I did this was because I wanted some contemporary pictures of the US 1 Occoquan River Bridges for Wikimedia Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:U.S._Route_1_Occoquan_River_Bridges
Until I added those contemporary photos to the commons, the only pictures available were black and white pics from The Library of Virginia in the aftermath of Hurricane Agnes in 1972. More contemporary pics are still needed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 26, 2022, 12:44:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2022, 10:01:09 PM
I think one's origin/destination matters as well as one being willing to spend more hours bypassing than they would just staying on I-95.

NC is a big place.  Starting off in the Outer Banks and heading out to I-81 is pretty severe.

But then you have several other options to avoid much of I-95, such as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel (US-13) or the Coleman Bridge (US-17) to get to the Nice Bridge (US-301).  Of course, when I lived in Virginia (two different times, Richmond and NoVa) I took a number of alternative routes to the Outer Banks (but we were trying to avoid I-64 more than we were trying to avoid I-95).  Anywhoosit, all of this discussion is proving both that I-95 is worth avoiding sometimes and also that VDOT has a captive audience of out-of-state drivers that are going to continue to use I-95 regardless of whether most of the route is limited to only three lanes in one direction at certain times.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 27, 2022, 02:43:00 AM
Here's that picture of the I-664 interchange construction I mentioned.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220627/64bf75d5929b1622ac8278d580234fd2.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 27, 2022, 12:01:30 PM
Some more observations from the VDOT ArcGIS map:

- US 60 is correctly shown as ending at Rudee Inlet

- US 258 and VA 143 are shown as running concurrently on McNair Dr on Fort Monroe

- VA 351 is shown as ending one block past VA 169 at 2nd Street in Hampton

- VA 321 is shown as ending at VA 199 and becoming SR 5000 at that point rather than at SR 613

- VA 281 is correctly shown on Airport Dr from VA 895 to Charles City Rd (but VDOT won't fix the signs as they say Henrico County has to do it)

- VA 2 is shown as ending at VA 3 BUSINESS in Fredericksburg

- VA 228 appears to have been rerouted onto Herndon Pkwy rather than passing through downtown Herndon

- VDOT continues the VA 90005 designation for the portion of George Washington Memorial Pkwy that enters DC

- VA 244 is shown as truncated to the Fairfax-Arlington line, which is correct, except VDOT hasn't removed any VA 244 postings from within Arlington County (based on Sept 2021 GSV)

- VA 7 and VA 236 are shown as ending at VA 400/VA 90005 in Alexandria
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 27, 2022, 12:21:34 PM
It also shows a small disconnected piece of VA 244 at the eastern VA 27 interchange.

Oddly, despite being truncated, VA 237 is still shown all the way to US 50.

Leonard Sandridge Rd in Charlottesville is shown as part of VA 302.

The weird VA 317 in Staunton is not shown, but the odd VA 333 piece that goes under I-81 is on there.

It also has old US 58 ALT through Dryden as US 58 Business (GMSV is ancient and shows OLD US 58 postings at both ends)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 27, 2022, 12:29:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2022, 12:21:34 PM
....

Leonard Sandridge Rd in Charlottesville is shown as part of VA 302.

....

That seems like it would be correct. Isn't VA-302 the number assigned to all VDOT-maintained on-Grounds roads at UVA? Sandridge is located on the North Grounds (it was originally named the "North Grounds Connector Road").
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 27, 2022, 12:36:21 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2022, 12:29:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2022, 12:21:34 PM
....

Leonard Sandridge Rd in Charlottesville is shown as part of VA 302.

....

That seems like it would be correct. Isn't VA-302 the number assigned to all VDOT-maintained on-Grounds roads at UVA? Sandridge is located on the North Grounds (it was originally named the "North Grounds Connector Road").

Yeah, that is correct. It probably got added to the VA 302 network at some point.

Interestingly, over at UVA's rival in Blacksburg, the routes haven't been updated to reflect the new US 460/Southgate Drive interchange, but I assume the realigned Southgate Drive is still part of VA 314.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 27, 2022, 12:42:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2022, 12:29:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2022, 12:21:34 PM
....

Leonard Sandridge Rd in Charlottesville is shown as part of VA 302.

....

That seems like it would be correct. Isn't VA-302 the number assigned to all VDOT-maintained on-Grounds roads at UVA? Sandridge is located on the North Grounds (it was originally named the "North Grounds Connector Road").

Yes, but the trick is knowing which roads on an institution's property is VDOT maintained or not, as not every road would be.

Unrelated:  I-74 is NOT assigned to the I-77 segment south of I-81 per the arcgis.  it is possible nobody at VDOT remembers they did this in 1996.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 27, 2022, 01:01:48 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 26, 2022, 12:44:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2022, 10:01:09 PM
I think one's origin/destination matters as well as one being willing to spend more hours bypassing than they would just staying on I-95.

NC is a big place.  Starting off in the Outer Banks and heading out to I-81 is pretty severe.

But then you have several other options to avoid much of I-95, such as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge/Tunnel (US-13) or the Coleman Bridge (US-17) to get to the Nice Bridge (US-301).
Hey, if I'm going to the Hampton Roads area to dodge I-95 in DC, and Baltimore, it's the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel or it's nothing.



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ahj2000 on June 27, 2022, 04:15:44 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2022, 12:42:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 27, 2022, 12:29:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 27, 2022, 12:21:34 PM
....

Leonard Sandridge Rd in Charlottesville is shown as part of VA 302.

....

That seems like it would be correct. Isn't VA-302 the number assigned to all VDOT-maintained on-Grounds roads at UVA? Sandridge is located on the North Grounds (it was originally named the "North Grounds Connector Road").

Yes, but the trick is knowing which roads on an institution's property is VDOT maintained or not, as not every road would be.

Unrelated:  I-74 is NOT assigned to the I-77 segment south of I-81 per the arcgis.  it is possible nobody at VDOT remembers they did this in 1996.
74 would just go up the whole of 77 in VA, so I wonder what they need to sign the thing. Is it the completion of 74 between Mt Airy and Winston in NC?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on June 27, 2022, 04:42:20 PM
They probably won't sign anything until WV makes a move on their portion.

In other words, they're not going to sign anything.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on June 30, 2022, 11:03:52 AM
We might wanna keep our fingers crossed for a mild winter...

https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/vdot-says-it-doesnt-have-enough-private-contractors-to-move-snow-this-winter/ (https://shoredailynews.com/headlines/vdot-says-it-doesnt-have-enough-private-contractors-to-move-snow-this-winter/)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 06, 2022, 12:23:48 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on June 13, 2022, 12:27:04 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 12, 2022, 09:57:35 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on June 12, 2022, 09:01:20 AM
Well, Northampton County and the State of North Carolina would have to accept the extension from north of the border, but I don't think they'd be so uncooperative about that. It would still have to happen, because there's no room to do it any other way.


The I-95 NB Virginia Welcome Center entrance ramp already starts 0.1 miles south of the state line.
Also, both of the off ramps to the Welcome Centers on I-77 at the VA/NC line begin in the others' state.
Well, yes. I knew that. But I thought most if not all of the on-ramp for the I-95 Virginia Welcome Center entrance ramp was still north of the state line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on July 06, 2022, 01:10:19 AM
Yes, you are correct.  From the gore point into the rest area is in Virginia.  The deacceleration lane begins in North Carolina.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on July 06, 2022, 08:40:00 AM
The Interstate 81 Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet on Thursday, July 7, 2022, at 1 p.m. in the Shenandoah Room of the Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center, 110 Shenandoah Ave. NW, Roanoke, Va. 24016. Members of the public are invited to attend the meeting in person, or review meeting materials online and submit questions over the phone.

The agenda (when they get around to posting it) is here: https://improve81.org/advisory-committee-and-meetings/advisory-committee/default.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on July 06, 2022, 03:51:02 PM
Cardinal News (formed as the Roanoke Times sinks into oblivion) had an article on Wednesday about the Coalfields Expressway in Virginia. See "Off the beaten path" at https://cardinalnews.org/2022/07/06/off-the-beaten-path/

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on July 11, 2022, 07:18:59 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on July 06, 2022, 03:51:02 PM
Cardinal News (formed as the Roanoke Times sinks into oblivion) had an article on Wednesday about the Coalfields Expressway in Virginia. See "Off the beaten path" at https://cardinalnews.org/2022/07/06/off-the-beaten-path/
Waste of money.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on July 11, 2022, 11:01:38 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 11, 2022, 07:18:59 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on July 06, 2022, 03:51:02 PM
Cardinal News (formed as the Roanoke Times sinks into oblivion) had an article on Wednesday about the Coalfields Expressway in Virginia. See "Off the beaten path" at https://cardinalnews.org/2022/07/06/off-the-beaten-path/
Waste of money.

You'd rather spend that money on an area that already has good roads. This post is very on-brand.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 11, 2022, 01:12:10 PM
I'll just say that of the three VA counties through which Coalfields is designated, all saw population declines of over 11% between 2010 and 2020.

Wise: 41,452--->36,130 (-12.8%)
Dickenson: 15,903--->14,124 (−11.2%)
Buchanan: 24,098--->20,355 (−15.5%)

And their combined populations is 70,609, across 1,243 square miles (57 people per sq. mile)

By contrast, Alexandria VA has a population of 159.467 across 15 square miles (10,600 ppsm)

It's just a hard sell - I don't care what your predisposition is regarding rural/urban red/blue, etc. The numbers speak for themselves.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 11, 2022, 04:01:59 PM
I would like to see more progress made on Corridor Q before any substantial work begins on the Coalfields. To me that's the more important of the two.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on July 12, 2022, 10:35:02 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 11, 2022, 01:12:10 PM
I'll just say that of the three VA counties through which Coalfields is designated, all saw population declines of over 11% between 2010 and 2020.

Wise: 41,452--->36,130 (-12.8%)
Dickenson: 15,903--->14,124 (−11.2%)
Buchanan: 24,098--->20,355 (−15.5%)

And their combined populations is 70,609, across 1,243 square miles (57 people per sq. mile)

By contrast, Alexandria VA has a population of 159.467 across 15 square miles (10,600 ppsm)

It's just a hard sell - I don't care what your predisposition is regarding rural/urban red/blue, etc. The numbers speak for themselves.

The numbers drop because there isn't much in the way of jobs to hold people there. The fan company in the article is an example -- he is providing employment in an area that needs it but may bail on the area because his shipping costs and lack of choices (truckers don't want to deal with some of the roads into the region). There have been attempts to bring more jobs to the area and lots of promises from politicians to "do something" but those are slow to come to fruition. The Coalfields Expressway (whether there is agreement on its need or not) has been on the books for years but not much dirt has been moved. Given the improvements in broadband and greater use of remote work, perhaps if it were easier to travel to and around the far end of the state, more people might move there to escape the mess that is Northern Virginia, trading green space and recreation for gridlock.

Bruce in Blacksburg (who has actually been to those counties -- who else can make that claim?)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 12, 2022, 11:01:41 AM
QuoteBruce in Blacksburg (who has actually been to those counties -- who else can make that claim?)

I got Dickenson and Buchanan counties by going to the Pikeville, KY, Meet in 2013. (so anyone that went to that meet can make that claim)

I have not clinched Wise County or the city of Norton, but they are easy enough to clinch by driving just US 23 or US 58 ALT (which I hope to do eventually).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on July 12, 2022, 03:31:36 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on July 12, 2022, 10:35:02 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 11, 2022, 01:12:10 PM
I'll just say that of the three VA counties through which Coalfields is designated, all saw population declines of over 11% between 2010 and 2020.

Wise: 41,452--->36,130 (-12.8%)
Dickenson: 15,903--->14,124 (−11.2%)
Buchanan: 24,098--->20,355 (−15.5%)

And their combined populations is 70,609, across 1,243 square miles (57 people per sq. mile)

By contrast, Alexandria VA has a population of 159.467 across 15 square miles (10,600 ppsm)

It's just a hard sell - I don't care what your predisposition is regarding rural/urban red/blue, etc. The numbers speak for themselves.

The numbers drop because there isn't much in the way of jobs to hold people there. The fan company in the article is an example -- he is providing employment in an area that needs it but may bail on the area because his shipping costs and lack of choices (truckers don't want to deal with some of the roads into the region). There have been attempts to bring more jobs to the area and lots of promises from politicians to "do something" but those are slow to come to fruition. The Coalfields Expressway (whether there is agreement on its need or not) has been on the books for years but not much dirt has been moved. Given the improvements in broadband and greater use of remote work, perhaps if it were easier to travel to and around the far end of the state, more people might move there to escape the mess that is Northern Virginia, trading green space and recreation for gridlock.

Bruce in Blacksburg (who has actually been to those counties -- who else can make that claim?)

I've been in those counties more times than I can count -- it helps that they are only a couple of hours or so away from me. Been through the heart of Wise and Buchanan most often, however, because of the presence of US 23 and US 460 in those counties. Dickenson is a bit more isolated.

This is interesting, because just yesterday I had a conversation with my boss regarding a Kentucky legislator's push to four-lane US 460 from the end of the Mountain Parkway in Salyersville to US 23 in Paintsville. The existing US 460 was built in the late 1970s as a controlled-access highway with wide shoulders and passing lanes on the hills, and serves traffic just fine. This proposal grew out of a push by certain interests in Johnson County to divert the Mountain Parkway's relocation/widening from its current proposed alignment along or near KY 114 to Prestonsburg to a more northerly corridor serving Paintsville.

During our conversation, he mentioned the construction of US 460 in Pike County as a project he was not convinced of the need for. I reminded him that the ADHS corridors/APD system has been in the works for a half-century and these are the final pieces of that plan, and they will connect with an existing four-lane highway in Virginia.

Part of the purpose for these highways (ADHS, Coalfields Expressway, King Coal Highway) is economic development for a stressed/depressed region. Posters like AlexandriaVA and bluecountry want to abandon those highways and areas and spend the money on areas that have already had considerable development and investment in infrastructure.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 12, 2022, 11:07:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 12, 2022, 03:31:36 PM
Part of the purpose for these highways (ADHS, Coalfields Expressway, King Coal Highway) is economic development for a stressed/depressed region. Posters like AlexandriaVA and bluecountry want to abandon those highways and areas and spend the money on areas that have already had considerable development and investment in infrastructure.

In fairness, though, the areas in question still lag behind because population and employment growth has far outpaced the ability for the transportation infrastructure to keep up.  And given that NoVA is the primary economic engine for the entire state, it would behoove Virginia politicians to make sure the area doesn't become complete gridlock and damage its economic competitiveness.

A similar (albeit smaller in scale) argument could be made for the I-81 corridor...and this is where one of the posters you call out ignores the facts.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 13, 2022, 04:00:17 PM
VA 392 will be decommissioned (https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2022/july/ctb_action_meeting_july_2022.pdf) at the next CTB meeting next week. The facility it serves closed in 2018 and has been sold to private developers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 13, 2022, 04:46:05 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 13, 2022, 04:00:17 PM
VA 392 will be decommissioned (https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2022/july/ctb_action_meeting_july_2022.pdf) at the next CTB meeting next week. The facility it serves closed in 2018 and has been sold to private developers.

Yeah, I clinched it back in May, and I am not sure that I was really even allowed to drive it, so this is absolutely not surprising to me.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 14, 2022, 12:35:43 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 13, 2022, 04:00:17 PM
VA 392 will be decommissioned (https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2022/july/ctb_action_meeting_july_2022.pdf) at the next CTB meeting next week. The facility it serves closed in 2018 and has been sold to private developers.

Did anyone else look through that meeting agenda?  The last item is for a bid to convert I-64 between LaSalle Ave and Settlers Landing Rd from 3 GP lanes in each direction to 2 GP lanes and 2 toll lanes in each direction.  That's a pretty significant change.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 14, 2022, 01:03:23 AM
The HRTPO has been planning that change for years now... something I don't fully agree with, but is not new.

They also propose to eventually convert the entire I-664 section on the Peninsula to 2 GP + 2 HO/T from the existing 3 GP each way once the HO/T lanes are constructed on the Monitor Merrimac.

IMO, both are changes that I feel will impact traffic more negatively than help. If they want a consistent 2 HO/T each way section, then widen the highway by 2 more lanes. I thought they were not permitted to convert free general purpose lanes to tolled anyways on the interstate system, only construct new capacity as tolled, toll bridges, or convert HOV lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 14, 2022, 06:32:12 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 14, 2022, 01:03:23 AM
The HRTPO has been planning that change for years now... something I don't fully agree with, but is not new.

They also propose to eventually convert the entire I-664 section on the Peninsula to 2 GP + 2 HO/T from the existing 3 GP each way once the HO/T lanes are constructed on the Monitor Merrimac.

IMO, both are changes that I feel will impact traffic more negatively than help. If they want a consistent 2 HO/T each way section, then widen the highway by 2 more lanes. I thought they were not permitted to convert free general purpose lanes to tolled anyways on the interstate system, only construct new capacity as tolled, toll bridges, or convert HOV lanes.

Here is the current law on this (from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title23/html/USCODE-2020-title23.htm) which seems to suggest federal money cannot be used for adding toll lanes if the number of GP lanes is not at least the same as before:

§129. Toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries
(a) Basic Program.–

(1) Authorization for federal participation.–Subject to the provisions of this section, Federal participation shall be permitted on the same basis and in the same manner as construction of toll-free highways is permitted under this chapter in the–

(A) initial construction of a toll highway, bridge, or tunnel or approach to the highway, bridge, or tunnel;

(B) initial construction of 1 or more lanes or other improvements that increase capacity of a highway, bridge, or tunnel (other than a highway on the Interstate System) and conversion of that highway, bridge, or tunnel to a tolled facility, if the number of toll-free lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, after the construction is not less than the number of toll-free lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, before the construction;

(C) initial construction of 1 or more lanes or other improvements that increase the capacity of a highway, bridge, or tunnel on the Interstate System and conversion of that highway, bridge, or tunnel to a tolled facility, if the number of toll-free non-HOV lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, after such construction is not less than the number of toll-free non-HOV lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, before such construction;

(D) reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement of a toll highway, bridge, or tunnel or approach to the highway, bridge, or tunnel;

(E) reconstruction or replacement of a toll-free bridge or tunnel and conversion of the bridge or tunnel to a toll facility;

(F) reconstruction of a toll-free Federal-aid highway (other than a highway on the Interstate System) and conversion of the highway to a toll facility;

(G) reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation of a highway on the Interstate System if the number of toll-free non-HOV lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, after reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation is not less than the number of toll-free non-HOV lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, before reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation;

(H) conversion of a high occupancy vehicle lane on a highway, bridge, or tunnel to a toll facility; and

(I) preliminary studies to determine the feasibility of a toll facility for which Federal participation is authorized under this paragraph.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 14, 2022, 08:26:58 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 14, 2022, 12:35:43 AM
Did anyone else look through that meeting agenda?  The last item is for a bid to convert I-64 between LaSalle Ave and Settlers Landing Rd from 3 GP lanes in each direction to 2 GP lanes and 2 toll lanes in each direction.  That's a pretty significant change.

Quote from: sprjus4 on July 14, 2022, 01:03:23 AM
The HRTPO has been planning that change for years now... something I don't fully agree with, but is not new.

They also propose to eventually convert the entire I-664 section on the Peninsula to 2 GP + 2 HO/T from the existing 3 GP each way once the HO/T lanes are constructed on the Monitor Merrimac.

IMO, both are changes that I feel will impact traffic more negatively than help. If they want a consistent 2 HO/T each way section, then widen the highway by 2 more lanes. I thought they were not permitted to convert free general purpose lanes to tolled anyways on the interstate system, only construct new capacity as tolled, toll bridges, or convert HOV lanes.

I completely missed that. It's not a good idea.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 14, 2022, 11:40:21 AM
I'm definitely not feeling that at all. Why not just 1 HOT lane and 3 GP?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 15, 2022, 06:05:55 PM
New High Rise Bridge Anticipated to Open for Westbound Motorists as Early as Saturday Morning, July 16 (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/New-High-Rise-Bridge-Anticipated-Opening-This-Weekend.html?soid=1129611264940&aid=WUvxGJ08Yzg)
QuoteThe Hampton Roads region's new High Rise Bridge will open to traffic on Saturday morning, July 16, marking a significant milestone in the I-64 Southside Widening and High Rise Bridge Expansion Project.

The newly constructed, 1.2 mile, fixed-span bridge with a 100-foot clearance over the Elizabeth River will initially carry two lanes of I-64 west traffic toward Virginia Beach. Interstate 64 east traffic (toward Suffolk) will remain on the existing High Rise Bridge.

"Opening the new High Rise Bridge to traffic brings benefits for local, regional and interstate travelers alike,"  said Christopher Hall, P.E., VDOT Hampton Roads district engineer. "We are improving mobility and safety and adding capacity to a key evacuation route and highly traveled corridor."

Contractor crews with Granite-Parsons-Corman, the joint-venture for the I-64 Southside Widening and High Rise Bridge Expansion Project, will facilitate this project milestone utilizing a traffic shift overnight starting as early as Friday, July 15. Single-lane closures will be in place on I-64 west from Shell Road to the existing High Rise Bridge, beginning as early as 8 p.m. to install barrier walls separating east- and westbound traffic from Shell Road to the new bridge approach. This traffic shift includes weather-dependent work, including paving and pavement marker installation, that cannot be completed in wet or damp conditions. Should these conditions be present on or in advance of Friday night's shift, the bridge opening will be postponed and a new opening date will be announced after re-evaluating the project schedule.

Once the bridge is in use, motorists can expect continued construction activities on the shoulders, including nighttime, single-lane closures, to complete additional bridge work and reconfiguration of the existing High Rise Bridge.

With a taller vertical clearance than the existing High Rise Bridge, the new, fixed-span bridge eliminates the need for bridge lifts for westbound traffic. Following the initial opening of the new High Rise Bridge, the remaining construction will include widening the corridor to three lanes by adding an Express Lane in each direction from 0.6 mile east of the I-264 interchange at Bowers Hill to 0.9 mile east of the I-464 interchange.

Additional project improvements include:
* Replacement and realignment of the Great Bridge Boulevard Bridge over I-64;
* Widening of six existing I-64 bridges over Military Highway, Yadkin Road and Shell Road;
* Installation of nearly 8 miles of sound wall;
* Reconfiguration of the existing High Rise Bridge to carry one-directional traffic (eastbound towards Suffolk); and
* Completion of an asphalt overlay for existing interstate lanes.

Currently, crews have completed the replacement of the Great Bridge Boulevard Bridge, which opened to traffic in November 2021, and will continue to work on bridge widenings over Military Highway, Yadkin Road and Shell Road.

Most major elements of the project will be open to traffic by early 2023. This project is also designed to accommodate a future project that will replace the existing High Rise Bridge and expand the corridor to a total of eight lanes. Funding and timing for this project have not yet been identified.

VDOT reminds motorists to slow down in the work zone and be alert to changing traffic patterns and crews working alongside the roadway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 16, 2022, 03:09:19 AM
The new High Rise Bridge is officially open to traffic.

https://twitter.com/vadothr/status/1548192575600730119
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on July 16, 2022, 12:42:07 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2022, 03:09:19 AM
The new High Rise Bridge is officially open to traffic.

https://twitter.com/vadothr/status/1548192575600730119
The new bridge is for I-64 heading east, but that's really I-64 WB... or call it Outer?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: wriddle082 on July 16, 2022, 06:59:24 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 16, 2022, 12:42:07 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 16, 2022, 03:09:19 AM
The new High Rise Bridge is officially open to traffic.

https://twitter.com/vadothr/status/1548192575600730119
The new bridge is for I-64 heading east, but that's really I-64 WB... or call it Outer?

They should just replace all of the cardinal directions on 664 and 64 with Inner and Outer, at least along the mainline, and only post the cardinals at interchanges and (maybe) pull-throughs.  It works in Charlotte.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 16, 2022, 10:35:46 PM
^ There are already Hampton Roads Beltway signs on I-64 and I-664 that post "inner Loop" and "Outer Loop", and have existed for at least 20 years now.  In my experience, they're generally ignored.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on July 19, 2022, 12:24:15 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on July 12, 2022, 10:35:02 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 11, 2022, 01:12:10 PM
I'll just say that of the three VA counties through which Coalfields is designated, all saw population declines of over 11% between 2010 and 2020.

Wise: 41,452--->36,130 (-12.8%)
Dickenson: 15,903--->14,124 (−11.2%)
Buchanan: 24,098--->20,355 (−15.5%)

And their combined populations is 70,609, across 1,243 square miles (57 people per sq. mile)

By contrast, Alexandria VA has a population of 159.467 across 15 square miles (10,600 ppsm)

It's just a hard sell - I don't care what your predisposition is regarding rural/urban red/blue, etc. The numbers speak for themselves.

The numbers drop because there isn't much in the way of jobs to hold people there. The fan company in the article is an example -- he is providing employment in an area that needs it but may bail on the area because his shipping costs and lack of choices (truckers don't want to deal with some of the roads into the region). There have been attempts to bring more jobs to the area and lots of promises from politicians to "do something" but those are slow to come to fruition. The Coalfields Expressway (whether there is agreement on its need or not) has been on the books for years but not much dirt has been moved. Given the improvements in broadband and greater use of remote work, perhaps if it were easier to travel to and around the far end of the state, more people might move there to escape the mess that is Northern Virginia, trading green space and recreation for gridlock.

Bruce in Blacksburg (who has actually been to those counties -- who else can make that claim?)
:-D :-D :-D

Right.
Trade electricity, good public schools, and dental care for Appalachia, with subsidies from NOVA taxpayers.
Puhleaze.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 19, 2022, 12:40:40 AM
Took a ride over the new High Rise Bridge (Outer Loop) a couple hours ago en route to drop some friends off in Chesapeake. Sorry no pics. The height difference is very noticeable, to the point where I couldn't see the Inner Loop lanes at all. Granted, the two lanes that were open is smack in the center of the bridge (though they have the left lane closed right at the top, probably a night time closure). The bridge's streetlights are fully operational and are on both sides, not just the right. I'm going to try and go over during the daytime sometime over the weekend when I pick them back up.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 19, 2022, 12:50:20 AM
Here's a video posted on YouTube driving the corridor between US-17 Business and I-464, including the new bridge.

https://youtu.be/udU8hfSvO6M

The new bridge will be 3 lanes heading westbound (towards Va Beach) once the project is complete with full left and right shoulders. The management will be one HO/T lane and 2 general purpose lanes.

The bridge is designed to eventually handle 6 lanes of traffic during construction of a future (unfunded) project that would demolish and replace the existing High Rise Bridge with a second one of these new bridges, apart of an eventual widening to 8 lanes (4 lanes each way).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 19, 2022, 01:12:05 AM
Great video, at least it didn't take long for someone to film and post it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 19, 2022, 06:30:52 AM
I guess my main question is if they have truly reopened Exit 292.  The sign said "Exit Open", but it still looked closed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on July 19, 2022, 07:46:55 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on July 12, 2022, 10:35:02 AM
Bruce in Blacksburg (who has actually been to those counties -- who else can make that claim?)

My pet project in 2017 was to see each numbered highway in MD, WV and VA while also visiting each county and independent city. So... yea, been there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 19, 2022, 08:01:09 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 19, 2022, 06:30:52 AM
I guess my main question is if they have truly reopened Exit 292.  The sign said "Exit Open", but it still looked closed.

It's open. Take a closer look at the vid. They shifted the ramp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 19, 2022, 08:45:35 AM
Quote from: plain on July 19, 2022, 08:01:09 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 19, 2022, 06:30:52 AM
I guess my main question is if they have truly reopened Exit 292.  The sign said "Exit Open", but it still looked closed.

It's open. Take a closer look at the vid. They shifted the ramp.

I think the barrel inside the white lines at 7:27 in the video is why I am unsure, but otherwise it looks open.  (Oh, I see the ramp is on the right side of the barrier now.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on July 19, 2022, 08:49:00 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 19, 2022, 12:24:15 AM
Right.
Trade electricity, good public schools, and dental care for Appalachia, with subsidies from NOVA taxpayers.
Puhleaze.

How elitist of you. Perhaps you should stop watching Beverly Hillbillies reruns (which was more of an Ozarks backwoods trope) and actually get out of your McMansion to visit other parts of the state. FU
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 19, 2022, 10:02:09 AM
^ Remember, this is the guy who thinks improvements to I-81 aren't worth it, even though I-81 carries more freight than I-95.  Not worth feeding the troll.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on July 19, 2022, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on July 19, 2022, 08:49:00 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 19, 2022, 12:24:15 AM
Right.
Trade electricity, good public schools, and dental care for Appalachia, with subsidies from NOVA taxpayers.
Puhleaze.

How elitist of you. Perhaps you should stop watching Beverly Hillbillies reruns (which was more of an Ozarks backwoods trope) and actually get out of your McMansion to visit other parts of the state. FU

I don't know of any places in Appalachia that don't have electricity. In fact, we mine the coal that lets you city dwellers turn on the lights.

This isn't Virginia, but three of the best public school systems in the state can be found in Pikeville, Hazard, and Paintsville. And there are plenty of dental offices.

NOVA may be different, but if you take the commerce from rural Kentucky out of Lexington, Louisville, and the Cincinnati area, those cities wouldn't be anywhere near what they are. Lots of people from outlying areas go there to eat, shop, be entertained, seek health care, etc., instead of obtaining those goods and services locally.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on July 20, 2022, 10:32:47 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 19, 2022, 10:02:09 AM
^ Remember, this is the guy who thinks improvements to I-81 aren't worth it, even though I-81 carries more freight than I-95.  Not worth feeding the troll.
I support I-81 improvements, AFTER I-95.

Quote from: VTGoose on July 19, 2022, 08:49:00 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 19, 2022, 12:24:15 AM
Right.
Trade electricity, good public schools, and dental care for Appalachia, with subsidies from NOVA taxpayers.
Puhleaze.

How elitist of you. Perhaps you should stop watching Beverly Hillbillies reruns (which was more of an Ozarks backwoods trope) and actually get out of your McMansion to visit other parts of the state. FU
How selfish and ignorant of you to think the limited road funding should be spent on coal country.
Road funds need to go to areas of greatest need, fixing congestion and safety, and sorry your area is way down on that list.
Don't like it, go to WV.
But stop acting like SW VA is due for priority, it ain't.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on July 20, 2022, 10:33:25 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 19, 2022, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on July 19, 2022, 08:49:00 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 19, 2022, 12:24:15 AM
Right.
Trade electricity, good public schools, and dental care for Appalachia, with subsidies from NOVA taxpayers.
Puhleaze.

How elitist of you. Perhaps you should stop watching Beverly Hillbillies reruns (which was more of an Ozarks backwoods trope) and actually get out of your McMansion to visit other parts of the state. FU

I don't know of any places in Appalachia that don't have electricity. In fact, we mine the coal that lets you city dwellers turn on the lights.

This isn't Virginia, but three of the best public school systems in the state can be found in Pikeville, Hazard, and Paintsville. And there are plenty of dental offices.

NOVA may be different, but if you take the commerce from rural Kentucky out of Lexington, Louisville, and the Cincinnati area, those cities wouldn't be anywhere near what they are. Lots of people from outlying areas go there to eat, shop, be entertained, seek health care, etc., instead of obtaining those goods and services locally.
The pales in scale to the needs of NOVA and the Acela/NE corridor.
That should be way way down.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on July 21, 2022, 12:09:18 AM
Aaaaannd NOVA wonders why the rest of the state feels the way they do about them.

Exhibit fuckin' A right here, folks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on July 21, 2022, 12:49:57 AM
The only thing Nova has over the rest of the state is Nando's.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on July 21, 2022, 08:35:11 AM
Its human nature to hate "the other". Especially if "the other" has obvious advantages. NOVA has DC proximity. That's really it, but its enough to make it by far the most populous and wealthy area of the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on July 21, 2022, 08:51:22 PM
Quote from: LM117 on July 21, 2022, 12:09:18 AM
Aaaaannd NOVA Louisville wonders why the rest of the state feels the way they do about them.

The attitudes about rural Virginia exhibited here by city dwellers are the same as those exhibited by many in Louisville about the rest of Kentucky. Which is a big part of the reason my feelings about Louisville are what they are.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 27, 2022, 01:26:57 PM
The Richmond Times-Dispatch posted some photos from Broad Street (https://richmond.com/news/local/history/recognize-broad-street-from-these-times-dispatch-archive-photos/collection_9819e392-0725-11e6-9533-0f16c130fb80.html#2) in Richmond from the 1950s and 1960s, and there are pictures showing former routings of US 1/301, US 60, and VA 33.

(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/richmond.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/62/a6288c6c-0726-11e6-9b2f-976bf8f9d4f0/5717cc134500c.image.jpg?resize=990%2C1282)

(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/richmond.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/9d/19d67634-0726-11e6-baec-1737b7f2deaa/5717cb309567f.image.jpg?resize=990%2C720)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 30, 2022, 11:08:25 AM
For anyone who is taking a road trip today and that trip just happens to take you through or to VA, it's 11 AM ET and all of this is already going on.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220730/714878b4526680ac0609f20d9032527a.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220730/809cb6e5ff541be4f4a9343a22086730.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220730/8e1af444e0113c7dcb8ba7947e7deceb.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220730/f7e2204cbc5a42c71e5a9014afae5c59.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220730/56669a0ee7c2f52019c12aad0310fc28.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220730/5b1566ffdc3d82d6e21bb48b6d367ed4.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)


The I-81 backups are from separate accidents in each direction, while the I-85 backup is also from an accident. Everything else is just a normal weekend, but early.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 30, 2022, 09:46:59 PM
Yeah, this affected CPZ big-time coming to the RDU Meet.  I think he went back home via US 15 and US 29 to get away from it all.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 02, 2022, 10:58:12 AM
Quote from: LM117 on July 21, 2022, 12:09:18 AM
Aaaaannd NOVA wonders why the rest of the state feels the way they do about them.

Exhibit fuckin' A right here, folks.
And the dude I quoted is why NOVA and Megalopolis folks feel the way they do about the outer regions, they want to siphon sparse funding for their own pork that is funded by the relative prosperity of the urban areas. 
I-81 comes after I-95, thank you.

Quote from: famartin on July 21, 2022, 08:35:11 AM
Its human nature to hate "the other". Especially if "the other" has obvious advantages. NOVA has DC proximity. That's really it, but its enough to make it by far the most populous and wealthy area of the state.
Yea, how would ROVA do without NOVA?  My god they would have to raid taxes or become WVA.  I think the deal benefits them far more.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 02, 2022, 11:26:37 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 02, 2022, 10:58:12 AM
Quote from: LM117 on July 21, 2022, 12:09:18 AM
Aaaaannd NOVA wonders why the rest of the state feels the way they do about them.

Exhibit fuckin' A right here, folks.
And the dude I quoted is why NOVA and Megalopolis folks feel the way they do about the outer regions, they want to siphon sparse funding for their own pork that is funded by the relative prosperity of the urban areas. 
I-81 comes after I-95, thank you.

Highway projects are typically funded by the gas tax. Does anyone have access to figures showing how much gas tax revenue is collected in each county or independent city?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 02, 2022, 03:12:06 PM
^ It's a lot more murky in Virginia, because a lot of VDOT's construction budget comes from the sales tax...a portion of the state's sales tax is dedicated to VDOT.  About 1/3 of the state's sales tax revenue is collected in NovA (defined by me as everything north/east of Loudoun-Fauquier-Stafford inclusive).  Fairfax County alone generates 14% of the state's sales tax revenue.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 02, 2022, 08:24:15 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 02, 2022, 03:12:06 PM
^ It's a lot more murky in Virginia, because a lot of VDOT's construction budget comes from the sales tax...a portion of the state's sales tax is dedicated to VDOT.  About 1/3 of the state's sales tax revenue is collected in NovA (defined by me as everything north/east of Loudoun-Fauquier-Stafford inclusive).  Fairfax County alone generates 14% of the state's sales tax revenue.

I'm surprised it's not more.  All of NOVA is paying 6% sales tax, as compared to 5.3% for most of ROVA.  (For the record, all of the Tidewater and Hampton Roads also pays 6%).  Fairfax County has 13.3% of the Commonwealth's population, which is pretty close to the 14% sales tax apportion.  NOVA gets a step further, with 29.5% of the Commonwealth's population.  When I lived in NOVA, the area had a stronger percentage of the state's buying power because of the higher salaries.  But this appears to have been tempered due to higher housing costs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 02, 2022, 08:28:10 PM
^ From what I could tell of the data, it includes those slightly higher sales tax zones for NovA and Hampton Roads, so one could make a rough correlation between population and sales tax revenue.  If I still had a MATLAB license, I probably would have delved further into the numbers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 02, 2022, 08:50:00 PM
Slide 5 here shows the breakdown (statewide) of the sources of transportation revenue in Virginia - http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2022/june/pres/5.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on August 03, 2022, 10:56:48 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 02, 2022, 10:58:12 AM
they want to siphon sparse funding for their own pork that is funded by the relative prosperity of the urban areas. 

[Not sure why I continue to respond to this elitist troll, but here goes]

Pretty sad attitude -- "We got ours, too bad for you, go pound sand" instead of looking at how improvements in other parts of the state will help the whole state by making it possible for businesses to locate in Southside and Southwest, bringing more jobs with better salaries -- and ultimately more tax revenue from the development and increased employment.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 03, 2022, 02:01:47 PM
My point about the gas taxes was that you have a lot of people in rural southwestern Virginia that have long drives to get to their jobs, go to the store, seek medical care, etc. They have no or few public transit options so they have to burn their own gas to get anywhere they need to go. You probably have people commuting to jobs in Kingsport, Bristol, Christiansburg/Blacksburg, etc., and using a lot of gas just for necessary trips. Why should the gas taxes those people pay go to relieve congestion in NOVA when they need roads to use to access basic needs?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on August 03, 2022, 03:21:15 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2022, 02:01:47 PM
My point about the gas taxes was that you have a lot of people in rural southwestern Virginia that have long drives to get to their jobs, go to the store, seek medical care, etc. They have no or few public transit options so they have to burn their own gas to get anywhere they need to go. You probably have people commuting to jobs in Kingsport, Bristol, Christiansburg/Blacksburg, etc., and using a lot of gas just for necessary trips. Why should the gas taxes those people pay go to relieve congestion in NOVA when they need roads to use to access basic needs?

The construction and maintenance of roads in SW VA is undoubtedly being massively subsidized by those living in more populous and heavily traveled portions of the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 03, 2022, 10:41:33 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2022, 02:01:47 PM
My point about the gas taxes was that you have a lot of people in rural southwestern Virginia that have long drives to get to their jobs, go to the store, seek medical care, etc. They have no or few public transit options so they have to burn their own gas to get anywhere they need to go. You probably have people commuting to jobs in Kingsport, Bristol, Christiansburg/Blacksburg, etc., and using a lot of gas just for necessary trips. Why should the gas taxes those people pay go to relieve congestion in NOVA when they need roads to use to access basic needs?

Interesting point.  This also happens a lot in Northern Virginia; so much so that faraway places such as Frederick County (and Winchester), Rappahannock County (and Luray), and Madison County are now considered part of the Washington DC metropolitan statistical area.  I've never known anyone commuting from Madison County, but I knew a bunch of folks living in Rappahannock County that commuted all the way to Bethesda, Maryland.  But NOVA is so big that many folks from the eastern mountains of West Virginia come to work construction jobs and live in the extended stay motels for weeks at a time.  That's a lot of gas money.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 04, 2022, 05:24:20 AM
I looked for, but could not find, a breakdown of gas tax revenue by county.  Could find it for sales and income taxes, but not gas tax.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 04, 2022, 07:39:17 AM
I knew someone who commuted to DC from Charlottesville for about a month maybe 18 years ago. She had graduated from UVA Law and was starting a job in DC, but her child still had to finish the school year in Charlottesville and so she sucked it up and commuted until school ended, at which time they moved. I can't even begin to imagine how exhausting that would be.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on August 04, 2022, 10:56:26 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 04, 2022, 07:39:17 AM
I knew someone who commuted to DC from Charlottesville for about a month maybe 18 years ago. She had graduated from UVA Law and was starting a job in DC, but her child still had to finish the school year in Charlottesville and so she sucked it up and commuted until school ended, at which time they moved. I can't even begin to imagine how exhausting that would be.

There's a bit of irony in there, as the two cities are apparently close enough for that to even be an option. By comparison, had she been offered a job in Chicago, NY, SF, instead, such arrangements wouldn't even be feasible.

I wonder she would have considered Amtrak, if it was reliable and early enough for longer-distance commuters. I always felt that early/mid-morning arrivals in DC and C'Ville respectively would draw decent ridership.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 04, 2022, 11:14:16 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 04, 2022, 10:56:26 AM
....

I wonder she would have considered Amtrak, if it was reliable and early enough for longer-distance commuters. I always felt that early/mid-morning arrivals in DC and C'Ville respectively would draw decent ridership.

I don't know; I never asked.

I do remember at one point maybe ten years ago I had the option of exploring a particular job opportunity in Richmond and I looked into whether it would be possible to commute by train while continuing to live in Fairfax County (among other reasons: my wife had a good job I was not about to ask her to give up). I recall that at the time there were basically no viable southbound train options in the morning. I have no idea what the Amtrak options to/from Charlottesville are, but I know that nowadays the Commonwealth has been working with Amtrak to expand service, so I assume there was less service back then. Unlike the Northeast Corridor, where commuting by Amtrak is quite possible (if not always 100% ideal), commuting via Amtrak in Virginia didn't seem to make much sense. The travel times were a lot longer than you might expect–the current train service from Union Station to Roanoke takes something like five and a half hours, for example. (I once made it to Roanoke from Fairfax County in just over three hours by car. It's about 220 miles from where I lived at the time, so that's not crazy.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on August 04, 2022, 11:27:38 AM
Beyond C'Ville gets a bit lengthy, but to/from C'Ville itself seems like it should be competitive, particularly if the run time could come down to about 2 hours.

That's something that needs to be considered when they build schedules - what do the departure/arrival times actually allow for? (i.e. day trippers and business travelers)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 04, 2022, 02:14:06 PM
18 years ago would have been before the push by Virginia and DRPT to expand Amtrak service.  At the time, only the Crescent and Cardinal would have gone between C'ville and DC.  While there's a couple of NE Regional trains now that extend down to/beyond C'ville, the times still don't lend themselves well to daily commuting.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on August 05, 2022, 10:36:53 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 04, 2022, 02:14:06 PM
18 years ago would have been before the push by Virginia and DRPT to expand Amtrak service.  At the time, only the Crescent and Cardinal would have gone between C'ville and DC.  While there's a couple of NE Regional trains now that extend down to/beyond C'ville, the times still don't lend themselves well to daily commuting.

A second train just started serving Roanoke (and Blacksburg via the Smartway Bus connection). The original still leaves Roanoke at 6:30 a.m. and takes 5 hours to reach Washington. The new train arrives from Washington at 1:00 p.m. after an 8:00 a.m. departure, then leaves Roanoke at 4:30 p.m. Ridership on both trains is good with people opting for a little longer trip as a way to avoid I-81, I-66, and DC traffic. The trips are popular with Virginia Tech students; that will increase in a few years when the state figures out the best way to extend the service to the New River Valley. The train could also grow in popularity once the new Virginia Tech Innovation Campus opens in Alexandria on the former Potomac Yards site. The trains have been and will continue to be promoted as a way to reduce traffic on I-81 (which still needs to be six lanes anyway).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 05, 2022, 11:33:50 AM
Quote from: VPIGoose on August 05, 2022, 10:36:53 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 04, 2022, 02:14:06 PM
18 years ago would have been before the push by Virginia and DRPT to expand Amtrak service.  At the time, only the Crescent and Cardinal would have gone between C'ville and DC.  While there's a couple of NE Regional trains now that extend down to/beyond C'ville, the times still don't lend themselves well to daily commuting.

A second train just started serving Roanoke (and Blacksburg via the Smartway Bus connection). The original still leaves Roanoke at 6:30 a.m. and takes 5 hours to reach Washington. The new train arrives from Washington at 1:00 p.m. after an 8:00 a.m. departure, then leaves Roanoke at 4:30 p.m. Ridership on both trains is good with people opting for a little longer trip as a way to avoid I-81, I-66, and DC traffic. The trips are popular with Virginia Tech students; that will increase in a few years when the state figures out the best way to extend the service to the New River Valley. The train could also grow in popularity once the new Virginia Tech Innovation Campus opens in Alexandria on the former Potomac Yards site. The trains have been and will continue to be promoted as a way to reduce traffic on I-81 (which still needs to be six lanes anyway).


Cue a certain other forum member complaining that the trains must immediately be rerouted to increase service along the I-95 corridor....

:bigass:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on August 05, 2022, 05:10:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 05, 2022, 11:33:50 AM
Quote from: VPIGoose on August 05, 2022, 10:36:53 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 04, 2022, 02:14:06 PM
18 years ago would have been before the push by Virginia and DRPT to expand Amtrak service.  At the time, only the Crescent and Cardinal would have gone between C'ville and DC.  While there's a couple of NE Regional trains now that extend down to/beyond C'ville, the times still don't lend themselves well to daily commuting.

A second train just started serving Roanoke (and Blacksburg via the Smartway Bus connection). The original still leaves Roanoke at 6:30 a.m. and takes 5 hours to reach Washington. The new train arrives from Washington at 1:00 p.m. after an 8:00 a.m. departure, then leaves Roanoke at 4:30 p.m. Ridership on both trains is good with people opting for a little longer trip as a way to avoid I-81, I-66, and DC traffic. The trips are popular with Virginia Tech students; that will increase in a few years when the state figures out the best way to extend the service to the New River Valley. The train could also grow in popularity once the new Virginia Tech Innovation Campus opens in Alexandria on the former Potomac Yards site. The trains have been and will continue to be promoted as a way to reduce traffic on I-81 (which still needs to be six lanes anyway).


Cue a certain other forum member complaining that the trains must immediately be rerouted to increase service along the I-95 corridor....

:bigass:

Fuck it, just throw the entire state budget at I-95. Go big or go home. :coffee:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on August 05, 2022, 09:41:46 PM
Flexible bollards installed at I-395 Exit 8C:
https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1555538495879479300
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 06, 2022, 08:22:19 AM
Thanks for posting that. I missed that yesterday morning. Looks like the barrels are now off to one side:

https://twitter.com/lucifersmith420/status/1555635291838418944
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 07, 2022, 02:39:38 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on August 03, 2022, 10:56:48 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 02, 2022, 10:58:12 AM
they want to siphon sparse funding for their own pork that is funded by the relative prosperity of the urban areas. 

[Not sure why I continue to respond to this elitist troll, but here goes]

Pretty sad attitude -- "We got ours, too bad for you, go pound sand" instead of looking at how improvements in other parts of the state will help the whole state by making it possible for businesses to locate in Southside and Southwest, bringing more jobs with better salaries -- and ultimately more tax revenue from the development and increased employment.
Pretty selfish of you to think limited transportation funds should be used to 'attempt' to spur the economy of SW VA.
You already had that with ARC, and it didn't work.
It's naive and ignorant to think you are a freeway away from attracting good paying jobs in a region that continues to endorse extractive industries.

But mostly, you are wrong as transportation funds need to spent where transportation needs are greatest, and that is the I-95 corridor.
They are not to spent as pork handouts to extractive coal loving regions.

My tax dollars should go to fixing I-95 congestion, and safety, not to helping another Dollar General pop up by Taylor Mountain.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 08, 2022, 01:01:09 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 07, 2022, 02:39:38 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on August 03, 2022, 10:56:48 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 02, 2022, 10:58:12 AM
they want to siphon sparse funding for their own pork that is funded by the relative prosperity of the urban areas. 

[Not sure why I continue to respond to this elitist troll, but here goes]

Pretty sad attitude -- "We got ours, too bad for you, go pound sand" instead of looking at how improvements in other parts of the state will help the whole state by making it possible for businesses to locate in Southside and Southwest, bringing more jobs with better salaries -- and ultimately more tax revenue from the development and increased employment.
Pretty selfish of you to think limited transportation funds should be used to 'attempt' to spur the economy of SW VA.
You already had that with ARC, and it didn't work.
It's naive and ignorant to think you are a freeway away from attracting good paying jobs in a region that continues to endorse extractive industries.

But mostly, you are wrong as transportation funds need to spent where transportation needs are greatest, and that is the I-95 corridor.
They are not to spent as pork handouts to extractive coal loving regions.

My tax dollars should go to fixing I-95 congestion, and safety, not to helping another Dollar General pop up by Taylor Mountain.

And if you never travel on I-95, you want your tax dollars to be spent on finishing US 460 between Grundy and Breaks, or widening I-81 to handle the heavy truck traffic. Works both ways.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 08, 2022, 03:18:06 PM
The modern day culture of NOVA is so closely related to Virginia Tech football that I'm surprised that there hasn't been an outcry from the Hokie Nation to push VDOT into a complete upgrade of I-81 from I-66 to Christiansburg.  More than half of that crowd is headed from NOVA to Blacksburg on game day Saturdays, and additional fans from Richmond and beyond add in from I-64 at Staunton.  Amazingly, a huge number of NOVA fans also turnout for our famous Thursday night games, although I doubt that they all try to do this en mass like the Saturday crowds. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: EricJV95 on August 08, 2022, 11:13:10 PM
I-95 between Northern Virginia and Richmond was a pure HOT MESS. Recently, I was going Southbound from 495 onto 95 South. Everything was going fine until just past Dale City. And, You guessed it. It was mostly STOP than Go. Especially around the Fredericksburg area. But wait. There's more!! It almost continued towards Richmond. Now, I noticed some new digital Speed Limit signs between Mile 115 and 130 along Northbound 95. Common sense would tell VDOT to install them ALL along 95 in BOTH directions. The WHOLE 177 miles between The MD and NC State Lines. Then everybody will hopefully know what to expect. Get it right, VDOT !!!!! And while they're at it; They need to install them along I-64 between Richmond and Chesapeake / Suffolk. Since they're turning I-64 Between the HRBT and the Bowers Hill-Suffolk end into the NJ Turnpike; Put those digital speed limit signs there, too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 09, 2022, 11:34:33 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 08, 2022, 03:18:06 PM
The modern day culture of NOVA is so closely related to Virginia Tech football ....

That seems like a serious exaggeration. I've lived in Northern Virginia since 1974 and the only football that's ever really been a part of the local "culture" was the great Redskins teams of the first Joe Gibbs era (the 1990s through 1992) when they played in four Super Bowls, won three, and advanced to one other NFC championship game. Those teams were an integral part of the DC area as a whole, though, and were one of the very few things in this area that ever cut across all sorts of social divisions like race or economic status. Despite the Washington Post acting like everyone in the DC area loves the University of Maryland's football program, I don't think any sort of college football has ever been part of the "culture" here–or, for that matter, really any college sports at all beyond the general universal popularity of the NCAA basketball tournament. Sure, there are plenty of VPI fans and alumni, but to call it part of the "culture" is a major exaggeration.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 09, 2022, 09:15:00 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 08, 2022, 03:18:06 PM
The modern day culture of NOVA is so closely related to Virginia Tech football ....

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2022, 11:34:33 AM
That seems like a serious exaggeration. I've lived in Northern Virginia since 1974 and the only football that's ever really been a part of the local "culture" was the great Redskins teams of the first Joe Gibbs era (the 1990s through 1992) when they played in four Super Bowls, won three, and advanced to one other NFC championship game. Those teams were an integral part of the DC area as a whole, though, and were one of the very few things in this area that ever cut across all sorts of social divisions like race or economic status. Despite the Washington Post acting like everyone in the DC area loves the University of Maryland's football program, I don't think any sort of college football has ever been part of the "culture" here–or, for that matter, really any college sports at all beyond the general universal popularity of the NCAA basketball tournament. Sure, there are plenty of VPI fans and alumni, but to call it part of the "culture" is a major exaggeration.

I realize that I have a strong bias on this topic, as even I fell for the "Ooh, NOVA is close enough to Blacksburg for me to get season tickets to watch Michael Vick syndrome" (I had season tickets for two years).  But here's my logic behind NOVA: 

(1) The majority of in-state students at Virginia Tech are from NOVA.  The same should also be true at UVA, but I'm not sure about that.
(2) NOVA is the bigger part of Washington DC high-tech metro area, by far the largest in the United States. 
(3) The three top high-tech alumni bases in the Washington DC are (1) Virginia Tech; (2) Penn State; and (3) Maryland (sometimes Maryland is higher than Penn State)
(4) Since Maryland has not done well in the Big Ten, the Washington DC college football market is currently dominated by Virginia Tech and Penn State.
(5) High-tech careers are very well paid.  I wished that I had gotten one of those jobs, but alas I ended up in high-tech railroading (world's biggest oxymoron at the time).
(6) Starting in the early 1980s, engineering students at Virginia Tech started a bunch of crazy traditions in Lane Stadium such as the drink cup snake (which is not COVID-friendly).
(7) Virginia Tech is consistently ranked in the Top 10 of best travelling fanbases during Bowl Game season.  Probably because the home games involve travel from NOVA and Richmond.

The company that I worked for in NOVA was not representative of that area's high-tech industries, but we still had several folks that regularly travelled to Blacksburg for games (and one fellow that regularly travelled to Clemson).  Most of my friends in NOVA were occasional travellers to Blacksburg on game days.  Back in 1999, it was my impression that more than half of the 65K fans in Lane Stadium were driving from NOVA to Blacksburg every weekend, which still pales in comparison to the traffic on I-40 funnelling into Knoxville from Nashville/Memphis.

Addressing your valid comment about the Washington team formerly known as something else, I grew up in a section Redskins territory in West Virginia and was a huge fan.  After the Joe Gibbs era, RFK Stadium was nearly empty so I thought I would finally be able to get seats for a game.  Couldn't get tickets at any price.  I eventually gave up on the NFL and professional sports in general.  Quite frankly, I've also given up on college sports.  But indeed, I agree that pro sports are big in the DC area.  But unlike New York, that is not at any cost to college sports.  The Penn State fanbase on the Maryland is quite rabid, and I suspect that many of them head up I-270/US-15 towards Happy Valley on game days.

Here's a new thread on this general subject in >>Off Topic>Sports> https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31979.0
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on August 10, 2022, 09:48:09 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2022, 11:34:33 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 08, 2022, 03:18:06 PM
The modern day culture of NOVA is so closely related to Virginia Tech football ....
That seems like a serious exaggeration. Sure, there are plenty of VPI fans and alumni, but to call it part of the "culture" is a major exaggeration.

The expected response from someone connected to a school that occasionally fields a football team.  :-D  And it's Virginia Tech thank you very much. VPI is reserved for very old alumni (I'm just an old alum who went through the transition from VPI to VT) and diplomas.

QuoteI've lived in Northern Virginia since 1974 and the only football that's ever really been a part of the local "culture" was the great Redskins teams of the first Joe Gibbs era (the 1990s through 1992) when they played in four Super Bowls, won three, and advanced to one other NFC championship game.

Pittsburgh says "hi" and sniffs at the feeble sports teams of Washington, whose fans can't hold a candle to Stiller and Penguin fans.

[to bring this back to roads] As to travel, a recent report by The Virginia Rail Policy Institute, a transportation service in Henrico County, suggests that the New River Valley passenger rail service include a stop at Virginia Tech.

"The Virginia Rail Policy Institute is proposing a new alignment, which they have referred to in the report as the "Blacksburg Rail Extension"  or the Hokie Line. It would branch out from the Virginian Line in Ellet Valley and ultimately run to Lane Stadium.

The report pointed out that the V-Line rail facilities could be redesigned to transport thousands, while also avoiding I-81 and US-460 altogether." (https://www.wsls.com/news/local/2022/07/21/new-river-valley-passenger-rail-service-should-include-stop-at-virginia-tech-report-says/)

Those in the know try to avoid I-81 on football weekends and definitely don't plan any travel there on the Sunday after Thanksgiving. That is when the interstate is choked with all the NOVA kids heading back to Blacksburg and to that lesser institution in Harrisonburg.

Bruce in Blacksburg -- VT '78


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 10, 2022, 10:09:04 AM
I hesitated to say anything in response to the prior post because I knew you were just going to engage in a typical VPI attack on UVA football, but you haven't rebutted the main point I made at all, which is that the argument that VPI football is somehow central to the "culture" of Northern Virginia is a rather serious exaggeration. It's not. Even you haven't argued that VPI football games are a compelling reason to widen I-81. I assume they typically play seven home games per season, which is typical of most Division I-A teams. Seven days per year is not typically a compelling reason to spend several billion dollars to widen hundreds of miles of Interstate, as opposed to making targeted improvements (like Maryland expanding the Arena Drive interchange to serve FedEx Field). That's why I think Dirt Roads was mostly being facetious (and, if indeed it were a reason to widen I-81, why didn't Dirt Roads argue that I-66 needs to be widened as well for the same reason since it connects the main part of Northern Virginia to I-81?).

With that said, I certainly think I-81 does need improvement and widening and of course that will benefit Blacksburg, along with many other places.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 10, 2022, 10:21:44 AM
QuoteThose in the know try to avoid I-81 on football weekends and definitely don't plan any travel there on the Sunday after Thanksgiving. That is when the interstate is choked with all the NOVA kids heading back to Blacksburg and to that lesser institution in Harrisonburg.

Back when I was at VT, some students would use SR 785 (which ties into US 460 BUS in Blacksburg as Harding Ave and Roanoke St) to VA/WV 311 to avoid some of the I-81 congestion. 

I do not remember hearing a ton about alternate routes beyond that (besides US 11 of course).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on August 10, 2022, 12:43:57 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 10, 2022, 10:09:04 AM
I hesitated to say anything in response to the prior post because I knew you were just going to engage in a typical VPI attack on UVA football,

The Commonwealth Cup says "hi."  :-D

Quote
but you haven't rebutted the main point I made at all, which is that the argument that VPI football is somehow central to the "culture" of Northern Virginia is a rather serious exaggeration. It's not.

With that said, I certainly think I-81 does need improvement and widening and of course that will benefit Blacksburg, along with many other places.

Virginia Tech does have a presence in NOVA, both of students and graduates. In the fall of 2021, 10.7% of the undergraduate enrollment was from Loudoun County and 21.4% of the enrollment was students from Fairfax County.

Now, how that lends to a "culture" of that region I can't address because I live at the other end of that pipeline. But Hokie football isn't and shouldn't be the sole reason that I-81 gets improved. It is a major artery connecting south to north and was over capacity years ago. The sooner it gets fixed (and the sooner passenger rail gets to the New River Valley and beyond), the better life will be in the better part of the Commonwealth.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 10, 2022, 12:55:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 10, 2022, 10:09:04 AM
I hesitated to say anything in response to the prior post because I knew you were just going to engage in a typical VPI attack on UVA football, but you haven't rebutted the main point I made at all, which is that the argument that VPI football is somehow central to the "culture" of Northern Virginia is a rather serious exaggeration. It's not. Even you haven't argued that VPI football games are a compelling reason to widen I-81. I assume they typically play seven home games per season, which is typical of most Division I-A teams. Seven days per year is not typically a compelling reason to spend several billion dollars to widen hundreds of miles of Interstate, as opposed to making targeted improvements (like Maryland expanding the Arena Drive interchange to serve FedEx Field). That's why I think Dirt Roads was mostly being facetious (and, if indeed it were a reason to widen I-81, why didn't Dirt Roads argue that I-66 needs to be widened as well for the same reason since it connects the main part of Northern Virginia to I-81?).

With that said, I certainly think I-81 does need improvement and widening and of course that will benefit Blacksburg, along with many other places.

No intention to whack UVA football whatsoever.  In fact, I admire that the UVA Board of Visitors is resistant to constant pressure from its fanbase to spent huge amounts of money to get into "big-time sports".  It's my understanding that Virginia Tech Board of Visitors has done the same thing, but wished they could make that jump. 

Indeed, I am being somewhat facetious about whether Virginia Tech game day traffic should have a strong role in how VDOT allocates its resources.  But I highly suspect that VDOT (like many state DOTs) has quietly collected traffic data along all of I-81 (and much of US-29, for that matter) related to game day surge traffic.  Whether you agree or not, I'm convinced that game day traffic was the primary reason to prioritize the additional [truck lane] on I-81 up Christiansburg Mountain ahead of all of the other widening projects conceived. 

Regarding the "NOVA Culture", Virginia Tech has the seventh largest alumni base of all the FBS schools on the East Coast (behind Florida, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Florida State and Georgia).  (We are quickly losing ground to Central Florida, South Florida and Liberty, but that won't matter much for many decades, if ever).  So if you discount smaller markets such as Harrisburg, the singular impact of Virginia Tech football on NOVA is second on that list, but still far distant to the University of Georgia's impact on Metro Atlanta.  Plus, the impact of college football in the Washington D.C. metro is much stronger than say New York or Philadelphia, as compared to professional sports.  I could run the numbers nationwide, and I suspect you will find the same general trend.  Since the current metric is impact to the bottom line of a large conference, Virginia Tech now ranks third only to the University of Washington and either UNC/NC State (or both) when you factor in a reasonable value for the number of television households.  (I assure you that nobody else is using reasonable TV market numbers when looking at Notre Dame, Clemson and Florida State). 

If I stretch that argument into other areas, it makes perfect sense that UVA basketball is also part of the current NOVA culture (just not as big in raw numbers, particularly on game day).  Would it be too much if I suggest that US-29 gets worse traffic from NOVA on Thanksgiving Saturday when Virginia Tech is playing in Charlottesville, than when Duke is playing at UVA for a Saturday night game? 

Rabbit hole for another thread:  If and only if NC State makes a run at the ACC football title this year and lands a big-money bowl game, you are going to see the states of Virginia (VT/UVA) and North Carolina (UNC/NC State and not Duke) play heavily on this crazy conference realignment situation.  Or keep the ACC strong enough to stay alive for a bit longer.  Mostly because of the value of the NOVA college sports market.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 10, 2022, 12:57:33 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 10, 2022, 12:55:20 PM
No intention to whack UVA football whatsoever.  ....

I was referring to VPIGoose, not you.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on August 11, 2022, 12:17:16 PM
The Southern Connector from Martinsville to North Carolina is back in the news. Dwayne Yancey has a long analysis of the region, the economics, the resistance, and the lack of funding for the new highway. Cardinal News is a free alternative to the dying Roanoke Times and does a pretty good job of covering (and continuing to cover, such as flooding in far Southwest) important stories.

See https://cardinalnews.org/2022/08/10/in-southside-a-new-push-for-the-southern-connector-around-martinsville/ to read about how "a similar group of legislators and business leaders [to those pushing for the Coalfields Expressway] is trying to raise the profile of — and make a new push for — a proposed road through Henry County that they believe is essential to the region's economic health."
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 11, 2022, 02:04:03 PM
Regarding this whole "VPI" vs. "VT" thing, it used to be called "VPI & ...." something. I knew what it was back in 2003, when I spent a week in the hotel on campus at a training class (and met VTGoose and Rush Wickes for lunch one day).

Was it "SC" for "State College?"
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 11, 2022, 02:40:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 11, 2022, 02:04:03 PM
Regarding this whole "VPI" vs. "VT" thing, it used to be called "VPI & ...." something. I knew what it was back in 2003, when I spent a week in the hotel on campus at a training class (and met VTGoose and Rush Wickes for lunch one day).

Was it "SC" for "State College?"

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State [sic] University. At one time it was Virginia A&M.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 11, 2022, 02:41:17 PM
More fun on I-395 this morning.

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1557762678550138883
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 11, 2022, 04:45:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 11, 2022, 02:04:03 PM
Regarding this whole "VPI" vs. "VT" thing, it used to be called "VPI & ...." something. I knew what it was back in 2003, when I spent a week in the hotel on campus at a training class (and met VTGoose and Rush Wickes for lunch one day).

Was it "SC" for "State College?"

When I got to Blacksburg, I got stuck in the front row of Freshman orientation beside the old Gobbler mascot and watched in horror as President Lavery announced that we were never to use the letters VPI ever again, just simply call it Virginia Tech.  It was a way to separate us from our military brother VMI (and tie us to our sister UVA).

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 11, 2022, 02:40:46 PM
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State [sic] University. At one time it was Virginia A&M.

Am I the only one who caught that?  My wife went to the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond and like so many, refused to acknowledge that it was part of Virginia Commonwealth University.  Until VCU went to the Final Four (we still have a bunch of T-shirts).  For the record, Virginia Tech was once VAMC (which still meant Virginia Agricultural and Mechanical College).

Can I route us back on topic?  I believe that Virginia Tech is the only college to own a piece of the Interstate system.  The Virginia Smart Road was funded as part of the Ellett Valley Expressway (I-781), which at this point may never be completed and signed.  There are a few freeways in Virginia that were named "Expressway", but the term still catches me off-guard.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 11, 2022, 04:51:30 PM
QuoteThe Virginia Smart Road was funded as part of the Ellett Valley Expressway (I-781), which at this point may never be completed and signed.  There are a few freeways in Virginia that were named "Expressway", but the term still catches me off-guard.

I always heard of it as part of Future I-73.  I never heard of it being part of an I-781.  (I would think I would have heard about that designation via mapmikey a long time ago.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on August 11, 2022, 08:49:50 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 11, 2022, 04:51:30 PM
QuoteThe Virginia Smart Road was funded as part of the Ellett Valley Expressway (I-781), which at this point may never be completed and signed.  There are a few freeways in Virginia that were named "Expressway", but the term still catches me off-guard.

I always heard of it as part of Future I-73.  I never heard of it being part of an I-781.  (I would think I would have heard about that designation via mapmikey a long time ago.)
Yep, citation needed on this one.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on August 12, 2022, 08:42:56 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 11, 2022, 04:51:30 PM
QuoteThe Virginia Smart Road was funded as part of the Ellett Valley Expressway (I-781), which at this point may never be completed and signed.  There are a few freeways in Virginia that were named "Expressway", but the term still catches me off-guard.

I always heard of it as part of Future I-73.  I never heard of it being part of an I-781.  (I would think I would have heard about that designation via mapmikey a long time ago.)

That's a new one on me and I followed the Smart Road controversy from before the beginning*. There were two or three routes out of the 15 that were put on paper that went down the Ellett Valley to hit I-81 around the Ironto exit but they were rejected for cost and environmental reasons. The I-73 tag came into play much later after the road had been built but that is still just a dream -- there is just too much in the way (terrain and environment) between West Virginia and North Carolina for such a road to be contemplated. Even with football traffic, the current U.S. 460 highway between Blacksburg and I-81 is still adequate, making it difficult to justify completing the Smart Road to reach I-81.

A big what-if (and I have other things to research so I really haven't dug into this) was the routing of I-81. I can't cite hard sources, but word was that one routing in play was a northern road from around Dublin roughly following U.S. 11 to Fairlawn, then turning left to follow the VA 114 corridor east to drop down the mountain into the Ellett Valley and on to Roanoke. This would have put an interstate highway between Blacksburg and Christiansburg, providing easy access to both towns. But it didn't come to be and we have the still somewhat-inconvenient drive from Blacksburg to get anywhere east or south.

*In the late '70s I worked in production at the News Messenger (then moved to the Radford News Journal as a reporter). At that time, U.S. 460 had bypasses around Christiansburg and Blacksburg, with the "twinned" original Blacksburg Road as the connection between the two. As Virginia Tech grew under T. Marshall Hahn that portion of the highway became inadequate at heavy traffic times, especially at the single-lane left turn to get on the north end of the Christiansburg Bypass. Local officials called on VDOT for solutions (other than adding more traffic lights at various intersections). Band-aids were applied -- a second lane was added to the left turn, then a third lane was added to the eastbound side of 460 from VA 114 to the turn lane. It wasn't until 10 years later that the actual study to fix the problem was started, resulting in the 15 choices (including "do nothing") with "connect the bypasses" winning out.

**It took a little while, and my former boss, to firmly establish the current name of my alma mater and long-time employer. The land grant school started as Virginia Agricultural and Mechanical College, established to train farmers and engineers. It later added "and Polytechnic Institute" to its name in 1896, but the full name was a mouthful. People just started calling it "Virginia Polytechnic Institute" for short. The "Agricultural and Mechanical College" was dropped from the name in 1944 making it just VPI. In 1970 "and State University" was added to the name, resulting in VPI&SU as the tag (pronounced "Vippy Sue"). In the 1980s there was a push to fix the problem of a long name, the short "Virginia Tech" in popular use, and the confusion about whether there were two different colleges. "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" is used in official places, such as on diplomas, with "Virginia Tech" the preferred reference in most cases.  Now you know.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 12, 2022, 11:37:02 AM
QuoteThe Virginia Smart Road was funded as part of the Ellett Valley Expressway (I-781), which at this point may never be completed and signed.  There are a few freeways in Virginia that were named "Expressway", but the term still catches me off-guard.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 11, 2022, 04:51:30 PM
I always heard of it as part of Future I-73.  I never heard of it being part of an I-781.  (I would think I would have heard about that designation via mapmikey a long time ago.)

Pretty sure that I read about I-781 several times in the Washington Post soon after moving to NOVA in the early 1990s.  Maybe someone can find something on a newspaper service.  Can't find anything online, but Scott has a great webpage with more details:  http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Smart_Road.html

Quote from: VTGoose on August 12, 2022, 08:42:56 AM
That's a new one on me and I followed the Smart Road controversy from before the beginning*. There were two or three routes out of the 15 that were put on paper that went down the Ellett Valley to hit I-81 around the Ironto exit but they were rejected for cost and environmental reasons. The I-73 tag came into play much later after the road had been built but that is still just a dream -- there is just too much in the way (terrain and environment) between West Virginia and North Carolina for such a road to be contemplated. Even with football traffic, the current U.S. 460 highway between Blacksburg and I-81 is still adequate, making it difficult to justify completing the Smart Road to reach I-81.

That was my understanding of why the Ellett Valley Expressway project died out.  As Virginia Tech grew in size, the need for a freeway between Blacksburg and I-81 became a high priority and the cost of the Ellett Valley Expressway was prohibitive as compared to connecting the Blacksburg Bypass to the Christiansburg Bypass, then extending the latter a short distance to I-81.  But a short section of the Ellett Valley was already funded and approved by FHWA, then switched over to the Smart Road concept once it was obsolete.

By the way, I had a huge gas-guzzler when I was at Virginia Tech and whenever I drove to Roanoke I would usually take Ellett Road to North Fork Road (all of which is SR-603) to the Ironto exit, just to save mileage.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: AlexandriaVA on August 15, 2022, 09:45:11 AM
IIRC, VT didn't have a major following until the 1990s, with the success of Frank Beamer's teams in the old Big East.

Despite its proximity to DC, UMD football always suffered in the shadow of PSU's eastern juggernaut of a program.

Ironically, PSU is closer to DC, as well as NOVA, than VT is. The drive to PSU's game days has also been aided by the completion of I-99 (possibly the most worthless Interstate east of the Mississippi) from Bedford to State College.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 16, 2022, 07:05:22 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 08, 2022, 01:01:09 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 07, 2022, 02:39:38 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on August 03, 2022, 10:56:48 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 02, 2022, 10:58:12 AM
they want to siphon sparse funding for their own pork that is funded by the relative prosperity of the urban areas. 

[Not sure why I continue to respond to this elitist troll, but here goes]

Pretty sad attitude -- "We got ours, too bad for you, go pound sand" instead of looking at how improvements in other parts of the state will help the whole state by making it possible for businesses to locate in Southside and Southwest, bringing more jobs with better salaries -- and ultimately more tax revenue from the development and increased employment.
Pretty selfish of you to think limited transportation funds should be used to 'attempt' to spur the economy of SW VA.
You already had that with ARC, and it didn't work.
It's naive and ignorant to think you are a freeway away from attracting good paying jobs in a region that continues to endorse extractive industries.

But mostly, you are wrong as transportation funds need to spent where transportation needs are greatest, and that is the I-95 corridor.
They are not to spent as pork handouts to extractive coal loving regions.

My tax dollars should go to fixing I-95 congestion, and safety, not to helping another Dollar General pop up by Taylor Mountain.

And if you never travel on I-95, you want your tax dollars to be spent on finishing US 460 between Grundy and Breaks, or widening I-81 to handle the heavy truck traffic. Works both ways.
95 is a much a bigger local, state, and national priority since the surrender at Appotomax Courthouse.

Quote from: EricJV95 on August 08, 2022, 11:13:10 PM
I-95 between Northern Virginia and Richmond was a pure HOT MESS. Recently, I was going Southbound from 495 onto 95 South. Everything was going fine until just past Dale City. And, You guessed it. It was mostly STOP than Go. Especially around the Fredericksburg area. But wait. There's more!! It almost continued towards Richmond. Now, I noticed some new digital Speed Limit signs between Mile 115 and 130 along Northbound 95. Common sense would tell VDOT to install them ALL along 95 in BOTH directions. The WHOLE 177 miles between The MD and NC State Lines. Then everybody will hopefully know what to expect. Get it right, VDOT !!!!! And while they're at it; They need to install them along I-64 between Richmond and Chesapeake / Suffolk. Since they're turning I-64 Between the HRBT and the Bowers Hill-Suffolk end into the NJ Turnpike; Put those digital speed limit signs there, too.

Oh it is SO SO frustrating!
I drive the NJTP all the time, it is not THAT hard, just do what they did between exit 6-9!
It needs to be bi-directional HOV to Rt 17, with the local/express continuing to exit 126, and then 8 lanes at least from exit 104 to 295.

What makes it so so frustrating is the ROW is mostly there.  It is just trees!  This is NOT that hard a concept.
Hell I would be all for just tolling it from 295 to the HOT lanes in Stafford.  The current system is needlessly awful.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 16, 2022, 07:06:24 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on August 10, 2022, 09:48:09 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 09, 2022, 11:34:33 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 08, 2022, 03:18:06 PM
The modern day culture of NOVA is so closely related to Virginia Tech football ....
That seems like a serious exaggeration. Sure, there are plenty of VPI fans and alumni, but to call it part of the "culture" is a major exaggeration.

The expected response from someone connected to a school that occasionally fields a football team.  :-D  And it's Virginia Tech thank you very much. VPI is reserved for very old alumni (I'm just an old alum who went through the transition from VPI to VT) and diplomas.

QuoteI've lived in Northern Virginia since 1974 and the only football that's ever really been a part of the local "culture" was the great Redskins teams of the first Joe Gibbs era (the 1990s through 1992) when they played in four Super Bowls, won three, and advanced to one other NFC championship game.

Pittsburgh says "hi" and sniffs at the feeble sports teams of Washington, whose fans can't hold a candle to Stiller and Penguin fans.
Whoa, you are a Penguins fan?
OK, well it looks like we have common ground; I am a Penguins fan and I especially hate DC/BAL teams (Commanders, Caps, Orioles).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 16, 2022, 07:11:30 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 16, 2022, 07:05:22 AM
What makes it so so frustrating is the ROW is mostly there.  It is just trees!  This is NOT that hard a concept.
I say the same thing as I drive down I-81 stuck in bumper to bumper traffic or walls of trucks... there's all the room, why not widen this?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 07:49:55 AM
Quote
95 is a much a bigger local, state, and national priority since the surrender at Appotomax Courthouse.
I don't know, there's that famous quote from General Grant about how US 460 should be upgraded to an interstate corridor.

Also it's Appomattox. But I'm not surprised you spelled it like Potomac.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 16, 2022, 07:59:54 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 07:49:55 AM
Quote
95 is a much a bigger local, state, and national priority since the surrender at Appotomax Courthouse.
I don't know, there's that famous quote from General Grant about how US 460 should be upgraded to an interstate corridor.

Also it's Appomattox. But I'm not surprised you spelled it like Potomac.

I could see Fritzowl taking this post and running with it somehow.   :spin:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 16, 2022, 08:38:08 AM
If you want to know what VDOT actually supports for I-95, here is the report - http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/projects/cip/i-95_cip_final_report_092021.pdf

They are more inclined to improve bus/rail capacities which is a much smaller cost than the $12B they say it would cost to widen I-95 by a lane in each direction from Thornburg to Springfield.

North of Dale City the ROW is mostly NOT there to make the Express lanes bi-directional.

VDOT never seems to publish what the compensation penalty would be for various widenings in locations where the Express lanes already exist, but (especially NB) an extra lane would be helpful even if it is open only when the Express lanes are open in the opposite direction.

VDOT also solicited adding a 4th lane between Stafford Exit 140 and Centreport Pkwy Exit 136 as part of the DDI project at Stafford but no bids came in that fit within the budget VDOT had in mind.

Widening I-81 to 6-lanes everywhere was estimated to cost $4B at least 15 years ago, so I'm sure that number is double by now.  So VDOT's entire annual budget is only $6-7B...so I-81 will be piecemealed to death but I believe will be fully 6-lanes at some point.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2022, 08:46:34 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 07:49:55 AM
Quote
95 is a much a bigger local, state, and national priority since the surrender at Appotomax Courthouse.
I don't know, there's that famous quote from General Grant about how US 460 should be upgraded to an interstate corridor.

Also it's Appomattox. But I'm not surprised you spelled it like Potomac.
Ah yes. Don't forget when Patrick Henry made that famous speech about how I-295 should be routed around both Richmond and Petersburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 16, 2022, 12:26:13 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2022, 08:46:34 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 07:49:55 AM
Quote
95 is a much a bigger local, state, and national priority since the surrender at Appotomax Courthouse.
I don't know, there's that famous quote from General Grant about how US 460 should be upgraded to an interstate corridor.

Also it's Appomattox. But I'm not surprised you spelled it like Potomac.
Ah yes. Don't forget when Patrick Henry made that famous speech about how I-295 should be routed around both Richmond and Petersburg.

Give me an 85 mph speed limit on I-366 or give me death!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 01:15:05 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 16, 2022, 12:26:13 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2022, 08:46:34 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 07:49:55 AM
Quote
95 is a much a bigger local, state, and national priority since the surrender at Appotomax Courthouse.
I don't know, there's that famous quote from General Grant about how US 460 should be upgraded to an interstate corridor.

Also it's Appomattox. But I'm not surprised you spelled it like Potomac.
Ah yes. Don't forget when Patrick Henry made that famous speech about how I-295 should be routed around both Richmond and Petersburg.

Give me an 85 mph speed limit on I-366 or give me death!

And as we all know, Jamestown was founded by English explorers who were looking for an alternate route to I-64 on the Peninsula.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jmacswimmer on August 16, 2022, 01:34:50 PM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 01:15:05 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 16, 2022, 12:26:13 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2022, 08:46:34 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 07:49:55 AM
Quote
95 is a much a bigger local, state, and national priority since the surrender at Appotomax Courthouse.
I don't know, there's that famous quote from General Grant about how US 460 should be upgraded to an interstate corridor.

Also it's Appomattox. But I'm not surprised you spelled it like Potomac.
Ah yes. Don't forget when Patrick Henry made that famous speech about how I-295 should be routed around both Richmond and Petersburg.

Give me an 85 mph speed limit on I-366 or give me death!

And as we all know, Jamestown was founded by English explorers who were looking for an alternate route to I-64 on the Peninsula.

And speaking of I-64, Thomas Jefferson was, of course, very influential in getting the highway west of Richmond routed along the US 250 corridor versus the US 60 corridor so that he could get to & from Monticello more easily.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2022, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 01:15:05 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 16, 2022, 12:26:13 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2022, 08:46:34 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 07:49:55 AM
Quote
95 is a much a bigger local, state, and national priority since the surrender at Appotomax Courthouse.
I don't know, there's that famous quote from General Grant about how US 460 should be upgraded to an interstate corridor.

Also it's Appomattox. But I'm not surprised you spelled it like Potomac.
Ah yes. Don't forget when Patrick Henry made that famous speech about how I-295 should be routed around both Richmond and Petersburg.

Give me an 85 mph speed limit on I-366 or give me death!

And as we all know, Jamestown was founded by English explorers who were looking for an alternate route to I-64 on the Peninsula.

Oh right, when Captain John Smith paved VA 359 to accomplish just that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on August 16, 2022, 02:09:13 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on August 16, 2022, 01:34:50 PM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 01:15:05 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 16, 2022, 12:26:13 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2022, 08:46:34 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 07:49:55 AM
Quote
95 is a much a bigger local, state, and national priority since the surrender at Appotomax Courthouse.
I don't know, there's that famous quote from General Grant about how US 460 should be upgraded to an interstate corridor.

Also it's Appomattox. But I'm not surprised you spelled it like Potomac.
Ah yes. Don't forget when Patrick Henry made that famous speech about how I-295 should be routed around both Richmond and Petersburg.

Give me an 85 mph speed limit on I-366 or give me death!

And as we all know, Jamestown was founded by English explorers who were looking for an alternate route to I-64 on the Peninsula.

And speaking of I-64, Thomas Jefferson was, of course, very influential in getting the highway west of Richmond routed along the US 250 corridor versus the US 60 corridor so that he could get to & from Monticello more easily.

Don't forget Stonewall Jackson's influence on improvements to U.S. 11 so he had an easier time moving troops during his campaigns in the Shenandoah Valley.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 16, 2022, 03:05:10 PM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 07:49:55 AM
Quote
95 is a much a bigger local, state, and national priority since the surrender at Appotomax Courthouse.
I don't know, there's that famous quote from General Grant about how US 460 should be upgraded to an interstate corridor.

Also it's Appomattox. But I'm not surprised you spelled it like Potomac.

This likely explains why Appomattox was moved the 3 miles to where it is now.  Upgrading VA 24 to interstate status was a non-starter
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 16, 2022, 06:46:40 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on August 16, 2022, 02:09:13 PM
Don't forget Stonewall Jackson's influence on improvements to U.S. 11 so he had an easier time moving troops during his campaigns in the Shenandoah Valley.

And Harry Flood Byrd's insistence that there should be a turnpike between Winchester -and- Staunton.  Oops, better fact check that one.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 16, 2022, 06:54:33 PM
Remember William Henry Harrison played a vital role in routing I-81 down towards Cumberland Gap to make it easier to loop around to the south of the western counties to reach Ohio via Kentucky.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on August 16, 2022, 10:52:17 PM
The derailing of this thread has gone too far.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 17, 2022, 07:41:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 16, 2022, 10:52:17 PM
The derailing of this thread has gone too far.

Make sure the trains run only along the I-95 corridor, otherwise bluecountry will be upset.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on August 17, 2022, 09:23:26 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2022, 07:41:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 16, 2022, 10:52:17 PM
The derailing of this thread has gone too far.

Make sure the trains run only along the I-95 corridor, otherwise bluecountry will be upset.
TRAINS??!!? We don't need trains, alternative transportation sucks money away from highway projects! We must pave the earth first!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on August 24, 2022, 04:03:54 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/Y8aFFPTymFZvVobq8

Is there a reason why VDOT won't allow AASHTO to make VA 37 part of US 11 and create a Business route for US 11 along existing Route through Dowtown?

If this were Georgia, like with US 41 at Valdosta using the Permiter as Mainline US 41, I'm sure they would create a business route for US 11 here and co-sign VA 37 with US 11.

The above link of GSV seems to  show VDOT  having imply US 11 as de facto Business route already.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on August 24, 2022, 05:28:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2022, 04:03:54 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/Y8aFFPTymFZvVobq8

Is there a reason why VDOT won't allow AASHTO to make VA 37 part of US 11 and create a Business route for US 11 along existing Route through Dowtown?

If this were Georgia, like with US 41 at Valdosta using the Permiter as Mainline US 41, I'm sure they would create a business route for US 11 here and co-sign VA 37 with US 11.

The above link of GSV seems to  show VDOT  having imply US 11 as de facto Business route already.

37 is intended to be a complete beltway. That's probably part of their reasoning.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 24, 2022, 07:46:00 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 24, 2022, 05:28:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2022, 04:03:54 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/Y8aFFPTymFZvVobq8

Is there a reason why VDOT won't allow AASHTO to make VA 37 part of US 11 and create a Business route for US 11 along existing Route through Dowtown?

If this were Georgia, like with US 41 at Valdosta using the Permiter as Mainline US 41, I'm sure they would create a business route for US 11 here and co-sign VA 37 with US 11.

The above link of GSV seems to  show VDOT  having imply US 11 as de facto Business route already.

37 is intended to be a complete beltway. That's probably part of their reasoning.

If VA 37 would've existed before I-81 then I suspect it would've indeed be US 11. But no need for that now because I-81.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on August 24, 2022, 09:02:38 PM
Quote from: plain on August 24, 2022, 07:46:00 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 24, 2022, 05:28:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2022, 04:03:54 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/Y8aFFPTymFZvVobq8

Is there a reason why VDOT won't allow AASHTO to make VA 37 part of US 11 and create a Business route for US 11 along existing Route through Dowtown?

If this were Georgia, like with US 41 at Valdosta using the Permiter as Mainline US 41, I'm sure they would create a business route for US 11 here and co-sign VA 37 with US 11.

The above link of GSV seems to  show VDOT  having imply US 11 as de facto Business route already.

37 is intended to be a complete beltway. That's probably part of their reasoning.

If VA 37 would've existed before I-81 then I suspect it would've indeed be US 11. But no need for that now because I-81.

When was 11 business in Staunton created?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 24, 2022, 09:36:12 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 24, 2022, 09:02:38 PM
Quote from: plain on August 24, 2022, 07:46:00 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 24, 2022, 05:28:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2022, 04:03:54 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/Y8aFFPTymFZvVobq8

Is there a reason why VDOT won't allow AASHTO to make VA 37 part of US 11 and create a Business route for US 11 along existing Route through Dowtown?

If this were Georgia, like with US 41 at Valdosta using the Permiter as Mainline US 41, I'm sure they would create a business route for US 11 here and co-sign VA 37 with US 11.

The above link of GSV seems to  show VDOT  having imply US 11 as de facto Business route already.

37 is intended to be a complete beltway. That's probably part of their reasoning.

If VA 37 would've existed before I-81 then I suspect it would've indeed be US 11. But no need for that now because I-81.

When was 11 business in Staunton created?

1971 (http://vahighways.com/route-log/us11b.htm)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 24, 2022, 09:44:34 PM
Yeah basically mainline US 11 already had its routing switched in Staunton before I-81 came, they just changed ALT to BUS there. Not the same as the Winchester situation.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 24, 2022, 11:16:17 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on August 16, 2022, 01:34:50 PM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 01:15:05 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 16, 2022, 12:26:13 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 16, 2022, 08:46:34 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 16, 2022, 07:49:55 AM
Quote
95 is a much a bigger local, state, and national priority since the surrender at Appotomax Courthouse.
I don't know, there's that famous quote from General Grant about how US 460 should be upgraded to an interstate corridor.

Also it's Appomattox. But I'm not surprised you spelled it like Potomac.
Ah yes. Don't forget when Patrick Henry made that famous speech about how I-295 should be routed around both Richmond and Petersburg.

Give me an 85 mph speed limit on I-366 or give me death!

And as we all know, Jamestown was founded by English explorers who were looking for an alternate route to I-64 on the Peninsula.

And speaking of I-64, Thomas Jefferson was, of course, very influential in getting the highway west of Richmond routed along the US 250 corridor versus the US 60 corridor so that he could get to & from Monticello more easily.
I'm not sure TJ would have wanted an interstate so close to his property.
Speaking of I-64, I was on it between I-295 and SR33 yesterday, no delays, but steady volume, I am always surprised given this is a rural area.  Why isn't it more like I-66 is west of Rt 15?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 24, 2022, 11:17:22 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on August 17, 2022, 09:23:26 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 17, 2022, 07:41:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 16, 2022, 10:52:17 PM
The derailing of this thread has gone too far.

Make sure the trains run only along the I-95 corridor, otherwise bluecountry will be upset.
TRAINS??!!? We don't need trains, alternative transportation sucks money away from highway projects! We must pave the earth first!
No, we need everything.  Roads and rails.  I-95 in VA needs to be like the NJTP 95 corridor.

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 16, 2022, 07:11:30 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 16, 2022, 07:05:22 AM
What makes it so so frustrating is the ROW is mostly there.  It is just trees!  This is NOT that hard a concept.
I say the same thing as I drive down I-81 stuck in bumper to bumper traffic or walls of trucks... there's all the room, why not widen this?
95 comes first, if after that, there is money, then yes.  But not before 95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 24, 2022, 11:17:56 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 16, 2022, 08:38:08 AM
If you want to know what VDOT actually supports for I-95, here is the report - http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/projects/cip/i-95_cip_final_report_092021.pdf

They are more inclined to improve bus/rail capacities which is a much smaller cost than the $12B they say it would cost to widen I-95 by a lane in each direction from Thornburg to Springfield.

North of Dale City the ROW is mostly NOT there to make the Express lanes bi-directional.

VDOT never seems to publish what the compensation penalty would be for various widenings in locations where the Express lanes already exist, but (especially NB) an extra lane would be helpful even if it is open only when the Express lanes are open in the opposite direction.

VDOT also solicited adding a 4th lane between Stafford Exit 140 and Centreport Pkwy Exit 136 as part of the DDI project at Stafford but no bids came in that fit within the budget VDOT had in mind.

Widening I-81 to 6-lanes everywhere was estimated to cost $4B at least 15 years ago, so I'm sure that number is double by now.  So VDOT's entire annual budget is only $6-7B...so I-81 will be piecemealed to death but I believe will be fully 6-lanes at some point.
Just make 95 a tolled facility then, anything is better than now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 24, 2022, 11:30:29 PM
@bluecountry

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220825/0c7c78838367cff2d2d789dfc216b0ba.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 25, 2022, 06:40:20 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 24, 2022, 11:16:17 PM
Speaking of I-64, I was on it between I-295 and SR33 yesterday, no delays, but steady volume, I am always surprised given this is a rural area.  Why isn't it more like I-66 is west of Rt 15?

Likely because there isn't a metropolitan area of 2 million people 35 miles west of Haymarket the way there is starting 35 miles east of I-295.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 25, 2022, 11:28:03 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 24, 2022, 11:16:17 PM
Speaking of I-64, I was on it between I-295 and SR33 yesterday, no delays, but steady volume, I am always surprised given this is a rural area.  Why isn't it more like I-66 is west of Rt 15?
That segment of I-64 is always busy, lots of traffic traveling between Hampton Roads and Richmond / the I-95 corridor. During summer weekends, the highway is usually congested with rolling backups on the rural stretches. One accident and it's a mess.

VDOT has secured the funding needed and widening the remaining 29 miles between MM 205 and MM 234 to six lanes, and construction is planned to be complete on at least the next 10 miles west of Williamsburg by 2027-2028, meaning construction should begin within the next year or two. VDOT has already widened around 26 miles of this corridor since 2016 from four to six lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 29, 2022, 01:51:40 PM
Just discovered that VA 349 has been converted to a one-way only routing (from US 501 to VA 360) and is also no longer posted anywhere including the rectangle 349 present half-way around this very short route.

GMSV - https://goo.gl/maps/f52if7BouJD4MdJ28
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 29, 2022, 01:57:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 29, 2022, 01:51:40 PM
Just discovered that VA 349 has been converted to a one-way only routing (from US 501 to VA 360) and is also no longer posted anywhere including the rectangle 349 present half-way around this very short route.

GMSV - https://goo.gl/maps/f52if7BouJD4MdJ28

Well I do not have to worry about clinching it now for Travel Mapping purposes.   ;-)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dlsterner on August 29, 2022, 07:56:59 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 29, 2022, 01:57:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 29, 2022, 01:51:40 PM
Just discovered that VA 349 has been converted to a one-way only routing (from US 501 to VA 360) and is also no longer posted anywhere including the rectangle 349 present half-way around this very short route.

GMSV - https://goo.gl/maps/f52if7BouJD4MdJ28

Well I do not have to worry about clinching it now for Travel Mapping purposes.   ;-)

Well, if you're in the general area of the country, MD 349 is quite clinchable.  ;-)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 29, 2022, 08:22:55 PM
Quote from: dlsterner on August 29, 2022, 07:56:59 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 29, 2022, 01:57:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 29, 2022, 01:51:40 PM
Just discovered that VA 349 has been converted to a one-way only routing (from US 501 to VA 360) and is also no longer posted anywhere including the rectangle 349 present half-way around this very short route.

GMSV - https://goo.gl/maps/f52if7BouJD4MdJ28

Well I do not have to worry about clinching it now for Travel Mapping purposes.   ;-)

Well, if you're in the general area of the country, MD 349 is quite clinchable.  ;-)

Already did that one.  (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&r=md.md349)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Stephane Dumas on August 30, 2022, 09:40:02 PM
I checked the western end of the Danville Expwy on Google Maps and it showed a incomplete cloverleaf. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6039622,-79.5299596,7194m/data=!3m1!1e3 

Did VA DOT had once bigger plans for the Danville Expwy?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on August 30, 2022, 10:22:16 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 30, 2022, 09:40:02 PM
I checked the western end of the Danville Expwy on Google Maps and it showed a incomplete cloverleaf. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6039622,-79.5299596,7194m/data=!3m1!1e3 

Did VA DOT had once bigger plans for the Danville Expwy?

They were going to expand it to serve the ENTIRE TRI-STATE AREA
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on August 30, 2022, 11:10:18 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 30, 2022, 09:40:02 PM
I checked the western end of the Danville Expwy on Google Maps and it showed a incomplete cloverleaf. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6039622,-79.5299596,7194m/data=!3m1!1e3 

Did VA DOT had once bigger plans for the Danville Expwy?
I wanna say it was going to be a loop but they gave up on the northwestern section.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 31, 2022, 07:03:57 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2022, 10:22:16 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 30, 2022, 09:40:02 PM
I checked the western end of the Danville Expwy on Google Maps and it showed a incomplete cloverleaf. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6039622,-79.5299596,7194m/data=!3m1!1e3 

Did VA DOT had once bigger plans for the Danville Expwy?

They were going to expand it to serve the ENTIRE TRI-STATE AREA

:-D  I guess Dr. Doofenshmirtz has an extra skyscraper in Danville, VA, now and forgot to tell Perry the Platypus.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 31, 2022, 08:05:25 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 30, 2022, 11:10:18 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 30, 2022, 09:40:02 PM
I checked the western end of the Danville Expwy on Google Maps and it showed a incomplete cloverleaf. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6039622,-79.5299596,7194m/data=!3m1!1e3 

Did VA DOT had once bigger plans for the Danville Expwy?
I wanna say it was going to be a loop but they gave up on the northwestern section.

Not sure if Mike (mapmikey) had any better luck, but I never found anything to suggest that VDOT planned an entire loop.  Furthermore, that leg of the Danville bypass west of US 29 is fairly recent vintage...was not built until 2005.  As weird as it looks, I believe VDOT just intended for the end interchange to be that way.

We've speculated that perhaps they intended on a new alignment between the Danville and Martinsville bypasses, but there's nothing concrete to support that either (pun intended).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 31, 2022, 09:31:36 AM
VDOT has a habit of doing certain interchanges like that whether or not any future extension is even thought about. It's more of a "just in case".

Example: VA 895 at I-295, US 29 at US 460 (east of Lynchburg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kernals12 on August 31, 2022, 10:35:02 AM
Quote from: plain on August 31, 2022, 09:31:36 AM
VDOT has a habit of doing certain interchanges like that whether or not any future extension is even thought about. It's more of a "just in case".

Example: VA 895 at I-295, US 29 at US 460 (east of Lynchburg)

They did that in Massachusetts with the 290/495 interchange
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 31, 2022, 04:40:31 PM
Quote from: plain on August 31, 2022, 09:31:36 AM
US 29 at US 460 (east of Lynchburg)

This one's a different case.  VDOT very much had a plan for a full Lynchburg bypass for 29, including south of  460, where it would tie back into existing 29 near VA 24.  North of 460 was a higher priority so that got built first.  Not sure if south of 460 is still on the planning books.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on August 31, 2022, 11:48:53 PM
I once read (probably here) that 895 was built the way it was to potentially incorporate ramps to/from Charles City and Turner Roads, which are nearby the interchange with 295. However, I don’t think there have ever been any actual plans for that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on September 02, 2022, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 31, 2022, 04:40:31 PM
Quote from: plain on August 31, 2022, 09:31:36 AM
US 29 at US 460 (east of Lynchburg)

This one's a different case.  VDOT very much had a plan for a full Lynchburg bypass for 29, including south of  460, where it would tie back into existing 29 near VA 24.  North of 460 was a higher priority so that got built first.  Not sure if south of 460 is still on the planning books.

This circa 2016 study (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Lynchburg/Rt_29_Campbell_Co_Corridor_Assessment/PlanWorks_Case_Study_Route_29_Corridor_Assessment,_Campbell_County.pdf") suggests the US 29 bypass south of US 460 is unavailable short term due to cost and fixes along existing 29 were the entirety of the solutions set.

I have been trying without success to find either the project plans or at least the EIS for the Western Danville Bypass for US 58 that might explain why the interchange at the west end is the way it is.  Satellite views show it was not necessary to have the clover ramp setup based on exisitng conditins prior to construction.  Building for eventual extension of the freeway is plausible, though the VTrans 2035 (http://vtrans.org/resources/2035_surface_plan/CompleteVSTPDocumentRevised.pdf) highway improvement list does not include either a new US 58 alignment west of Danville, nor a continuation around to the northeast to connect back with US 29 (this seems implausible to me...this would be a very large loop around Danville that is not necessary in any way).

It seems to me they could have made a traditional diamond at today's US 311 where US 58 Business would be rerouted to meet there and US 58 would just curve around onto the existing highway heading for Martinsville.  This would also have preserved the ability to carry the freeway further west someday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 02, 2022, 03:57:09 PM
^ A new alignment for US-58 extending west of the existing end of the Danville Bypass is likely the way it would go... but unless there's a desire to create a limited access US-58 to Martinsville, there's really no need. The existing 4 lane divided highway has relatively few traffic signals, is 60 mph, and doesn't have any traffic issues. The only thing I could say would be to widen some of the shoulders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on September 03, 2022, 11:43:11 PM
Little question here for those familiar with VA roadway standards from the past.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FMixing_Bowl_Ren_L.jpg&hash=64644182a69460a1cce2c48affa7635c52bc826f)(Mixing Bowl construction, 1975)
Who remembers lane stripes being this long? Looking at aerials from the time this was something that stood out to me. Most examples seem to have been gone by the time the '80s rolled around. Why was this changed and implemented in the first place, and do any remnants exist today?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on September 04, 2022, 08:09:24 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on September 03, 2022, 11:43:11 PM
Little question here for those familiar with VA roadway standards from the past.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FMixing_Bowl_Ren_L.jpg&hash=64644182a69460a1cce2c48affa7635c52bc826f)(Mixing Bowl construction, 1975)
Who remembers lane stripes being this long? Looking at aerials from the time this was something that stood out to me. Most examples seem to have been gone by the time the '80s rolled around. Why was this changed and implemented in the first place, and do any remnants exist today?

It's not loading for me but NJ Turnpike and Illinois use 25'/25' lanes, perhaps similar?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on September 04, 2022, 08:36:07 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 04, 2022, 08:09:24 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on September 03, 2022, 11:43:11 PM
Little question here for those familiar with VA roadway standards from the past.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FMixing_Bowl_Ren_L.jpg&hash=64644182a69460a1cce2c48affa7635c52bc826f)(Mixing Bowl construction, 1975)
Who remembers lane stripes being this long? Looking at aerials from the time this was something that stood out to me. Most examples seem to have been gone by the time the '80s rolled around. Why was this changed and implemented in the first place, and do any remnants exist today?

It's not loading for me but NJ Turnpike and Illinois use 25'/25' lanes, perhaps similar?
Yes, and they were in use on all kinds of multi-lane roads in the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 04, 2022, 11:50:35 PM
Those were the regular length lanes, not the ones used on the NJTP/ITR/Illinois Tollway. They just look like that because of the angle the image was taken from.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 05, 2022, 09:05:38 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 25, 2022, 11:28:03 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 24, 2022, 11:16:17 PM
Speaking of I-64, I was on it between I-295 and SR33 yesterday, no delays, but steady volume, I am always surprised given this is a rural area.  Why isn't it more like I-66 is west of Rt 15?
That segment of I-64 is always busy, lots of traffic traveling between Hampton Roads and Richmond / the I-95 corridor. During summer weekends, the highway is usually congested with rolling backups on the rural stretches. One accident and it's a mess.

VDOT has secured the funding needed and widening the remaining 29 miles between MM 205 and MM 234 to six lanes, and construction is planned to be complete on at least the next 10 miles west of Williamsburg by 2027-2028, meaning construction should begin within the next year or two. VDOT has already widened around 26 miles of this corridor since 2016 from four to six lanes.

Well I get summer weekend traffic, but weekday traffic?
Is it the 'funnel' effect of the Virginia Peninsula or the closeness of Richmond to HR, or both?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on September 05, 2022, 12:17:46 PM
Quote from: plain on September 04, 2022, 11:50:35 PM
Those were the regular length lanes, not the ones used on the NJTP/ITR/Illinois Tollway. They just look like that because of the angle the image was taken from.

I disagree, there is a clear difference between those and the ones used in VA today.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/kqXvyk6CqxLwzUjN8
(1976 vs. 1990)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 05, 2022, 02:24:13 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on September 05, 2022, 12:17:46 PM
Quote from: plain on September 04, 2022, 11:50:35 PM
Those were the regular length lanes, not the ones used on the NJTP/ITR/Illinois Tollway. They just look like that because of the angle the image was taken from.

I disagree, there is a clear difference between those and the ones used in VA today.
Here is a scene in 1976:(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/S24CcBqtCRXe8ttrGS92mgBOKvgnw4Tx4TzigURfS1sC_XcEMTTxkkQ7Ibo9woygaSibc5DS3xGpxybiIFYRm2S1V6O0A5nPi982zKTJsIUbUlDPxOxUayqfZYS-nEeCVQtsHoSbXhcSQNrtCJFe5EiAqbK_5hAhwNK3u4CgJTtobKQBy72gA4h756e3vrpkQzw1BYvNh7NvEf9WLERjJ5IVu8JfW9CY1NigV1GxNasbP-T7F3nPg-ExDlHFe0cbKth9NbfUCMxqkuYOvN-go0Phh_7j3vpTEp3catyqSYkNYaROSw5xD7hxyl72MZN_2o_O04pku8zPQfMs2eHM5VSXtXSwRPeKMNFm4QYQrPWQqSbdU7jBQKkz0iV2pyL9JyUT_GhsPOhMzkXeJYX_qT-i3NO4oG_KPxALY2VgTZys3JJDZ6fqKU96aQjaETdi2Io2P2PSpop01jsUtbsoKlDLMi35TCLaz21BWnMbT8kttKNiLpLWds-zEss2fxom_pKRDWjQzG4Vli5E2MtmI6YMiq8jf9hF7mwQQfg6Bdqn3VdQ9KCbOjBbkBSM0xcqWxtfZ0Y0phmjzWVEd1RoBfNnmGpD0moxiJeLKtR_SgdTz7f7HGVNp5MWdvyHFXVJvDTRiTOyqEnX5yXLhbxeGFXC0H2lN8ZCIWiZyRDV9wOouP9Xrt5UcaOPkfKg1gnLcBw-FF8C0U_Z_7pgq5y8wh3cI7ar4D8xX7b9i_8bfT1rVPzn3MxRDU-WNpqVqEDBkJPh9BriNkl1s6Mq6H0jBAFhdAAV_IqQJ0cGRqUBG7KQxC5I20g1DRbu7a4emO8ZTa-6JdJbwGt2ExJ7QUn7DmtjwG7M_Tbv28lJw4h06KEcukx5zdxpxokz8JvRS8kQkQivjbu1VuVpQQ=w1371-h677-no?authuser=0)
vs. 1990:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a6PuIAYIGWwO6CsREe7IrGuvxiNytNpwUKTqK2Dp1ZdraBQoOs_mlnht3XW5xKJVG-A5eUItHhX5LqkWk9tBExne_tfAMt-R5xuAcbS_1ATumrwHkt1rAA9P1w53vghX5sWg-1AOtxBQr3xSCZtQIeUC86Nk_JrppidRTdGgLEpbJEIrL-pyLmTPH_WB-3UtHn4UHGIiRp8ko-K7EfiIEAmiPbetomxYiX-5o5XMGoKBRxsqxy439xMTaxkt-HEE9J7LDoMXOQ1S4PBTzlSyJ7tm1PUhqadkL3P-rms5e7MukNq2yXcrclMtmEUM_7-X1X3ejJTxDBGKVgWmdLJVgbdaCMei0h7gXiImb1yTtdX6ecPruFBSEayw8XT6Bk5HHkiMLHj1Y9SXSUHOdmO2nagqcfr1gafPKkLBwDuIZK1rKp7PkeAYe8gYAKWRGOC7A9G95XQVOny1c2htut-dzxsKlxMsNPqxwUXFWN5-YUi9rbFR6u1CrfQZBdPV7Btuhv1zYeVguarX_Swbc6myXhoJGUfr_4SLWK2PxCq27MLN7Bw7Y3vKz2nu1I2_eYOqMXc8gWOfZu4IzsJcRqCOa9pGrNo7XShoiSvpsSZ04misBRoCuOFrf_ueB14t3bT829nmjQIiw9XWduBFC3duNEXefavI1aAnrP8zoa-gqJnbtzR5jAgD-dZ_Hk_wxfGnseuQptyoSq9UPLhYKFLi_uY9LpuPeYq-ZY2HUkuidnVkPpaYI3-1S6C10PWH6yKzhwvQah_akuIbschltHBIrEa2Xo41nIbf-SS_ElUxGFPGMeUkzjk78YqmELOnhc8ZSHzST8IQbKPJmpnJL-4vy0YgZa3xaLjcFvmVaGZNs2FoOJad7ThJS7pG9aGg4rloC6RsxBknFeyXBQ=w1200-h612-no?authuser=0)

I can't see the images
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 05, 2022, 02:52:36 PM
Is it me or are there a LOT more state troopers out this weekend?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 05, 2022, 03:07:49 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 05, 2022, 02:52:36 PM
Is it me or are there a LOT more state troopers out this weekend?

It is a pretty regular thing for police to step up their enforcement on holiday weekends.  Is your post meant to be VA-specific or in general?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 05, 2022, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 05, 2022, 02:52:36 PM
Is it me or are there a LOT more state troopers out this weekend?

We saw multiple people pulled over just between US-29 near Falls Church (Jefferson District Golf Course) and Van Dorn Street. That's a small sample, of course, but we seldom see anyone stopped through there (one driver was stopped in the HO/T lanes; also, on the way over to the golf course, we saw a cop had stopped a tractor-trailer in the Outer Loop HO/T lanes).

Of course, the number of vehicles with Maryland plates being operated at 85+ mph was at least as high as usual...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on September 05, 2022, 05:53:42 PM
Quote from: plain on September 05, 2022, 02:24:13 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on September 05, 2022, 12:17:46 PM
Quote from: plain on September 04, 2022, 11:50:35 PM
Those were the regular length lanes, not the ones used on the NJTP/ITR/Illinois Tollway. They just look like that because of the angle the image was taken from.

I disagree, there is a clear difference between those and the ones used in VA today.
Here is a scene in 1976:(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/S24CcBqtCRXe8ttrGS92mgBOKvgnw4Tx4TzigURfS1sC_XcEMTTxkkQ7Ibo9woygaSibc5DS3xGpxybiIFYRm2S1V6O0A5nPi982zKTJsIUbUlDPxOxUayqfZYS-nEeCVQtsHoSbXhcSQNrtCJFe5EiAqbK_5hAhwNK3u4CgJTtobKQBy72gA4h756e3vrpkQzw1BYvNh7NvEf9WLERjJ5IVu8JfW9CY1NigV1GxNasbP-T7F3nPg-ExDlHFe0cbKth9NbfUCMxqkuYOvN-go0Phh_7j3vpTEp3catyqSYkNYaROSw5xD7hxyl72MZN_2o_O04pku8zPQfMs2eHM5VSXtXSwRPeKMNFm4QYQrPWQqSbdU7jBQKkz0iV2pyL9JyUT_GhsPOhMzkXeJYX_qT-i3NO4oG_KPxALY2VgTZys3JJDZ6fqKU96aQjaETdi2Io2P2PSpop01jsUtbsoKlDLMi35TCLaz21BWnMbT8kttKNiLpLWds-zEss2fxom_pKRDWjQzG4Vli5E2MtmI6YMiq8jf9hF7mwQQfg6Bdqn3VdQ9KCbOjBbkBSM0xcqWxtfZ0Y0phmjzWVEd1RoBfNnmGpD0moxiJeLKtR_SgdTz7f7HGVNp5MWdvyHFXVJvDTRiTOyqEnX5yXLhbxeGFXC0H2lN8ZCIWiZyRDV9wOouP9Xrt5UcaOPkfKg1gnLcBw-FF8C0U_Z_7pgq5y8wh3cI7ar4D8xX7b9i_8bfT1rVPzn3MxRDU-WNpqVqEDBkJPh9BriNkl1s6Mq6H0jBAFhdAAV_IqQJ0cGRqUBG7KQxC5I20g1DRbu7a4emO8ZTa-6JdJbwGt2ExJ7QUn7DmtjwG7M_Tbv28lJw4h06KEcukx5zdxpxokz8JvRS8kQkQivjbu1VuVpQQ=w1371-h677-no?authuser=0)
vs. 1990:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a6PuIAYIGWwO6CsREe7IrGuvxiNytNpwUKTqK2Dp1ZdraBQoOs_mlnht3XW5xKJVG-A5eUItHhX5LqkWk9tBExne_tfAMt-R5xuAcbS_1ATumrwHkt1rAA9P1w53vghX5sWg-1AOtxBQr3xSCZtQIeUC86Nk_JrppidRTdGgLEpbJEIrL-pyLmTPH_WB-3UtHn4UHGIiRp8ko-K7EfiIEAmiPbetomxYiX-5o5XMGoKBRxsqxy439xMTaxkt-HEE9J7LDoMXOQ1S4PBTzlSyJ7tm1PUhqadkL3P-rms5e7MukNq2yXcrclMtmEUM_7-X1X3ejJTxDBGKVgWmdLJVgbdaCMei0h7gXiImb1yTtdX6ecPruFBSEayw8XT6Bk5HHkiMLHj1Y9SXSUHOdmO2nagqcfr1gafPKkLBwDuIZK1rKp7PkeAYe8gYAKWRGOC7A9G95XQVOny1c2htut-dzxsKlxMsNPqxwUXFWN5-YUi9rbFR6u1CrfQZBdPV7Btuhv1zYeVguarX_Swbc6myXhoJGUfr_4SLWK2PxCq27MLN7Bw7Y3vKz2nu1I2_eYOqMXc8gWOfZu4IzsJcRqCOa9pGrNo7XShoiSvpsSZ04misBRoCuOFrf_ueB14t3bT829nmjQIiw9XWduBFC3duNEXefavI1aAnrP8zoa-gqJnbtzR5jAgD-dZ_Hk_wxfGnseuQptyoSq9UPLhYKFLi_uY9LpuPeYq-ZY2HUkuidnVkPpaYI3-1S6C10PWH6yKzhwvQah_akuIbschltHBIrEa2Xo41nIbf-SS_ElUxGFPGMeUkzjk78YqmELOnhc8ZSHzST8IQbKPJmpnJL-4vy0YgZa3xaLjcFvmVaGZNs2FoOJad7ThJS7pG9aGg4rloC6RsxBknFeyXBQ=w1200-h612-no?authuser=0)

I can't see the images

Fixed now, first try.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 05, 2022, 08:57:58 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 05, 2022, 03:07:49 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 05, 2022, 02:52:36 PM
Is it me or are there a LOT more state troopers out this weekend?

It is a pretty regular thing for police to step up their enforcement on holiday weekends.  Is your post meant to be VA-specific or in general?
Yea I got fucked yesterday on US17 AND SR3!  I never see cops there, OMG.
So I gotta remember, Mem Day, 4th, Labor Day, Wipeout Wednesday, and New Years patrols are up; any other days?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on September 05, 2022, 10:42:44 PM
Wait...people don't know about increased enforcement on holiday weekends?

NYSDOT's new photo enforcement is going to nail a whole lot more people than they anticipated.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on September 05, 2022, 11:27:02 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 05, 2022, 10:42:44 PM
Wait...people don't know about increased enforcement on holiday weekends?

NYSDOT's new photo enforcement is going to nail a whole lot more people than they anticipated.

Lets be honest... Bluecountry doesn't seem to be aware of a lot of things, based on his posting history.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dlsterner on September 05, 2022, 11:36:53 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 05, 2022, 11:27:02 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 05, 2022, 10:42:44 PM
Wait...people don't know about increased enforcement on holiday weekends?

NYSDOT's new photo enforcement is going to nail a whole lot more people than they anticipated.

Lets be honest... Bluecountry doesn't seem to be aware of a lot of things, based on his posting history.

Quote from: bluecountry on September 05, 2022, 08:57:58 PM
Yea I got fucked yesterday on US17 AND SR3!  I never see cops there, OMG.
So I gotta remember, Mem Day, 4th, Labor Day, Wipeout Wednesday, and New Years patrols are up; any other days?

"Wipeout Wednesday"?  Can't say I've ever heard of that - and neither Google nor UrbanDictionary provided any insight.  Can anybody enlighten me?  Sounds like I don't want to be traveling on that day!   :bigass:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 05, 2022, 11:51:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 05, 2022, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 05, 2022, 02:52:36 PM
Is it me or are there a LOT more state troopers out this weekend?

We saw multiple people pulled over just between US-29 near Falls Church (Jefferson District Golf Course) and Van Dorn Street. That's a small sample, of course, but we seldom see anyone stopped through there (one driver was stopped in the HO/T lanes; also, on the way over to the golf course, we saw a cop had stopped a tractor-trailer in the Outer Loop HO/T lanes).

Of course, the number of vehicles with Maryland plates being operated at 85+ mph was at least as high as usual...

Well, they're typically looking for NY and FL plates, not MD.

I didn't notice increased police presence (or any, for that matter) on the parts of I-95 and VA 150 I traveled on the weekend, and was surprised at that. I figured at least there'd be a few at either end of Richmond city limits on 150 looking out for the usual post-Cars & Coffee speed runners when that event wound down, but nope, not a one.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 06, 2022, 12:30:20 AM
Quote from: dlsterner on September 05, 2022, 11:36:53 PM
Wipeout Wednesday"?  Can't say I've ever heard of that - and neither Google nor UrbanDictionary provided any insight.  Can anybody enlighten me?  Sounds like I don't want to be traveling on that day!   :bigass:

The day before Thanksgiving, perhaps?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on September 06, 2022, 01:49:35 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 06, 2022, 12:30:20 AM
Quote from: dlsterner on September 05, 2022, 11:36:53 PM
Wipeout Wednesday"?  Can't say I've ever heard of that - and neither Google nor UrbanDictionary provided any insight.  Can anybody enlighten me?  Sounds like I don't want to be traveling on that day!   :bigass:

The day before Thanksgiving, perhaps?
:hmmm: Only crazy Wednesday I can think of right now.  I cannot see Ash Wednesday being a "traffic problem" day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on September 06, 2022, 01:55:04 AM
Quote from: Takumi on September 05, 2022, 11:51:05 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 05, 2022, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 05, 2022, 02:52:36 PM
Is it me or are there a LOT more state troopers out this weekend?

We saw multiple people pulled over just between US-29 near Falls Church (Jefferson District Golf Course) and Van Dorn Street. That's a small sample, of course, but we seldom see anyone stopped through there (one driver was stopped in the HO/T lanes; also, on the way over to the golf course, we saw a cop had stopped a tractor-trailer in the Outer Loop HO/T lanes).

Of course, the number of vehicles with Maryland plates being operated at 85+ mph was at least as high as usual...

Well, they're typically looking for NY and FL plates, not MD.

I didn't notice increased police presence (or any, for that matter) on the parts of I-95 and VA 150 I traveled on the weekend, and was surprised at that. I figured at least there'd be a few at either end of Richmond city limits on 150 looking out for the usual post-Cars & Coffee speed runners when that event wound down, but nope, not a one.

I spent most of this past week in eastern PA, and there was substantial increase in police presence on the roads from Friday thru Monday.

From what I've observed, it seems like the fastest drivers are Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, New Jerseyans, in that order.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 06, 2022, 07:35:29 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on September 06, 2022, 01:49:35 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 06, 2022, 12:30:20 AM
Quote from: dlsterner on September 05, 2022, 11:36:53 PM
Wipeout Wednesday"?  Can't say I've ever heard of that - and neither Google nor UrbanDictionary provided any insight.  Can anybody enlighten me?  Sounds like I don't want to be traveling on that day!   :bigass:

The day before Thanksgiving, perhaps?
:hmmm: Only crazy Wednesday I can think of right now.  I cannot see Ash Wednesday being a "traffic problem" day.

Maybe in New Orleans or, to a much lesser degree, Mobile, but I've never heard that expression.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 06, 2022, 01:09:13 PM
So, does anyone think we're going to start seeing signs like this in Ashland, Virginia anytime soon?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/MUTCD_R15-6.svg/768px-MUTCD_R15-6.svg.png)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ahj2000 on September 06, 2022, 01:46:14 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 06, 2022, 01:09:13 PM
So, does anyone think we're going to start seeing signs like this in Ashland, Virginia anytime soon?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/MUTCD_R15-6.svg/768px-MUTCD_R15-6.svg.png)
I mean, the roadway is on the sides of the railroad. It would take a certain type of driver or a substance to get someone on the tracks. Has it been a problem?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 06, 2022, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on September 06, 2022, 01:46:14 PM
I mean, the roadway is on the sides of the railroad. It would take a certain type of driver or a substance to get someone on the tracks. Has it been a problem?

Evidently. (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ashland+cars+on+tracks)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 06, 2022, 02:43:40 PM
It's a recurring problem.  I would argue it speaks more to the ignorance of drivers than it does to the design.  But short of closing the road or relocating the tracks elsewhere (both being very unpopular), nothing will change.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 06, 2022, 02:50:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 06, 2022, 02:43:40 PM
It's a recurring problem.  I would argue it speaks more to the ignorance of drivers than it does to the design.  But short of closing the road or relocating the tracks elsewhere (both being very unpopular), nothing will change.


I have no idea whether the following would be technically feasible, but I wonder whether they could use another set of railroad crossing gates to block the tracks except when a train goes through. That is, you have the standard set of gates for road traffic that goes down when a train approaches. These would be similar except they would block access to the tracks and would remain in the "down" position until triggered by a train, at which time they would rise to let the train go through.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 06, 2022, 03:42:08 PM
I used to live near the town and went there almost daily. Most of the time the visitors not very familiar with the town, many of whom are from out of state altogether, are the ones messing up there. It's not just the VA 54 crossing either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on September 06, 2022, 07:27:30 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 06, 2022, 02:50:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 06, 2022, 02:43:40 PM
It's a recurring problem.  I would argue it speaks more to the ignorance of drivers than it does to the design.  But short of closing the road or relocating the tracks elsewhere (both being very unpopular), nothing will change.


I have no idea whether the following would be technically feasible, but I wonder whether they could use another set of railroad crossing gates to block the tracks except when a train goes through. That is, you have the standard set of gates for road traffic that goes down when a train approaches. These would be similar except they would block access to the tracks and would remain in the "down" position until triggered by a train, at which time they would rise to let the train go through.
Difference: Road gates malfunction, they can be fixed without hurting the train. Train gates malfunction, train can't move until fixed. Not good. Train would likely hit those gates as soon as they don't work right.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 07, 2022, 03:40:28 PM
Even though many of us know this stuff, here's an interesting video about I-81 posted today.

https://youtu.be/4Oa1diD9C_s
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on September 07, 2022, 05:34:14 PM
Quote from: plain on September 07, 2022, 03:40:28 PM
Even though many of us know this stuff, here's an interesting video about I-81 posted today.

https://youtu.be/4Oa1diD9C_s

Good stuff indeed. I had been aware of many of the issues, but it was good to hear about them in greater detail.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 07, 2022, 09:04:56 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 06, 2022, 12:30:20 AM
Quote from: dlsterner on September 05, 2022, 11:36:53 PM
Wipeout Wednesday"?  Can't say I've ever heard of that - and neither Google nor UrbanDictionary provided any insight.  Can anybody enlighten me?  Sounds like I don't want to be traveling on that day!   :bigass:

The day before Thanksgiving, perhaps?
OMG can't believe people don't know that term, yeh, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.  Its commonly referenced on the news.  Probably has the most DD's behind NYD.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on September 07, 2022, 09:06:55 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 07, 2022, 09:04:56 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 06, 2022, 12:30:20 AM
Quote from: dlsterner on September 05, 2022, 11:36:53 PM
Wipeout Wednesday"?  Can't say I've ever heard of that - and neither Google nor UrbanDictionary provided any insight.  Can anybody enlighten me?  Sounds like I don't want to be traveling on that day!   :bigass:

The day before Thanksgiving, perhaps?
OMG can't believe people don't know that term, yeh, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.  Its commonly referenced on the news.  Probably has the most DD's behind NYD.

Odd that a google search didn't reveal it...
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Wipeout+Wednesday%22&source=hp&ei=C0AZY56-DOOnptQP8eSCmAQ&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAYxlOGywoM8RF3hHEFvYi4rERiRJMSEes&ved=0ahUKEwje7-vLgIT6AhXjk4kEHXGyAEMQ4dUDCAg&uact=5&oq=%22Wipeout+Wednesday%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBggAEB4QFjIFCAAQhgMyBQgAEIYDUABYiwZg3QdoAHAAeACAAV6IAd4BkgEBM5gBAKABAaABAg&sclient=gws-wiz
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 07, 2022, 09:32:13 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on September 07, 2022, 05:34:14 PM
Quote from: plain on September 07, 2022, 03:40:28 PM
Even though many of us know this stuff, here's an interesting video about I-81 posted today.

https://youtu.be/4Oa1diD9C_s

Good stuff indeed. I had been aware of many of the issues, but it was good to hear about them in greater detail.

"But I-95 still needs fixed first..."

:ded:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on September 08, 2022, 12:09:39 AM
Quote from: plain on September 07, 2022, 03:40:28 PM
Even though many of us know this stuff, here's an interesting video about I-81 posted today.



It is nice to see some of those video essays in the community. Hope this kind of format becomes a mainstay.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: davewiecking on September 08, 2022, 03:20:43 PM
Latest video from VDoT discussing how they're spending money on I-81 that should be spent on I-95 instead. [/sarc] (adjacent I-581 interchange)

https://youtu.be/hQJ7yx8oxgc
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on September 09, 2022, 01:35:49 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on September 08, 2022, 03:20:43 PM
Latest video from VDoT discussing how they're spending money on I-81 that should be spent on I-95 instead. [/sarc] (adjacent I-581 interchange)

https://youtu.be/hQJ7yx8oxgc

Why would improving 95 make more sense?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 09, 2022, 10:11:05 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 06, 2022, 07:27:30 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 06, 2022, 02:50:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 06, 2022, 02:43:40 PM
It's a recurring problem.  I would argue it speaks more to the ignorance of drivers than it does to the design.  But short of closing the road or relocating the tracks elsewhere (both being very unpopular), nothing will change.


I have no idea whether the following would be technically feasible, but I wonder whether they could use another set of railroad crossing gates to block the tracks except when a train goes through. That is, you have the standard set of gates for road traffic that goes down when a train approaches. These would be similar except they would block access to the tracks and would remain in the "down" position until triggered by a train, at which time they would rise to let the train go through.
Difference: Road gates malfunction, they can be fixed without hurting the train. Train gates malfunction, train can't move until fixed. Not good. Train would likely hit those gates as soon as they don't work right.
This has also added to the problem. Focus less on the building and more on the barricades.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Iron_Horse_Restaurant%3B_Ashland%2C_Virginia.jpg/800px-Iron_Horse_Restaurant%3B_Ashland%2C_Virginia.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 09, 2022, 12:33:56 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on September 09, 2022, 01:35:49 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on September 08, 2022, 03:20:43 PM
Latest video from VDoT discussing how they're spending money on I-81 that should be spent on I-95 instead. [/sarc] (adjacent I-581 interchange)

https://youtu.be/hQJ7yx8oxgc

Why would improving 95 make more sense?

It's making fun of someone who doesn't live in Virginia. Scroll back a few pages in this thread.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on September 09, 2022, 06:00:04 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 09, 2022, 12:33:56 PM
It's making fun of someone who doesn't live in Virginia. Scroll back a few pages in this thread.

Didn't catch that tag, whoops. I still wonder how that'd go, though... I think some truck traffic could be diverted off 95, which could use the 66 Express Lanes well en route to the Front Royal inland port.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 11, 2022, 06:52:56 PM
95 needs to be like the NJTP, should be the first priority in VA.  Period.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 11, 2022, 07:37:44 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on September 08, 2022, 03:20:43 PM
Latest video from VDoT discussing how they're spending money on I-81 that should be spent on I-95 instead. [/sarc] (adjacent I-581 interchange)

https://youtu.be/hQJ7yx8oxgc
It's a good project, but I don't understand why they don't widen through the I-581 interchange. Regardless of local traffic volumes, I-81 needs to maintain 3 through lanes in each direction with no interruptions.

With the I-581 interchange in particular, you could also use it as an opportunity to relocate the southbound roadway to the median, allowing the existing I-581 off ramp to be located to the right side.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on September 11, 2022, 08:46:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2022, 07:37:44 PM
It's a good project, but I don't understand why they don't widen through the I-581 interchange. Regardless of local traffic volumes, I-81 needs to maintain 3 through lanes in each direction with no interruptions.

Two reasons.  First, there's 46K daily through traffic on I-81 through the interchange (2019 volumes).  While that is definitely not light, it is well within the capacity of 2 lanes each direction.

Second, 581 is a major enough traffic split where it makes sense for traffic to/from 581 to have its own lanes on 81.  Especially to/from 81 South.

QuoteWith the I-581 interchange in particular, you could also use it as an opportunity to relocate the southbound roadway to the median, allowing the existing I-581 off ramp to be located to the right side.

On this, I would agree.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 11, 2022, 09:38:59 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on September 08, 2022, 03:20:43 PM
Latest video from VDoT discussing how they're spending money on I-81 that should be spent on I-95 instead. [/sarc] (adjacent I-581 interchange)

https://youtu.be/hQJ7yx8oxgc

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2022, 07:37:44 PM
It's a good project, but I don't understand why they don't widen through the I-581 interchange. Regardless of local traffic volumes, I-81 needs to maintain 3 through lanes in each direction with no interruptions.

Quote from: froggie on September 11, 2022, 08:46:33 PM
Two reasons.  First, there's 46K daily through traffic on I-81 through the interchange (2019 volumes).  While that is definitely not light, it is well within the capacity of 2 lanes each direction.

Second, 581 is a major enough traffic split where it makes sense for traffic to/from 581 to have its own lanes on 81.  Especially to/from 81 South.

VDOT has been widening I-81 [west] of Roanoke for some time, and the segment just [west] of the I-581 junction is already showing up in early construction (ergo, grubbing and clearing) on Apple Maps (so most certainly, Google Maps is showing it as well).  The planned widening from Exit 143 to Exit 150 is just continuing that effort further north.  I-81 has already been widened from Ironto (Exit 128) -to- Dixie Caverns (Exit 132).  The other section (Exit 137 -to- Exit 143) has been under construction since the beginning of this year.  Apple Maps is not showing any construction between Dixie Caverns and Electric Road (Exit 141/VA-419) yet, but I wouldn't be surprised that it is already in progress.

http://vdot.virginia.gov/projects/salem/interstate-81-widening-exit-137-to-141---roanoke-county-and-city-of-salem.asp
https://virginiadot.org/projects/salem/interstate_81_widening_exit_141_to_143_-_roanoke_county.asp

p.s.  It's odd that these two adjacent projects are posted under two different website names for VDOT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Strider on September 11, 2022, 10:22:29 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on September 08, 2022, 03:20:43 PM
Latest video from VDoT discussing how they're spending money on I-81 that should be spent on I-95 instead. [/sarc] (adjacent I-581 interchange)

https://youtu.be/hQJ7yx8oxgc


No, I-81 needs the widening project badly. I-95 may carry a lot of out of state traffic, but I-95 is fine for now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 12, 2022, 12:06:23 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 11, 2022, 08:46:33 PM
Two reasons.  First, there's 46K daily through traffic on I-81 through the interchange (2019 volumes).  While that is definitely not light, it is well within the capacity of 2 lanes each direction.
The vast majority of I-81 throughout the state carries around 40,000 AADT, and it all needs widening. It's not just solely volumes, it's truck volumes.

The proper long term solution IMO would be to widen to 6 lanes through the interchange, and then extend the I-581 ramps to/from the south as auxiliary lanes to Exit 141.

But I suppose in a world where 4 lanes is the acceptable lane capacity for the non-urban areas, it should not be that problematic not widening it here.



On a separate note about I-81, VDOT plans to widen all of northbound I-81 between Christiansburg and Roanoke to 3 lanes by around 2030, but keep southbound I-81 between Exits 137 and 128 at 2 lanes... what is the reason for this?

The entire I-81 segment between Christiansburg (Exit 118) and Roanoke (Exit 150) needs to be 6 lanes, given this segment has heavier traffic than any other part of the highway in the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 12, 2022, 12:09:55 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on September 11, 2022, 09:38:59 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on September 08, 2022, 03:20:43 PM
Latest video from VDoT discussing how they're spending money on I-81 that should be spent on I-95 instead. [/sarc] (adjacent I-581 interchange)

https://youtu.be/hQJ7yx8oxgc

Quote from: sprjus4 on September 11, 2022, 07:37:44 PM
It's a good project, but I don't understand why they don't widen through the I-581 interchange. Regardless of local traffic volumes, I-81 needs to maintain 3 through lanes in each direction with no interruptions.

Quote from: froggie on September 11, 2022, 08:46:33 PM
Two reasons.  First, there's 46K daily through traffic on I-81 through the interchange (2019 volumes).  While that is definitely not light, it is well within the capacity of 2 lanes each direction.

Second, 581 is a major enough traffic split where it makes sense for traffic to/from 581 to have its own lanes on 81.  Especially to/from 81 South.

VDOT has been widening I-81 [west] of Roanoke for some time, and the segment just [west] of the I-581 junction is already showing up in early construction (ergo, grubbing and clearing) on Apple Maps (so most certainly, Google Maps is showing it as well).  The planned widening from Exit 143 to Exit 150 is just continuing that effort further north.  I-81 has already been widened from Ironto (Exit 128) -to- Dixie Caverns (Exit 132).  The other section (Exit 137 -to- Exit 143) has been under construction since the beginning of this year.  Apple Maps is not showing any construction between Dixie Caverns and Electric Road (Exit 141/VA-419) yet, but I wouldn't be surprised that it is already in progress.

http://vdot.virginia.gov/projects/salem/interstate-81-widening-exit-137-to-141---roanoke-county-and-city-of-salem.asp
https://virginiadot.org/projects/salem/interstate_81_widening_exit_141_to_143_-_roanoke_county.asp

p.s.  It's odd that these two adjacent projects are posted under two different website names for VDOT.
The widening between Exit 141 and 143 has been complete. Going southbound, the left-hand ramp from I-581 continues as a third lane to Exit 141 where it drops, and going northbound a left lane is added at Exit 141, and the through right lane becomes exit only at I-581.

The ongoing construction between Exit 137 and Exit 141 would tie seamlessly into this completed section.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on September 12, 2022, 11:18:27 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on September 11, 2022, 09:38:59 PM
I-81 has already been widened from Ironto (Exit 128) -to- Dixie Caverns (Exit 132).

Sorry, no, that is still two lanes in both directions and the northbound side needs to be high on the list for a third lane. There is a grade from just past the on ramp from the Ironto rest area that slows down traffic when two truck micro-pass. The southbound side isn't a problem but would benefit from an extension of the third lane to the north side of the Ironto exit to give a little more room to deal with the start of the long climb up Christiansburg Mountain.

Is there a way to mute the bleating of bluecountry? He adds nothing to any conversation with his "I-95 or nothing" rants.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 12, 2022, 11:40:40 AM
Quote from: VPIGoose on September 12, 2022, 11:18:27 AM
....

Is there a way to mute the bleating of bluecountry? He adds nothing to any conversation with his "I-95 or nothing" rants.

....

The forum has an "ignore list" feature. Go into your profile and find the "Buddies/Ignore List" link on the left side. Of course, you'll still see his comments when other people quote them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on September 12, 2022, 11:51:02 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 12, 2022, 11:40:40 AM
Quote from: VPIGoose on September 12, 2022, 11:18:27 AM
....

Is there a way to mute the bleating of bluecountry? He adds nothing to any conversation with his "I-95 or nothing" rants.

....

The forum has an "ignore list" feature. Go into your profile and find the "Buddies/Ignore List" link on the left side. Of course, you'll still see his comments when other people quote them.

Thanks. I never figured out how to use the ignore list in 11 years until this post. I too no longer wish to see his drivel.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 12, 2022, 11:56:18 AM
Quote from: Takumi on September 12, 2022, 11:51:02 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 12, 2022, 11:40:40 AM
Quote from: VPIGoose on September 12, 2022, 11:18:27 AM
....

Is there a way to mute the bleating of bluecountry? He adds nothing to any conversation with his "I-95 or nothing" rants.

....

The forum has an "ignore list" feature. Go into your profile and find the "Buddies/Ignore List" link on the left side. Of course, you'll still see his comments when other people quote them.

Thanks. I never figured out how to use the ignore list in 11 years until this post. I too no longer wish to see his drivel.

It's not a great implementation of a killfile. You will see a post with the notation "You have muted this poster" or something similar, with an option to click to show the post. It's not like Usenet, where you really didn't see the post or have any hint that it was made unless someone quoted it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 12, 2022, 12:07:57 PM
^^^^

The one that I'm unclear on is what the "buddies" list is for.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 12, 2022, 02:07:35 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on September 11, 2022, 09:38:59 PM
I-81 has already been widened from Ironto (Exit 128) -to- Dixie Caverns (Exit 132).

Quote from: VTGoose on September 12, 2022, 11:18:27 AM
Sorry, no, that is still two lanes in both directions and the northbound side needs to be high on the list for a third lane. There is a grade from just past the on ramp from the Ironto rest area that slows down traffic when two truck micro-pass. The southbound side isn't a problem but would benefit from an extension of the third lane to the north side of the Ironto exit to give a little more room to deal with the start of the long climb up Christiansburg Mountain.

Is there a way to mute the bleating of bluecountry? He adds nothing to any conversation with his "I-95 or nothing" rants.

Bruce in Blacksburg

Oops!  I checked everything from Ironto -to- I-581 yesterday, and still got it wrong.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MillTheRoadgeek on September 12, 2022, 03:49:13 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 11, 2022, 06:52:56 PM
95 needs to be like the NJTP, should be the first priority in VA.  Period.

Why is that so, despite the truckers on 81?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 12, 2022, 09:56:39 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on September 12, 2022, 03:49:13 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 11, 2022, 06:52:56 PM
95 needs to be like the NJTP, should be the first priority in VA.  Period.

Why is that so, despite the truckers on 81?

Because he travels on I-95 more than I-81 and doesn't want to be inconvenienced by heavy traffic on 95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: OracleUsr on September 12, 2022, 10:02:43 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 14, 2022, 09:24:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2022, 06:24:46 PM
If someone is coming from the west and wants to connect to one of the major cities in the Northeast Corridor, guess what highway they are going to take.... I-81. Granted I don't have experience with I-81 in VA, but I have driven the road further north in PA and its pretty damned busy. One of the highways that splits off and heads east with a bulk of the freight traffic is I-78 and nobody is going to say that isn't a busy/major trucking route!

And I'm also on this side. I'm not the only person I know who will use I-81 from NC to NJ/NY/New England (via 78-287 or 84) to avoid I-95.


I used to live on the northwest side of DC.  All it took was stop and go traffic in NOVA when I had to get to Maryland before 3 on a Saturday and I took 81 most of the time back home to Greensboro, getting onto 220 in Roanoke.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: elsmere241 on September 13, 2022, 09:20:05 AM
We had a family gathering in the Finger Lakes this summer.  My brother who lives in Fayetteville, NC wound up taking I-81 south to I-77 to go home - I'm not sure which way he went from there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on September 15, 2022, 11:00:33 AM
More funds for the Coalfields Expressway.

"The Coalfields Expressway, a road construction project that could transform the far Southwest's economy once completed, is one step closer to moving forward with a next critical phase that seeks to widen a 2.2-mile section within the so-called Corridor Q in Buchanan County to a four-lane highway.

U.S. Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, D-Va., announced Tuesday that they had secured $7 million in federal funding in the Senate appropriations bill to aid the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in the design and construction stages of the project.

The tax dollars are included in a $135 million package in federal funding for Virginia that is part of the spending bill for fiscal year 2023. The legislation is set to move through the Senate Appropriations Committee later this year, followed by a vote on the Senate floor and, later, in the House of Representatives."

See https://cardinalnews.org/2022/09/13/kaine-warner-secure-7-million-for-next-coalfields-expressway-project/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on September 15, 2022, 11:58:50 AM
Construction on a $140 million project to construct a direct flyover ramp from I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) to VA-168 South is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2024.

This project would be the first major modification to the I-64 / I-464 cloverleaf ever since it was constructed. VA-168 and US-17 were constructed / widened to the south of cloverleaf in recent years, however it all dumped into the antiqued 1960s cloverleaf and been a source of major congestion ever since the VA-168 Oak Grove Connector was built in 1999.

I-64/I-464 Interchange Ramp Improvements (https://virginiadot.org/projects/hampton-roads/i-64-i-464-ramp-project.asp)
QuoteThis interstate ramp improvements project will improve the interchange configuration of the ramps from Interstate 64 east to Interstate 464 north and south (exit 291) in the City of Chesapeake for a total of 1.62 miles.

Benefits

The project will construct a new ramp, providing a direct connection to Route 168 (Chesapeake Expressway). The eliminates the need to cross multiple lanes of traffic to go from the loop ramp to the split.

Major Milestones

As of summer 2022, this project is scheduled to advertise for the Request For Qualifications (RFQ) in fall 2022 and Request for Proposals (RFP) in early winter 2023.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 15, 2022, 10:22:42 PM
Quote from: elsmere241 on September 13, 2022, 09:20:05 AM
We had a family gathering in the Finger Lakes this summer.  My brother who lives in Fayetteville, NC wound up taking I-81 south to I-77 to go home - I'm not sure which way he went from there.

If I was coming down I-81/I-77, I would've hopped on I-74/US-52 in Mount Airy, NC, followed that to Winston-Salem, took I-40 to Greensboro, then US-421 to Sanford, and followed NC-87 to Fayetteville.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 19, 2022, 07:25:03 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 12, 2022, 09:56:39 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on September 12, 2022, 03:49:13 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 11, 2022, 06:52:56 PM
95 needs to be like the NJTP, should be the first priority in VA.  Period.

Why is that so, despite the truckers on 81?

Because he travels on I-95 more than I-81 and doesn't want to be inconvenienced by heavy traffic on 95.
Because I-95 is severely over capacity, it is one of the worst bottlenecks in the country, it connects and serves the nation's capital, megalopolis, and northeast to FL traffic. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 19, 2022, 07:25:28 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on September 15, 2022, 11:00:33 AM
More funds for the Coalfields Expressway.

"The Coalfields Expressway, a road construction project that could transform the far Southwest's economy once completed, is one step closer to moving forward with a next critical phase that seeks to widen a 2.2-mile section within the so-called Corridor Q in Buchanan County to a four-lane highway.

U.S. Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, D-Va., announced Tuesday that they had secured $7 million in federal funding in the Senate appropriations bill to aid the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in the design and construction stages of the project.

The tax dollars are included in a $135 million package in federal funding for Virginia that is part of the spending bill for fiscal year 2023. The legislation is set to move through the Senate Appropriations Committee later this year, followed by a vote on the Senate floor and, later, in the House of Representatives."

See https://cardinalnews.org/2022/09/13/kaine-warner-secure-7-million-for-next-coalfields-expressway-project/
Waste of money.  Boondoggle as Streetsblog would say.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 19, 2022, 02:26:00 PM
Forget 85 mph on I-366. This guy went a little faster.

https://twitter.com/FairfaxCountyPD/status/1571876878230913026
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on September 19, 2022, 03:20:30 PM
I know VA 28 is a straight stretch for the most part but damn lmao if the driver wants to open it up so bad then we do have a place called Virginia Motorsports Park
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on September 19, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 19, 2022, 07:25:28 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on September 15, 2022, 11:00:33 AM
More funds for the Coalfields Expressway.

"The Coalfields Expressway, a road construction project that could transform the far Southwest's economy once completed, is one step closer to moving forward with a next critical phase that seeks to widen a 2.2-mile section within the so-called Corridor Q in Buchanan County to a four-lane highway.

U.S. Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, D-Va., announced Tuesday that they had secured $7 million in federal funding in the Senate appropriations bill to aid the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in the design and construction stages of the project.

The tax dollars are included in a $135 million package in federal funding for Virginia that is part of the spending bill for fiscal year 2023. The legislation is set to move through the Senate Appropriations Committee later this year, followed by a vote on the Senate floor and, later, in the House of Representatives."

See https://cardinalnews.org/2022/09/13/kaine-warner-secure-7-million-for-next-coalfields-expressway-project/
Waste of money.  Boondoggle as Streetsblog would say.

Agreed. That money should go to I-81 instead.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Strider on September 22, 2022, 12:49:48 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 19, 2022, 07:25:03 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 12, 2022, 09:56:39 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on September 12, 2022, 03:49:13 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 11, 2022, 06:52:56 PM
95 needs to be like the NJTP, should be the first priority in VA.  Period.

Why is that so, despite the truckers on 81?

Because he travels on I-95 more than I-81 and doesn't want to be inconvenienced by heavy traffic on 95.
Because I-95 is severely over capacity, it is one of the worst bottlenecks in the country, it connects and serves the nation's capital, megalopolis, and northeast to FL traffic.

Sorry, there are HOV (or HOT?) lanes being built over there... you can take them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Strider on September 22, 2022, 12:52:53 AM
Quote from: OracleUsr on September 12, 2022, 10:02:43 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 14, 2022, 09:24:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2022, 06:24:46 PM
If someone is coming from the west and wants to connect to one of the major cities in the Northeast Corridor, guess what highway they are going to take.... I-81. Granted I don't have experience with I-81 in VA, but I have driven the road further north in PA and its pretty damned busy. One of the highways that splits off and heads east with a bulk of the freight traffic is I-78 and nobody is going to say that isn't a busy/major trucking route!

And I'm also on this side. I'm not the only person I know who will use I-81 from NC to NJ/NY/New England (via 78-287 or 84) to avoid I-95.


I used to live on the northwest side of DC.  All it took was stop and go traffic in NOVA when I had to get to Maryland before 3 on a Saturday and I took 81 most of the time back home to Greensboro, getting onto 220 in Roanoke.

I am the same. I always use US 220 up to Roanoke, and then take I-81 (along with I-78, I-287, I-87, I-84) all the way to New England when I visited Boston. I avoided I-95 until I reached Boston area. The only times I would take I-95 is if I am going to Baltimore or Philly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ran4sh on September 22, 2022, 02:24:42 AM
Quote from: Strider on September 22, 2022, 12:52:53 AM

I am the same. I always use US 220 up to Roanoke, and then take I-81 (along with I-78, I-287, I-87, I-84) all the way to New England when I visited Boston. I avoided I-95 until I reached Boston area. The only times I would take I-95 is if I am going to Baltimore or Philly.

Is I-78 - I-287 - I-87 a better route to Boston than just using I-81 to I-84 ?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 22, 2022, 11:40:12 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on September 22, 2022, 02:24:42 AM
Quote from: Strider on September 22, 2022, 12:52:53 AM

I am the same. I always use US 220 up to Roanoke, and then take I-81 (along with I-78, I-287, I-87, I-84) all the way to New England when I visited Boston. I avoided I-95 until I reached Boston area. The only times I would take I-95 is if I am going to Baltimore or Philly.

Is I-78 - I-287 - I-87 a better route to Boston than just using I-81 to I-84 ?

I wouldn't think so. More traffic and tolls. Other than Wilkes-Barre and Scranton, I-81 to I-84 is a very rural route, and more scenic too.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on September 22, 2022, 12:16:54 PM
Quote from: ran4sh on September 22, 2022, 02:24:42 AM
Quote from: Strider on September 22, 2022, 12:52:53 AM

I am the same. I always use US 220 up to Roanoke, and then take I-81 (along with I-78, I-287, I-87, I-84) all the way to New England when I visited Boston. I avoided I-95 until I reached Boston area. The only times I would take I-95 is if I am going to Baltimore or Philly.

Is I-78 - I-287 - I-87 a better route to Boston than just using I-81 to I-84 ?

78 and 287 can be pretty heavy in NJ.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Strider on September 23, 2022, 12:10:36 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on September 22, 2022, 02:24:42 AM
Quote from: Strider on September 22, 2022, 12:52:53 AM

I am the same. I always use US 220 up to Roanoke, and then take I-81 (along with I-78, I-287, I-87, I-84) all the way to New England when I visited Boston. I avoided I-95 until I reached Boston area. The only times I would take I-95 is if I am going to Baltimore or Philly.

Is I-78 - I-287 - I-87 a better route to Boston than just using I-81 to I-84 ?

No, I wanted to go that way to see which route works best for me as a driver, so that was why I took that route. But if you don't want to deal with heavy traffic, just use I-81 to I-84. I was fortunate to ran into less traffic that time and it was one of the rare times. Like others said, traffic can get really heavy on I-78 and I-287.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 29, 2022, 06:56:26 PM
Quote from: Strider on September 22, 2022, 12:49:48 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 19, 2022, 07:25:03 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 12, 2022, 09:56:39 PM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on September 12, 2022, 03:49:13 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 11, 2022, 06:52:56 PM
95 needs to be like the NJTP, should be the first priority in VA.  Period.

Why is that so, despite the truckers on 81?
Because he travels on I-95 more than I-81 and doesn't want to be inconvenienced by heavy traffic on 95.
Because I-95 is severely over capacity, it is one of the worst bottlenecks in the country, it connects and serves the nation's capital, megalopolis, and northeast to FL traffic.

Sorry, there are HOV (or HOT?) lanes being built over there... you can take them.
Except they are in one direction even though the corridor is hardly just a commuter zone.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 30, 2022, 09:05:47 AM
The following tweet appeared this morning. Note the VDOT logo. The survey is on VDOT's behalf. I assume members of this forum will immediately notice what I found amusing about the tweet itself.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1575799623419150337
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on September 30, 2022, 10:11:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 30, 2022, 09:05:47 AM
The following tweet appeared this morning. Note the VDOT logo. The survey is on VDOT's behalf. I assume members of this forum will immediately notice what I found amusing about the tweet itself.

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1575799623419150337

Three things jumped out at me:

The typo "you."

The fact that a hurricane warning is posted on the VMS board and there really is a hurricane that could impact Virginia.

TTI's involved and the font isn't Clearview.  :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 30, 2022, 11:15:04 PM
What stood out most to me is that it's a picture of the New Jersey Turnpike.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 09, 2022, 09:42:39 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 30, 2022, 11:15:04 PM
What stood out most to me is that it's a picture of the New Jersey Turnpike.
You think VDOT wants the same kinds of VMS signs on their coastal interstates?

:paranoid: [sigh] I still remember when the VMS signs of the New Jersey Turnpike was one of the features that made it so unique.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 12, 2022, 10:06:32 AM
A certain forum member will likely be enraged by this:

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1580196622499094528
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 12, 2022, 10:35:16 AM
^ I would like to see more focus on adding lanes, but I'm aware that will not likely ever happen in many areas despite their need.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on October 12, 2022, 08:58:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 12, 2022, 10:06:32 AM
A certain forum member will likely be enraged by this:

[tweet]1580196622499094528[/tweet]
I'm not enraged by this so long as 95 is the first and top priority.
To have 81 be the same width as 95 is absurd; meaning 95 needs to be bigger.

I was going to say, one area that NEEDS to be fixed is 81 from the US48 exit to 66.  That absolutely should be 6 lanes to 66; if not local/express.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 12, 2022, 11:53:27 PM
^ The southbound acceleration lane from where I-66 dumps onto the left lane of I-81 south is currently under construction being extended, and another project scheduled to begin in 2024 will extend this third lane to just beyond US-48, making southbound I-81 three lanes between I-66 and US-48.

There's currently no project planned for northbound, however.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/interstate-81-strasburg-area-widening-mile-markers-295.4-to-299.6.asp

Admittedly, while the whole I-81 corridor through Virginia needs to be widened to 6 lanes throughout, at the very least, every widening project that is planned should be both directions... it amazes me with the amount of these "one direction"  projects that are planned, as if the other direction does not need it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on October 13, 2022, 12:02:21 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 12, 2022, 11:53:27 PM
^ The southbound acceleration lane from where I-66 dumps onto the left lane of I-81 south is currently under construction being extended, and another project scheduled to begin in 2024 will extend this third lane to just beyond US-48, making southbound I-81 three lanes between I-66 and US-48.

There's currently no project planned for northbound, however.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/interstate-81-strasburg-area-widening-mile-markers-295.4-to-299.6.asp

Admittedly, while the whole I-81 corridor through Virginia needs to be widened to 6 lanes throughout, at the very least, every widening project that is planned should be both directions... it amazes me with the amount of these "one direction"  projects that are planned, as if the other direction does not need it.

I'd guess they are focusing on locations where width limitations notably increase the accident rate. It would explain the odd widening projects. But that's a guess.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on October 13, 2022, 09:48:00 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 12, 2022, 11:53:27 PM
Admittedly, while the whole I-81 corridor through Virginia needs to be widened to 6 lanes throughout, at the very least, every widening project that is planned should be both directions... it amazes me with the amount of these "one direction"  projects that are planned, as if the other direction does not need it.

Most of those cases involve grades where a climbing lane will help the traffic flow by cutting down on places where trucks micro pass and back up everyone else. The other direction (downhill) probably does need another lane but at the moment traffic flows as well as expected. One place that critically does need a third lane downhill is on Christiansburg Mountain between exit 118 and exit 128. There is at least one accident a week (in addition to the daily bad wreck somewhere on I-81) that blocks both lanes and the shoulder and ties up traffic. Like its companion southbound side, this section is a roller coaster with both long downhill runs and some uphill sections -- and no place to go once one passes the exit to the C/D lane in Christiansburg.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 13, 2022, 09:49:07 PM
VA 281 is fully posted properly now.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 13, 2022, 09:58:51 PM
^ Including from 895?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 13, 2022, 10:22:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2022, 09:58:51 PM
^ Including from 895?

That I don't know, but someone posted on Facebook that 281 is very well posted in the correct directions, with trailblazers at Seven Hills Blvd. I'm not currently willing to spend $5.20 to find out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on October 13, 2022, 10:58:13 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 13, 2022, 10:22:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2022, 09:58:51 PM
^ Including from 895?

That I don't know, but someone posted on Facebook that 281 is very well posted in the correct directions, with trailblazers at Seven Hills Blvd. I'm not currently willing to spend $5.20 to find out.
$3! From the east end.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on October 13, 2022, 10:58:28 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 13, 2022, 10:22:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2022, 09:58:51 PM
^ Including from 895?

That I don't know, but someone posted on Facebook that 281 is very well posted in the correct directions, with trailblazers at Seven Hills Blvd. I'm not currently willing to spend $5.20 to find out.
I might be able to find out next week when I go to the airport.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 14, 2022, 11:25:19 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 13, 2022, 10:58:13 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 13, 2022, 10:22:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2022, 09:58:51 PM
^ Including from 895?

That I don't know, but someone posted on Facebook that 281 is very well posted in the correct directions, with trailblazers at Seven Hills Blvd. I'm not currently willing to spend $5.20 to find out.
$3! From the east end.

The fact that the Airport exit has the same toll rate as Laburnum Ave (which is much closer to the main toll plaza) is utterly ridiculous. Should be no more than $1.50. And I say that loosely because the tolls are high AF for this area anyway. But $3 is certainly encouraging a lot of people coming from I-295 to find other routes to the airport.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 16, 2022, 07:26:54 AM
Quote from: plain on September 07, 2022, 03:40:28 PM
Even though many of us know this stuff, here's an interesting video about I-81 posted today.

https://youtu.be/4Oa1diD9C_s
Toll or no toll, I like the idea of separate car and truck lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on October 16, 2022, 08:56:50 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 13, 2022, 10:22:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2022, 09:58:51 PM
^ Including from 895?

That I don't know, but someone posted on Facebook that 281 is very well posted in the correct directions, with trailblazers at Seven Hills Blvd. I'm not currently willing to spend $5.20 to find out.
Can confirm that it is not currently posted in either direction. Strange, seeing as there's clearly a space on the BGS intended for a shield.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on October 20, 2022, 09:57:35 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on October 16, 2022, 08:56:50 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 13, 2022, 10:22:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2022, 09:58:51 PM
^ Including from 895?

That I don't know, but someone posted on Facebook that 281 is very well posted in the correct directions, with trailblazers at Seven Hills Blvd. I'm not currently willing to spend $5.20 to find out.
Can confirm that it is not currently posted in either direction. Strange, seeing as there's clearly a space on the BGS intended for a shield.

Took 895 east to RIC today, and they had posted one 281 shield on one of the BGS's, and were in the middle of putting a 281 shield on another. So it'll likely be fully posted in both directions on 895 by the end of the day today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 20, 2022, 10:59:29 AM
Quote from: Takumi on October 20, 2022, 09:57:35 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on October 16, 2022, 08:56:50 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 13, 2022, 10:22:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2022, 09:58:51 PM
^ Including from 895?

That I don't know, but someone posted on Facebook that 281 is very well posted in the correct directions, with trailblazers at Seven Hills Blvd. I'm not currently willing to spend $5.20 to find out.
Can confirm that it is not currently posted in either direction. Strange, seeing as there's clearly a space on the BGS intended for a shield.

Took 895 east to RIC today, and they had posted one 281 shield on one of the BGS's, and were in the middle of putting a 281 shield on another. So it'll likely be fully posted in both directions on 895 by the end of the day today.

It's about time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 21, 2022, 09:01:45 PM
For anyone interested, Google now has Street View imagery of the new High Rise Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7576077,-76.2955688,3a,75y,85.59h,83.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAoxe5OqusTcqc5n3IKXqFg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) in Chesapeake, VA.

The entire project is scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. In addition, the existing HOV lanes between I-464 and I-264 in Norfolk will be converted to HO/T at the same time. This phase of the project is already complete but will not be activated until the High Rise Bridge portion is complete.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on October 24, 2022, 07:26:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 12, 2022, 11:53:27 PM
^ The southbound acceleration lane from where I-66 dumps onto the left lane of I-81 south is currently under construction being extended, and another project scheduled to begin in 2024 will extend this third lane to just beyond US-48, making southbound I-81 three lanes between I-66 and US-48.

There's currently no project planned for northbound, however.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/interstate-81-strasburg-area-widening-mile-markers-295.4-to-299.6.asp

Admittedly, while the whole I-81 corridor through Virginia needs to be widened to 6 lanes throughout, at the very least, every widening project that is planned should be both directions... it amazes me with the amount of these "one direction"  projects that are planned, as if the other direction does not need it.
That is a mistake, the other week I was going from 48 to 66 via 81, and NB that merge on a weekday at 6 PM was very very dangerous.

And I am not against 81 widening, it just is that 95 needs to be the priority, and more than anything, we can agree, the VA highway system is vastly undersized relative to the use.

95 needs to be like the NJTP is from exit 6 to 9 from the beltway to Fberg, if not to 295.
81 certainly needs spot improvements, not a full 3 lanes, but spots.
I contest if 95 were to function, fewer would use 81.
I know many going from NOVA to Charlotte or NE to FL who use 81 where 95 would be shorter.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on October 24, 2022, 07:57:16 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 24, 2022, 07:26:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 12, 2022, 11:53:27 PM
^ The southbound acceleration lane from where I-66 dumps onto the left lane of I-81 south is currently under construction being extended, and another project scheduled to begin in 2024 will extend this third lane to just beyond US-48, making southbound I-81 three lanes between I-66 and US-48.

There's currently no project planned for northbound, however.

https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/staunton/interstate-81-strasburg-area-widening-mile-markers-295.4-to-299.6.asp

Admittedly, while the whole I-81 corridor through Virginia needs to be widened to 6 lanes throughout, at the very least, every widening project that is planned should be both directions... it amazes me with the amount of these "one direction"  projects that are planned, as if the other direction does not need it.
That is a mistake, the other week I was going from 48 to 66 via 81, and NB that merge on a weekday at 6 PM was very very dangerous.

And I am not against 81 widening, it just is that 95 needs to be the priority, and more than anything, we can agree, the VA highway system is vastly undersized relative to the use.

95 needs to be like the NJTP is from exit 6 to 9 from the beltway to Fberg, if not to 295.
81 certainly needs spot improvements, not a full 3 lanes, but spots.
I contest if 95 were to function, fewer would use 81.
I know many going from NOVA to Charlotte or NE to FL who use 81 where 95 would be shorter.

I feel like VA boxed itself into a corner with their prior attempts to fix 95 and now they're stuck somewhat.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 24, 2022, 09:56:41 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 24, 2022, 07:26:48 AM
I contest if 95 were to function, fewer would use 81.
I know many going from NOVA to Charlotte or NE to FL who use 81 where 95 would be shorter.
I question this claim. How much traffic is truly using I-81 to "bypass"  I-95? Sure, some traffic is, but I doubt it's enough to make the difference. The problem with I-81 isn't volumes overall, it's truck traffic percentages. The vast majority of this truck traffic is likely heading points southwest towards the I-40 and I-75/I-59 corridors into Tennessee & points west, not south toward I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 24, 2022, 11:24:09 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 24, 2022, 09:56:41 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 24, 2022, 07:26:48 AM
I contest if 95 were to function, fewer would use 81.
I know many going from NOVA to Charlotte or NE to FL who use 81 where 95 would be shorter.
I question this claim. How much traffic is truly using I-81 to "bypass"  I-95? Sure, some traffic is, but I doubt it's enough to make the difference. The problem with I-81 isn't volumes overall, it's truck traffic percentages. The vast majority of this truck traffic is likely heading points southwest towards the I-40 and I-75/I-59 corridors into Tennessee & points west, not south toward I-95.

I know I am doing so, but I usually get on/off at US 17/US 50/US 522 at Exit 313.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 29, 2022, 06:30:52 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 20, 2022, 10:59:29 AM
Quote from: Takumi on October 20, 2022, 09:57:35 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on October 16, 2022, 08:56:50 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 13, 2022, 10:22:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2022, 09:58:51 PM
^ Including from 895?

That I don't know, but someone posted on Facebook that 281 is very well posted in the correct directions, with trailblazers at Seven Hills Blvd. I'm not currently willing to spend $5.20 to find out.
Can confirm that it is not currently posted in either direction. Strange, seeing as there's clearly a space on the BGS intended for a shield.

Took 895 east to RIC today, and they had posted one 281 shield on one of the BGS's, and were in the middle of putting a 281 shield on another. So it'll likely be fully posted in both directions on 895 by the end of the day today.

It's about time.

I drove VA 281 today and it is fully posted. 

Also it looks like the roadway portion of the VA 10 widening between SR 732 and Rivers Bend Blvd is basically complete.  The signals are in-process of being installed along the superstreet section by SR 618.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 08:52:07 PM
Am I to understand that, although the mainline routes of US 15, 17, and 29 all are concurrent, their business routes in Warrenton are not concurrent.  What I figured out from Googlemaps is that US 15 Business deviates from both US 17 Bus, and US 29 Bus through the main part of the city.

Plus US 211 does not at all meet the three mainline routes east of Warrenton and ends at US 15 Bus. and US 211 Bus while concurrent with US 29 Bus as well?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 30, 2022, 09:16:29 PM
Yes, you're correct about Warrenton.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on October 30, 2022, 09:30:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 08:52:07 PM
Am I to understand that, although the mainline routes of US 15, 17, and 29 all are concurrent, their business routes in Warrenton are not concurrent.  What I figured out from Googlemaps is that US 15 Business deviates from both US 17 Bus, and US 29 Bus through the main part of the city.

Plus US 211 does not at all meet the three mainline routes east of Warrenton and ends at US 15 Bus. and US 211 Bus while concurrent with US 29 Bus as well?

You got it.  They're all actually reasonably well signed, when I lived in NOVA I took pictures all along all of them (the mainlines and business routes).  The one thing that was not quite up to snuff is that they couldn't seem to decide if 17 on the bypass was actually 17, because some signage kept 17 along what is really the business route. Though, I've seen that in other VA towns as well (signed as the business route from outside of town, but just labelled as the mainline in town).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 09:36:33 PM
Google Street view shows at the  South- West split of US 17 & 29 with US 211 that there is only guides there.  No shield showing US 211 turns right anymore.

I am guessing that before the bypass the current Business routes of US 17 & 29 were the original mainline bypass and that US 15 Business was the business routes for US 15 & 29 both back then.

I know US 211 used to concur with US 29 to the Key Bridge before the final segment of I-66 opened hence why there is a business US 211 in Warrenton to this day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on October 30, 2022, 09:41:10 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 09:36:33 PM
Google Street view shows at the  South- West split of US 17 & 29 with US 211 that there is only guides there.  No shield showing US 211 turns right anymore.

I am guessing that before the bypass the current Business routes of US 17 & 29 were the original mainline bypass and that US 15 Business was the business routes for US 15 & 29 both back then.

I know US 211 used to concur with US 29 to the Key Bridge before the final segment of I-66 opened hence why there is a business US 211 in Warrenton to this day.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7191568,-77.8071908,3a,75y,213.59h,82.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si2fcMZw170nLexpyIh4ZKA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7174503,-77.8079533,3a,60.9y,224.48h,78.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGXJZwYPn3ucA7kaP9oYvFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 30, 2022, 10:02:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 08:52:07 PM
Am I to understand that, although the mainline routes of US 15, 17, and 29 all are concurrent, their business routes in Warrenton are not concurrent.  What I figured out from Googlemaps is that US 15 Business deviates from both US 17 Bus, and US 29 Bus through the main part of the city.

Plus US 211 does not at all meet the three mainline routes east of Warrenton and ends at US 15 Bus. and US 211 Bus while concurrent with US 29 Bus as well?

Quote from: famartin on October 30, 2022, 09:30:26 PM
You got it.  They're all actually reasonably well signed, when I lived in NOVA I took pictures all along all of them (the mainlines and business routes).  The one thing that was not quite up to snuff is that they couldn't seem to decide if 17 on the bypass was actually 17, because some signage kept 17 along what is really the business route. Though, I've seen that in other VA towns as well (signed as the business route from outside of town, but just labelled as the mainline in town).

Both BUS US-15 and BUS US-211 in Warrenton all take stay on their historic routes as much as possible.  Those two historic routes were changed to ALT US-15 and ALT US-211 when the original northwestern bypass was constructed back in the mid-1930s.  US-29 did not get an Alternate Route co-signed with ALT US-15 along Falmouth Street/Main Street and Alexandria Pike/Blackwell Road, and US-17 replaced VA-17 in the early 1960s, so neither of those had Business Routes assigned until the current eastern Warrenton Bypass was constructed in the 1990s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 30, 2022, 10:07:24 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 09:36:33 PM
Google Street view shows at the  South- West split of US 17 & 29 with US 211 that there is only guides there.  No shield showing US 211 turns right anymore.

I am guessing that before the bypass the current Business routes of US 17 & 29 were the original mainline bypass and that US 15 Business was the business routes for US 15 & 29 both back then.

I know US 211 used to concur with US 29 to the Key Bridge before the final segment of I-66 opened hence why there is a business US 211 in Warrenton to this day.

There was no 29 business in Warrenton prior to the completion of the current eastern bypass.

This is likely because when the original bypass was completed in the late 1930s US 29's routing between Culpepper and Manassas was considered temporary.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 10:13:00 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 30, 2022, 10:07:24 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 09:36:33 PM
Google Street view shows at the  South- West split of US 17 & 29 with US 211 that there is only guides there.  No shield showing US 211 turns right anymore.

I am guessing that before the bypass the current Business routes of US 17 & 29 were the original mainline bypass and that US 15 Business was the business routes for US 15 & 29 both back then.

I know US 211 used to concur with US 29 to the Key Bridge before the final segment of I-66 opened hence why there is a business US 211 in Warrenton to this day.

There was no 29 business in Warrenton prior to the completion of the current eastern bypass.

This is likely because when the original bypass was completed in the late 1930s US 29's routing between Culpepper and Manassas was considered temporary.

That would even make more sense to the split in Business US 15 and Business US 29 today.  When the current bypass opened that created the US Business route for US 29 to take over for the now moved US 29 onto the newer road.  US 15 Business then kept its old original alignment through the city.

US 17 Business also followed its pre bypass alignment as well and because it veers off to the NW, it would have never had a loop to start with.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 30, 2022, 10:28:00 PM
There was a loop for VA 17 but VDOH chose not to utilize it and did not make a 17 ALT through Warrenton, which would have followed  US 15 ALT's original north exit via Winchester St.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 03, 2022, 01:38:26 PM
https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1588218050909769728
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 03, 2022, 01:40:50 PM
^This would be scarier than that time I saw a deer crossing the NYST with 6 lanes and 65 mph traffic south of Harriman.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on November 07, 2022, 03:29:00 PM
Why was US-29 from Warrenton to DC originally signed as US-211?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 07, 2022, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on November 07, 2022, 03:29:00 PM
Why was US-29 from Warrenton to DC originally signed as US-211?

US 211 was the original route. US 29 was added to the route on a "temporary" basis but that temporary situation became permanent.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on November 07, 2022, 03:38:17 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 07, 2022, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on November 07, 2022, 03:29:00 PM
Why was US-29 from Warrenton to DC originally signed as US-211?

US 211 was the original route. US 29 was added to the route on a "temporary" basis but that temporary situation became permanent.
So where did 29 terminate?


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on November 07, 2022, 03:40:23 PM
Different topic....

I was on the 95 NB express lanes, I needed to get off in PWC at 234.  I 'assumed' this would be allowed, I mean, what good do the express lanes do for PWC people if they can't exit?
WRONG!
I had to go to the 123 exit and U-Turn.
What a horrible decision, so PWC and Loudoun bound via PW PKWY cannot take the 95 NB express lanes, and are stuck in congestion?
Good lord, I hope this is on the plans to be fixed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 07, 2022, 03:41:56 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on November 07, 2022, 03:38:17 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 07, 2022, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on November 07, 2022, 03:29:00 PM
Why was US-29 from Warrenton to DC originally signed as US-211?

US 211 was the original route. US 29 was added to the route on a "temporary" basis but that temporary situation became permanent.
So where did 29 terminate?

It originally terminated in Lynchburg (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/us029.htm) before being extended to Culpeper.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 07, 2022, 05:57:01 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 07, 2022, 03:41:56 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on November 07, 2022, 03:38:17 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 07, 2022, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on November 07, 2022, 03:29:00 PM
Why was US-29 from Warrenton to DC originally signed as US-211?

US 211 was the original route. US 29 was added to the route on a "temporary" basis but that temporary situation became permanent.
So where did 29 terminate?

It originally terminated in Lynchburg (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/us029.htm) before being extended to Culpeper.

US 29 originally ended at Kings Mtn NC. 

It then replaced US 170 to Culpepper (170 was extended from Lynchburg then immediately renumbered as 29). 

Then US 29 was extended to Baltimore via US 211, etc. pending improvements to VA 28 and new DC bypass.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on November 07, 2022, 10:06:34 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 03, 2022, 01:40:50 PM
^This would be scarier than that time I saw a deer crossing the NYST with 6 lanes and 65 mph traffic south of Harriman.
I ran across the George Washington Parkway once to get to Theodore Roosevelt Island and waited for gaps in the traffic to do so.

The footage in this other instance doesn't seem real.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2022, 07:55:10 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/fkNf1UxngbSkbqcE8

Does US 301 follow Wythe Street EB here at the above image location?

It seems US 301 disappears between Crater Road and Adams Street in Petersburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on November 10, 2022, 08:11:42 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2022, 07:55:10 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/fkNf1UxngbSkbqcE8

Does US 301 follow Wythe Street EB here at the above image location?

It seems US 301 disappears between Crater Road and Adams Street in Petersburg.
Southbound turns left from Adams Street onto Bank Street
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2322695,-77.4029701,3a,75y,152.99h,92.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slzr9xv-z1jMPl1Edq7iwEQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Then right onto Crater Road
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2326978,-77.394124,3a,75y,62.05h,96.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBo_r6RqOVgSabCZFsuuWOg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Northbound turns left from Crater Road onto Bollingbrook Street
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2340626,-77.3946824,3a,75y,328.77h,80.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPS7evDAyyMogXDRtjsVKxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Then right onto Adams Street
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2327138,-77.4020736,3a,75y,273.6h,91.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbmPcI7H2MLg1LwW3fpm5lg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 10, 2022, 08:23:01 AM
Quote from: famartin on November 10, 2022, 08:11:42 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2022, 07:55:10 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/fkNf1UxngbSkbqcE8

Does US 301 follow Wythe Street EB here at the above image location?

It seems US 301 disappears between Crater Road and Adams Street in Petersburg.
Southbound turns left from Adams Street onto Bank Street
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2322695,-77.4029701,3a,75y,152.99h,92.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slzr9xv-z1jMPl1Edq7iwEQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Then right onto Crater Road
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2326978,-77.394124,3a,75y,62.05h,96.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBo_r6RqOVgSabCZFsuuWOg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Northbound turns left from Crater Road onto Bollingbrook Street
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2340626,-77.3946824,3a,75y,328.77h,80.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPS7evDAyyMogXDRtjsVKxw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Then right onto Adams Street
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2327138,-77.4020736,3a,75y,273.6h,91.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbmPcI7H2MLg1LwW3fpm5lg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Yeah I consider this to be the generally agreed upon routing since the replacement of the MLK Bridge back in around 2003.  Same with US 1 and US 301 ALT going straight down Adams to Washington/Wythe.

However, these reroutes were never incorporated in the official VDOT Traffic Data (https://www.virginiadot.org/info/2021_traffic_data_by_jurisdiction.asp).  The LRS Route Overlap (https://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?layers=77bd3dffa6e74d90be88800ee6de70c0) map seems to show US 1 as before, but shows US 301 ALT on Adams St.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on November 10, 2022, 11:36:30 AM
It's worth noting that Bollingbrook/Bank used to be one-way splits like Washington/Wythe still are. In recent years, Bank has become more pedestrian-focused, with a 4-way stop and some crosswalks. I'd personally drop Bank from the primary system and put 301 solely on Bollingbrook to Crater.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2022, 12:59:54 PM
Wasn't Jefferson once the NB US 1 alignment at one time?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 10, 2022, 01:08:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2022, 12:59:54 PM
Wasn't Jefferson once the NB US 1 alignment at one time?

Yes, the VDOT Traffic Data for the city of Petersburg (see my link above to access it) still shows that routing (and the Market St routing for US 1 SB).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2022, 02:31:33 PM
It don't show Henry Street NB though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 10, 2022, 03:05:13 PM
US 301's route has been the same since 1951  - see pg. 40 at https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-08-1951-01.pdf

They didn't apply for this change with AASHO until 1974 - first here - https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default, then https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=023c0ec6-53e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true

US 1-301 ALT NB used to use Jefferson/Henry/3rd/Bollingbrook; SB 301 ALT used 2nd/Henry/Adams.  1974 AASHO doc above has a map that explicitly shows this.  The posted route appears to have changed when they built a direct connection of Adams to then-2nd St in 2003.  VDOT traffic logs do not update in a timely manner.  For example, VA 337 ALT still gets a reported AADT on the segment destroyed by VA 164.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2022, 03:15:58 PM
Well considering the US routes are secondary to the interstates now, it really isn’t a concern anymore of replacing signs or going through the process of realigning routes inthe city.

Some states would just realign to the freeways or some cities like Montgomery or Indy would request the states to align outside the city, but where US 1,301, and 460 are concerned not many locals care about it existence in the city here and use street names over route numbers.

Plus VDOT not assuming maintenance within independent cities don’t help hence why US  60 is poorly signed in VA Beach along the Oceanfront area among many things with this agreement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on November 10, 2022, 11:19:53 PM
The posted route of US is the de facto route for it. It's the most direct connection to Washington/Wythe, and is wider than the other streets. There's nothing of importance on either Jefferson or Market anyway.

Also, 2nd Street actually still exists, though it's entirely under the MLK bridge.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2022, 01:26:42 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/g7xaqHUduV2bqdn87
The Tidewater Drive and Ocean View Avenue interchange is long gone as seen in aforementioned link.

Yet, Googlemaps still show it.
https://goo.gl/maps/cRnumZQrauJsVBmT9
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on November 12, 2022, 07:35:16 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 07, 2022, 05:57:01 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 07, 2022, 03:41:56 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on November 07, 2022, 03:38:17 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on November 07, 2022, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on November 07, 2022, 03:29:00 PM
Why was US-29 from Warrenton to DC originally signed as US-211?

US 211 was the original route. US 29 was added to the route on a "temporary" basis but that temporary situation became permanent.
So where did 29 terminate?

It originally terminated in Lynchburg (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/us029.htm) before being extended to Culpeper.

US 29 originally ended at Kings Mtn NC. 

It then replaced US 170 to Culpepper (170 was extended from Lynchburg then immediately renumbered as 29). 

Then US 29 was extended to Baltimore via US 211, etc. pending improvements to VA 28 and new DC bypass.
Ah ok so 211 never was used over 29.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: skluth on November 13, 2022, 02:57:55 PM
New pedestrian bridge (https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/pedestrians-take-advantage-of-new-walking-bridge-over-beltway-in-tysons/3204680/) open over the Beltway in Tysons. I'm assuming this is the location (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9161547,-77.2174076,18.75z/data=!5m1!1e2?hl=en) as it's only shown on the map and not the imagery.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 13, 2022, 05:20:12 PM
Yes, that's the correct location.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 16, 2022, 07:59:51 PM
A few VA photos worth mentioning:

1.  The "1" here would look really ugly for Central VA if those VA 10 signs were not still in Hopewell.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882404372266&set=a.10217882434013007)

2.  With SR 7592,  I guess that Chesterfield County is slowly catching up to Fairfax County in regard to SR Numbers.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217883219192636&set=a.10217882434013007)

3.  I am not sure why the VA 156 BUS bridge over Bailey's Creek has an Emergency Vehicle Weight Limit, but not any other weight limit.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882385251788&set=a.10217882434013007)

4.  So "Hanover Co" is being used here instead of "Hanover CH" on this distance sign on US 301 NB/VA 2 NB just north of I-295.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882373731500&set=a.10217882434013007)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 16, 2022, 10:45:40 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 16, 2022, 07:59:51 PM
1.  The "1" here would look really ugly for Central VA if those VA 10 signs were not still in Hopewell.
(https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882404372266&set=a.10217882434013007)

I didn't realize that any of these signs remained.  At one time, the huge single digit signs were scattered all over US-1, as were similar signs for VA-2 and VA-3.  I never saw any on VA-4, VA-5, VA-6, VA-7, VA-8 or VA-9, but some of these routes I didn't clinch until the early 1990s.  I vaguely recall seeing some US-11 signs with the huge font, but can't remember where.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on November 16, 2022, 10:49:25 PM
Looks likes the future US-15 Bypass /Battlefield Parkway interchange in Leesburg has a preferred design: https://www.loudounnow.com/news/leesburg/leesburg-council-picks-battlefield-interchange-design/article_df962986-64ea-11ed-8d3a-9b79661b32a3.html

(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/loudounnow.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/79/779d13b6-64eb-11ed-a96c-c34b1713d5e3/6373979e2a4b7.image.png?resize=1035%2C704)

Still likely at least a decade away but good to see progress.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 16, 2022, 10:53:29 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 16, 2022, 07:59:51 PM
A few VA photos worth mentioning:

3.  I am not sure why the VA 156 BUS bridge over Bailey's Creek has an Emergency Vehicle Weight Limit, but not any other weight limit.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882385251788&set=a.10217882434013007)

It's a federal requirement. This is the information Kentucky has posted:

Know Your Limits- Kentucky Bridge Weight Limits for Emergency Vehicles
Emergency Vehicles (EVs) are designed to be used under emergency conditions to transport personnel and equipment to suppress fires and mitigate other hazardous situations (23 U.S.C. 127(r)(2)).
Under this provision, the gross vehicle weight (GVW) limit for EVs is 86,000 pounds for vehicles traveling on an interstate or within one mile of an interstate (pursuant to Section 1410 of the FAST Act).

The Bridge Weight Limits map displays weight restricted bridges EV operators should avoid if they do not meet the posted weights. There are two ways to search for bridges in your service area that may be restricted from use:

    See our Weight Limits interactive map. Once on the page, click the magnifying glass icon in the top right corner of the map, select "gross posted or EVs restricted"  from the search layer dropdown menu, select your county, then click search. All of the bridges in blue have a known restriction. Double-click the icon to see bridge weight details. If the EV exceeds ANY of the four posted weight limits for the bridge, then the EV is not permitted to use the structure. See Interactive Map here.
    See a list of bridge weight limits for emergency vehicles by county here.

The statute authorizes the following additional weight limits, depending upon vehicle configuration: 1 ton= 2000 pounds

    24,000 pounds on a single steering axle;
    33,500 pounds on a single drive axle;
    62,000 pounds on a tandem axle; or
    52,000 pounds on a tandem rear drive steer axle.

If the Emergency vehicle exceeds the gross posting, the vehicle is restricted; otherwise if the vehicle exceeds any of the listed single axle, tandem axle, or EV gross posting- the vehicle is restricted from utilizing that structure.
Questions? Contact Division of Maintenance, Bridge Preservation, 502-564-4556.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 17, 2022, 08:24:22 AM
Yeah it makes sense to me HB that it is a federal requirement.  I still think it is odd that there would not be a weight limit for other vehicles as the ones I saw on the KYTC website definitely have a higher Emergency Vehicle Weight Limit than for cars or trucks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 17, 2022, 09:29:46 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 16, 2022, 10:45:40 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 16, 2022, 07:59:51 PM
1.  The "1" here would look really ugly for Central VA if those VA 10 signs were not still in Hopewell.
(https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882404372266&set=a.10217882434013007)

I didn't realize that any of these signs remained.  At one time, the huge single digit signs were scattered all over US-1, as were similar signs for VA-2 and VA-3.  I never saw any on VA-4, VA-5, VA-6, VA-7, VA-8 or VA-9, but some of these routes I didn't clinch until the early 1990s.  I vaguely recall seeing some US-11 signs with the huge font, but can't remember where.

These particular ones are brand new and were installed by Chesterfield County, since the name of the road was changed to simply "Route 1" last year (despite it also being US 301).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on November 17, 2022, 03:06:27 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 17, 2022, 08:24:22 AM
Yeah it makes sense to me HB that it is a federal requirement.  I still think it is odd that there would not be a weight limit for other vehicles as the ones I saw on the KYTC website definitely have a higher Emergency Vehicle Weight Limit than for cars or trucks.

At one time, there was a better link to the information about weight limits for emergency vehicles, but I couldn't find it.

This is definitely a federal directive. KYTC inspectors were told to check out all inventoried structures (20' or longer) not only on the state system, but local roads. There are signs posted now for non-inventoried structures such as concrete box culverts.

I really wish I could find the pertinent references, but they seem to have disappeared.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 17, 2022, 03:55:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 17, 2022, 03:06:27 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 17, 2022, 08:24:22 AM
Yeah it makes sense to me HB that it is a federal requirement.  I still think it is odd that there would not be a weight limit for other vehicles as the ones I saw on the KYTC website definitely have a higher Emergency Vehicle Weight Limit than for cars or trucks.

At one time, there was a better link to the information about weight limits for emergency vehicles, but I couldn't find it.

This is definitely a federal directive. KYTC inspectors were told to check out all inventoried structures (20' or longer) not only on the state system, but local roads. There are signs posted now for non-inventoried structures such as concrete box culverts.

I really wish I could find the pertinent references, but they seem to have disappeared.

Here is Virginia's version:  https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/bridge/Manuals/IIM/SBIIM86.4.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 17, 2022, 04:06:08 PM
From page 21:

QuoteAll posting signs apply to all vehicles, including EVs. As such, EV Weight Limit signs should generally be needed when either:

- If the structure is not currently posted, but EVs ratings do not rate then only the EVs weight restriction sign may be needed.

- If the structure is already posted but EVs rate lower than the currently posted weight limits (R12-1/R12-V6, R12-V2/R12-V3, etc.) then a determination of whether or not a new EV sign is required will need to be made. 

- If the structure is already posted but EVs ratings are higher than the currently restricted weight limits (R12-1/R12-V6, R12-V2/R12-V3, etc.) then a determination of whether or not a new EV sign is required will need to be made. If using the new EV weight restrictions can provide "relief" for fire departments where the EV rating is higher than the existing posting, but lower than the required capacity, then it can be used.

I guess the bridge I am referring to falls under the first category.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 17, 2022, 07:51:40 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on November 16, 2022, 10:45:40 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 16, 2022, 07:59:51 PM
1.  The "1" here would look really ugly for Central VA if those VA 10 signs were not still in Hopewell.
(https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882404372266&set=a.10217882434013007)

I didn't realize that any of these signs remained.  At one time, the huge single digit signs were scattered all over US-1, as were similar signs for VA-2 and VA-3.  I never saw any on VA-4, VA-5, VA-6, VA-7, VA-8 or VA-9, but some of these routes I didn't clinch until the early 1990s.  I vaguely recall seeing some US-11 signs with the huge font, but can't remember where.

Here's a 1956 Va. Hwy Bulletin photo of oversize VA 2:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2FThen%2520and%2520Now%2F2-207-301-feb56.jpg&hash=cd3c6a72579ee666362f1d5adcce9ff3dcad6d8b)

I also have pics of single digit numbers that are large within cutouts for VA 3, VA 5, VA 7 and VA 8 but i'm not sure if that's quite the same.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on November 18, 2022, 09:39:01 PM
The Skiffes Creek Connector between VA-143 and US-60 is now open: https://www.dailypress.com/virginiagazette/va-vg-skiffes-connector-opens-20221118-m4okj4ic75dijlnoqmipamhroe-story.html

I drove it today, it's a curious design for its stated purpose of improving truck access to I-64, seeing as the VA-143 interchange nearby is missing a few movements. I assume adding additional ramps directly to I-64 was not an option.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 18, 2022, 10:05:33 PM
^ Paywalled article.

It's funny you mention the stated purpose is "improving truck access to I-64".  The VDOT project page (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/hamptonroads/skiffes_creek.asp) shows a different purpose...to create efficient local connectivity between Route 60 and Route 143...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 18, 2022, 11:51:05 PM
^ All those warehouses that the connector meets up with on US-60... in order to access I-64, they have to travel through Lee Hall on 25 mph streets.

The connector will allow trucks to use VA-143 and access I-64 much more direct.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on November 19, 2022, 12:15:08 AM
To add, even though the ramp to I-64 WB is a direct ramp from VA 143 WB, trucks can still use the parking lot in front of NWSY Gate 3 to turn around to access it (if they desperately feel the need to do so). It might actually urge VDOT to build a loop from 143 EB to 64 WB.

The only other missing movement is from 64 WB, which is why it's signed at VA 238.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on November 22, 2022, 06:09:26 PM
Is anyone else having trouble viewing VDOT'S Richmond District traffic cameras? All of the other districts (as well as the city of Richmond) cameras are working fine.

EDIT: Nevermind, there working again.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 04, 2022, 10:48:14 AM
We were on the Beltway last night headed to L'Auberge Chez François and, passing through Tysons, I noted a rather interesting ground-mounted BGS on the right passing Route 7 on the Inner Loop. VDOT recently relocated the Dulles exit from the mainline as part of roadwork related to the HO/T lanes extension project. The left lane now becomes exit-only and the exit is now just before the Jones Branch Road overpass. It's still on the left and it joins the exit ramp from the HO/T lanes; the ramp is now two lanes, separated by a double white line you're not supposed to cross (I was quite nervous someone would cross it anyway and indeed they did).

So the interesting sign in Tysons is a vertical BGS with a yellow banner on the bottom reading "LEFT LANE MUST EXIT." It's the words "MUST EXIT" that I found interesting because I don't ever recall seeing those on a BGS in Virginia before. I associate those words with Delaware because they used to have a lot of signs phrased that way. Under the circumstances, though, I think it's very good wording because it's a ground-mounted sign placed on the right-hand side of the road (due to a lack of space on the left), so "exit only" might be less clear.

No pictures, unfortunately. I was driving with my wife and my mom in the car and I doubt I would have gotten a good picture anyway due to our position versus where the sign was–we were in the express lanes (no toll with three people!) and the sign was four lanes over to the right.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on December 04, 2022, 03:36:07 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 04, 2022, 10:48:14 AM
We were on the Beltway last night headed to L'Auberge Chez François and, passing through Tysons, I noted a rather interesting ground-mounted BGS on the right passing Route 7 on the Inner Loop. VDOT recently relocated the Dulles exit from the mainline as part of roadwork related to the HO/T lanes extension project. The left lane now becomes exit-only and the exit is now just before the Jones Branch Road overpass. It's still on the left and it joins the exit ramp from the HO/T lanes; the ramp is now two lanes, separated by a double white line you're not supposed to cross (I was quite nervous someone would cross it anyway and indeed they did).

So the interesting sign in Tysons is a vertical BGS with a yellow banner on the bottom reading "LEFT LANE MUST EXIT." It's the words "MUST EXIT" that I found interesting because I don't ever recall seeing those on a BGS in Virginia before. I associate those words with Delaware because they used to have a lot of signs phrased that way. Under the circumstances, though, I think it's very good wording because it's a ground-mounted sign placed on the right-hand side of the road (due to a lack of space on the left), so "exit only" might be less clear.

No pictures, unfortunately. I was driving with my wife and my mom in the car and I doubt I would have gotten a good picture anyway due to our position versus where the sign was–we were in the express lanes (no toll with three people!) and the sign was four lanes over to the right.

A left lane must exit situation is always a bit of a surprise, so hopefully there are enough signs to warn about this early on.

It seems like a good place to do it, though.  Shifting the left lane traffic onto 267 would mean that there is more room to allow for the merger of traffic coming in from the HOT lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on December 05, 2022, 05:22:15 PM
Does VDOT have a numbering system for state highways or are they randomly assigned? Anyone know?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 05, 2022, 06:50:06 PM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on December 05, 2022, 05:22:15 PM
Does VDOT have a numbering system for state highways or are they randomly assigned? Anyone know?

Virginia is on its 4th state highway numbering scheme...

1918-23 - routes were designated 1-28 by state legislature.  VA 10 is the only one still numbrered that way using some of its designated route.  VA 28 was never renumbered or decommissioned but extensions and truncations mean it does not follow any of its original routing.
See http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/VDOT%20logs/log1918.htm

1923-28 - more routes were added as 3 and 4 digit spurs; single digit routes were renumbered.  See http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/VDOT%20logs/log1926.pdf

1928-33 clustering system for the 8 Districts at that time.  District 1 had 100s, etc.  More 2 digit routes were added that crossed district lines.  See http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/VDOT%20logs/log1931.htm

1933 - mass renumbering to accomodate secondary system (600+ numbers).  Still clustered by district but numbered continuously from 59-283.  2-digit routes from before that weren't also US routes were retained.  See http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/VDOT%20logs/log1933.htm

new routes just took the next available number.  This stopped around 1940 and new designations don't follow any pattern.  Note Virginia went on a route eliminationtear in the 1940s-50s.  There was a state line renumbering in 1940 and an interstate renumbering in the late 1950s.
See http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/index.htm for other route logs available.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on December 06, 2022, 09:56:04 AM
The new northbound bridge over the Rappahannock on I-95 opened this morning:

https://twitter.com/VaDOTFRED/status/1600113611027857408
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 06, 2022, 10:55:55 AM
Now for the HOoT Lanes completion.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 06, 2022, 07:31:04 PM
PUBLIC HEARING SET DEC. 13 ON I-64 WIDENING PROJEC (https://virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2022/public-hearing-set-dec-13-on-i-64-widening-project12-6-2022.asp)T  (This is for the 6 lane widening between Exits 205 (VA 33 WB/VA 249) and 214 (VA 155)).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on December 06, 2022, 07:37:58 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 06, 2022, 07:31:04 PM
PUBLIC HEARING SET DEC. 13 ON I-64 WIDENING PROJEC (https://virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2022/public-hearing-set-dec-13-on-i-64-widening-project12-6-2022.asp)T  (This is for the 6 lane widening between Exits 205 (VA 33 WB/VA 249) and 214 (VA 155)).

Last time I was in that area, there were traffic jams every day. This widening will be good.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 06, 2022, 08:44:50 PM
Glad the next phase is making progress, and definitely glad it's starting from Bottoms Bridge eastward.

Note that it says full outside & inside shoulders. The section from I-295 to VA 249 was built with a 4 ft left shoulder. Maybe VDOT will stretch it out sometime in the future?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 06, 2022, 10:05:29 PM
More progress forward... this will fill approximately 10 miles of 29 mile "gap"  in 6 lane highway between Richmond and Hampton Roads.

Construction to begin in late 2023 and be complete by 2027 between MM 205 and MM 215.

I'm not sure on the specifics, but I believe the Hampton Roads district was planning a "Segment 4"  project (continuing from the first 3 segments they did between Williamsburg and Newport News from 2015-2021) for six lane widening between MM 233 and MM 226, also to be complete around 2027. I have not seen anything specific regarding that project though or any public hearings.

Assuming that project also gets let in the next year or so... expect a decent amount of construction zones between Williamsburg and Richmond over the next few years.

Quote from: plain on December 06, 2022, 08:44:50 PM
Note that it says full outside & inside shoulders. The section from I-295 to VA 249 was built with a 4 ft left shoulder. Maybe VDOT will stretch it out sometime in the future?
That section is interesting... it was built with a 4 ft shoulder but the bridges / viaducts have full 10 ft shoulders...

I imagine they'll just end up leaving it though, unless there's a pressing need to go back and let another construction project. I'm not sure why it wasn't built with full shoulders to begin with.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on December 10, 2022, 11:59:28 PM
Passing thru Arlington I noticed that many routes dont have a whole lot of reassurance markers... barely any signs on 29 & 50 to indicate it as such and its even worse on the state highways esp. 237 & 244. I think 120 isnt too bad but I bet its sparsely signed north of 66.

I dont even know why 237 exists and its super confusing that theres a ton of signs for it off I-66 Exit 69. Not a single sign on Washington Blvd to indicate that it is 237. The concurrency with 29 also missing

:confused:

Anyways, rant over.  :D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 11, 2022, 02:34:51 AM
Quote from: plain on November 19, 2022, 12:15:08 AM
To add, even though the ramp to I-64 WB is a direct ramp from VA 143 WB, trucks can still use the parking lot in front of NWSY Gate 3 to turn around to access it (if they desperately feel the need to do so). It might actually urge VDOT to build a loop from 143 EB to 64 WB.
I'm aware this reply is a month late, I somehow missed it before.

This would certainly be doable, and it appears a loop ramp could fit in existing forested land just east of where Gate 3 intersects VA-143, curve around with a wide enough radius to handle 25-30 mph, and have an acceleration lane on I-64 west over 1,000 ft long that could end just before the VA-143 overpass, and not require any bridge widening.

This actually seems like a relatively inexpensive project that should be constructed, especially to improve access to I-64 from those warehouses and connection in general to the new connector.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: oscar on December 11, 2022, 08:40:52 PM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on December 10, 2022, 11:59:28 PM
Passing thru Arlington I noticed that many routes dont have a whole lot of reassurance markers... barely any signs on 29 & 50 to indicate it as such and its even worse on the state highways esp. 237 & 244. I think 120 isnt too bad but I bet its sparsely signed north of 66.

Even the part of 237 west of Arlington is unevenly signed. 244 in Arlington seemed destined to be decommissioned (except at the VA 27 and VA 120 intersections) so local streetcar lines could run on Columbia Pike, but the streetcar project was canceled. There at least is 244 reassurance signage at the VA 27 and VA 120 intersections.

As for US 50, it's really hard to unintentionally stray from the route between Seven Corners in Fairfax County and the Rosslyn area of Arlington (which has decent US 50 signage). No need to post more US 50 markers along the highway.

US 29 once got a little confusing between VA 120 and Quincy Street, where US 29 was called Old Dominion Dr., and Lee Highway veered off the main road for about 0.6 mile. Now all of US 29 in Arlington County has been renamed to (and well-signed as) Langston Blvd., and the part of Lee Hwy that wasn't part of US 29 is now Cherry Hill Rd. Now US 29 is about as easy to follow in Arlington County as US 50, even with limited reassurance signage. 

BTW, I don't place a high priority on reassurance signage, except where needed to keep travelers from getting lost. Then again, one of my favorite highways has at least two 100+ mile gaps in its route signage, without anybody getting lost on the region's only highway.

QuoteI dont even know why 237 exists and its super confusing that theres a ton of signs for it off I-66 Exit 69. Not a single sign on Washington Blvd to indicate that it is 237. The concurrency with 29 also missing

The Virginia Highways Project page discussing 237 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va221-240.htm) (and other routes) agrees: "VA 237's posted routing largely makes no sense." It might've made more sense before the roughly parallel I-66 was punched through Arlington in the early 1980s.

As the VHP item notes, much of 237 east of VA 120 was turned over to Arlington County in 2018. There still is some remnant signage on the relinquished part of Fairfax Drive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on December 12, 2022, 03:49:42 PM
If only Arlington could take over the Washington Blvd portion, 237 can be cut back to just Pickett Road and clear up all the confusion  :D

I wish at the very least they would at least place the route number on the road name signs attached to the traffic lights so that there is at least *some* indication... there's a bunch of em like that along Columbia Pike
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 12, 2022, 05:53:45 PM
VDOT COMPLETES EXIT RAMP LANE ADDITION AT I-95 SOUTH RAMP TO ARTHUR ASHE BOULEVARD (EXIT 78) IN RICHMOND (https://virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2022/vdot-completes-exit-ramp-lane-addition-at-i-95-south-ramp-to-arthur-ashe-boulevard-exit-78-in-richmond12-12-2022.asp)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on December 13, 2022, 02:18:16 PM
Surprisingly, I don't think anyone here has said anything about the US 29/33 road work in Ruckersville.

I have multiple pictures of it, but they're not good. But, they are from September, things have changed at the site since then.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on December 13, 2022, 02:26:13 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 13, 2022, 02:18:16 PM
Surprisingly, I don't think anyone here has said anything about the US 29/33 road work in Ruckersville.

I have multiple pictures of it, but they're not good. But, they are from September, things have changed at the site since then.

This project?
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/33-29improvements.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on December 13, 2022, 02:31:21 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 13, 2022, 02:26:13 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 13, 2022, 02:18:16 PM
Surprisingly, I don't think anyone here has said anything about the US 29/33 road work in Ruckersville.

I have multiple pictures of it, but they're not good. But, they are from September, things have changed at the site since then.

This project?
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/33-29improvements.asp

Yes, that one.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 13, 2022, 03:59:39 PM
What does this electronic sign display? There's another one on the Bypass EB as well.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ARznTXDSgy8FP99b6
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on December 13, 2022, 04:01:15 PM
Quote from: plain on December 13, 2022, 03:59:39 PM
What does this electronic sign display? There's another one on the Bypass EB as well.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ARznTXDSgy8FP99b6

On the 10th, I saw the exact sign on my way to Waynesboro, I don't think it said anything.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on December 13, 2022, 06:51:10 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 13, 2022, 04:01:15 PM
Quote from: plain on December 13, 2022, 03:59:39 PM
What does this electronic sign display? There's another one on the Bypass EB as well.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ARznTXDSgy8FP99b6

On the 10th, I saw the exact sign on my way to Waynesboro, I don't think it said anything.

it is just a tiny VMS for incidents and what not

https://goo.gl/maps/YB74nWEENg1uM1QE8
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on December 13, 2022, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 13, 2022, 06:51:10 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 13, 2022, 04:01:15 PM
Quote from: plain on December 13, 2022, 03:59:39 PM
What does this electronic sign display? There's another one on the Bypass EB as well.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ARznTXDSgy8FP99b6

On the 10th, I saw the exact sign on my way to Waynesboro, I don't think it said anything.

it is just a tiny VMS for incidents and what not

https://goo.gl/maps/YB74nWEENg1uM1QE8

Those have got to be some of the smallest VMSs I've ever seen
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on December 17, 2022, 10:42:13 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 13, 2022, 06:51:10 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 13, 2022, 04:01:15 PM
Quote from: plain on December 13, 2022, 03:59:39 PM
What does this electronic sign display? There's another one on the Bypass EB as well.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ARznTXDSgy8FP99b6

On the 10th, I saw the exact sign on my way to Waynesboro, I don't think it said anything.

it is just a tiny VMS for incidents and what not

https://goo.gl/maps/YB74nWEENg1uM1QE8

Is that even useful? It's so small I don't see how someone is going to be able to read and decipher the message at speed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on December 17, 2022, 11:15:17 AM
A few weeks ago, new road signs were put up on a new F-1118 near Stanardsville, the new route number is on part of the old alignment of US 33.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52569435805_ffaa8e2671_o_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 19, 2022, 10:14:35 AM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 17, 2022, 11:15:17 AM
A few weeks ago, new road signs were put up on a new F-1118 near Stanardsville, the new route number is on part of the old alignment of US 33.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52569435805_ffaa8e2671_o_d.jpg)

Well, that's odd. Not only is there a superfluous S on that BUS 33 rectangle, VDOT needs to come up with a uniform way of signing business routes on the little rectangles if they're going to use them - US 360 BUSINESS in Mechanicsville is signed as "B360" and "C360".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 27, 2022, 12:08:32 PM
I did not see this shield for VA 6Y (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8458726,-78.8179524,3a,37.5y,309.49h,86.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAy7u18dyYKgeCTV0eeFaQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) when clinching VA 6 early yesterday morning.  I wonder if I may have just not seen it because if it is gone, then there goes the route in Travel Mapping.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on December 27, 2022, 12:20:48 PM
I don't remember it being there when I clinched VA 6 in 2019, but it was raining pretty hard when I was on that part of it. Given that that GMSV imaging is from 2019, it probably was and I just don't remember it, but I also vaguely remember wondering where 6Y was.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on December 27, 2022, 12:43:47 PM
Back in October, I was going to Lynchburg, so I obviously passed this intersection, but I did not see the 6Y sign either.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 27, 2022, 01:02:10 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 27, 2022, 12:08:32 PM
I did not see this shield for VA 6Y (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8458726,-78.8179524,3a,37.5y,309.49h,86.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAy7u18dyYKgeCTV0eeFaQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) when clinching VA 6 early yesterday morning.  I wonder if I may have just not seen it because if it is gone, then there goes the route in Travel Mapping.

I haven't seen anything in the CTB minutes about VA 6Y being decommissioned, so maybe the sign is just missing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on December 29, 2022, 12:35:31 PM
https://henrico.us/projects/short-pump-interchange/

Seems to be a renewed push by Henrico County and Short Pump to not only build a new interchange at Interstate 64 and North Gayton Road
but also somewhat reconfigure the Exit 178 Interchange (US-250 W Broad Street).

While both projects are obviously worthwhile improvements to the congested Short Pump area, I've always wondered why not also just simply connect I-295 directly to the John Rolfe Parkway? I'm assuming this option was at least considered before the new exit ramp from I-64 eastbound to I-295 replaced the old one but am wondering if Short Pump residents were either opposed to this or if there was another reason. Seems that a direct connection from I-295 to John Rolfe would save drivers a lot of time and help a lot with the weaving that takes places on I-64 between the I-295 and US-250 exits.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 29, 2022, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 29, 2022, 12:35:31 PM
https://henrico.us/projects/short-pump-interchange/

Seems to be a renewed push by Henrico County and Short Pump to not only build a new interchange at Interstate 64 and North Gayton Road
but also somewhat reconfigure the Exit 178 Interchange (US-250 W Broad Street).

While both projects are obviously worthwhile improvements to the congested Short Pump area, I've always wondered why not also just simply connect I-295 directly to the John Rolfe Parkway? I'm assuming this option was at least considered before the new exit ramp from I-64 eastbound to I-295 replaced the old one but am wondering if Short Pump residents were either opposed to this or if there was another reason. Seems that a direct connection from I-295 to John Rolfe would save drivers a lot of time and help a lot with the weaving that takes places on I-64 between the I-295 and US-250 exits.

Unfortunately with the level of development in Short Pump, a direct connection between I-295 and John Rolfe Pkwy would be extremely dangerous - the distance between the I-295 stub and the northern end of John Rolfe Pkwy is only a couple hundred feet, and that segment of John Rolfe Pkwy isn't owned or maintained by Henrico County anymore (they turned over the ROW to developers).

There probably wasn't significant community opposition to such a connection since Short Pump was basically completely undeveloped at the time I-295 was built - most of the development west of the I-64/US 250 interchange didn't appear until the early 1990s. In fact, Henrico County originally wanted I-295 to be on what is now John Rolfe Parkway, but Chesterfield County turned over its planned route to developers and VA 288 had to be shifted westward.

The N Gayton Rd interchange was included as part of the original plan to build the N Gayton Rd extension from US 250 to VA 271, and the ROW is already reserved for a potential future interchange (although the original plan called for a standard diamond rather than the DDI Henrico County plans to build).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 05, 2023, 11:54:44 AM
So I was looking at the VDOT ArcGIS map after posting a sign error in Abingdon on Facebook the other day and noticed that VA 372 no longer exists at Virginia Highlands Community College. It appears it was decommissioned in 2005, but it's still posted. (CTB minutes (https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/ctbMeeting2005SeptAgenda.pdf))

The same map shows a new VA 372 near Pocahontas Correctional Center in the geographical middle of nowhere but I can't find a reference to when it was designated.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on January 05, 2023, 02:36:15 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 05, 2023, 11:54:44 AM
So I was looking at the VDOT ArcGIS map after posting a sign error in Abingdon on Facebook the other day and noticed that VA 372 no longer exists at Virginia Highlands Community College. It appears it was decommissioned in 2005, but it's still posted. (CTB minutes (https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/ctbMeeting2005SeptAgenda.pdf))

The 140 and 372 circles?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 05, 2023, 04:01:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2023, 02:36:15 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 05, 2023, 11:54:44 AM
So I was looking at the VDOT ArcGIS map after posting a sign error in Abingdon on Facebook the other day and noticed that VA 372 no longer exists at Virginia Highlands Community College. It appears it was decommissioned in 2005, but it's still posted. (CTB minutes (https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/ctbMeeting2005SeptAgenda.pdf))

The 140 and 372 circles?

Yeah, those.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 05, 2023, 05:05:08 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 29, 2022, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on December 29, 2022, 12:35:31 PM
https://henrico.us/projects/short-pump-interchange/

Seems to be a renewed push by Henrico County and Short Pump to not only build a new interchange at Interstate 64 and North Gayton Road
but also somewhat reconfigure the Exit 178 Interchange (US-250 W Broad Street).

While both projects are obviously worthwhile improvements to the congested Short Pump area, I've always wondered why not also just simply connect I-295 directly to the John Rolfe Parkway? I'm assuming this option was at least considered before the new exit ramp from I-64 eastbound to I-295 replaced the old one but am wondering if Short Pump residents were either opposed to this or if there was another reason. Seems that a direct connection from I-295 to John Rolfe would save drivers a lot of time and help a lot with the weaving that takes places on I-64 between the I-295 and US-250 exits.

Unfortunately with the level of development in Short Pump, a direct connection between I-295 and John Rolfe Pkwy would be extremely dangerous - the distance between the I-295 stub and the northern end of John Rolfe Pkwy is only a couple hundred feet, and that segment of John Rolfe Pkwy isn't owned or maintained by Henrico County anymore (they turned over the ROW to developers).

There probably wasn't significant community opposition to such a connection since Short Pump was basically completely undeveloped at the time I-295 was built - most of the development west of the I-64/US 250 interchange didn't appear until the early 1990s. In fact, Henrico County originally wanted I-295 to be on what is now John Rolfe Parkway, but Chesterfield County turned over its planned route to developers and VA 288 had to be shifted westward.

The N Gayton Rd interchange was included as part of the original plan to build the N Gayton Rd extension from US 250 to VA 271, and the ROW is already reserved for a potential future interchange (although the original plan called for a standard diamond rather than the DDI Henrico County plans to build).

Gotcha. Very unfortunate that area wasn't better planned. Seems like such a waste and had a direct connection (or at least the ROW) been done/preserved before all of the development, perhaps the current costly improvements would not be nearly as necessary.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 05, 2023, 09:08:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2023, 02:36:15 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 05, 2023, 11:54:44 AM
So I was looking at the VDOT ArcGIS map after posting a sign error in Abingdon on Facebook the other day and noticed that VA 372 no longer exists at Virginia Highlands Community College. It appears it was decommissioned in 2005, but it's still posted. (CTB minutes (https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/ctbMeeting2005SeptAgenda.pdf))


The 140 and 372 circles?


yes (2021 GMSV) - https://goo.gl/maps/NLGXAfL35dKo9zqC8

Trying to determine what happened with VA 372.  The CTB reference did not make me believe it was entirely decommissioned.  And they also do not announce placing new routes into service every time that happens.

VDOT has a mileage report that includes a table with number of state institution miles in each district. State Parks have their own column. Both Abingdon and Pocahontas are in the Bristol District.

2005 says 9.64 miles of these routes in Bristol District.  This should be VA 330, VA 361, VA 365, VA 369, VA 372, VA 382 and VA 387 and checking my website the mileages are reasonably close.

2007 drops it to 8.40 miles

2013 raises it back to 9.64 miles

2017 raises it to 17.92 but lowers state parks to 0.58 (from 10.21).  Other district had this phenomenon too, zeroing out some state park mileage entirely.  Statewide state parks dropped from 31.82 to 13.45 while institutions went from 77.15 to 111.46.  Now (2021) it is 123.8 and 6.62.

2021 has 17.10 with state parks at 0.58.

Pocahontas Correctional Facility opened in 2007.  The route shown on arcgis as VA 372 is 0.5 miles long.  The arcgis has a recency date of 2/2/21 which is not necessarily the first date.

it appears the open 3xx numbers are 317, 357, 386 (still on arcgis), 392 (still on arcgis)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 06, 2023, 01:43:45 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 05, 2023, 09:08:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2023, 02:36:15 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 05, 2023, 11:54:44 AM
So I was looking at the VDOT ArcGIS map after posting a sign error in Abingdon on Facebook the other day and noticed that VA 372 no longer exists at Virginia Highlands Community College. It appears it was decommissioned in 2005, but it's still posted. (CTB minutes (https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/ctbMeeting2005SeptAgenda.pdf))


The 140 and 372 circles?


yes (2021 GMSV) - https://goo.gl/maps/NLGXAfL35dKo9zqC8

Trying to determine what happened with VA 372.  The CTB reference did not make me believe it was entirely decommissioned.  And they also do not announce placing new routes into service every time that happens.

VDOT has a mileage report that includes a table with number of state institution miles in each district. State Parks have their own column. Both Abingdon and Pocahontas are in the Bristol District.

2005 says 9.64 miles of these routes in Bristol District.  This should be VA 330, VA 361, VA 365, VA 369, VA 372, VA 382 and VA 387 and checking my website the mileages are reasonably close.

2007 drops it to 8.40 miles

2013 raises it back to 9.64 miles

2017 raises it to 17.92 but lowers state parks to 0.58 (from 10.21).  Other district had this phenomenon too, zeroing out some state park mileage entirely.  Statewide state parks dropped from 31.82 to 13.45 while institutions went from 77.15 to 111.46.  Now (2021) it is 123.8 and 6.62.

2021 has 17.10 with state parks at 0.58.

Pocahontas Correctional Facility opened in 2007.  The route shown on arcgis as VA 372 is 0.5 miles long.  The arcgis has a recency date of 2/2/21 which is not necessarily the first date.

it appears the open 3xx numbers are 317, 357, 386 (still on arcgis), 392 (still on arcgis)


Are you sure about 317? It's still listed as active in the VDOT traffic logs for Staunton in 2021. However, VA 333 has not been in them for some time.

Also, VA 386 is not only on arcgis, but on Google Maps as well, and was actually reposted in the field (https://maps.app.goo.gl/c7RaEhYD4ZpoYhy68) recently. When I went to Virginia International Raceway (off VA 119) in August 2019, the secondary route that replaced 386 (going off advance signage I assume 883) was posted instead, and advance signage has a JCT SR 883 sign still present.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 06, 2023, 08:53:39 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 05, 2023, 09:08:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 05, 2023, 02:36:15 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 05, 2023, 11:54:44 AM
So I was looking at the VDOT ArcGIS map after posting a sign error in Abingdon on Facebook the other day and noticed that VA 372 no longer exists at Virginia Highlands Community College. It appears it was decommissioned in 2005, but it's still posted. (CTB minutes (https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/ctbMeeting2005SeptAgenda.pdf))


The 140 and 372 circles?


yes (2021 GMSV) - https://goo.gl/maps/NLGXAfL35dKo9zqC8

Trying to determine what happened with VA 372.  The CTB reference did not make me believe it was entirely decommissioned.  And they also do not announce placing new routes into service every time that happens.

VDOT has a mileage report that includes a table with number of state institution miles in each district. State Parks have their own column. Both Abingdon and Pocahontas are in the Bristol District.

2005 says 9.64 miles of these routes in Bristol District.  This should be VA 330, VA 361, VA 365, VA 369, VA 372, VA 382 and VA 387 and checking my website the mileages are reasonably close.

2007 drops it to 8.40 miles

2013 raises it back to 9.64 miles

2017 raises it to 17.92 but lowers state parks to 0.58 (from 10.21).  Other district had this phenomenon too, zeroing out some state park mileage entirely.  Statewide state parks dropped from 31.82 to 13.45 while institutions went from 77.15 to 111.46.  Now (2021) it is 123.8 and 6.62.

2021 has 17.10 with state parks at 0.58.

Pocahontas Correctional Facility opened in 2007.  The route shown on arcgis as VA 372 is 0.5 miles long.  The arcgis has a recency date of 2/2/21 which is not necessarily the first date.

it appears the open 3xx numbers are 317, 357, 386 (still on arcgis), 392 (still on arcgis)


The 2021 traffic data lists VHCC Dr as being a town route rather than primary, but strangely enough it's completely missing from the Washington County and Abingdon traffic data logs prior to 2006.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 06, 2023, 03:24:52 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 06, 2023, 01:43:45 AM

Are you sure about 317? It's still listed as active in the VDOT traffic logs for Staunton in 2021. However, VA 333 has not been in them for some time.

Also, VA 386 is not only on arcgis, but on Google Maps as well, and was actually reposted in the field (https://maps.app.goo.gl/c7RaEhYD4ZpoYhy68) recently. When I went to Virginia International Raceway (off VA 119) in August 2019, the secondary route that replaced 386 (going off advance signage I assume 883) was posted instead, and advance signage has a JCT SR 883 sign still present.

The traffic logs have to be scrutinized with what they say.  Most of the 3xx routes are not on them.  It also has inaccuracies - 337 ALT in Portsmouth is still shown to meet US 58/VA 141 even though VA 164 made that impossible several years ago.  They even give it a different traffic count every year.

317 was on VDOT's on-line map several years ago, but is definitely not on the current arcgis.  Its inclusion on the traffic log made me believe it existed even though it made no sense given that VA 333 served the correctional facility, which closed in early 2000s.  VA 317 served a road that leads to condos that were built after the state relinquished the property and 2009 GMSV shows signs touting the condos and the road looked newly rehabbed.

Odd regarding VA 386, but another shield error with the circle 386...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 06, 2023, 04:46:38 PM
Technically the circle isn't the error there :-D

When was the last time the CTB released a route log? 2007?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 06, 2023, 05:16:24 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 06, 2023, 04:46:38 PM
Technically the circle isn't the error there :-D

When was the last time the CTB released a route log? 2007?

2003. I emailed VDOT several years ago asking if that was ever going to be updated. The response acted like I was crazy for asking.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 07, 2023, 01:01:31 AM
At this point it needs to be, with several 3xx routes' existence in dispute.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 07, 2023, 11:06:03 AM
At this point, I would hazard a bet that whatever GIS dataset VDOT submits to FHWA to meet ARNOLD requirements (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/arnold.cfm) is now considered their "route log"...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 13, 2023, 12:56:45 AM
I don’t think this has been posted here yet, but a couple years ago the city of Suffolk voted to replace the demolished Kings Highway Bridge with a new bridge to the south, crossing the river at an extension of Five Mile Road where it would go due west to VA 10/32. This was chosen over the original location, despite being more expensive, due to potential traffic concerns on the west side of the river. Presumably VA 125 would be rerouted if this ever comes to fruition.
https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/suffolk/suffolk-city-staff-recommends-rebuilding-kings-highway-bridge-on-new-route/

https://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2021/10/20/council-approves-fund-search-for-new-kings-highway-bridge/

As of today it appears to still be unfunded.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 13, 2023, 10:31:58 AM
Quote from: Takumi on January 13, 2023, 12:56:45 AM
I don't think this has been posted here yet, but a couple years ago the city of Suffolk voted to replace the demolished Kings Highway Bridge with a new bridge to the south, crossing the river at an extension of Five Mile Road where it would go due west to VA 10/32. This was chosen over the original location, despite being more expensive, due to potential traffic concerns on the west side of the river. Presumably VA 125 would be rerouted if this ever comes to fruition.
https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/suffolk/suffolk-city-staff-recommends-rebuilding-kings-highway-bridge-on-new-route/

https://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2021/10/20/council-approves-fund-search-for-new-kings-highway-bridge/

As of today it appears to still be unfunded.



I'm honestly surprised VA 125 hasn't just been decommissioned as it doesn't really serve much of a purpose, and I'm not sure how useful it would still be if the bridge is replaced, given that you can pretty much use Crittenden Road to make the same connection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 13, 2023, 10:36:41 AM
The AP Hill monument in the middle of the Hermitage Rd (VA 161) and Laburnum Ave (VA 197) intersection in north Richmond has been removed and the site paved over, but the result is a weirdly configured intersection where lots of accidents occur (granted, this was also a major problem when the monument was still there). This intersection would probably benefit from a roundabout (and the ROW exists for it) but Richmond City Council passed an ordinance in the mid-2000s prohibiting a roundabout from being built here. That ordinance probably needs to be repealed.

I've also seen ideas about prohibiting left turns at this intersection, but the side roads are inadequate for making the missing connections.

https://twitter.com/ImBrendanKing/status/1613850204435894272
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 13, 2023, 10:46:32 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 13, 2023, 10:31:58 AM
Quote from: Takumi on January 13, 2023, 12:56:45 AM
I don't think this has been posted here yet, but a couple years ago the city of Suffolk voted to replace the demolished Kings Highway Bridge with a new bridge to the south, crossing the river at an extension of Five Mile Road where it would go due west to VA 10/32. This was chosen over the original location, despite being more expensive, due to potential traffic concerns on the west side of the river. Presumably VA 125 would be rerouted if this ever comes to fruition.
https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/suffolk/suffolk-city-staff-recommends-rebuilding-kings-highway-bridge-on-new-route/

https://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2021/10/20/council-approves-fund-search-for-new-kings-highway-bridge/

As of today it appears to still be unfunded.



I'm honestly surprised VA 125 hasn't just been decommissioned as it doesn't really serve much of a purpose, and I'm not sure how useful it would still be if the bridge is replaced, given that you can pretty much use Crittenden Road to make the same connection.

The rationale according to the city's public works director was redundancy if there's an accident on 664 or 17, and their traffic estimate was 10-12000 vehicles a day, enough to keep it in the primary system. That said, it should definitely be dropped north of the river.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 13, 2023, 10:55:19 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 13, 2023, 10:36:41 AM
The AP Hill monument in the middle of the Hermitage Rd (VA 161) and Laburnum Ave (VA 197) intersection in north Richmond has been removed and the site paved over, but the result is a weirdly configured intersection where lots of accidents occur (granted, this was also a major problem when the monument was still there). This intersection would probably benefit from a roundabout (and the ROW exists for it) but Richmond City Council passed an ordinance in the mid-2000s prohibiting a roundabout from being built here. That ordinance probably needs to be repealed.

I've also seen ideas about prohibiting left turns at this intersection, but the side roads are inadequate for making the missing connections.

A lot of the time, the monument made the intersection function like a roundabout anyway. As it is, it just looks chaotic.

In other area news, another one of Chesterfield’s traffic calming projects went live yesterday, with the intersection of Branders Bridge Road and Lakeview Avenue west of Colonial Heights being turned into a 4-way stop. Before, Lakeview traffic had the right of way. I don’t recall there ever being any accidents at this intersection, but I do think this helps Branders Bridge traffic, because it could often get backed up if someone was waiting to make a left turn onto Lakeview. I’ve heard the ultimate plan is to convert the intersection into a roundabout, but it appears to be unfunded.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 13, 2023, 01:10:34 PM
QuoteIn other area news, another one of Chesterfield's traffic calming projects went live yesterday, with the intersection of Branders Bridge Road and Lakeview Avenue west of Colonial Heights being turned into a 4-way stop. Before, Lakeview traffic had the right of way. I don't recall there ever being any accidents at this intersection, but I do think this helps Branders Bridge traffic, because it could often get backed up if someone was waiting to make a left turn onto Lakeview. I've heard the ultimate plan is to convert the intersection into a roundabout, but it appears to be unfunded.

Yeah I agree with you with my limited remembrance of that intersection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: famartin on January 13, 2023, 02:20:55 PM
Any number of things would fix that, like a normal turn signal with left turn only lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 13, 2023, 02:43:04 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 13, 2023, 10:36:41 AM
The AP Hill monument in the middle of the Hermitage Rd (VA 161) and Laburnum Ave (VA 197) intersection in north Richmond has been removed and the site paved over, but the result is a weirdly configured intersection where lots of accidents occur (granted, this was also a major problem when the monument was still there). This intersection would probably benefit from a roundabout (and the ROW exists for it) but Richmond City Council passed an ordinance in the mid-2000s prohibiting a roundabout from being built here. That ordinance probably needs to be repealed.

I've also seen ideas about prohibiting left turns at this intersection, but the side roads are inadequate for making the missing connections.

https://twitter.com/ImBrendanKing/status/1613850204435894272

Left turn signals (EDIT: and left turn lanes) with a simple lead-lag operation at this intersection would work wonders.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 13, 2023, 03:46:09 PM
2 of the 4 quadrants at one time had neighborhood clovers utilizing 3 rights to turn left:  197 WB to 161 SB and 161 SB to 197 EB.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on January 13, 2023, 09:50:01 PM
Would it be possible to add some markings like this?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52625147537_d53b919dbf_o.png)
VA-197 @ VA-161 Edited (https://flic.kr/p/2obiCVX) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 14, 2023, 12:07:25 AM
Why not just add simple turning lanes and configure it into a normal intersection? All of this innovative stuff just seems confusing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on January 14, 2023, 12:08:31 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 13, 2023, 09:50:01 PM
Would it be possible to add some markings like this?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52625147537_d53b919dbf_o.png)
VA-197 @ VA-161 Edited (https://flic.kr/p/2obiCVX) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
See the current state of the Bridgeport, NY roundabout on NY 31.  Blech.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on January 14, 2023, 02:42:42 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2023, 12:07:25 AM
Why not just add simple turning lanes and configure it into a normal intersection? All of this innovative stuff just seems confusing.

If they don't need two through lanes, that would be fine.

My concept just paints a box where traffic should yield, and gets them out of the way of through traffic. Not really that innovative.

Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2023, 12:08:31 AM
See the current state of the Bridgeport, NY roundabout on NY 31.  Blech.

Was this reply meant for me? I don't see what that completed roundabout has to do with what I drew up.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 14, 2023, 10:39:58 AM
It needs two thru lanes (especially on Laburnum Ave) but there's room in the median to add the turn lanes on both streets. The utility poles in the median on the north leg would have to be moved but it's very doable.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on January 14, 2023, 10:55:48 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 14, 2023, 02:42:42 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2023, 12:07:25 AM
Why not just add simple turning lanes and configure it into a normal intersection? All of this innovative stuff just seems confusing.

If they don't need two through lanes, that would be fine.

My concept just paints a box where traffic should yield, and gets them out of the way of through traffic. Not really that innovative.

Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2023, 12:08:31 AM
See the current state of the Bridgeport, NY roundabout on NY 31.  Blech.

Was this reply meant for me? I don't see what that completed roundabout has to do with what I drew up.
It's hardly "complete" and is an example of why minimalistic approaches to markings don't work out very well. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 14, 2023, 11:09:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 14, 2023, 02:42:42 AM
If they don't need two through lanes, that would be fine.

My concept just paints a box where traffic should yield, and gets them out of the way of through traffic. Not really that innovative.
It works until you have more than one car turning left, blocking up the left thru lane.

And I'd be willing to bet, to the average driver, those intersection markings will cause more confusion then help.

Why not add turn lanes in the median? There's adequate space.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 14, 2023, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2023, 11:09:18 AM
Why not add turn lanes in the median? There's adequate space.

Longer-term, sure.  But that would require some construction which would trigger environmental review and, depending on who's funding it, competing with other SmartScale projects.

Paint/striping can be done much more quickly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 14, 2023, 05:44:03 PM
It seems the intersection shouldn't have been redone at all unless they were going to properly add turn lanes to begin with.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on January 14, 2023, 06:44:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2023, 10:55:48 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 14, 2023, 02:42:42 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2023, 12:08:31 AM
See the current state of the Bridgeport, NY roundabout on NY 31.  Blech.

Was this reply meant for me? I don't see what that completed roundabout has to do with what I drew up.

It's hardly "complete" and is an example of why minimalistic approaches to markings don't work out very well.

Meh. Looks just fine to me.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on January 14, 2023, 06:51:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 14, 2023, 11:09:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 14, 2023, 02:42:42 AM
If they don't need two through lanes, that would be fine.

My concept just paints a box where traffic should yield, and gets them out of the way of through traffic. Not really that innovative.
It works until you have more than one car turning left, blocking up the left thru lane.

And I'd be willing to bet, to the average driver, those intersection markings will cause more confusion then help.

From my layman's perspective, at least two, maybe three normal-sized cars should be able to squeeze into the left turn box, out of the way of through traffic.

I don't think the extra markings are confusing. They are all markings used in the MUTCD.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on January 16, 2023, 11:02:42 PM
Do the engineers who designed this intersection think this is Europe?  This is stuff one sees in foreign countries.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 17, 2023, 10:27:13 AM
(For I-64, US 17, and VA 171)  CONSTRUCTION SET TO BEGIN ON OYSTER POINT RAMP ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN NEWPORT NEWS (https://virginiadot.org/newsroom/hampton_roads/2023/construction_set_to_begin198022.asp)

QuoteThe project, starting as early as Jan. 10, will widen the Interstate 64 east on-ramps located at the interchanges of J. Clyde Morris Boulevard (Route 17) and Oyster Point Road (Route 171) from single-lane ramps to two-lane ramps. These improvements will add capacity to the on-ramps, streamline flow to the interstate and provide congestion relief from overflow onto local streets during peak travel periods. Each of the on-ramps will be widened to two lanes, with traffic then merging to a single lane before entering the interstate.

(For I-64, I-85, and I-95)  FIVE OVERHEIGHT VEHICLE DETECTION SYSTEMS ADDED ON RICHMOND DISTRICT INTERSTATES (https://virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2023/five_overheight_vehicle_detection198095.asp)

QuoteThe new detection systems will flag overheight vehicles at the following locations:

I-95 north at mile marker 41.5 (Templeton) in Prince George County
I-64 west at mile marker 207.4 (two miles east of Bottoms Bridge) in New Kent County
I-95 south mile marker 88.7 (just south of Lewistown Road) in Hanover County
I-64 east at mile marker 172.6 (just west of Rockville) in Goochland County
I-85 north at mile marker 60 (one mile south of Route 460) in Dinwiddie County
Quote"We have seen 54 bridge strikes on interstate overpasses in the City of Richmond since 2018,"  said Tanveer Chowdhury, PE, Richmond District Maintenance Engineer. "Many of the overpasses within city limits have existing low vertical height clearances, and most have Richmond city utilities such as gas and water running beneath the bridge decks. The same concerns extend to bridges in Colonial Heights and Petersburg."

I noticed the one on I-95 SB north of Richmond back in December.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on January 17, 2023, 06:44:23 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 16, 2023, 11:02:42 PM
Do the engineers who designed this intersection think this is Europe?  This is stuff one sees in foreign countries.

It's just a four way intersection with no turn lanes, it's pretty common. Unless you're referring to the original design with the monument in the middle.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 17, 2023, 06:45:43 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 17, 2023, 10:27:13 AM
(For I-64, I-85, and I-95)  FIVE OVERHEIGHT VEHICLE DETECTION SYSTEMS ADDED ON RICHMOND DISTRICT INTERSTATES (https://virginiadot.org/newsroom/richmond/2023/five_overheight_vehicle_detection198095.asp)

QuoteThe new detection systems will flag overheight vehicles at the following locations:

I-95 north at mile marker 41.5 (Templeton) in Prince George County
I-64 west at mile marker 207.4 (two miles east of Bottoms Bridge) in New Kent County
I-95 south mile marker 88.7 (just south of Lewistown Road) in Hanover County
I-64 east at mile marker 172.6 (just west of Rockville) in Goochland County
I-85 north at mile marker 60 (one mile south of Route 460) in Dinwiddie County
Quote"We have seen 54 bridge strikes on interstate overpasses in the City of Richmond since 2018,"  said Tanveer Chowdhury, PE, Richmond District Maintenance Engineer. "Many of the overpasses within city limits have existing low vertical height clearances, and most have Richmond city utilities such as gas and water running beneath the bridge decks. The same concerns extend to bridges in Colonial Heights and Petersburg."

I noticed the one on I-95 SB north of Richmond back in December.
I noticed this on I-64 east of Richmond heading west recently as well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on January 18, 2023, 01:40:48 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 17, 2023, 06:44:23 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 16, 2023, 11:02:42 PM
Do the engineers who designed this intersection think this is Europe?  This is stuff one sees in foreign countries.

It's just a four way intersection with no turn lanes, it's pretty common. Unless you're referring to the original design with the monument in the middle.
No, this current design.  Maybe there needs to be dashed lane lines through this intersection like this: https://goo.gl/maps/KyXzBPuLBMYD7HTAA
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 18, 2023, 12:05:55 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 18, 2023, 01:40:48 AM
Maybe there needs to be dashed lane lines through this intersection like this: https://goo.gl/maps/KyXzBPuLBMYD7HTAA

Quite amusing, since the one car in the intersection did not stay on the correct side of the line.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 18, 2023, 12:55:36 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on January 18, 2023, 12:05:55 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 18, 2023, 01:40:48 AM
Maybe there needs to be dashed lane lines through this intersection like this: https://goo.gl/maps/KyXzBPuLBMYD7HTAA

Quite amusing, since the one car in the intersection did not stay on the correct side of the line.
Which car, exactly?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 18, 2023, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 18, 2023, 01:40:48 AM
Maybe there needs to be dashed lane lines through this intersection like this: https://goo.gl/maps/KyXzBPuLBMYD7HTAA

Quote from: Dirt Roads on January 18, 2023, 12:05:55 PM
Quite amusing, since the one car in the intersection did not stay on the correct side of the line.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2023, 12:55:36 PM
Which car, exactly?

That's the white car making the left turn from eastbound Highlands Pike onto northbound Madison Pike.  It is completely on the right side of the line, whereas it is supposed to stay left of the dashed line until it is beyond the intersection markings.  I highly suspect that both the red car and dark truck ahead of this white car also made the same maneuver and came across the line too soon.  [Sorry, I didn't notice a white car making a hard right turn from eastbound Highlands Pike, or the other dark pickup that has inched over the stop bar into the intersection].
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on January 18, 2023, 05:51:58 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on January 18, 2023, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 18, 2023, 01:40:48 AM
Maybe there needs to be dashed lane lines through this intersection like this: https://goo.gl/maps/KyXzBPuLBMYD7HTAA

Quote from: Dirt Roads on January 18, 2023, 12:05:55 PM
Quite amusing, since the one car in the intersection did not stay on the correct side of the line.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2023, 12:55:36 PM
Which car, exactly?

That's the white car making the left turn from eastbound Highlands Pike onto northbound Madison Pike.  It is completely on the right side of the line, whereas it is supposed to stay left of the dashed line until it is beyond the intersection markings.  I highly suspect that both the red car and dark truck ahead of this white car also made the same maneuver and came across the line too soon.  [Sorry, I didn't notice a white car making a hard right turn from eastbound Highlands Pike, or the other dark pickup that has inched over the stop bar into the intersection].
Actually, the white car in the intersection is correctly making the left turn as there are two left turn lanes for both sides on Highland and one on NB Madison.  I know this wasn't an exact match to the intersection in Richmond but I was merely suggesting the presence of dashed lines to help facilitate the turns at the Richmond intersection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jakeroot on January 18, 2023, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 18, 2023, 01:40:48 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 17, 2023, 06:44:23 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 16, 2023, 11:02:42 PM
Do the engineers who designed this intersection think this is Europe?  This is stuff one sees in foreign countries.
It's just a four way intersection with no turn lanes, it's pretty common. Unless you're referring to the original design with the monument in the middle.
No, this current design.  Maybe there needs to be dashed lane lines through this intersection like this: https://goo.gl/maps/KyXzBPuLBMYD7HTAA

But there are no double left turns at the Richmond intersection, and the only dashed lines in your example are all for double turns.

That said, dashed yellow lines to indicate the left edge of where traffic should be when turning left is more than logical, and I did propose as much in my rendering up-thread. I went a bit further with some sharks teeth and a white "no mans land" box in the middle, to keep turning traffic from interfering with each other. But I don't think it's too confusing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 18, 2023, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on January 18, 2023, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 18, 2023, 01:40:48 AM
Maybe there needs to be dashed lane lines through this intersection like this: https://goo.gl/maps/KyXzBPuLBMYD7HTAA

Quote from: Dirt Roads on January 18, 2023, 12:05:55 PM
Quite amusing, since the one car in the intersection did not stay on the correct side of the line.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2023, 12:55:36 PM
Which car, exactly?

That's the white car making the left turn from eastbound Highlands Pike onto northbound Madison Pike.  It is completely on the right side of the line, whereas it is supposed to stay left of the dashed line until it is beyond the intersection markings.  I highly suspect that both the red car and dark truck ahead of this white car also made the same maneuver and came across the line too soon.  [Sorry, I didn't notice a white car making a hard right turn from eastbound Highlands Pike, or the other dark pickup that has inched over the stop bar into the intersection].
The white car in question was making a correct maneuver... it's a double left turn, and they were on the outside lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 18, 2023, 08:43:52 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 18, 2023, 06:35:24 PM
The white car in question was making a correct maneuver... it's a double left turn, and they were on the outside lane.

Oops, you're right.  I looked at it four times and thought it was a single left turn.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 19, 2023, 05:28:54 PM
The FY2024 Round 5 Smart Scale Recommended Funding Scenario was just released along with screened-out project applications, individual project scorecards, and more: https://smartscale.org/current_projects/2024_docs.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 24, 2023, 08:26:06 AM
Richmond council shares plans for "˜dangerous' intersection where AP Hill statue stood (https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/hermitage-laburnum-intersection-plans-jan-23-2023fbclid=IwAR1oCLMGbEJW59d4sbGtlYAPJ2PsJ6p9QoHwfoo0F5lopRvMIr3LlwxG5Q0&mibexti=Zxz2cZ)
Quote RICHMOND, Va. – The CBS 6 Problem Solvers are learning more about the plans Richmond city leaders have for the Northside intersection where the A.P. Hill statue once stood.

Earlier this month, we shared concerns from drivers and community members about the Hermitage Road and West Laburnum Avenue intersection following the removal of the city's last Confederate statue.

The city has since paved over the statue's place and painted pedestrian crossing lines. However, some drivers described the traffic as "a different kind of bad"  with or without the statue.

"There's still the idea of sort of a traffic circle happening. You still have the speed because of the big, unmarked pavement area in the middle,"  said Tara Fitzpatrick, Richmond Public Schools Safe Routes to Schools coordinator. "Just a lot of confusion happening out there."

Holton Elementary School borders the intersection where students and families walk to class.

On Friday, CBS 6 caught up with Richmond Councilmembers Katherine Jordan and Ann-Frances Lambert at the Northside intersection where their districts meet.

"We talked to DPW [Richmond Department of Public Works]. There was so much uncertainty about when the statue was actually going to be able to be removed, that – you can't tie up planning money when you don't know if you're about to be pushed off several years,"  said Jordan, who represents the city's 2nd voter district.

Family members of A.P. Hill fought the city for more than a year in court to prevent the statue's removal, but were unsuccessful.

DPW said a roundabout is the safest change for this intersection, however a 2009 ordinance prohibits a roundabout at this location.

Third voter district representative Lambert said she is introducing legislation to repeal the prohibition.

DPW said an intersection study is planned for summer or fall of this year. City council must also wait for the new fiscal year to begin, and it will take six months to a year for construction to actually start, according to Lambert.

"We're excited that this has actually, finally happened and that we've removed the statues in the most dangerous intersection here in the city. So now it's all about analysis, making sure that the data lets us know that we need to possibly look at other options here,"  she explained.

DPW crews were also spotted repainting lanes near the intersection on Friday. A DPW spokesperson said they're considering prohibiting turns beyond the peak periods.

Jordan and Lambert also highlighted the two projects that are associated with this intersection that they said requires their own funding sources.

The potential roundabout project is also tied to a separate lane widening project.

"Commuters are getting used to the new intersection. Part of its education and part of its further analysis, but the city is not done here. The work continues,"  Jordan stated.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 24, 2023, 09:34:09 AM
I don't think a roundabout is the answer here, especially if it's going to be a single lane one (like Richmond loves to install). Too much traffic on Laburnum Ave for that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on January 27, 2023, 05:01:27 PM
I thought this was interesting but apparently VDOT fixed up the VA-237 near Clarendon. It was on a wooden post now its on a steel post. I could have sworn the sign was missing when I walked by a few years ago as well  :confused:

Not sure why they're putting resources in a road they no longer maintain ... unless it was Arlington that did it? It may be a minor detail but thought was interesting nontheless.

This was amusing, looks like VDOT messed up a sign here. Anyone notice whats wrong https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8176674,-77.6378112,3a,75y,334.04h,88.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAz6IttqvPliX0rPUURQbBA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192  :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2023, 05:02:25 PM
One row of text is still normal  :-o
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 28, 2023, 08:30:49 AM
That "Heathcote Blvd" sign is, shall we say, peculiar.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 28, 2023, 12:52:20 PM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on January 27, 2023, 05:01:27 PM
This was amusing, looks like VDOT messed up a sign here. Anyone notice whats wrong https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8176674,-77.6378112,3a,75y,334.04h,88.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAz6IttqvPliX0rPUURQbBA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192  :-D

VDOT pulled a cute one here.  Left-justified ordinal for the left turn onto US-15 southbound (uncommon, but makes sense); right-justified ordinal for the right turn onto US-15 northbound (make sense); plus the Left-justified ordinal of the upcoming left lane maneuver heading west on Heathcote (very rare, but perhaps logical in this instance).  So given all of those precedents, the glaring mistake is that the ordinal for westbound VA-55 should have been right justified (which would look very weird beneath the opposite arrangement).  All of which should remind us, don't get so bogged down in the rules such that common sense prevails.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 28, 2023, 08:30:49 AM
That "Heathcote Blvd" sign is, shall we say, peculiar.

And, shall I add, "sloppy".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on February 01, 2023, 11:59:22 PM
Perhaps a long shot, but does anyone know why I-64 Exit 262 is signed as 262B? I'm not aware of there having ever been plans for a 262A.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on February 02, 2023, 06:42:26 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on February 01, 2023, 11:59:22 PM
Perhaps a long shot, but does anyone know why I-64 Exit 262 is signed as 262B? I'm not aware of there having ever been plans for a 262A.
This is just surmising, but maybe there was a proposal to have an exit ramp from I-64 EB to Todd's Lane.  The ramp would briefly merge with the VA 134 SB ramp then follow the current ramp to Todd's Lane.

Originally, when Virginia posted sequential exit numbers in the early 1980's, this was Exit 63.  Before that, I believe that this was Exit 8C as the sequential exit numbers started along Tidewater Drive in Norfolk and increased as one travelled west on I-64/VA 168 with the last posted exit number (10) at Jefferson Ave.  Exits west of that point were unnumbered.  Mercury Blvd. (US 258) was Exits 8A and 8B with J. Clyde Morris Blvd. (US 17) as Exit 9.  When Virginia changed to mile based exit numbers in 1991, this exit became Exit 262B for some reason.  That is why I think that there may at one time been a proposal, that did not come to fruition, to have an Exit 262A to Todd's Lane on I-64 EB.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 02, 2023, 10:00:13 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on February 02, 2023, 06:42:26 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on February 01, 2023, 11:59:22 PM
Perhaps a long shot, but does anyone know why I-64 Exit 262 is signed as 262B? I'm not aware of there having ever been plans for a 262A.
This is just surmising, but maybe there was a proposal to have an exit ramp from I-64 EB to Todd's Lane.  The ramp would briefly merge with the VA 134 SB ramp then follow the current ramp to Todd's Lane.

Originally, when Virginia posted sequential exit numbers in the early 1980's, this was Exit 63.  Before that, I believe that this was Exit 8C as the sequential exit numbers started along Tidewater Drive in Norfolk and increased as one travelled west on I-64/VA 168 with the last posted exit number (10) at Jefferson Ave.  Exits west of that point were unnumbered.  Mercury Blvd. (US 258) was Exits 8A and 8B with J. Clyde Morris Blvd. (US 17) as Exit 9.  When Virginia changed to mile based exit numbers in 1991, this exit became Exit 262B for some reason.  That is why I think that there may at one time been a proposal, that did not come to fruition, to have an Exit 262A to Todd's Lane on I-64 EB.

There has never been room for a ramp from I-64 EB to connect to the Todd Ln ramp even back to 1963.  But even if there was, that wouldn't require the exit numbers to be 262A-B since there is only one off-ramp in each direction.  You would need 2 off-ramps from the same direction of I-64.

A similar situation exists at VA 190 in Chesapeake (only one off-ramp total) and it is Exit 292 with Exit 291A-B very close by.

Even with nearby Exit 296, one direction has two off-ramps (296A-B) and the other only has one (296).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on February 03, 2023, 07:34:54 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 02, 2023, 10:00:13 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on February 02, 2023, 06:42:26 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on February 01, 2023, 11:59:22 PM
Perhaps a long shot, but does anyone know why I-64 Exit 262 is signed as 262B? I'm not aware of there having ever been plans for a 262A.
This is just surmising, but maybe there was a proposal to have an exit ramp from I-64 EB to Todd's Lane.  The ramp would briefly merge with the VA 134 SB ramp then follow the current ramp to Todd's Lane.

Originally, when Virginia posted sequential exit numbers in the early 1980's, this was Exit 63.  Before that, I believe that this was Exit 8C as the sequential exit numbers started along Tidewater Drive in Norfolk and increased as one travelled west on I-64/VA 168 with the last posted exit number (10) at Jefferson Ave.  Exits west of that point were unnumbered.  Mercury Blvd. (US 258) was Exits 8A and 8B with J. Clyde Morris Blvd. (US 17) as Exit 9.  When Virginia changed to mile based exit numbers in 1991, this exit became Exit 262B for some reason.  That is why I think that there may at one time been a proposal, that did not come to fruition, to have an Exit 262A to Todd's Lane on I-64 EB.

There has never been room for a ramp from I-64 EB to connect to the Todd Ln ramp even back to 1963.  But even if there was, that wouldn't require the exit numbers to be 262A-B since there is only one off-ramp in each direction.  You would need 2 off-ramps from the same direction of I-64.

A similar situation exists at VA 190 in Chesapeake (only one off-ramp total) and it is Exit 292 with Exit 291A-B very close by.

Even with nearby Exit 296, one direction has two off-ramps (296A-B) and the other only has one (296).
That's true.  It is probably "one of those things"  as to why Exit 262B is signed that way.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jmacswimmer on February 03, 2023, 10:18:00 AM
^

No idea if this is actually the reason or not, but my thought on the exit 262B situation whenever I drive by there is to "match up" (for lack of a better term) with exits 261A-B for Hampton Roads Center Parkway, as westbound there is only exit 261A for the parkway westbound and exit 262B is what you take to reach the parkway eastbound.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on February 07, 2023, 05:21:06 PM
Another sign goof up https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8838301,-77.1555359,3a,75y,0.04h,81.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqCiATNpD9KaKMpOS9eXL-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Apparently Sycamore St is I-66  :pan: someone get an arrow sign on there...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 07, 2023, 05:32:07 PM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on February 07, 2023, 05:21:06 PM
Another sign goof up https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8838301,-77.1555359,3a,75y,0.04h,81.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqCiATNpD9KaKMpOS9eXL-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Apparently Sycamore St is I-66  :pan: someone get an arrow sign on there...

There used to be a right-pointing arrow. Click back to 2017. That'll also clarify the odd-looking metal post in the median.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 10, 2023, 12:30:41 PM
After doing some more looking around on VDOT's ArcGIS map (https://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=77bd3dffa6e74d90be88800ee6de70c0), I'm a bit confused about something.

Google Maps and VDOT's Dickenson County traffic logs (which are known for their unreliability) show VA 80 as transitioning (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3026963,-82.2966487,16z) to KY 80 at the state line near Breaks Interstate Park, which is what the VA Hwys Project and Wikipedia both say.

The VDOT ArcGIS map routes VA 80 onto SR 693 (Breaks Park Rd), ending at an orphaned segment of US 460 connecting to the new expressway alignment of US 460 being built in Kentucky, rather than at the state line. That segment is actually labeled as part of US 460 along with the existing US 460 that enters Kentucky in Buchanan County. This results in a discontinuous VA/KY 80. The portion of VA 80 that runs from Breaks Interstate Park to the state line is labeled as an extended SR 768.

The strange thing is I can't find out when (or if, for that matter) this happened. I don't see anything in the CTB archives that suggests a rerouting was approved.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on February 10, 2023, 02:15:29 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 10, 2023, 12:30:41 PM
After doing some more looking around on VDOT's ArcGIS map (https://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=77bd3dffa6e74d90be88800ee6de70c0), I'm a bit confused about something.

Google Maps and VDOT's Dickenson County traffic logs (which are known for their unreliability) show VA 80 as transitioning (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3026963,-82.2966487,16z) to KY 80 at the state line near Breaks Interstate Park, which is what the VA Hwys Project and Wikipedia both say.

The VDOT ArcGIS map routes VA 80 onto SR 693 (Breaks Park Rd), ending at an orphaned segment of US 460 connecting to the new expressway alignment of US 460 being built in Kentucky, rather than at the state line. That segment is actually labeled as part of US 460 along with the existing US 460 that enters Kentucky in Buchanan County. This results in a discontinuous VA/KY 80. The portion of VA 80 that runs from Breaks Interstate Park to the state line is labeled as an extended SR 768.

The strange thing is I can't find out when (or if, for that matter) this happened. I don't see anything in the CTB archives that suggests a rerouting was approved.

Having driven through here a number of times while the construction was ongoing, perhaps I can give some insight.

Coming from Kentucky, VA 80 climbed a slight hill just prior to where the new bridge crosses the road as shown now, and the grade ended up on where the connector is. When work started on the bridge, VA 80 was signed with a detour along the secondary route that goes through the community of Breaks, then tied into SR 609, turned right, then left onto the previous alignment of VA 80 going toward the main entrance to the park and Haysi. You can see evidence of this on satellite view.

The connector road shown on Google Maps as SR 693 is signed as US 460.

Part of this may hinge on how Kentucky signs the old route once the new Corridor Q link between Elkhorn City and Marrowbone is completed. Currently, the new route is signed as two discontinuous segments of KY 3174. US 460/KY 80 remain signed on the old route from Shelbiana (the split from US 23/119) to Belcher, where KY 80 continues to Elkhorn City and US 460 runs along its current alignment to Mouthcard and on to Grundy.

If Kentucky puts US 460 and KY 80 on the new Corridor Q routing, then it would be logical for VA 80 to run along the new connector. However, if Kentucky keeps KY 80 on the old road, and Virginia routes VA 80 on the new connector from Breaks to the four-lane, the route will no longer be a multi-state route.

The Virginia map may be predicated on anticipation that Kentucky will sign both US 460 and KY 80 on the completed Corridor Q.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 10, 2023, 02:41:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 10, 2023, 02:15:29 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 10, 2023, 12:30:41 PM
After doing some more looking around on VDOT's ArcGIS map (https://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=77bd3dffa6e74d90be88800ee6de70c0), I'm a bit confused about something.

Google Maps and VDOT's Dickenson County traffic logs (which are known for their unreliability) show VA 80 as transitioning (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3026963,-82.2966487,16z) to KY 80 at the state line near Breaks Interstate Park, which is what the VA Hwys Project and Wikipedia both say.

The VDOT ArcGIS map routes VA 80 onto SR 693 (Breaks Park Rd), ending at an orphaned segment of US 460 connecting to the new expressway alignment of US 460 being built in Kentucky, rather than at the state line. That segment is actually labeled as part of US 460 along with the existing US 460 that enters Kentucky in Buchanan County. This results in a discontinuous VA/KY 80. The portion of VA 80 that runs from Breaks Interstate Park to the state line is labeled as an extended SR 768.

The strange thing is I can't find out when (or if, for that matter) this happened. I don't see anything in the CTB archives that suggests a rerouting was approved.

Having driven through here a number of times while the construction was ongoing, perhaps I can give some insight.

Coming from Kentucky, VA 80 climbed a slight hill just prior to where the new bridge crosses the road as shown now, and the grade ended up on where the connector is. When work started on the bridge, VA 80 was signed with a detour along the secondary route that goes through the community of Breaks, then tied into SR 609, turned right, then left onto the previous alignment of VA 80 going toward the main entrance to the park and Haysi. You can see evidence of this on satellite view.

The connector road shown on Google Maps as SR 693 is signed as US 460.

Part of this may hinge on how Kentucky signs the old route once the new Corridor Q link between Elkhorn City and Marrowbone is completed. Currently, the new route is signed as two discontinuous segments of KY 3174. US 460/KY 80 remain signed on the old route from Shelbiana (the split from US 23/119) to Belcher, where KY 80 continues to Elkhorn City and US 460 runs along its current alignment to Mouthcard and on to Grundy.

If Kentucky puts US 460 and KY 80 on the new Corridor Q routing, then it would be logical for VA 80 to run along the new connector. However, if Kentucky keeps KY 80 on the old road, and Virginia routes VA 80 on the new connector from Breaks to the four-lane, the route will no longer be a multi-state route.

The Virginia map may be predicated on anticipation that Kentucky will sign both US 460 and KY 80 on the completed Corridor Q.

Okay, reading that makes it make a lot more sense, thanks.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on February 11, 2023, 11:33:10 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 07, 2023, 05:32:07 PM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on February 07, 2023, 05:21:06 PM
Another sign goof up https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8838301,-77.1555359,3a,75y,0.04h,81.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqCiATNpD9KaKMpOS9eXL-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Apparently Sycamore St is I-66  :pan: someone get an arrow sign on there...

There used to be a right-pointing arrow. Click back to 2017. That'll also clarify the odd-looking metal post in the median.

Does VDOT have a "report a problem" form that can be filled out online? Cant hurt to report it and see what happens
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 12, 2023, 09:01:27 AM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on February 11, 2023, 11:33:10 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 07, 2023, 05:32:07 PM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on February 07, 2023, 05:21:06 PM
Another sign goof up https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8838301,-77.1555359,3a,75y,0.04h,81.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqCiATNpD9KaKMpOS9eXL-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Apparently Sycamore St is I-66  :pan: someone get an arrow sign on there...

There used to be a right-pointing arrow. Click back to 2017. That'll also clarify the odd-looking metal post in the median.

Does VDOT have a "report a problem" form that can be filled out online? Cant hurt to report it and see what happens

Yes.  Go to Virginiadot.org and use the "report a road problem" link. I don't know whether an Interstate trailblazer on a surface street is their responsibility or the county's, but if it's not theirs, they'll respond with an e-mail saying so. I reported a misspelled sign once and they e-mailed to say it was Fairfax County's sign.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on February 12, 2023, 12:56:25 PM
Is it me or would I-64 have been I-60 if not for the US-60 conflict?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 12, 2023, 01:20:03 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 12, 2023, 12:56:25 PM
Is it me or would I-64 have been I-60 if not for the US-60 conflict?

There were never plans for an I-50 or an I-60 due to the potential conflicts with US 50 and US 60.  So it is probably just you.   :nod:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 12, 2023, 03:07:07 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 12, 2023, 12:56:25 PM
Is it me or would I-64 have been I-60 if not for the US-60 conflict?

if it makes you feel any better, an I-60 mile marker was installed ~2013 on I-64 in Virginia
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fi60milepost.jpg&hash=bd6fb1be13d5fd0c222633c512dd4d66870ccebc)
Sept 2013 GMSV
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 12, 2023, 04:14:40 PM
^Of course, US 60 is a bit farther south of I-64 at this point.   :-D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 20, 2023, 05:32:44 PM
Chesterfield's SRs are up over 8000 now. Saw a few 8257 signs while wandering around today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 20, 2023, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 20, 2023, 05:32:44 PM
Chesterfield's SRs are up over 8000 now. Saw a few 8257 signs while wandering around today.

I wonder how long it'll take for Chesterfield to join Fairfax in the 5-digit club. 10 years maybe?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 20, 2023, 07:17:02 PM
Probably. A lot of the newer roads seem to be maintained by the neighborhoods, though. Had they been state maintained, I think they'd be there already.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 20, 2023, 08:02:10 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 20, 2023, 05:32:44 PM
Chesterfield's SRs are up over 8000 now. Saw a few 8257 signs while wandering around today.

I saw a 7000 one yesterday when I went to my friend's house near the VA 10 and SR 632 (Ironbridge Blvd/Lewis Rd) intersection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 20, 2023, 09:52:04 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 20, 2023, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 20, 2023, 05:32:44 PM
Chesterfield's SRs are up over 8000 now. Saw a few 8257 signs while wandering around today.

I wonder how long it'll take for Chesterfield to join Fairfax in the 5-digit club. 10 years maybe?

I don't think it'll be that long, there are a few big developments about to break ground in the next year. With that kind of pace, I'll give it seven years tops.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on February 21, 2023, 08:25:01 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/QgBWZBfeczjQbKz46
Noticed that both I-95 and US 1 are both signed not only text but both as Routes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on February 21, 2023, 09:16:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2023, 08:25:01 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/QgBWZBfeczjQbKz46
Noticed that both I-95 and US 1 are both signed not only text but both as Routes.

That's common for Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on February 22, 2023, 03:42:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 21, 2023, 09:16:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2023, 08:25:01 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/QgBWZBfeczjQbKz46
Noticed that both I-95 and US 1 are both signed not only text but both as Routes.

That's common for Virginia.

I must of read frogging's post wrong once when I claimed Virginia called all highways routes, including interstates. He seemed to give me the impression that VDOT don't do that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 22, 2023, 03:50:32 PM
^^^^

Certainly on the electronic signs in Northern Virginia VDOT distinguishes between route types and uses, for example, "US-50" (with the hyphen) in the travel time and distance notifications.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 22, 2023, 03:59:37 PM
This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4530443,-79.8463612,3a,75y,87.19h,70.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJoHkcuWRePWvK4Y0I9Xi5w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) has always stood out to me.

"To US Rte 11"
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 23, 2023, 12:22:18 AM
I drove VA I-77 recently between I-81 and the North Carolina state line, and was wondering... why is the entire 32 mile portion only posted at 65 mph? When VDOT raised the speed limit on rural interstates back in 2010, virtually every segment of interstate outside major cities was increased to 70 mph.

This included
- The entirety of I-81 (except over Christiansburg Mountain, Roanoke, Staunton, Harrisonburg, and Strasburg)
- The entirety of I-64 west of Williamsburg (except through Richmond, Charlottesville, over Afton Mountain, and near Covington / Clifton Forge)
- The entirety of I-66 west of Gainesville
- The entirety of I-77 north of I-81 (except through the two tunnels)
- The entirety of I-85 south of Petersburg
- The entirety of I-95 south of Fredericksburg (except through Richmond-Petersburg)

VDOT originally kept I-64 between Charlottesville and Afton Mountain posted at 65 mph, along with I-81 near Winchester posted at 60 mph, though within a few years after 2010, raised both areas up to 70 mph.

The one that stands out though, is the 32-mile segment of I-77 south of I-81. MM 1 through MM 8 can be justified for 65 mph due to the mountain pass over Fancy Gap, but the segment from MM 0 to MM 1, and MM 8 through MM 32 is no different than any other rural segments of I-81, I-64, or I-77 north of I-81 posted at 70 mph. It features two independent roadway sections separated by a large median, has some gentle grades, and can safely handle 70 mph. One could argue there are a few advisory curves signed for 60 mph, however, my counter-argument to that would be similar 60 mph advisory curves on portions of I-81 north of Roanoke, I-77 north of I-81, and I-64 west of Lexington, that exist on segments posted at 70 mph.

Given VDOT posted virtually all of I-81 outside the urban areas at 70 mph, including on those windy 60 mph curve portions, what is their justification for keeping I-77 at 65 mph? From what I saw driving it, most traffic was flowing around 77-80 mph, roughly the same speeds traffic was moving on I-81 just north of there, which is posted at 70 mph. As soon as one enters North Carolina, the speed limit increases to 70 mph.

I'm just curious to as if there's an engineering justification as to why VDOT omitted all of I-77 south of I-81 for any 70 mph increase. It's not any different design-wise than other highways they raised, with the exception of Fancy Gap which is justifiable to keep 65 mph. It is not located near any major cities or population centers, all of the interchanges have low traffic volumes and no major traffic generators (with the exception of the US-58 interchange). The roadway cross-section is consistent with other rural interstates in the region (for example, I-81).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on February 24, 2023, 11:44:32 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 23, 2023, 12:22:18 AM
The one that stands out though, is the 32-mile segment of I-77 south of I-81. MM 1 through MM 8 can be justified for 65 mph due to the mountain pass over Fancy Gap, but the segment from MM 0 to MM 1, and MM 8 through MM 32 is no different than any other rural segments of I-81, I-64, or I-77 north of I-81 posted at 70 mph. It features two independent roadway sections separated by a large median, has some gentle grades, and can safely handle 70 mph. One could argue there are a few advisory curves signed for 60 mph, however, my counter-argument to that would be similar 60 mph advisory curves on portions of I-81 north of Roanoke, I-77 north of I-81, and I-64 west of Lexington, that exist on segments posted at 70 mph.

I'm just curious to as if there's an engineering justification as to why VDOT omitted all of I-77 south of I-81 for any 70 mph increase.

There are several sections through there where the grades aren't "gentle" and scream for a climbing lane. There is also a section of tight curves going downgrade northbound that can be a challenge to negotiate at much over 65 (been there, done that). Because of these grades and curves, there is a large speed differential between cars and trucks. Keeping the speed limit at 65 could (theoretically) reduce the difference -- not that a number of drivers keep to 65.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2023, 01:47:23 PM
^ I certainly understand the logic, but I don't get how it's much different from portions of I-81, or I-77 north of I-81. As far as the curves, the advisory speeds of 60 mph already address that, adequate signage, etc.

During free flow, outside of those few corners, the speed limit could reasonably go to 70 mph. The problem with retaining the 65 mph limit is the lack of compliance... to the point about speed differential, aren't you theoretically creating now 3 speed differentials? You have variances between trucks going slower, cars sticking closer to the 65 mph limit, then those going closer to 80 mph. If you raised the limit, you would bridge the gap between the latter two, and have increased compliance.

Basically... I guess my point is, using VDOTs logic toward how they omitted I-77 south of I-81, a lot more of the interstate system should've also been kept at 65 mph, but they raised virtually all of it.

They drop the southbound speed from 70 mph to 65 mph around here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/gL1vEmmpZpmtbEm89?g_st=ic), and yet the wide open design just encourages drivers to keep cruising along at 80 mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 28, 2023, 12:47:02 PM
In Northern Virginia highway news: https://www.loudountimes.com/news/final-project-to-complete-northstar-boulevard-breaks-ground/article_02f0719e-b6bb-11ed-977d-7ffd7e4e168d.html

QuoteFederal, state and local officials participated in a groundbreaking ceremony Feb. 24 that celebrates another sign of progress in a years-long efforts to complete Northstar Boulevard, which, when completed, will be part of an uninterrupted 14-mile parkway between the Stone Ridge and Lansdowne areas. New segments to close the last remaining gaps in the north-south corridor from Harry Byrd Highway (Route 7) to the Prince William County line are scheduled to be completed by the end of next year. Northstar Boulevard merges into Belmont Ridge Road north of Briar Woods High School.

The Feb. 24 event marked the start of construction of a new 1.6-mile section of Northstar Boulevard between Evergreen Mills Road and Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway (U.S. 50); the four-lane median-divided road flanked by 10-foot paved multiuse trails is expected to be complete in the first quarter of 2025. Another segment which will close the gap between U.S. 50 and Tall Cedars Parkway is expected to be complete this autumn.

A third project, currently in the design phase, will widen an existing segment and improve pedestrian access between Tall Cedars Parkway and Braddock Road; those improvements are expected be complete by 2030.

Once this is all complete it will be interesting to see not only what the traffic volumes on Northstar will be, but also on Sanders Lane and Pageland Lane in neighboring Prince William County. Can't imagine Prince William is too happy about this as it will only further put pressure for a four lane connection to Loudoun (basically some version of the Bi-County Parkway). Curious how it plays out.

In other news it appears that according to the VDOT website, construction on the US-29 Widening project in Fairfax County between Union Mill Road and Buckleys Gate Drive has officially started with completion scheduled for around early 2026. Should be the last piece of a six lane US-29 from I-66 in Centreville to US-50 in Fairfax.
https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/northernvirginia/rt_29_widening.asp
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 03, 2023, 10:55:29 AM
A great old photo from VDOT:

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1631684439926349825
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: BrianP on March 03, 2023, 12:51:30 PM
Something doesn't make sense.  According to the old topo maps the part of US 1 in question was not constructed until around 1962-3.  I see the new US 1 road in the 1963 aerial view but not on the 1961 or earlier topo maps.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 03, 2023, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: BrianP on March 03, 2023, 12:51:30 PM
Something doesn't make sense.  According to the old topo maps the part of US 1 in question was not constructed until around 1962-3.  I see the new US 1 road in the 1963 aerial view but not on the 1961 or earlier topo maps.

It's likely that the makers of those topos simply didn't add it on until late. The bridge over VA 3 is obviously older than 1960 (not to mention it has the year 1945 on it).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 03, 2023, 01:09:06 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2023, 10:55:29 AM
A great old photo from VDOT:

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1631684439926349825

Of course, US 1 ALT lives on today despite not existing since the early 1970s.

https://twitter.com/WillWeaverRVA/status/1631718042357882880/photo/1
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 03, 2023, 02:08:22 PM
I hope you didn't just prompt the removal of those old signs. I was chuffed to see they were still there when I drove through there on February 17 on my way to North Carolina.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 03, 2023, 02:11:22 PM
Interestingly, the sign also shows "US-17"  on that route, when US-17 was re-routed over 50 years ago onto I-95.

US-17 Business follows the current alignment through the city.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 03, 2023, 03:31:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2023, 02:08:22 PM
I hope you didn't just prompt the removal of those old signs. I was chuffed to see they were still there when I drove through there on February 17 on my way to North Carolina.

Uh, oops. Well, VDOT doesn't maintain that portion of US 1 so I doubt they'd do anything.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 03, 2023, 03:39:09 PM
Quote from: BrianP on March 03, 2023, 12:51:30 PM
Something doesn't make sense.  According to the old topo maps the part of US 1 in question was not constructed until around 1962-3.  I see the new US 1 road in the 1963 aerial view but not on the 1961 or earlier topo maps.

The "now" picture is not in the right spot.  It is actually here: https://goo.gl/maps/SHKvPehLUdkthQnJ8

There is a scene from long ago that is from the angle shown in the "now" picture. 
At 1:59 of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FobeyH4f58I it shows US 1 NB at the south end of the Fredericksburg Bypass.

proof the bypass is way older than 1962:
see 3rd to last para on pg. 9 at https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-12-1947-01.pdf

here's a scan of the 1948 official
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2F1a_1948.jpg&hash=22600f1180fedd4b59ec1b998421cf29579868ba)

here's a photo from a 1950 Virginia Hwys Bulletin showing the Wayside they built along the bypass:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fwaysides%2Fwayside_marywash1950.jpg&hash=7088c4c35e669288f7ed3e0b567b49210c668390)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on March 03, 2023, 03:48:59 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 03, 2023, 01:09:06 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 03, 2023, 10:55:29 AM
A great old photo from VDOT:

https://twitter.com/VaDOT/status/1631684439926349825

Of course, US 1 ALT lives on today despite not existing since the early 1970s.

https://twitter.com/WillWeaverRVA/status/1631718042357882880/photo/1

Yet in the erroneous overhead photo, the City of Fredericksburg, did get the routes right on the ground mounted shields beyond the overhead assembly.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 03, 2023, 03:58:30 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 03, 2023, 03:48:59 PM


Yet in the erroneous overhead photo, the City of Fredericksburg, did get the routes right on the ground mounted shields beyond the overhead assembly.



Only 2 of them are correct.  Here they are where you can see them - https://goo.gl/maps/RpScRCAewzhp9avq8

When i first moved to the area there used to be remnant signage for US 17 Truck and VA 2 Truck.  That is likely the source of the US 17 and VA 2 signs that are in this newer assembly.  US 17 has never used the US 1 Fredericksburg Bypass and neither has VA 2.

There used to be another assembly of these same 4 shields further south - https://goo.gl/maps/peEj5jCE5bgUDoor9

By the time i got here 26 years ago, there were no shields telling you how to get to US 17 or VA 2 once you started down the bypass (you would take VA 3 east) though you do run into US 17 in about 5 miles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 03, 2023, 04:14:50 PM
It's really quite striking how much more of a defined shape the Virginia state highway shield had on that old BGS, and on the old map seen above, compared to the rounded blobby-looking thing it's transformed into in more recent years.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on March 03, 2023, 08:07:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 03, 2023, 02:11:22 PM
Interestingly, the sign also shows "US-17"  on that route, when US-17 was re-routed over 50 years ago onto I-95.

More specifically, CTB minutes say November, 1969 is when US 17 was rerouted onto I-95 and the "bypass" south of Fredericksburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 03, 2023, 09:27:02 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 03, 2023, 08:07:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 03, 2023, 02:11:22 PM
Interestingly, the sign also shows "US-17"  on that route, when US-17 was re-routed over 50 years ago onto I-95.

More specifically, CTB minutes say November, 1969 is when US 17 was rerouted onto I-95 and the "bypass" south of Fredericksburg.

That is over 50 years ago (I certainly have reason to be aware of said number this year...)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on March 06, 2023, 04:54:31 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/EwMTXz8d2zGPKxSW8
Is this a temporary bridge being built for EB I-64 on the HRBT?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 06, 2023, 07:15:10 AM
^ Yes, it opened a couple weeks ago.

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/New-Traffic-Pattern-on-I-64-East-at-HRBT-Starts-Sunday--February-19.html?soid=1132998776519&aid=vEHSWTG-nEM

https://youtu.be/j9oWOMaRJ3g

It's quite a seamless transition and is very smoothly done. They had the speed limit on the entire bridge-tunnel reduced to 45 mph the last (and only time since this shift was implemented) time I drove it, with traffic moving 65-70 mph as per usual (when it's not stopped in miles of traffic). Not sure if the 45 mph was temporary at the time or will remain through the project, but there was certainly no need for it. Even the temporary bridge shift was easily navigable maintaining around 60 mph with the flow of traffic, and very smoothly (no sudden shifts / turns).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 06, 2023, 07:59:31 AM
And the 45 mph limit is funny because in the tunnel, those little flashing signs reading "Maintain 55"  were still displayed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on March 06, 2023, 10:13:52 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2023, 01:47:23 PM

During free flow, outside of those few corners, the speed limit could reasonably go to 70 mph. The problem with retaining the 65 mph limit is the lack of compliance... to the point about speed differential, aren't you theoretically creating now 3 speed differentials? You have variances between trucks going slower, cars sticking closer to the 65 mph limit, then those going closer to 80 mph. If you raised the limit, you would bridge the gap between the latter two, and have increased compliance.

Speed limit really didn't matter on "Flatlander Sunday" when we came northbound. The adaptive cruise control got a workout as people had great difficulty maintaining a steady speed up and down the rolling hills from the top of Fancy Gap to I-81. Both lanes were clogged, including a number of trucks that added to the fun and two Carrol Co. deputies in their usual spots. While I'm usually not overly upset about "left lane hogs" there were too many who didn't understand how to drive on hills -- you pick up speed in the dip and start fact to be able to maintain speed, not maintain speed and slow down as you climb and refuse to move to the right lane to let others pass. While not on a par of I-95 in South Carolina, I-77 could benefit from six lanes on many days; at a minimum some climbing lanes to keep traffic flowing.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 06, 2023, 11:44:39 AM
Quote from: VPIGoose on March 06, 2023, 10:13:52 AM
Speed limit really didn't matter on "Flatlander Sunday" when we came northbound. The adaptive cruise control got a workout as people had great difficulty maintaining a steady speed up and down the rolling hills from the top of Fancy Gap to I-81. ....

How well does your adaptive cruise control do in terms of holding your speed in the mountains, assuming for discussion purposes that there's nobody in front of you causing it to slow you down? I ask because the only one of our cars with adaptive cruise control is my wife's Acura TLX–which, perhaps not coincidentally, is the only one of our cars with an automatic transmission–and I find it will pick up considerable speed on a downhill if there's nobody in front of us. That even happens on residential streets: If I'm coming back from Wegmans and I set the adaptive cruise control at 35 mph in the 35-mph zone, there's one larger downhill and the car will be going 45 or 50 at the bottom of the hill if I don't intervene to slow it down.

The reason I cite the automatic transmission is that my manual-equipped TL and her manual-equipped RSX don't have the same problem–they generally hold the set speed quite well on downhills, although of course they just have conventional cruise control and not the adaptive variety–and I noticed over the years that when I drove my parents' automatic-equipped cars they would tend to pick up speed on downhills as well despite the cruise control being engaged.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 06, 2023, 12:08:33 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on March 06, 2023, 10:13:52 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 24, 2023, 01:47:23 PM

During free flow, outside of those few corners, the speed limit could reasonably go to 70 mph. The problem with retaining the 65 mph limit is the lack of compliance… to the point about speed differential, aren’t you theoretically creating now 3 speed differentials? You have variances between trucks going slower, cars sticking closer to the 65 mph limit, then those going closer to 80 mph. If you raised the limit, you would bridge the gap between the latter two, and have increased compliance.

Speed limit really didn't matter on "Flatlander Sunday" when we came northbound. The adaptive cruise control got a workout as people had great difficulty maintaining a steady speed up and down the rolling hills from the top of Fancy Gap to I-81. Both lanes were clogged, including a number of trucks that added to the fun and two Carrol Co. deputies in their usual spots. While I'm usually not overly upset about "left lane hogs" there were too many who didn't understand how to drive on hills -- you pick up speed in the dip and start fact to be able to maintain speed, not maintain speed and slow down as you climb and refuse to move to the right lane to let others pass. While not on a par of I-95 in South Carolina, I-77 could benefit from six lanes on many days; at a minimum some climbing lanes to keep traffic flowing.

Bruce in Blacksburg
I had a similar experience southbound there a few weeks ago… probably a good 5-10 mile portion north of US-58 where traffic was clogged in both lanes by many trucks dragging along at 50-55 mph for what seemed like forever… then of course those that decide to slog along at 60 mph once past them in the left lane, not picking back speed.

I finally got past and once to Fancy Gap, was literally zero traffic going over, very nice ride - beautiful view - and just cruised with the speed set around 75 mph.

Either way, while traffic issues are definitely present on that portion of I-77 - it doesn’t change the fact the speed limit should be set to account for free-flow conditions. My northbound trip was largely traffic free, and I was countlessly being passed with my cruise at around 77-78 mph (posted 65 mph limit). I-81 has just as much truck traffic and peak traffic problems, along with a few climbing problematic areas, and yet is posted 70 mph the whole way (except Christiansburg Mountain / Roanoke in that general area). I naturally had assumed I-77 was also 70 mph and was surprised it wasn’t. I did drive I-77 north of I-81 to West Virginia a few months back, and that portion is all 70 mph except 55 mph through the tunnels (I feel like 60 mph could work there, but who knows).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 06, 2023, 12:51:48 PM
As if the Richmond metro doesn't already have a hundred businesses competing for our dollars, here comes, of all things, a Buc-ees  :colorful:

https://www.nbc12.com/2023/03/06/buc-ees-could-be-coming-virginia/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 06, 2023, 01:45:19 PM
Quote from: plain on March 06, 2023, 12:51:48 PM
As if the Richmond metro doesn't already have a hundred businesses competing for our dollars, here comes, of all things, a Buc-ees  :colorful:

https://www.nbc12.com/2023/03/06/buc-ees-could-be-coming-virginia/

Going after the lucrative OBX vacationer market. That's a pretty good location for them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 06, 2023, 03:51:41 PM
I was expecting Virginia to be next... especially after the one on I-40/85 west of Durham was rejected a couple years back.

I was not expecting the location to be along I-64. I was expecting their next location north to be along the I-95 corridor north of Richmond... that would enable them to capture I-85 and I-95 traffic, plus I-64 from the east traffic, all in one "funnel" . Building on I-64 east of Richmond is certainly economically viable given all the tourist traffic in the summer, but I just thought I-95 would be better. I'm not complaining though... would love to have a location just a couple hours away and right off the highway for any westbound trip out of Hampton Roads, whether to I-64 west or I-95 north of Richmond.

Interestingly, this project, assuming it gets approved, would be under construction during the same time frame that I-64 is being expanded. The section of I-64 from MM 205 to 214 is going to be expanded to 6 lanes beginning next year. I imagine associated interchange improvements at Exit 211 for this new development will be funded by Buc-ees and built during the same time frame as interstate construction.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 06, 2023, 04:54:41 PM
I think I-95 north of I-295 would be a better location as well, like maybe at VA 30 somewhere. But I guess the way New Kent County is growing, shouldn't be much of a shock. Still a great location.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 06, 2023, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: plain on March 06, 2023, 04:54:41 PM
I think I-95 north of I-295 would be a better location as well, like maybe at VA 30 somewhere. But I guess the way New Kent County is growing, shouldn't be much of a shock. Still a great location.

I note there is already a truck stop at that interchange (along with a slightly bigger business called Kings Dominion) and I wonder whether and to what extent that might factor into whether VA-30 would be an unacceptable location.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 06, 2023, 05:55:47 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 06, 2023, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: plain on March 06, 2023, 04:54:41 PM
I think I-95 north of I-295 would be a better location as well, like maybe at VA 30 somewhere. But I guess the way New Kent County is growing, shouldn't be much of a shock. Still a great location.

I note there is already a truck stop at that interchange (along with a slightly bigger business called Kings Dominion) and I wonder whether and to what extent that might factor into whether VA-30 would be an unacceptable location.

I threw VA 30 out there because there's way too many truck stops at VA 207, and Ashland is definitely a no-no. Not much room for it at SR 802 and definitely not at SR 686. Maybe Ladysmith?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 06, 2023, 06:55:11 PM
Don't know how far off the interstate they are willing to be, but between US 1 and the RR on VA 30 west of I-95 there's room for a mid-size Buc-ees.

Ladysmith and Thornburg looks like there is room but nothing further north than that.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on March 07, 2023, 10:09:06 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 06, 2023, 11:44:39 AM
Quote from: VPIGoose on March 06, 2023, 10:13:52 AM
Speed limit really didn't matter on "Flatlander Sunday" when we came northbound. The adaptive cruise control got a workout as people had great difficulty maintaining a steady speed up and down the rolling hills from the top of Fancy Gap to I-81. ....

How well does your adaptive cruise control do in terms of holding your speed in the mountains, assuming for discussion purposes that there's nobody in front of you causing it to slow you down? I ask because the only one of our cars with adaptive cruise control is my wife's Acura TLX–which, perhaps not coincidentally, is the only one of our cars with an automatic transmission–and I find it will pick up considerable speed on a downhill if there's nobody in front of us.

We have a 2018 Honda Odyssey Touring, so it has the adaptive cruise, lane keep assist, and brake warning systems. For our now-regular trips between the mountains and the gulf, it has been great. As you say, though, the car will speed up going down a hill, which means braking to avoid getting too far above the speed limit. I'm not sure if that is a function or malfunction of the speed control, although it isn't a critical problem. The best vehicle I've had for rock-steady cruise control speed was a 15-passenger Ford Econoline van (1980-something model).

I think I finally gave up on the cruise control on I-77 because it was jumping up in speed then braking entirely too much for comfort with the yahoos in front of me who were unable to maintain a steady speed. In fact, that is one of the biggest frustrations on these trips -- the driver who sits in the left lane micropassing and backing up traffic behind them, but who speeds up once they move to the right lane until they pull over to pass again. Too many people drive with their head up their ass.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mglass87 on March 23, 2023, 10:12:28 AM
https://www.theprincegeorgejournal.com/news/hopewell-citizens-sound-off-on-bike-lanes/article_a0b836f0-c8f4-11ed-b5c9-47d8060a4641.html

I'm usually a ghost here, but I had to share this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 27, 2023, 07:20:29 PM
I was looking at a Virginia is for Lovers sign on I-95 at the Skippers Welcome Center, and something just dawned on me. When I-95 is finally six-laned south of Petersburg, not only will the entrance to that welcome center have to be moved south of the VA-NC border, but the entire parking lot will have to be moved on the opposite side of the building. Because the current parking lot will have to be replaced with the third northbound lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 27, 2023, 07:26:10 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 27, 2023, 07:20:29 PM
I was looking at a Virginia is for Lovers sign on I-95 at the Skippers Welcome Center, and something just dawned on me. When I-95 is finally six-laned south of Petersburg, not only will the entrance to that welcome center have to be moved south of the VA-NC border, but the entire parking lot will have to be moved on the opposite side of the building. Because the current parking lot will have to be replaced with the third northbound lane.
That rest area is honestly due for an entire replacement, given its location along I-95 and being the welcome center for long haul travelers entering Virginia.

Either way though... 6 lane widening of I-95 in Virginia isn't a current planned project anytime in the next decade. And even if they wished to retain the existing rest area / parking lot layout (it needs a full replacement), median widening would prevent anything from being touched. That section of I-95 has a 40 foot grassy median, and the new northbound lane could be constructed inside of it. For southbound, construct the new lane to the outside.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 27, 2023, 11:42:48 PM
40 feet? The damn thing looks like it's barely 20 feet!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/I95NCsouthbound.jpg/640px-I95NCsouthbound.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 28, 2023, 12:57:38 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 27, 2023, 11:42:48 PM
40 feet? The damn thing looks like it's barely 20 feet!
From yellow line to yellow line, it measures out to 39 ft.

The left paved shoulders in this area are around 6 ft wide, which make the grassy portion 27 ft.

Typically median width is described in terms from yellow line to yellow line, to include the inside paved shoulder. For example, a modern 4 lane highway with a 46 ft median would have 34 ft of grassy area and 8 ft of pavement (4 ft left shoulder on either side).

In this specific instance, the 39 ft space is more than enough to add a 12 foot lane and 10 foot paved left shoulder if widening were to ever occur.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 28, 2023, 12:58:40 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 06, 2023, 07:15:10 AM
It's quite a seamless transition and is very smoothly done. They had the speed limit on the entire bridge-tunnel reduced to 45 mph the last (and only time since this shift was implemented) time I drove it, with traffic moving 65-70 mph as per usual (when it's not stopped in miles of traffic). Not sure if the 45 mph was temporary at the time or will remain through the project, but there was certainly no need for it. Even the temporary bridge shift was easily navigable maintaining around 60 mph with the flow of traffic, and very smoothly (no sudden shifts / turns).
I drove through there again recently, and it was posted at 55 mph, so this 45 mph reduction must have been a temporary thing. Not sure what though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 28, 2023, 12:23:56 PM
It appears that VDOT's SMART SCALE program is going to be reevaluated in the coming months:

https://www.henricocitizen.com/articles/virginia-to-conduct-in-depth-review-of-smart-scale-process/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 30, 2023, 11:02:10 AM
The Governor signed a bill that will expand the "Move Over/Slow Down" law, effective July 1. It will now require drivers to move over or slow down for any vehicle on the side of the road that is displaying flashing lights–which includes using the hazard flashers (what some people call the "four-ways")–or flares. In other words, in the past you had to move over or slow down for stopped emergency response vehicles or tow trucks. That's now expanded under the theory that a person who experiences a flat tire or a breakdown faces a hazard the same as the emergency responders do when they stop on the side of the road.

I have never seen the existing law enforced, and I've almost never seen anyone obeying it. With that said, moving over or slowing down when there's someone on the shoulder moving around a disabled vehicle always seemed like common sense to me even long before the rise of "Move Over/Slown Down" laws.

https://www.wtkr.com/news/move-over-lax-expands-to-all-drivers-in-virginia
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 30, 2023, 11:16:59 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 30, 2023, 11:02:10 AM
I have never seen the existing law enforced, and I've almost never seen anyone obeying it.
When it comes to police specifically pulled over, I've noticed fairly high compliance, with a good majority thinking they need to move over and also slow down, which then begins a small traffic jam.

QuoteWith that said, moving over or slowing down when there's someone on the shoulder moving around a disabled vehicle always seemed like common sense to me even long before the rise of "Move Over/Slown Down" laws.
That is true - I always try to change lanes for a disabled vehicle - however, there are not always the best opportunities to, and my only concern is that some drivers will overreact and begin to shift lanes while slowing down to 50 mph (on a 70 mph highway) in the left lane, causing everyone to slam on their brakes and drive erratically around that guy - especially those not caring to obey the law.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on April 05, 2023, 12:08:24 PM
The other night, new traffic lights were put in use at the US 29/33 intersection, and the old ones were taken down. I managed to get pictures of all 4 of the new lights, this is the light on US 29 North:

(https://i.postimg.cc/NKf9fV9D/E2-E65004-EFC6-4-BD3-857-C-E4-DB0-BCC222-B.jpg)

Construction at the intersection is supposed to be completed during Summer 2023, according to the VDOT project page.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tckma on April 05, 2023, 01:21:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 30, 2023, 11:02:10 AM

I have never seen the existing law enforced, and I've almost never seen anyone obeying it. With that said, moving over or slowing down when there's someone on the shoulder moving around a disabled vehicle always seemed like common sense to me even long before the rise of "Move Over/Slown Down" laws.


Don't know about enforcement of this in Virginia.  However, I was pulled over in Maryland for this (with, at the time, MD plates and an MD license); cop was nice about it and said "we're expanding this to all vehicles October 1" and gave me a (written) warning and an info pamphlet.  Thing is, the car I was supposed to "move over" for (because I slowed down for sure) was the very cop car that pulled me over, and at the time he had no lights on and no one pulled over.  This has me convinced it was part of a public information campaign about the law.  Sit on the side of the road at night with your lights off and pull over anyone who doesn't move into the left lane.

I imagine Virginia highway patrol cops are too busy arresting people for 81 in a 70 zone and impounding their cars.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 05, 2023, 01:30:11 PM
Quote from: tckma on April 05, 2023, 01:21:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 30, 2023, 11:02:10 AM

I have never seen the existing law enforced, and I've almost never seen anyone obeying it. With that said, moving over or slowing down when there's someone on the shoulder moving around a disabled vehicle always seemed like common sense to me even long before the rise of "Move Over/Slown Down" laws.


Don't know about enforcement of this in Virginia.  However, I was pulled over in Maryland for this (with, at the time, MD plates and an MD license); cop was nice about it and said "we're expanding this to all vehicles October 1" and gave me a (written) warning and an info pamphlet.  Thing is, the car I was supposed to "move over" for (because I slowed down for sure) was the very cop car that pulled me over, and at the time he had no lights on and no one pulled over.  This has me convinced it was part of a public information campaign about the law.  Sit on the side of the road at night with your lights off and pull over anyone who doesn't move into the left lane.

I imagine Virginia highway patrol cops are too busy arresting people for 81 in a 70 zone and impounding their cars.

Unlikely, seeing as how that's simple speeding. (They amended the reckless driving law a few years ago to change the threshold in 65- and 70-mph zones.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 05, 2023, 03:20:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 30, 2023, 11:16:59 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 30, 2023, 11:02:10 AM
I have never seen the existing law enforced, and I've almost never seen anyone obeying it.
When it comes to police specifically pulled over, I've noticed fairly high compliance, with a good majority thinking they need to move over and also slow down, which then begins a small traffic jam.

QuoteWith that said, moving over or slowing down when there's someone on the shoulder moving around a disabled vehicle always seemed like common sense to me even long before the rise of "Move Over/Slown Down" laws.
That is true - I always try to change lanes for a disabled vehicle - however, there are not always the best opportunities to, and my only concern is that some drivers will overreact and begin to shift lanes while slowing down to 50 mph (on a 70 mph highway) in the left lane, causing everyone to slam on their brakes and drive erratically around that guy - especially those not caring to obey the law.

Adherence to the current law is common inside the toll lanes.  Like hoo, i learned to do this with any vehicle on the shoulder 40 years ago.

My annoyance is that in the toll lanes sometimes a VSP vehicle is by itself on the shoulder with blue flashing lights going.  i always assume it's a traffic calming move but it's a mixed bag how people react to this specific scenario.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 05, 2023, 05:15:00 PM
Quote from: tckma on April 05, 2023, 01:21:02 PM
Don't know about enforcement of this in Virginia.  However, I was pulled over in Maryland for this (with, at the time, MD plates and an MD license); cop was nice about it and said "we're expanding this to all vehicles October 1" and gave me a (written) warning and an info pamphlet.  Thing is, the car I was supposed to "move over" for (because I slowed down for sure) was the very cop car that pulled me over, and at the time he had no lights on and no one pulled over.  This has me convinced it was part of a public information campaign about the law.  Sit on the side of the road at night with your lights off and pull over anyone who doesn't move into the left lane.
I'm not sure how it is in Maryland, but in Virginia, the vehicle must have hazards activated, otherwise you do not have to move over.

I see plenty of abandoned or no hazards vehicles pulled over, no reason to move over.

Quote
I imagine Virginia highway patrol cops are too busy arresting people for 81 in a 70 zone and impounding their cars.
How does a speeding ticket turn into arrest & impounding vehicles? That is only applicable if the are charged with reckless driving, which is 86 mph or greater, or 20 mph over.

And either way... even with those "reckless"  tickets (it's not reckless in reality), they rarely arrest or impound the vehicle, unless there's other issues such as suspended license, drugs, DUI, etc.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tckma on April 05, 2023, 05:46:37 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 05, 2023, 05:15:00 PM

How does a speeding ticket turn into arrest & impounding vehicles? That is only applicable if the are charged with reckless driving, which is 86 mph or greater, or 20 mph over.

And either way... even with those "reckless"  tickets (it's not reckless in reality), they rarely arrest or impound the vehicle, unless there's other issues such as suspended license, drugs, DUI, etc.

Reckless driving in Virginia is anything above 80 MPH or 20 over the speed limit, whichever is lower.  There are signs in the 70 MPH zones on I-95 near Richmond saying OVER 80 MPH IS RECKLESS DRIVING.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 05, 2023, 05:54:00 PM
Nope... reckless driving is anything over 85 mph or 20+ mph over.

Quote § 46.2-862. Exceeding speed limit.
A person is guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of 20 miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit or (ii) in excess of 85 miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title46.2/chapter8/article7/

Prior to 2020, it was anything over 80 mph. However, that has since been changed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on April 05, 2023, 09:25:11 PM
Quote from: tckma on April 05, 2023, 05:46:37 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 05, 2023, 05:15:00 PM

How does a speeding ticket turn into arrest & impounding vehicles? That is only applicable if the are charged with reckless driving, which is 86 mph or greater, or 20 mph over.

And either way... even with those "reckless"  tickets (it's not reckless in reality), they rarely arrest or impound the vehicle, unless there's other issues such as suspended license, drugs, DUI, etc.

Reckless driving in Virginia is anything above 80 MPH or 20 over the speed limit, whichever is lower.  There are signs in the 70 MPH zones on I-95 near Richmond saying OVER 80 MPH IS RECKLESS DRIVING.

Tell me you haven't been in Virginia recently without telling me you haven't been in Virginia recently.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 05, 2023, 09:30:41 PM
Are those signs even posted anymore? I recall zero of them existing on I-81 anymore (I've driven this highway quite a few times in the last few months). Did they remove them when the new law went into place? I cannot speak for I-95 - have not been on that road in probably a year.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on April 05, 2023, 09:31:56 PM
I've been on I-95 to the NC border in both directions multiple times since 2020 and haven't seen them.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 06, 2023, 07:42:09 AM
Always amusing when people who don't live in Virginia consider themselves qualified to lecture those of us who do about Virginia law, signage, traffic, etc., especially when they're relying on outdated information. 
(I even mentioned in reply 6804 that the statute had been amended, prior to the lecturing post.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on April 06, 2023, 08:08:39 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 06, 2023, 07:42:09 AM
Always amusing when people who don't live in Virginia consider themselves qualified to lecture those of us who do about Virginia law, signage, traffic, etc., especially when they're relying on outdated information. 
(I even mentioned in reply 6804 that the statute had been amended, prior to the lecturing post.)

Eh, I find the argument that one who lives in a state to inherently know the law of that state to be specious.

It all comes down to what's actually in the law, no matter what state the commenter lives in.  Plenty of stupid comments on this forum from those within a state talking ignorantly about some aspect of that state...

But yeah, lecturing without ensuring that one's facts are in a row is dangerous ground.  Then again, we've all done it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 06, 2023, 08:29:04 AM
Yeah, no question there are plenty of people who live in Virginia (or any state) who are ignorant of its laws, or who move here from somewhere else and assume the law from their home state still applies,* or who read one thing on the Internet and then declare themselves experts. But with that said, my comment in reply 6804 would presumably give someone a reason to pause and say, "When did they change that? I thought it was 20 over." After all, I did expressly say "They amended the reckless driving law a few years ago to change the threshold in 65- and 70-mph zones." The reason I said that was because otherwise it might have appeared that I wasn't aware of the (now-defunct) "in excess of 80 mph" provision.

It's not the first time in recent years the reckless driving statute was amended, either. It used to be exceeding the speed limit by 20 mph or, or exceeding 80 mph regardless of the posted speed limit, except that in a 35-mph zone it was going 60 mph or more (note, not "exceeding" 60 mph). I always thought that exception was strange and didn't make a lot of sense–if anything, it would seem like you ought to give more tolerance on the Interstate because you're less likely to encounter pedestrians, cyclists, stopped school buses, cross traffic, etc. Anyway, that "60 in a 35 zone" provision was removed in 2006.

*I've never understood why anyone thinks that because the traffic laws in one state say something, the traffic laws in all other states are necessarily the same. This frequently comes up in local discussions about red-light cameras, for example–there's always someone from out West, from a state where they photograph the front of the car, who is adamant that they can't issue you a ticket if there is no picture of the driver. Um, no, the law here expressly requires that the photograph be of the rear of the car only. The thing that puzzles me is how everyone is used to the idea that the single bit of traffic law that most directly affects most people–speed limits–vary from state to state and most people have no trouble with that concept, yet they can't seem to fathom that other aspects of traffic law might also vary. It's not like it's unreasonable for there to be variance for certain things.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tckma on April 06, 2023, 09:56:41 AM
I was last in Virginia in October 2022, however, that was *northern* Virginia, specifically Chantilly.  I haven't been on I-95 or I-81 since pre-pandemic days -- my main reason for traveling that way, a father-in-law who lived in NC and now lives in TN, has not wanted people visiting due to the pandemic, and my wife and I have respected that.

I remember when I lived in Maryland, working with someone coming back from a vacation who had a mandatory court appearance (no arrest or impoundment though) for reckless driving, 81 in a 70 on I-95, and it was a big deal since that sort of thing needs to be reported when you do certain Federal government work (as we did).

Quote from: 1995hoo on April 06, 2023, 08:29:04 AM
*I've never understood why anyone thinks that because the traffic laws in one state say something, the traffic laws in all other states are necessarily the same. This frequently comes up in local discussions about red-light cameras, for example–there's always someone from out West, from a state where they photograph the front of the car, who is adamant that they can't issue you a ticket if there is no picture of the driver. Um, no, the law here expressly requires that the photograph be of the rear of the car only. The thing that puzzles me is how everyone is used to the idea that the single bit of traffic law that most directly affects most people–speed limits–vary from state to state and most people have no trouble with that concept, yet they can't seem to fathom that other aspects of traffic law might also vary. It's not like it's unreasonable for there to be variance for certain things.

I think this is a direct function of reciprocity between states when transferring licenses, and the ease of car travel between states.

I have lived in six different states: NY, MA, NH, back to MA, then VA, MD, and now PA.  I got my driver's license in NY in 1996 and my motorcycle license in MA in 2005.  In NO case when I moved states, did I have to take any sort of written test or road test on those state's laws when changing over my driver's license.  My Pennsylvania driver's license is based on that 1996 car road test (1994 written permit test) in New York and that 2005 motorcycle road test (2004 written permit test) in Massachusetts, having provided PennDOT with a Maryland driver's license also based on those four tests.

In addition to states honoring each other's written and road tests, enough of traffic law HAS to be the same between states to allow a driver's license from any one state or province to be honored in any other state or province.  There are even international standards that are agreed upon (traffic lights and STOP signs, for example).

Differences in punishments for breaking traffic laws in different jurisdictions is honestly not something someone needs to know to be able to drive.  I couldn't tell you what the fine/punishment is for a speeding ticket here in Pennsylvania because I haven't gotten one.  Also, changes in traffic laws don't nullify millions of drivers' licenses until all those drivers are tested on the legal changes.  That would be logistically impractical/ridiculous.  Major traffic law changes, like the Move Over laws, get public information campaigns, such as advertising and/or traffic stops with warnings only.  I only know Virginia's (former) reckless driving laws from living in a neighboring state and seeing a bunch of people I knew get mandatory court appearances or arrests for them -- I wasn't even aware of the reckless driving punishments when I LIVED in Virginia.

People assume the laws are the same between states because, for the most part, they are -- and that is of necessity.  In any state, if you exceed the speed limit, you run the risk of getting a ticket -- though the details of those tickets differ between states.  In any state, you must stop at a STOP sign or a red light.  Et cetera.

Everyone who has lived in MD probably knows that traffic camera tickets there are only issued beginning at 12 MPH over the posted speed limit, and they don't need a photo of the driver.  I don't assume that is the same here in PA; I assume it's similar, though.  Your post is the first time I've ever heard "they need a photo of the driver" out West.  They don't need to identify the driver in MD because it's not a moving violation, it's merely revenue generation -- but it can result in registration suspension if not paid or challenged in court.  In order to make it a moving violation, they WOULD need to identify the driver.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 06, 2023, 12:11:25 PM
Interestingly enough, everyone talks about Virginia's speeding law and it used to be notorious (it's a little less now that the threshold is higher, but it's still dumb to count 86 mph in a 70 mph as the state's most severe misdemeanor) - but I often never hear this about neighboring North Carolina... I could be wrong (so I will admit - I might be ignorant here) but from what I've read, I believe driving more than 15 mph over the speed limit, or over 80 mph, is an automatic license suspension (if charged with a misdemeanor).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 06, 2023, 12:21:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 06, 2023, 12:11:25 PM
Interestingly enough, everyone talks about Virginia's speeding law and it used to be notorious (it's a little less now that the threshold is higher, but it's still dumb to count 86 mph in a 70 mph as the state's most severe misdemeanor) - but I often never hear this about neighboring North Carolina... I could be wrong (so I will admit - I might be ignorant here) but from what I've read, I believe driving more than 15 mph over the speed limit, or over 80 mph, is an automatic license suspension (if charged with a misdemeanor).

I seem to recall that in the 1990s I read somewhere that it was 15 over or over 75 mph, which was no doubt a legacy of the NMSL days. I would not be surprised at all to hear that they raised the threshold.

One thing a lot of people overlook in Virginia is that the statute we're discussing, which defines certain speeds as reckless, is not the only basis for a reckless driving charge. You can still be charged with reckless driving if you drive in an utterly ridiculous and dangerous manner even if you're going slower than 20 mph over the speed limit–for example, I could see a basis for issuing a reckless driving ticket if someone using the old left-lane HOV facility on I-66 were bombing along in the rain going 60 mph when the traffic in the adjacent lane was at a complete standstill. A reckless ticket, as opposed to simple speeding 5 mph over the speed limit, could be appropriate given the risk that someone would suddenly change lanes into the HOV lane at a time when the speeding driver was unable to stop. The general rule set out in 46.2-852 would seem to allow for that sort of ticket.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on April 06, 2023, 12:22:29 PM
Double-post because this is unrelated to what's in my previous post. This is definitely NOT something you see every day. It's the scene on I-95 this afternoon. I suspect you might see heavier traffic than usual today anyway with people wanting to get away prior to Easter weekend. This certainly won't help.

https://twitter.com/Chopper4Brad/status/1644004326514343943
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on April 06, 2023, 12:38:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 06, 2023, 12:11:25 PM
Interestingly enough, everyone talks about Virginia's speeding law and it used to be notorious (it's a little less now that the threshold is higher, but it's still dumb to count 86 mph in a 70 mph as the state's most severe misdemeanor) - but I often never hear this about neighboring North Carolina... I could be wrong (so I will admit - I might be ignorant here) but from what I've read, I believe driving more than 15 mph over the speed limit, or over 80 mph, is an automatic license suspension (if charged with a misdemeanor).

I haven't heard of that, but on both I-95 and I-85 I always see more police cars in North Carolina than I do in Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on April 06, 2023, 01:16:24 PM
Just because something changes doesn't mean the signs get changed to reflect that.

Kentucky did away with the 511 system several years ago, yet you can still see 511 signs in various places. I was reporting ones I saw to my sign crew (and to personnel in other districts) a couple of years after the change was made.

It took awhile for signs to be removed advertising our former SAFE Patrol after it was abolished.

There are still some first-generation Hal Rogers Parkway signs (brown text on a white square) that haven't been replaced with the "Unbridled Spirit" signs that are close to 20 years old now.

So it's entirely possible that there are some "80 is reckless" signs still posted.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 07, 2023, 07:53:40 PM
I found an old photo today to solve a mystery.  I've been searching quite a while for proof that original VA 330 (1930s-1980) was posted at Mary Washington College.

Here is a photo (credit: MW Admissions) from 3-24-64 from the back entrance of the grounds.  This also informs me where VA 330 actually ran since I've yet to see it on a map and the campus roads are quite different than decades ago.  I had previously seen an early 40s photo of this same entrance and it has no posting.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2F330_1964.jpg&hash=9602bf0026b1e331b6a6e6ea181c260436ef6296)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on April 11, 2023, 08:42:10 PM
Anybody know what all the clearing is for in Marshall by exit 27 on 66?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 11, 2023, 09:00:30 PM
Quote from: Takumi on April 06, 2023, 12:38:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 06, 2023, 12:11:25 PM
Interestingly enough, everyone talks about Virginia's speeding law and it used to be notorious (it's a little less now that the threshold is higher, but it's still dumb to count 86 mph in a 70 mph as the state's most severe misdemeanor) - but I often never hear this about neighboring North Carolina... I could be wrong (so I will admit - I might be ignorant here) but from what I've read, I believe driving more than 15 mph over the speed limit, or over 80 mph, is an automatic license suspension (if charged with a misdemeanor).

I haven't heard of that, but on both I-95 and I-85 I always see more police cars in North Carolina than I do in Virginia.
In North Carolina driving more than 15 mph over the speed limit, or over 80 mph, is a Class 3 misdemeanor and leads to a 30 day license suspension.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 11, 2023, 09:28:44 PM
Quote from: Takumi on April 06, 2023, 12:38:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 06, 2023, 12:11:25 PM
Interestingly enough, everyone talks about Virginia's speeding law and it used to be notorious (it's a little less now that the threshold is higher, but it's still dumb to count 86 mph in a 70 mph as the state's most severe misdemeanor) - but I often never hear this about neighboring North Carolina... I could be wrong (so I will admit - I might be ignorant here) but from what I've read, I believe driving more than 15 mph over the speed limit, or over 80 mph, is an automatic license suspension (if charged with a misdemeanor).

I haven't heard of that, but on both I-95 and I-85 I always see more police cars in North Carolina than I do in Virginia.

I'm late with this, but I've noticed this only with I-95 (probably because there isn't many places for cops to hide between Jarrett and Templeton). It's not unusual to see someone breezing down this stretch doing 90+.

I-85 is often filled with cops, and this is especially true inside Brunswick County, where their police often patrols I-85 on top of the VSP presence. Both my cousin and an ex-coworker have gotten speeding tickets from county police on the interstate.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on April 11, 2023, 10:46:54 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 13, 2023, 10:36:41 AM
The AP Hill monument in the middle of the Hermitage Rd (VA 161) and Laburnum Ave (VA 197) intersection in north Richmond has been removed and the site paved over, but the result is a weirdly configured intersection where lots of accidents occur (granted, this was also a major problem when the monument was still there). This intersection would probably benefit from a roundabout (and the ROW exists for it) but Richmond City Council passed an ordinance in the mid-2000s prohibiting a roundabout from being built here. That ordinance probably needs to be repealed.

I've also seen ideas about prohibiting left turns at this intersection, but the side roads are inadequate for making the missing connections.

https://twitter.com/ImBrendanKing/status/1613850204435894272
Why could they not have kept the island that was already there?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 12, 2023, 02:11:53 AM
Quote from: plain on April 11, 2023, 09:28:44 PM
I-85 is often filled with cops, and this is especially true inside Brunswick County, where their police often patrols I-85 on top of the VSP presence. Both my cousin and an ex-coworker have gotten speeding tickets from county police on the interstate.
Boy, I bet Brunswick County loves having long stretches of both I-85 and US-58 (which is still only 55 mph) inside their county for speed traps enforcement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 12, 2023, 11:10:10 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 11, 2023, 10:46:54 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 13, 2023, 10:36:41 AM
The AP Hill monument in the middle of the Hermitage Rd (VA 161) and Laburnum Ave (VA 197) intersection in north Richmond has been removed and the site paved over, but the result is a weirdly configured intersection where lots of accidents occur (granted, this was also a major problem when the monument was still there). This intersection would probably benefit from a roundabout (and the ROW exists for it) but Richmond City Council passed an ordinance in the mid-2000s prohibiting a roundabout from being built here. That ordinance probably needs to be repealed.

I've also seen ideas about prohibiting left turns at this intersection, but the side roads are inadequate for making the missing connections.

https://twitter.com/ImBrendanKing/status/1613850204435894272
Why could they not have kept the island that was already there?

A.P. Hill was literally buried (standing up) under the monument, so the entire island had to be dug up in order to remove his body.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on April 14, 2023, 10:45:33 PM
New traffic pattern on US 33 east of US 29 in Ruckersville. I have no images of it, but the east/west lanes are now split.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 14, 2023, 11:35:27 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on April 14, 2023, 10:45:33 PM
New traffic pattern on US 33 east of US 29 in Ruckersville. I have no images of it, but the east/west lanes are now split.
I saw that driving through the other day... is it related to construction of a business?

It looks to be either turning lanes or curb / gutter for that immediate area, no full widening.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 15, 2023, 09:01:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2023, 11:35:27 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on April 14, 2023, 10:45:33 PM
New traffic pattern on US 33 east of US 29 in Ruckersville. I have no images of it, but the east/west lanes are now split.
I saw that driving through the other day... is it related to construction of a business?

It looks to be either turning lanes or curb / gutter for that immediate area, no full widening.

it is a project to improve safety at the US 29-33 intersection (from VDOT (https://virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/33-29improvements.asp)):
QuoteThe purpose of this project is to improve safety and traffic flow at the intersection of U.S. 33 (Spotswood Trail) and U.S. 29 (Seminole Trail) in Greene County. Improvements include a raised median with crossovers and additional lanes at the U.S. 29 intersection.

U.S. 33 is being widened on the east side of U.S. 29 to provide two left turn lanes for traffic turning onto southbound U.S. 29. An additional through lane will also be provided for westbound traffic crossing U.S. 29. Bicycle lanes and concrete sidewalk will also be included.

These improvements are anticipated to reduce congestion during peak commuting hours and reduce the trend of rear-end crashes. The dual left turn lanes are also anticipated to prevent traffic queues from blocking the Moore Road / Jennings Loop intersection.

To reduce the trend of angle ("T-Bone" crashes), the project will also include:

Construction of a raised median along U.S. 33 between U.S. 29 and Moore Road.
Minor re-alignment of Moore Road and Jennings Loop to provide a single full access intersection.

Supposed to be complete this summer.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on April 15, 2023, 09:33:52 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 15, 2023, 09:01:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 14, 2023, 11:35:27 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on April 14, 2023, 10:45:33 PM
New traffic pattern on US 33 east of US 29 in Ruckersville. I have no images of it, but the east/west lanes are now split.
I saw that driving through the other day... is it related to construction of a business?

It looks to be either turning lanes or curb / gutter for that immediate area, no full widening.

it is a project to improve safety at the US 29-33 intersection (from VDOT (https://virginiadot.org/projects/culpeper/33-29improvements.asp)):
QuoteThe purpose of this project is to improve safety and traffic flow at the intersection of U.S. 33 (Spotswood Trail) and U.S. 29 (Seminole Trail) in Greene County. Improvements include a raised median with crossovers and additional lanes at the U.S. 29 intersection.

U.S. 33 is being widened on the east side of U.S. 29 to provide two left turn lanes for traffic turning onto southbound U.S. 29. An additional through lane will also be provided for westbound traffic crossing U.S. 29. Bicycle lanes and concrete sidewalk will also be included.

These improvements are anticipated to reduce congestion during peak commuting hours and reduce the trend of rear-end crashes. The dual left turn lanes are also anticipated to prevent traffic queues from blocking the Moore Road / Jennings Loop intersection.

To reduce the trend of angle ("T-Bone" crashes), the project will also include:

Construction of a raised median along U.S. 33 between U.S. 29 and Moore Road.
Minor re-alignment of Moore Road and Jennings Loop to provide a single full access intersection.

Supposed to be complete this summer.

I got some images today from the construction:
(https://i.postimg.cc/9FSSjh77/1067-B431-33-B0-4398-9545-F6-F060-B30918.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on April 15, 2023, 10:12:46 PM
Are those US 29 cutouts?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on April 16, 2023, 08:55:00 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 15, 2023, 10:12:46 PM
Are those US 29 cutouts?

Nope, here's the US 29 sign from later in the day:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Vkj8xjf9/3-D67-C5-AE-534-B-4925-B569-69585-BE52709.jpg)

There's also an erroneous US 33 sign on the northbound lanes of US 29, I posted it in the Erroneous Signs thread.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 16, 2023, 09:21:58 AM
I'm curious why "JCT"  is used there with the directions, as opposed to a standalone sign further back "JCT 29" .
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on April 16, 2023, 09:28:55 AM
That might come in later. Not the first time I've seen that though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 16, 2023, 09:45:21 AM
Quote from: Takumi on April 16, 2023, 09:28:55 AM
That might come in later. Not the first time I've seen that though.
That is true, although then I'm not sure why "JCT"  is on the directional signs.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on April 17, 2023, 02:44:47 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 16, 2023, 09:45:21 AM
Quote from: Takumi on April 16, 2023, 09:28:55 AM
That might come in later. Not the first time I've seen that though.
That is true, although then I'm not sure why "JCT"  is on the directional signs.
Virginia usually does not use "JCT" signs for US and State highways when approaching intersections.  "JCT" (or even "JUNCTION") is used mainly for Interstate Highways and secondary highways.  From what I observed living in the state for 22 years, was that there would be no "JCT" placard above the SOUTH US 29 and NORTH US 29 signs.  There would be the two sets of signs--the first with left and right turning arrows and the second with left and right straight arrows.  Has this policy changed?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 17, 2023, 10:41:48 PM
After many years of delays due to land acquisition disputes, construction on the US-17 Business Deep Creek Bridge is finally set to begin in June 2023 in Chesapeake. Construction will be complete tentatively by June 2026.

USACE awards $59.5 million contract to construct new Deep Creek Bridge in Chesapeake (https://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Stories/Article/3353345/usace-awards-595-million-contract-to-construct-new-deep-creek-bridge-in-chesape/)
Quote NORFOLK -- The Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, awarded a $59.5 million contract today to Archer Western LLC of Norfolk, Virginia, to replace the Deep Creek Bridge in Chesapeake, Virginia.   

"We're thrilled and honored to announce this major milestone,"  said Col. Brian Hallberg, Norfolk District commander. "People in Deep Creek have waited a long time for this project and won't believe it's happening until there are shovels in the ground. That day is coming."

Built in 1934 at a cost of $64,000, the Deep Creek Bridge is a federally owned and operated two-lane bridge that crosses the Dismal Swamp Canal and Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at U.S. Route 17 in Chesapeake's Deep Creek community.

The District's effort to replace the bridge began in 1977.

"I am so pleased that our partners at the Army Corps of Engineers are reaching this significant milestone towards the replacement of the Deep Creek Bridge, said Chesapeake Mayor Rick West. "I know this is one project our Deep Creek neighbors, and everyone who commutes through the area, have been so anxious for and I can't wait to see work get started."

Noting traffic congestion and the structure's failure to meet width and design load standards, Norfolk District engineers first recommended replacing the bridge in a January 1977 feasibility study, but that recommendation was rejected. In March 1996, the Chesapeake city manager, citing city plans to improve the Route 17 corridor, asked USACE to again study the feasibility of replacing the bridge. The District published its initial appraisal two months later and again requested Congressional authorization for a feasibility study.

With Congressional authorization and funding in hand, the Norfolk District initiated a new feasibility study in 1998 and those results were transmitted to Congress in a March 2003 Chief of Engineers Report recommending replacement of the bridge.

In 2007, Congress authorized the replacement project in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 and, in the 2020 WRDA, reauthorized the project at a cost of $59.5 million.

"Countless people in multiple agencies and across four decades got us to this day,"  Hallberg said. "I'm proud of them all, our partners at the City of Chesapeake, and the current project delivery team for their persistence in always pushing this forward."  

Construction is expected to begin in June 2023 and completed in June 2026, with the new bridge construction occurring alongside the existing bridge, Walt Trinkala, Norfolk District project manager said.

The existing bridge will be replaced by a 144-foot-long, 60-foot-wide, five-lane, dual-leaf drawbridge. Replacing the bridge will improve traffic flow and meet Virginia Department of Transportation and City of Chesapeake requirements.

Once completed, the City of Chesapeake will own and operate new Deep Creek Bridge.

Though traffic flow across the bridge will continue during construction, commuters should expect delays. Traffic impacts will be listed on the Chesapeake Travel Advisories Calendar, and broadcast via Twitter at @ChesapeakeRoads.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on April 17, 2023, 11:25:09 PM
This project is a long time coming and I'm absolutely loving that it's finally getting done. I realize why the red tape but at least it's a go now. The residents of the Deep Creek neighborhood, as well as travellers, will benefit from the improvement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: wriddle082 on April 17, 2023, 11:42:41 PM
^ There won't be any tolls on this bridge, right?  I wouldn't put it past the City of Chesapeake to toll it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on April 17, 2023, 11:46:46 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on April 17, 2023, 11:42:41 PM
^ There won't be any tolls on this bridge, right?  I wouldn't put it past the City of Chesapeake to toll it.
No, the replacement is funded with a mix of local, state, and federal funding. No tolls.

The city is however looking to replace the nearby Centerville Turnpike bridge with a fixed-span 4 lane high level crossing, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a toll on there given the $400 million cost estimate. That's 15-20 years away though. I don't think a toll would fly well with the public at all as this is a local important crossing and not a freeway / trucking corridor. It wouldn't make logical sense, not to mention is easy to avoid via VA-168 and would result in increased traffic on that route, along with VA-165 Mt. Pleasant Rd. But who knows.

The city only operates two toll facilities, US-17 and VA-168, and both are fully controlled access highways, not local arterials.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on April 24, 2023, 01:48:09 PM
Looks like the VA 28 bypass project is slowly moving forward.

https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/proposed-route-28-bypass-route-released-dozens-of-properties-in-raze-zone/article_5c57ba8e-df75-11ed-a2c7-3797102ee299.html

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 01, 2023, 01:30:00 PM
What is the purpose of retaining the only remaining portion of VA 162 in Williamsburg? To me it's silly to have a very short designation that has a dangling end just after it starts. 

Yes I know the city itself doesn't want it and had it truncated to the city limit on the east side, but it could be at least kept between the James City County / Williamsburg Line and US 60/ VA 5 like it's original alignment was before it took over former VA 132 along Lafayette Street and Richmond Road in the early eighties.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 01, 2023, 02:58:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2023, 01:30:00 PM
What is the purpose of retaining the only remaining portion of VA 162 in Williamsburg? To me it's silly to have a very short designation that has a dangling end just after it starts. 

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

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

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

I'm a little surprised VA 143 and this section of VA 162 didn't become part of US 60 in the 1940s.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on May 01, 2023, 09:09:42 PM
It's definitely weird that VA162 got truncated to city limits but VA5 still keeps its nonsensical routing through downtown Williamsburg, complete with a near-180º turn from Lafayette onto Page St. I would have just ended it at Richmond Road right in the middle of downtown.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 03, 2023, 03:03:40 PM
For those who haven't seen it (it's made the national news), there was quite the crash on the Fairfax County Parkway yesterday afternoon. The police car stopped a driver heading southbound for going 73 in a 50-mph zone. Then a kid in an M3 came along the other way going in excess of 120 mph. This happened just south of the interchange with Braddock Road.

https://twitter.com/FairfaxCountyPD/status/1653496310132101120
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 03, 2023, 03:34:12 PM
The crash was a close call, and thankfully no better was severely injured or killed. But I do have to bring up a couple of points.

Does the county and/or VDOT intend to install cable guardrail along that facility? I know the speed limit is only 50 mph, and the county police love to strictly enforce it, but the reality is, it's a freeway with 65-70 mph operating speeds (and should be posted at least 55 to 60 mph). I feel like there's more safety issues caused by the artificially low limit, the design of the roadway overall - all of the intersections need to be closed & replaced by interchanges or overpasses, and the lack of any median barrier.

This accident would've been fully avoidable had there been a proper barrier installed, and at most would've just been a single car accident, maybe two in the same direction. If this went slightly different as it happened, vehicles heading the opposing direction could have been struck and some people may not have been able to walk away.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 03, 2023, 05:21:29 PM
I don't know the answer to any of those questions. But as to your final sentence, notice in the video that a car heading southbound (i.e., in the direction the camera was facing) narrowly missed being swept into the crash because the driver braked just in time.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: seicer on May 03, 2023, 05:53:33 PM
The teenage driver in the BMW M3 was driving at 120 MPH. We don't need to babyproof every roadway when the issue here is excessive speeding and dangerous driving. Our penalities for these infractions are too low.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on May 03, 2023, 06:10:03 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 01, 2023, 02:58:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2023, 01:30:00 PM
What is the purpose of retaining the only remaining portion of VA 162 in Williamsburg? To me it's silly to have a very short designation that has a dangling end just after it starts. 

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

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

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

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

https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/va/va_132/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Joseph R P on May 03, 2023, 06:15:46 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 01, 2023, 09:09:42 PM
It's definitely weird that VA162 got truncated to city limits but VA5 still keeps its nonsensical routing through downtown Williamsburg, complete with a near-180º turn from Lafayette onto Page St. I would have just ended it at Richmond Road right in the middle of downtown.

It looks like it would make more sense for VA 5 to continue along Francis Street, but that would have the route pass straight through the Colonial Williamsburg historic site- which most certainly prohibits commercial vehicles, and my speculation is that they routed it in such a way that heavy traffic would bypass it rather than head right through it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2023, 06:17:30 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 01, 2023, 09:09:42 PM
It's definitely weird that VA162 got truncated to city limits but VA5 still keeps its nonsensical routing through downtown Williamsburg, complete with a near-180º turn from Lafayette onto Page St. I would have just ended it at Richmond Road right in the middle of downtown.

It’s more weird that they kept VA 5 but truncated VA 31 as both used to be concurrent through Williamsburg. Plus Parkway Drive which I believe was VA 163, that got eliminated so it makes you wonder why both VA 5 and VA 132 are retained.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 03, 2023, 06:24:11 PM
Quote from: seicer on May 03, 2023, 05:53:33 PM
The teenage driver in the BMW M3 was driving at 120 MPH. We don't need to babyproof every roadway when the issue here is excessive speeding and dangerous driving. Our penalities for these infractions are too low.
I'd argue that a cable barrier on a freeway, especially one with a number of twists and turns, is certainly reasonable.

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

Are guardrails in general "baby proofing?"

While I agree excessive speeding is a problem, especially around the Northern Virginia metro area in particular, I think it's also fair to acknowledge the speed limits are posted too low to begin with. Obviously, 120 mph is not excusable, but 65-70 mph is certainly within reason for freeway speeds. I'm aware the Parkway has intersections and isn't a full freeway, but that's an issue with its design. It's designed with a freeway cross section and contributes to high speeds. It gives off the impression of a freeway, and invites those freeway speeds, only to be met with an intersection around the corner. With the amount of traffic using the roadway, the remaining intersections need to be fully replaced with overpasses and interchanges, and the speed limit should at least be increased to 55 mph.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 03, 2023, 06:32:15 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 03, 2023, 06:10:03 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 01, 2023, 02:58:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2023, 01:30:00 PM
What is the purpose of retaining the only remaining portion of VA 162 in Williamsburg? To me it's silly to have a very short designation that has a dangling end just after it starts. 

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

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

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

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

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

I do not think anything from that page has changed.  I am not aware of any changes to VA 132 though I always thought it was odd that the speed limit is 55 from US 60 to VA 143.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on May 03, 2023, 07:02:55 PM
VA 132 is still there. It was, for some reason, only 162 and 163 that were dropped. (31 was as well, but it was concurrent with 5.)

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

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

The bigger mystery to me is why only half of the Monticello Avenue extension became primary.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 03, 2023, 07:45:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 03, 2023, 06:10:03 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 01, 2023, 02:58:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2023, 01:30:00 PM
What is the purpose of retaining the only remaining portion of VA 162 in Williamsburg? To me it's silly to have a very short designation that has a dangling end just after it starts. 

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

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

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

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

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

No. They no longer designate new Y routes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 04, 2023, 07:24:20 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/EqsrSdg2pWiJpY2L9
What is up with this SB configuration of I-95? The APL suggests that the VA 3 exit ramp departs before US 17 as well as US 17's c/d roadway departing sooner.

The through I-95 lanes are not tolled so it's not the HOT lane expansion, though the flyovers look like they will be here.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 04, 2023, 08:13:07 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 04, 2023, 07:24:20 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/EqsrSdg2pWiJpY2L9
What is up with this SB configuration of I-95? The APL suggests that the VA 3 exit ramp departs before US 17 as well as US 17's c/d roadway departing sooner.

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

It is not new news to us VA folk in the forum.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=294.msg2669825#msg2669825)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 04, 2023, 08:37:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 04, 2023, 07:24:20 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/EqsrSdg2pWiJpY2L9
What is up with this SB configuration of I-95? The APL suggests that the VA 3 exit ramp departs before US 17 as well as US 17's c/d roadway departing sooner.

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

Think of it as basically the same configuration as the Wilson Bridge. They wanted to separate the local traffic exiting and entering at US-17 and VA-3 from the longer-distance traffic. The construction to do the same northbound is not yet complete.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 04, 2023, 09:07:59 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 04, 2023, 07:24:20 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/EqsrSdg2pWiJpY2L9
What is up with this SB configuration of I-95? The APL suggests that the VA 3 exit ramp departs before US 17 as well as US 17's c/d roadway departing sooner.

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

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

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

This drawing suggests there will be a segment begin/end at Quantico northbound - https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/Fredericksburg/Fred_Ex_PH_Design_Russell_Road_B.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on May 04, 2023, 09:13:34 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 03, 2023, 06:24:11 PM
.... I'm aware the Parkway has intersections and isn't a full freeway, but that's an issue with its design. It's designed with a freeway cross section and contributes to high speeds. It gives off the impression of a freeway, and invites those freeway speeds, only to be met with an intersection around the corner. With the amount of traffic using the roadway, the remaining intersections need to be fully replaced with overpasses and interchanges, and the speed limit should at least be increased to 55 mph.

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

For those unfamiliar, the crash occurred roughly here: https://goo.gl/maps/BPTTayTiHB4Pq8Vw7
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 04, 2023, 01:42:31 PM
Would a cable barrier really be that much of an impediment to a vehicle traveling 120 mph? I can't imagine it being much more than a very temporary and virtually ineffective slowdown.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on May 04, 2023, 04:34:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2023, 01:42:31 PM
Would a cable barrier really be that much of an impediment to a vehicle traveling 120 mph? I can't imagine it being much more than a very temporary and virtually ineffective slowdown.
Cable barriers can stop semis when tensioned properly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on May 04, 2023, 09:14:08 PM
The median for US 33 east of US 29 is being placed.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Jtw306CM/43-F070-CC-7-DE4-45-F9-ACD7-8-E2-C1-A7-EAA4-E.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on May 05, 2023, 10:19:16 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 04, 2023, 04:34:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2023, 01:42:31 PM
Would a cable barrier really be that much of an impediment to a vehicle traveling 120 mph? I can't imagine it being much more than a very temporary and virtually ineffective slowdown.
Cable barriers can stop semis when tensioned properly.

That's not the prevailing thought here. Here it's assumed that they'll work only for a normal passenger vehicle driving at a reasonable speed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on May 05, 2023, 11:22:09 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 05, 2023, 10:19:16 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 04, 2023, 04:34:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 04, 2023, 01:42:31 PM
Would a cable barrier really be that much of an impediment to a vehicle traveling 120 mph? I can't imagine it being much more than a very temporary and virtually ineffective slowdown.
Cable barriers can stop semis when tensioned properly.

That's not the prevailing thought here. Here it's assumed that they'll work only for a normal passenger vehicle driving at a reasonable speed.
NY cable > KY cable.  Truth be told, it may actually only be NYSDOT Region 8 making this claim.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: seicer on May 06, 2023, 09:42:10 AM
Going back to the thought that we need to design roads for speeding drivers (especially one going at 120 MPH), cable barriers and guardrails are designed only for traffic going the speed limit or within the engineered/design speeds of the roadway.

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

I don't see anything where they can't be used to stop semis. Plenty of articles exist about semis being prevented from crossing over because of the barrier. The barrier is designed to reduce the energy of the vehicle crashing into it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 06, 2023, 03:21:24 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 04, 2023, 09:07:59 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 04, 2023, 07:24:20 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/EqsrSdg2pWiJpY2L9
What is up with this SB configuration of I-95? The APL suggests that the VA 3 exit ramp departs before US 17 as well as US 17's c/d roadway departing sooner.

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

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

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

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

I've got questions of my own about this project; Shouldn't signs like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3473981,-77.4844693,3a,75y,246.62h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjyhl9Ir7XpTINu7pb-nimA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and this (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3403167,-77.4925441,3a,75y,222.99h,97.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s18Atnb6QT0Jf0RCLBlpkQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) be blue on top and green on the bottom?



Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 09, 2023, 08:44:20 PM
I got to drive through the new roundabout on US 250 at VA 151 this morning, and the I-64 references there are numerous.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on May 09, 2023, 10:08:10 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 09, 2023, 08:44:20 PM
I got to drive through the new roundabout on US 250 at VA 151 this morning, and the I-64 references there are numerous.

I have a couple images from when I went through during its construction, back in December. Did VDOT keep any I-81 references?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 09, 2023, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on May 09, 2023, 10:08:10 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 09, 2023, 08:44:20 PM
I got to drive through the new roundabout on US 250 at VA 151 this morning, and the I-64 references there are numerous.

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

Yes, I saw one on US 250 WB.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on May 11, 2023, 04:53:24 PM
It has been like this for a while, but Atlantic Avenue in VA Beach has a cul-de-sac for its northern terminus.
(https://i.postimg.cc/3NbdPZ3z/Screenshot-2023-05-11-4-50-48-PM.png)
March 2023 GSV.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on May 11, 2023, 05:09:37 PM
^ Aside from the part that continues as Atlantic Avenue north of there, yes. Though I guess that means the US 60 north/south trailblazers are gone.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 11, 2023, 05:58:05 PM
Quote from: Takumi on May 11, 2023, 05:09:37 PM
^ Aside from the part that continues as Atlantic Avenue north of there, yes. Though I guess that means the US 60 north/south trailblazers are gone.

Yes, that is correct.  (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8694984,-75.9820337,3a,75y,261.68h,77.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx0lSRM6RLNM_qfGYIzKP5w!2e0!5s20161001T000000!7i13312!8i6656) 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 14, 2023, 11:45:28 AM
Tolls will increase later this year on RMTA's two main facilities: the Downtown Expwy (VA 195) and the Richmond portion of the Powhite Pkwy (VA 76). The max toll for cars will go from 70¢ to 90¢ E-ZPass & $1 cash.

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/toll-increases-on-powhite-parkway-downtown-expressway-go-into-effect-sept-1/amp/


This is the first time RMTA has increased tolls since 2008. The amount of people on FB and such complaining about the increase is appalling to me, given that the tolls could've (and probably should've) been increased already, plus this will still be some of the cheapest tolls you will find anywhere in the country.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on May 14, 2023, 12:22:28 PM
Quote from: plain on May 14, 2023, 11:45:28 AM
This is the first time RMTA has increased tolls since 2008. The amount of people on FB and such complaining about the increase is appalling to me, given that the tolls could've (and probably should've) been increased already, plus this will still be some of the cheapest tolls you will find anywhere in the country.
Wow! We have a $4 toll ($9 in the summer!) down here for a rural freeway that saves 2 minutes, and they have an urban expressway that's not even a dollar and shaves off 5-10+ minutes easily, but they feel the need to complain more.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on May 14, 2023, 12:58:37 PM
Quote from: plain on May 14, 2023, 11:45:28 AM
Tolls will increase later this year on RMTA's two main facilities: the Downtown Expwy (VA 195) and the Richmond portion of the Powhite Pkwy (VA 76). The max toll for cars will go from 70¢ to 90¢ E-ZPass & $1 cash.

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/toll-increases-on-powhite-parkway-downtown-expressway-go-into-effect-sept-1/amp/


This is the first time RMTA has increased tolls since 2008. The amount of people on FB and such complaining about the increase is appalling to me, given that the tolls could've (and probably should've) been increased already, plus this will still be some of the cheapest tolls you will find anywhere in the country.

Much of the uproar is because there has been a significant increase in pedestrian deaths caused by drivers using city streets to shunpike (I-95 and I-64 aren't particularly effective through routes due to being substandard and choked with traffic). Drivers regularly do 15-20 over the speed limit on Main and Cary Streets. Increasing the tolls will probably cause even more drivers to shunpike.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on May 15, 2023, 10:55:16 PM
Quote from: plain on May 14, 2023, 11:45:28 AM
Tolls will increase later this year on RMTA's two main facilities: the Downtown Expwy (VA 195) and the Richmond portion of the Powhite Pkwy (VA 76). The max toll for cars will go from 70¢ to 90¢ E-ZPass & $1 cash.

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/toll-increases-on-powhite-parkway-downtown-expressway-go-into-effect-sept-1/amp/


This is the first time RMTA has increased tolls since 2008. The amount of people on FB and such complaining about the increase is appalling to me, given that the tolls could've (and probably should've) been increased already, plus this will still be some of the cheapest tolls you will find anywhere in the country.

This is in major contrast to tolls on the privately-managed VA-895, which as of this writing have ratcheted up to $5.55 for cars. (A hard bargain in my opinion, given that VA-10 is a viable alternative for traffic going from I-295 to I-85 or VA-288)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on May 15, 2023, 11:18:45 PM
Quote from: plain on May 14, 2023, 11:45:28 AM
Tolls will increase later this year on RMTA's two main facilities: the Downtown Expwy (VA 195) and the Richmond portion of the Powhite Pkwy (VA 76). The max toll for cars will go from 70¢ to 90¢ E-ZPass & $1 cash.

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/toll-increases-on-powhite-parkway-downtown-expressway-go-into-effect-sept-1/amp/


This is the first time RMTA has increased tolls since 2008. The amount of people on FB and such complaining about the increase is appalling to me, given that the tolls could've (and probably should've) been increased already, plus this will still be some of the cheapest tolls you will find anywhere in the country.

Yeah go to PA and pay the PA Turnpike that goes up annually.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 16, 2023, 06:18:21 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on May 15, 2023, 10:55:16 PM
Quote from: plain on May 14, 2023, 11:45:28 AM
Tolls will increase later this year on RMTA's two main facilities: the Downtown Expwy (VA 195) and the Richmond portion of the Powhite Pkwy (VA 76). The max toll for cars will go from 70¢ to 90¢ E-ZPass & $1 cash.

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/richmond/toll-increases-on-powhite-parkway-downtown-expressway-go-into-effect-sept-1/amp/


This is the first time RMTA has increased tolls since 2008. The amount of people on FB and such complaining about the increase is appalling to me, given that the tolls could've (and probably should've) been increased already, plus this will still be some of the cheapest tolls you will find anywhere in the country.

This is in major contrast to tolls on the privately-managed VA-895, which as of this writing have ratcheted up to $5.55 for cars. (A hard bargain in my opinion, given that VA-10 is a viable alternative for traffic going from I-295 to I-85 or VA-288)

I am not so sure on that.  Yes, widening is still ongoing on VA 10, but the amount of traffic on there generally leads me to want to pay the VA 895 toll if I ever came from I-64 EB to I-95 SB east of Richmond (especially during rush hour).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 25, 2023, 10:13:10 AM
Plans are coming out for the Short Pump area. Any of these would be an improvement, let alone all of these. Should be interesting to see what actually unfolds.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2023/05/25/short-pump-i-64-interchange-improvements-plan-clears-vdot-hurdle/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on May 25, 2023, 11:00:09 AM
Quote from: plain on May 25, 2023, 10:13:10 AM
Plans are coming out for the Short Pump area. Any of these would be an improvement, let alone all of these. Should be interesting to see what actually unfolds.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2023/05/25/short-pump-i-64-interchange-improvements-plan-clears-vdot-hurdle/

wonder why they don't want 3 through lanes on Broad St through that I-64 interchange...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on May 25, 2023, 01:39:10 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 25, 2023, 11:00:09 AM
Quote from: plain on May 25, 2023, 10:13:10 AM
Plans are coming out for the Short Pump area. Any of these would be an improvement, let alone all of these. Should be interesting to see what actually unfolds.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2023/05/25/short-pump-i-64-interchange-improvements-plan-clears-vdot-hurdle/

wonder why they don't want 3 through lanes on Broad St through that I-64 interchange...

Whatever they decide to do it's most certainly going to involve the reconstruction of the overpasses. It's already a tight squeeze through there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 28, 2023, 02:26:06 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 09, 2023, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on May 09, 2023, 10:08:10 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 09, 2023, 08:44:20 PM
I got to drive through the new roundabout on US 250 at VA 151 this morning, and the I-64 references there are numerous.

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

Yes, I saw one on US 250 WB.

Here is the leftover I-81 reference.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218792998496550&set=a.10218793136620003)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on June 07, 2023, 02:17:43 AM
Does anyone here know if South Quay Road in Holland, Suffolk is still signed as VA Route 189?

Google hasn't updated the imagery along Business US 58 since 2009 in Downtown Holland. If you visit there you will see that a VA 189 shield was present in 09.  However a lot can change in 14 years.

Also South Quay Road was not captured by the Google car, but from US 58 it appears a Business VA 189 is seen in US 58 images. However zooming in proves useless.

I am aware of VA 189's history that when the Holland Bypass was first opened, it didn't connect to the rest of US 58. So VA 189 got applied to the bypass with South Quay Road in Downtown Holland renumbered to VA 189 Business. VA 189 got removed from Holland when VDOT finally completed the Holland- Franklin Bypass and truncated to its current location. That is why part of the long bypass is still arterial as US 58 took over a preexisting Route 189 and just added a dual carriageway rather than build a redundant freeway nearby.

So in turn was wondering if VA 189 ( and VA 189 Business)signs still exist today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 07, 2023, 06:01:18 AM
^As of 2019, there was at least one VA 189 BUS shield still in Holland.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218860147175225&set=a.10216218268569911)

And a VA 189 shield coming from US 58 BUS EB.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218860214816916&set=a.10216218268569911)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 07, 2023, 07:10:04 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 07, 2023, 06:01:18 AM
^As of 2019, there was at least one VA 189 BUS shield still in Holland.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218860147175225&set=a.10216218268569911)

And a VA 189 shield coming from US 58 BUS EB.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218860214816916&set=a.10216218268569911)

There are 2 VA 189 shields on US 58 itself in 2022:
https://goo.gl/maps/V7ByGLtLJxkaBRUj8
https://goo.gl/maps/2GpgytN9nB5kFgfT9

VA 189 Holland still posted as 189 Business in 2022:
https://goo.gl/maps/v3jpPuSgm3Wux6Kw8
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on June 15, 2023, 07:34:45 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on April 17, 2023, 02:44:47 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 16, 2023, 09:45:21 AM
Quote from: Takumi on April 16, 2023, 09:28:55 AM
That might come in later. Not the first time I've seen that though.
That is true, although then I'm not sure why "JCT"  is on the directional signs.
Virginia usually does not use "JCT" signs for US and State highways when approaching intersections.  "JCT" (or even "JUNCTION") is used mainly for Interstate Highways and secondary highways.  From what I observed living in the state for 22 years, was that there would be no "JCT" placard above the SOUTH US 29 and NORTH US 29 signs.  There would be the two sets of signs--the first with left and right turning arrows and the second with left and right straight arrows.  Has this policy changed?

When I reported a lack of signage for VA-234 on US-29 North approaching and at the intersection to VDOT, the result was the installation of a "JCT" sign with a VA-234 shield before the intersection and installation of trailblazers for VA-234, US-29, and I-66 at the intersection. Unfortunately, they're not on the GSV as they were installed in the summer or fall of 2022.  I was surprised as I've rarely seen "JCT" signs for such purposes in the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 16, 2023, 09:12:54 AM
Quote from: dfnva on June 15, 2023, 07:34:45 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on April 17, 2023, 02:44:47 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 16, 2023, 09:45:21 AM
Quote from: Takumi on April 16, 2023, 09:28:55 AM
That might come in later. Not the first time I've seen that though.
That is true, although then I'm not sure why "JCT"  is on the directional signs.
Virginia usually does not use "JCT" signs for US and State highways when approaching intersections.  "JCT" (or even "JUNCTION") is used mainly for Interstate Highways and secondary highways.  From what I observed living in the state for 22 years, was that there would be no "JCT" placard above the SOUTH US 29 and NORTH US 29 signs.  There would be the two sets of signs--the first with left and right turning arrows and the second with left and right straight arrows.  Has this policy changed?

When I reported a lack of signage for VA-234 on US-29 North approaching and at the intersection to VDOT, the result was the installation of a "JCT" sign with a VA-234 shield before the intersection and installation of trailblazers for VA-234, US-29, and I-66 at the intersection. Unfortunately, they're not on the GSV as they were installed in the summer or fall of 2022.  I was surprised as I've rarely seen "JCT" signs for such purposes in the state.

Decades ago, JUNCTION signs were the norm in Virginia at primary route intersections.  Today only District 4 has routine use of them, and those are mostly at secondary routes with a crossroad.  Of course, interstate and other freeway junctions do use JCT almost universally.

Here's another modern one, in Waynesboro:  https://goo.gl/maps/UUudkRaEYQcXTEAb7
This JCT sign was installed sometime after 2012:  https://goo.gl/maps/93iMFTRgmjRr8SJ89


Here are a couple legacy examples that made it to the digital camera era.  The 11-460 set was replaced around 2010 but the VA 316 one was still up in latest GMSV (2014):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fcutouts%2Fimages%2Fus011-460_03.jpg&hash=8494ba82b4a95219c16f2a7253e122474f1cf7a0)
Adam Froehlig, 2007

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Foldsigns%2F316junction.jpg&hash=abcec1bbc7a55072d414deea309834017011c590)
Mapmikey, 2007
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dfnva on June 16, 2023, 12:38:25 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 16, 2023, 09:12:54 AM
Quote from: dfnva on June 15, 2023, 07:34:45 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on April 17, 2023, 02:44:47 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 16, 2023, 09:45:21 AM
Quote from: Takumi on April 16, 2023, 09:28:55 AM
That might come in later. Not the first time I've seen that though.
That is true, although then I'm not sure why "JCT"  is on the directional signs.
Virginia usually does not use "JCT" signs for US and State highways when approaching intersections.  "JCT" (or even "JUNCTION") is used mainly for Interstate Highways and secondary highways.  From what I observed living in the state for 22 years, was that there would be no "JCT" placard above the SOUTH US 29 and NORTH US 29 signs.  There would be the two sets of signs--the first with left and right turning arrows and the second with left and right straight arrows.  Has this policy changed?

When I reported a lack of signage for VA-234 on US-29 North approaching and at the intersection to VDOT, the result was the installation of a "JCT" sign with a VA-234 shield before the intersection and installation of trailblazers for VA-234, US-29, and I-66 at the intersection. Unfortunately, they're not on the GSV as they were installed in the summer or fall of 2022.  I was surprised as I've rarely seen "JCT" signs for such purposes in the state.

Decades ago, JUNCTION signs were the norm in Virginia at primary route intersections.  Today only District 4 has routine use of them, and those are mostly at secondary routes with a crossroad.  Of course, interstate and other freeway junctions do use JCT almost universally.

Here's another modern one, in Waynesboro:  https://goo.gl/maps/UUudkRaEYQcXTEAb7
This JCT sign was installed sometime after 2012:  https://goo.gl/maps/93iMFTRgmjRr8SJ89


Here are a couple legacy examples that made it to the digital camera era.  The 11-460 set was replaced around 2010 but the VA 316 one was still up in latest GMSV (2014):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fcutouts%2Fimages%2Fus011-460_03.jpg&hash=8494ba82b4a95219c16f2a7253e122474f1cf7a0)
Adam Froehlig, 2007

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Foldsigns%2F316junction.jpg&hash=abcec1bbc7a55072d414deea309834017011c590)
Mapmikey, 2007

Speaking of legacy "JUNCTION" signs, I think this is my favorite (with it spelled out and everything):  https://goo.gl/maps/EaAZH6tRb7BVTJFy7 (https://goo.gl/maps/EaAZH6tRb7BVTJFy7)
It's on Fairfax Co. SR-617 (Backlick Rd) northbound in Springfield. There is another one southbound. Both of these replaced incarnations with white-border SR-1155 shields sometime in the 1990s. I can't think of anywhere else in northern Virginia with spelled-out "JUNCTION" sign like these.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 16, 2023, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: dfnva on June 16, 2023, 12:38:25 PM
Speaking of legacy "JUNCTION" signs, I think this is my favorite (with it spelled out and everything):  https://goo.gl/maps/EaAZH6tRb7BVTJFy7 (https://goo.gl/maps/EaAZH6tRb7BVTJFy7)
It's on Fairfax Co. SR-617 (Backlick Rd) northbound in Springfield. There is another one southbound. Both of these replaced incarnations with white-border SR-1155 shields sometime in the 1990s. I can't think of anywhere else in northern Virginia with spelled-out "JUNCTION" sign like these.

The one going the other way might not be long for this world (if it's still there). (https://goo.gl/maps/JSs7RD3VS4jiKVKM6)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 16, 2023, 02:25:20 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 16, 2023, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: dfnva on June 16, 2023, 12:38:25 PM
Speaking of legacy "JUNCTION" signs, I think this is my favorite (with it spelled out and everything):  https://goo.gl/maps/EaAZH6tRb7BVTJFy7 (https://goo.gl/maps/EaAZH6tRb7BVTJFy7)
It's on Fairfax Co. SR-617 (Backlick Rd) northbound in Springfield. There is another one southbound. Both of these replaced incarnations with white-border SR-1155 shields sometime in the 1990s. I can't think of anywhere else in northern Virginia with spelled-out "JUNCTION" sign like these.

The one going the other way might not be long for this world (if it's still there). (https://goo.gl/maps/JSs7RD3VS4jiKVKM6)

This reminded me of another legacy posting in Pampa (Gloucester Co).  This lasted to at least 2009 but is gone now.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Foldsigns%2F610whitesign.jpg&hash=3e46bada719a1f332c8d29e2eb8288668cb877b4)
Mapmikey 2006
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 23, 2023, 11:46:59 AM
I found some nice old pictures of Shirley Highway. Enjoy!

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/transportation/shirleyhighway.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on June 23, 2023, 08:48:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 23, 2023, 11:46:59 AM
I found some nice old pictures of Shirley Highway. Enjoy!

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/transportation/shirleyhighway.html

This is a nice page.  It also has links to the photo galleries which i've never seen before - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1426849

Some good stuff in there...

US 50 Bypass, shown on commercial maps, was posted in Virginia - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234115985
A US 240 posting in Virginia from 1952 - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116195 also https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116201
Actual US 240 shield, though this is actually in DC - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234115969
A US 1 ALT posting from pre-VA 110 - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116009
1950 predecessor to the famous US 1 ALT BGS in Fredericksburg - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116063
1952 Bowers Hill interchange - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116111
A 1953 error sign...the US 15 and 29 shields should be swapped https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116233
US 250-VA 240 jct in 1951 - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116093
large SR 613 posting from Seven Corners 1947 - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116027
I have never seen a sign photo like this in Virginia...diagrammatic sign of Fredericksburg area approaching south beginning of bypass...1950 photo includes a VA 51 shield (now VA 208) - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116065
1951 photo of Fairfax Circle, with a VA 237 shield included - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116091

adding more:
VA 17-55 split in Delaplane, undated - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116019
excellent VA 12 shield assemblies in Front Royal 1950 - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116071 and https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116069
VA 55 east end, 1947 - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116025
how gaps in the Blue Ridge Pkwy were signed, 1950 - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116081
how traffic circles were signed, 1952.  This is US 301 at VA 205 - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116101
unusual SR 609 posting - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/205733459
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on June 24, 2023, 08:50:12 AM
^^^^

Regarding the sign whose style you've never seen in Virginia, there is now something similar (but white-on-green, naturally) on westbound Route 236 in Fairfax City approaching the area where the road used to split into twinned one-way streets.

I don't have a picture, so here's a Street View link. It's outside the shopping center where the good bagel place is and where the X-rated video rental place used to be.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/kWS5ajz99uCr51vo8?g_st=ic

There is an equivalent sign (arrows and street pattern flipped, of course) on the eastbound side on the other side of Old Town a Fairfax. That one's harder to see on Street View due to sun glare, so I won't bother with a link.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on June 27, 2023, 10:38:27 AM
I was messing around with the VDOT LRS Route Master ArcGIS (https://www.virginiaroads.org/datasets/VDOT::lrs-route-master/explore?location=38.869392%2C-77.065225%2C16.95) map and noticed something odd: There is an orphaned segment of VA 244 in Arlington County near the Pentagon that runs from the Pentagon South Parking Lot to Joyce St (including the VA 27 Pentagon interchange). It's also shown this way on the VDOT LRS Route Overlap map (https://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=77bd3dffa6e74d90be88800ee6de70c0), which ONLY shows VDOT-maintained roads. The change date is January 2023. Not sure if this is an error in their system or if VDOT really did redesignate this segment as part of VA 244 (which was otherwise truncated to the Arlington-Fairfax county line).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 27, 2023, 11:11:39 AM
In regard to Travel Mapping, we discussed the odd situation with VA 244 last year (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4904.msg28175#msg28175).  I am unsure what would have been changed this year.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on June 30, 2023, 11:29:32 AM
For those traveling to/from the Hampton Roads area using either US-58 or US-460... Suffolk now has active speed cameras installed along two work zones along both routes. One on US-58 through the 35 mph widening west of the Suffolk Bypass, and another along US-460 northwest of the city in a 45 mph zone. Both areas can be very tempting / easy to speed without realizing it, especially that very low 35 mph zone on US-58, so use caution with cameras now in place.

https://www.wtkr.com/news/in-the-community/suffolk/heads-up-warning-period-over-for-suffolk-speed-cameras-tickets-being-issued
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: wriddle082 on June 30, 2023, 04:53:57 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 30, 2023, 11:29:32 AM
For those traveling to/from the Hampton Roads area using either US-58 or US-460... Suffolk now has active speed cameras installed along two work zones along both routes. One on US-58 through the 35 mph widening west of the Suffolk Bypass, and another along US-460 northwest of the city in a 45 mph zone. Both areas can be very tempting / easy to speed without realizing it, especially that very low 35 mph zone on US-58, so use caution with cameras now in place.

https://www.wtkr.com/news/in-the-community/suffolk/heads-up-warning-period-over-for-suffolk-speed-cameras-tickets-being-issued

Thanks for the tip.  I'm probably gonna be headed through there next Sunday or Monday.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 03, 2023, 11:56:02 AM
More ArcGIS randomness: VA 41 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va041.htm) is now shown as continuous along its entire posted route. The piece between US 29 Business and VA 293 was previously not part of VA 41 and was listed as an urban route in VDOT's traffic logs. The 2021 traffic logs for the City of Danville no longer show this urban route, so I'm guessing it was taken back into the primary system.

https://www.virginiaroads.org/datasets/VDOT::lrs-route-master/explore?location=36.628992%2C-79.389410%2C15.96
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 05, 2023, 08:23:59 AM
Here's a new one. That's the loop ramp from southbound VA-110 to northbound I-395 (same ramp that featured in his other videos showing people making bizarre movements to access the express lanes).

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1676427934251335680
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on July 05, 2023, 09:25:07 PM
Next year, I expect to see an ice cream truck on the shoulder of the Inner Loop Local Lanes for those who watch the fireworks from the WWB (like I used to when I lived there).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 07, 2023, 11:38:09 PM
The I-64 Southside Widening & High Rise Bridge project's completion date has now been pushed back from early August to late September 2023.

The project began construction in November 2017 and has been under construction for almost six years now. The new bridge opened a year ago. The rest of the project is standard land side widening and a few overpass widenings.

For those unfamiliar, the project is widening 9 miles of I-64 in Chesapeake between Bowers Hill (MM 299) and VA-168 Battlefield Blvd (MM 290) by adding a single HO/T lane in each direction.

It's amazing a project of this scale (besides the bridge, the rest is traditional widening) has lasted this long, and it's amazing how many times they've pushed back this project. It was originally supposed to be complete two years ago. They've not provided any logical explanation why these delays have occurred.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/070523%20TTAC%2000A%20Full%20Agenda.pdf
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: wriddle082 on July 08, 2023, 02:09:02 AM
^ If I were to venture a guess, seeing that I have been driving this stretch several times a year for work since 2018, the construction zone has often seemed like one big muddy mess.  If it's not raining, then there are large puddles everywhere.  Waiting for everything to dry out, I'm sure, has probably contributed significantly to the delays.  That and the general labor shortage in the construction industry.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on July 16, 2023, 11:22:18 PM
Seeing new traffic lights get installed in Arlington and Tysons and the signs are no longer in Clearview. Interesting  :clap:

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on June 27, 2023, 10:38:27 AM
I was messing around with the VDOT LRS Route Master ArcGIS (https://www.virginiaroads.org/datasets/VDOT::lrs-route-master/explore?location=38.869392%2C-77.065225%2C16.95) map and noticed something odd: There is an orphaned segment of VA 244 in Arlington County near the Pentagon that runs from the Pentagon South Parking Lot to Joyce St (including the VA 27 Pentagon interchange). It's also shown this way on the VDOT LRS Route Overlap map (https://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=77bd3dffa6e74d90be88800ee6de70c0), which ONLY shows VDOT-maintained roads. The change date is January 2023. Not sure if this is an error in their system or if VDOT really did redesignate this segment as part of VA 244 (which was otherwise truncated to the Arlington-Fairfax county line).

You know, theres a small section of VA-237 near US-50 that is still under VDOT control so maybe they kept that portion of VA-244 for similar reasons?

But then again it shows the entire stretch of VA-237 belonging to VDOT, even the Arlington portion so maybe there was a data error.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 17, 2023, 07:44:46 AM
So on Saturday morning I exited the Beltway at Van Dorn on my way home from a funeral. For years, there's been a sign next to the far right lane saying right on red is permitted from that lane only, and there's been a second sign next to the traffic light for the middle lane that says no turn on red is permitted from that lane.

But on Saturday, for the first time I noticed the traffic light for the far right lane has been replaced with a red arrow. Under the Virginia statute as amended a few years back, a red arrow means no turn on red.

So which controls? The red arrow or the sign that says you can go right on red from the curb lane? Right on red has been allowed there since at least 2001 and pretty much everybody else was making that maneuver (thankfully, it turned green right as I got to the light), but the behavior of the average driver is hardly a valid way to guess what the rule is. I sent VDOT Northern Virginia a tweet to ask about it, noting that it's now ambiguous what the rule there is, but they haven't answered yet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on July 17, 2023, 08:29:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 17, 2023, 07:44:46 AM
So on Saturday morning I exited the Beltway at Van Dorn on my way home from a funeral. For years, there's been a sign next to the far right lane saying right on red is permitted from that lane only, and there's been a second sign next to the traffic light for the middle lane that says no turn on red is permitted from that lane.

But on Saturday, for the first time I noticed the traffic light for the far right lane has been replaced with a red arrow. Under the Virginia statute as amended a few years back, a red arrow means no turn on red.

So which controls? The red arrow or the sign that says you can go right on red from the curb lane? Right on red has been allowed there since at least 2001 and pretty much everybody else was making that maneuver (thankfully, it turned green right as I got to the light), but the behavior of the average driver is hardly a valid way to guess what the rule is. I sent VDOT Northern Virginia a tweet to ask about it, noting that it's now ambiguous what the rule there is, but they haven't answered yet.

I'd wait for official word but I would think the sign overrides the arrow, the same way a NTOR sign overrides a red ball for right on red.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 17, 2023, 08:57:50 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on July 17, 2023, 08:29:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 17, 2023, 07:44:46 AM
So on Saturday morning I exited the Beltway at Van Dorn on my way home from a funeral. For years, there's been a sign next to the far right lane saying right on red is permitted from that lane only, and there's been a second sign next to the traffic light for the middle lane that says no turn on red is permitted from that lane.

But on Saturday, for the first time I noticed the traffic light for the far right lane has been replaced with a red arrow. Under the Virginia statute as amended a few years back, a red arrow means no turn on red.

So which controls? The red arrow or the sign that says you can go right on red from the curb lane? Right on red has been allowed there since at least 2001 and pretty much everybody else was making that maneuver (thankfully, it turned green right as I got to the light), but the behavior of the average driver is hardly a valid way to guess what the rule is. I sent VDOT Northern Virginia a tweet to ask about it, noting that it's now ambiguous what the rule there is, but they haven't answered yet.

I'd wait for official word but I would think the sign overrides the arrow, the same way a NTOR sign overrides a red ball for right on red.

The problem in this case is that the sign was there first and the light used to be a red ball, so they've changed the light without changing the signs.

Edited to add: I retweeted it both to VDOT Northern Virginia and the main VDOT account.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on July 17, 2023, 12:27:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 17, 2023, 07:44:46 AM
So on Saturday morning I exited the Beltway at Van Dorn on my way home from a funeral. For years, there's been a sign next to the far right lane saying right on red is permitted from that lane only, and there's been a second sign next to the traffic light for the middle lane that says no turn on red is permitted from that lane.

But on Saturday, for the first time I noticed the traffic light for the far right lane has been replaced with a red arrow. Under the Virginia statute as amended a few years back, a red arrow means no turn on red.

So which controls? The red arrow or the sign that says you can go right on red from the curb lane? Right on red has been allowed there since at least 2001 and pretty much everybody else was making that maneuver (thankfully, it turned green right as I got to the light), but the behavior of the average driver is hardly a valid way to guess what the rule is. I sent VDOT Northern Virginia a tweet to ask about it, noting that it's now ambiguous what the rule there is, but they haven't answered yet.
Based on the verbiage of the law, it would seem to me that the sign overrides, meaning that you should be allowed to turn on the red arrow.

Section 46.2-835
QuoteNotwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed permitting turns on a steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow, after coming to a full stop, shall remain standing until a signal to proceed is shown.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-835
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 17, 2023, 01:35:10 PM
Outstanding. I should have looked up the statute to refresh myself on its wording. Thank you. That language is certainly a good defense in the unlikely event one gets a ticket there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on July 25, 2023, 07:42:47 PM
Nothing newsworthy, just thought this was funny.

I'm in Hampton at the moment and saw this down the street from my mother's place. It's some sealant that splattered on the street and formed an almost Virginia! Minus the Eastern Shore

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230725/9addc44e3afa9f2daf32aae42e4de168.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: kendancy66 on July 25, 2023, 10:56:45 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 17, 2023, 07:44:46 AM
So on Saturday morning I exited the Beltway at Van Dorn on my way home from a funeral. For years, there's been a sign next to the far right lane saying right on red is permitted from that lane only, and there's been a second sign next to the traffic light for the middle lane that says no turn on red is permitted from that lane.

But on Saturday, for the first time I noticed the traffic light for the far right lane has been replaced with a red arrow. Under the Virginia statute as amended a few years back, a red arrow means no turn on red.

So which controls? The red arrow or the sign that says you can go right on red from the curb lane? Right on red has been allowed there since at least 2001 and pretty much everybody else was making that maneuver (thankfully, it turned green right as I got to the light), but the behavior of the average driver is hardly a valid way to guess what the rule is. I sent VDOT Northern Virginia a tweet to ask about it, noting that it's now ambiguous what the rule there is, but they haven't answered yet.

Is that lane for right turn only? If so, should there also be an overhead right turn only sign for that lane? Maybe VDOT is trying to convey the message of right turn only in the signal, and don't understand the reason for using a right turn only light.  Would putting a yield sign instead of an allow right turn on red sign be safer?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 26, 2023, 09:34:04 AM
Quote from: plain on July 25, 2023, 07:42:47 PM
Nothing newsworthy, just thought this was funny.

I'm in Hampton at the moment and saw this down the street from my mother's place. It's some sealant that splattered on the street and formed an almost Virginia! Minus the Eastern Shore

Everyone forgets the Eastern Shore. ;)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on July 26, 2023, 04:35:37 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTBristol/status/1684279220988416000
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 26, 2023, 07:51:56 PM
The latest on the planned I-64/Denbigh Blvd Interchange in Newport News: https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2023/july/pres/5.pdf

Certainly needed but man over $260 million for the full interchange is brutal. Not to mention it won't be complete until 2033 at the earliest. Crazy how an interchange wasn't put here originally as its seemed pretty obvious for a while.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 26, 2023, 08:38:29 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2023, 04:35:37 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTBristol/status/1684279220988416000

Once the Phase A portion is complete, they could reroute US 460 over VA 83 west to the completely rebuilt SR 744 which connects to the soon-to-be-completed Future US 460.  Otherwise, if they don't move US 460 until 2027 when the whole thing to Grundy is done, what will it be posted as?  And what will former US 460 from Grundy to Kentucky be renumbered as?  Could a 2-digit number make a return to the system (12, 44 and 88 are available)?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on July 27, 2023, 11:18:03 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 26, 2023, 08:38:29 PM
Once the Phase A portion is complete, they could reroute US 460 over VA 83 west to the completely rebuilt SR 744 which connects to the soon-to-be-completed Future US 460.  Otherwise, if they don't move US 460 until 2027 when the whole thing to Grundy is done, what will it be posted as?  And what will former US 460 from Grundy to Kentucky be renumbered as?  Could a 2-digit number make a return to the system (12, 44 and 88 are available)?

I can't imagine they would reroute US 460 out of Grundy only to put it back on that alignment in a couple years. Just give it a secondary route number in the meantime.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on July 27, 2023, 12:19:26 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 26, 2023, 08:38:29 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2023, 04:35:37 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTBristol/status/1684279220988416000

Once the Phase A portion is complete, they could reroute US 460 over VA 83 west to the completely rebuilt SR 744 which connects to the soon-to-be-completed Future US 460.  Otherwise, if they don't move US 460 until 2027 when the whole thing to Grundy is done, what will it be posted as?  And what will former US 460 from Grundy to Kentucky be renumbered as?  Could a 2-digit number make a return to the system (12, 44 and 88 are available)?

25 is also available.

Also interesting that they're referencing 121. Wonder if they're going to make it a secondary route while it's in progress, or a different primary number.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on July 27, 2023, 12:49:56 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 27, 2023, 12:19:26 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 26, 2023, 08:38:29 PM


Once the Phase A portion is complete, they could reroute US 460 over VA 83 west to the completely rebuilt SR 744 which connects to the soon-to-be-completed Future US 460.  Otherwise, if they don't move US 460 until 2027 when the whole thing to Grundy is done, what will it be posted as?  And what will former US 460 from Grundy to Kentucky be renumbered as?  Could a 2-digit number make a return to the system (12, 44 and 88 are available)?

25 is also available.

Also interesting that they're referencing 121. Wonder if they're going to make it a secondary route while it's in progress, or a different primary number.

Virginia has a history of temp numbers in US 460's situation:  VA 224 in Lynchburg (now US 460); VA 280 in Franklin (now US 58); VA 212 west of Galax (now US 58-221); VA 265 in Danville (now US 29)

US 121's situation was always to just give the partially opened segments the eventual number, even if it didn't connect to any other primary route yet.  Today's VA 225 (maybe), VA 262, maybe VA 275 (now also VA 262), and VA 280 are modern examples.  The existence of VA 121 already complicates things but that could be renumbered as VA 94 easily.  Also, Virginia had no trouble posting US 48 when W Va didn't post their side for 7 years.

Virginia did the temp routing thing like I speculated with US 460 moving temporarily to an interim connecting route when US 460 TEMP was established when only part of the Bluefield bypass was open.  TEMP US 460 was placed on SR 720.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 27, 2023, 01:30:05 PM
^Is it safe to say at this point that the current VA 224 will remain as-is?  I think that I tried to look up the Moccasin Gap Bypass after clinching it recently, and got nowhere.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on July 27, 2023, 02:24:26 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 26, 2023, 08:38:29 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 26, 2023, 04:35:37 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTBristol/status/1684279220988416000

Once the Phase A portion is complete, they could reroute US 460 over VA 83 west to the completely rebuilt SR 744 which connects to the soon-to-be-completed Future US 460.  Otherwise, if they don't move US 460 until 2027 when the whole thing to Grundy is done, what will it be posted as?  And what will former US 460 from Grundy to Kentucky be renumbered as?  Could a 2-digit number make a return to the system (12, 44 and 88 are available)?

They have the Breaks spur signed as 460 already. As has been discussed before, I'm curious as to what will happen with VA 80, and KY 80.

On a recent trip up that way, coming out of Grundy toward Kentucky, I noticed some work going up a hill on the left. I presume that's the routing of the future 460.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on July 28, 2023, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 27, 2023, 02:24:26 PM
They have the Breaks spur signed as 460 already. As has been discussed before, I'm curious as to what will happen with VA 80, and KY 80.

On a recent trip up that way, coming out of Grundy toward Kentucky, I noticed some work going up a hill on the left. I presume that's the routing of the future 460.

That's interesting they have the route signed as US 460 when it doesn't connect to the rest of US 460.

I would think KYTC and VDOT would just keep KY 80 and VA 80 on its existing alignment. The routes provide access to Elkhorn City and Breaks Interstate Park, which would justify a primary state route number in Virginia. There's no point in assigning a new number when an existing one would work perfectly well.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 28, 2023, 11:29:06 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 28, 2023, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 27, 2023, 02:24:26 PM
They have the Breaks spur signed as 460 already. As has been discussed before, I'm curious as to what will happen with VA 80, and KY 80.

On a recent trip up that way, coming out of Grundy toward Kentucky, I noticed some work going up a hill on the left. I presume that's the routing of the future 460.

That's interesting they have the route signed as US 460 when it doesn't connect to the rest of US 460.

I would think KYTC and VDOT would just keep KY 80 and VA 80 on its existing alignment. The routes provide access to Elkhorn City and Breaks Interstate Park, which would justify a primary state route number in Virginia. There's no point in assigning a new number when an existing one would work perfectly well.

It's really weird. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the VDOT ArcGIS map shows the spur as US 460 (along with the existing US 460), but shows current VA 80 as SR 768. "Old VA 80"  is labeled as the actual VA 80 connecting to the spur.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on July 31, 2023, 08:55:58 AM
A proposed R-cut for the Tightsqueeze intersection on US-29 just south of Chatham did not go over well, so it got canned.

Behind paywall:

https://godanriver.com/news/local/government-politics/for-troubled-tightsqueeze-intersection-fix-vdot-prepares-new-plan-after-public-outcry/article_78830cd6-2bb5-11ee-966c-2393b6729ed8.html#tracking-source=home-top-story (https://godanriver.com/news/local/government-politics/for-troubled-tightsqueeze-intersection-fix-vdot-prepares-new-plan-after-public-outcry/article_78830cd6-2bb5-11ee-966c-2393b6729ed8.html#tracking-source=home-top-story)

QuoteTIGHTSQUEEZE – A proposed change to a troubled intersection in Tightsqueeze essentially has been killed following public outcry and a new option is being explored.

It all started in 2019 when the Virginia Department of Transportation developed a plan for the U.S. 29 corridor in Pittsylvania County. Part of that involved studying the intersections.

This particular intersection is along U.S. 29 with Tightsqueeze Road to one side and Fairview Road to the other.

"The concerns are both operational and safety,"  VDOT spokesperson Len Stevens told the Register & Bee. "The safety concerns are a result of crashes that have occurred."

One change pitched for the often congested area was a restricted crossing U-turn, or RCUT. The idea of the somewhat convoluted plan is to keep vehicles from turning left out of a connecting road onto a main highway like U.S. 29.

Instead, drivers would turn right, go a short distance and then make a U-turn at a specially designed median space.

According to VDOT, the RCUTs increase capacity and reduce crashes by about 20%. However, it would restrict some turning movement and could involve right-of-way acquisitions.

Residents strongly pushed back against VDOT's solution during a public hearing, mainly because of the RCUT concept, Stevens said.

"Most of the feedback I got was in relationship to businesses with their trucks,"  Bob Warren, a supervisor representing the Chatham-Blairs district, said at a recent work session.

It presented an added traffic headache with drivers not being allowed to turn left and instead having to go right, travel a little ways down the road and navigate a U-turn.

To wipe the slate clean and start over, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors sent a letter to VDOT requesting the solution with the RCUT be canceled.

In turn, that goes through the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The board likely will take formal action to cancel the project in October, according to VDOT Lynchburg district engineer Chris Winstead.

The original cost was pegged at about $11.43 million, which would be paid for fully via VDOT Smart Scale funding.

The Lynchburg team from VDOT presented another option last week that appeared to be a better fit, supervisors signaled.

The latest plan is to add another left-turn lane on Tightsqueeze Road heading north on U.S. 29 and put an additional right-turn lane on Fairview Road.

A raised median on Tightsqueeze Road for access management would be added and a traffic signal pole would be relocated.

VDOT also plans to put down rumble strips for the northbound and southbound lanes of U.S. 29. The strips – true to the name – create a rumbling sound when drivers veer out of the lane. They are often put at the edge or center of a roadway.

Going this route would reduce backups along Tightsqueeze Road by about 50% and scale back delays a the intersection by 35%, a presentation by VDOT explained.

"The alternative appears to be within the original budget,"  Stevens said when asked if the new plan would add to the price.

So far, about $270,000 has been spent. Although the code of Virginia states if a locality requests a project be terminated, they could be on the hook to reimburse funds already spent, Winstead said that wouldn't be the case this time.

However, he noted if supervisors pursued a revised option and then later canceled that one, he "cannot predict how that would turn out."

With the wheels in motion to nix the RCUT-centered plan, the next step for VDOT is to hold what it calls a citizen information meeting in September. That's when they'll give updates to the public and gauge feedback to the new plan.

Winstead said it likely will cost about $50,000 to get ready for that meeting.

If the county wanted to officially proceed with the revamped plans, VDOT would need a resolution from the board of supervisors.

"It just seems very logical to me,"  Warren said of the new changes for the intersection.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on July 31, 2023, 11:28:17 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 28, 2023, 11:29:06 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 28, 2023, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 27, 2023, 02:24:26 PM
They have the Breaks spur signed as 460 already. As has been discussed before, I'm curious as to what will happen with VA 80, and KY 80.

On a recent trip up that way, coming out of Grundy toward Kentucky, I noticed some work going up a hill on the left. I presume that's the routing of the future 460.

That's interesting they have the route signed as US 460 when it doesn't connect to the rest of US 460.

I would think KYTC and VDOT would just keep KY 80 and VA 80 on its existing alignment. The routes provide access to Elkhorn City and Breaks Interstate Park, which would justify a primary state route number in Virginia. There's no point in assigning a new number when an existing one would work perfectly well.

It's really weird. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the VDOT ArcGIS map shows the spur as US 460 (along with the existing US 460), but shows current VA 80 as SR 768. "Old VA 80"  is labeled as the actual VA 80 connecting to the spur.

Start at this pic and click forward to see how the signage is done:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53036812505_7f68f6002a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oNFwzP)2023 Jan-June photos - 1037 (https://flic.kr/p/2oNFwzP) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 31, 2023, 02:25:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 31, 2023, 11:28:17 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on July 28, 2023, 11:29:06 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 28, 2023, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 27, 2023, 02:24:26 PM
They have the Breaks spur signed as 460 already. As has been discussed before, I'm curious as to what will happen with VA 80, and KY 80.

On a recent trip up that way, coming out of Grundy toward Kentucky, I noticed some work going up a hill on the left. I presume that's the routing of the future 460.

That's interesting they have the route signed as US 460 when it doesn't connect to the rest of US 460.

I would think KYTC and VDOT would just keep KY 80 and VA 80 on its existing alignment. The routes provide access to Elkhorn City and Breaks Interstate Park, which would justify a primary state route number in Virginia. There's no point in assigning a new number when an existing one would work perfectly well.

It's really weird. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the VDOT ArcGIS map shows the spur as US 460 (along with the existing US 460), but shows current VA 80 as SR 768. "Old VA 80"  is labeled as the actual VA 80 connecting to the spur.

Start at this pic and click forward to see how the signage is done:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53036812505_7f68f6002a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oNFwzP)2023 Jan-June photos - 1037 (https://flic.kr/p/2oNFwzP) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

Thanks for this!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on August 06, 2023, 09:39:41 PM
https://www.facebook.com/groups/amazingandawesome/permalink/683166816962679/
This is not the CBBT as the article is about.  A FB article aimed to be informative to the public about the iconic engineering marvel along US 13, but instead uses a photo of I-664's Bridge- Tunnel.

Shows you how non road geeks think all bridges look a like.  However, bottom line is you think the author could use an actual CBBT photo. It's not like they're hard to find.

Removed political reference.  -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 08, 2023, 09:14:13 PM
Adam Tuss of DC's NBC-4 has a story about plans in the works to fix the mess at Seven Corners. That intersection was bad in the 1970s and a fix is long overdue. The eminent domain costs associated with this proposal would not be trivial, though.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/seven-corners-with-a-name-like-that-you-know-traffics-rough-but-fairfax-county-has-a-redesign-plan/3400541/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on August 09, 2023, 12:05:04 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 08, 2023, 09:14:13 PM
Adam Tuss of DC's NBC-4 has a story about plans in the works to fix the mess at Seven Corners. That intersection was bad in the 1970s and a fix is long overdue. The eminent domain costs associated with this proposal would not be trivial, though.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/seven-corners-with-a-name-like-that-you-know-traffics-rough-but-fairfax-county-has-a-redesign-plan/3400541/
I lived near there for a short time.  Unless the businesses have had a steep decline in the meantime, this plan is infeasible.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 09, 2023, 07:48:37 AM
Someone on Twitter responded to Adam Tuss by saying that Seven Corners is the Gate 35X of intersections. Great line. (For those unfamiliar, Gate 35X was the much-loathed gate at Reagan Airport that served regional jets and commuter flights. You had to go down an escalator, go outside, and take a shuttle bus to the plane. It's now been closed because they expanded the terminal to the north to replace it.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on August 09, 2023, 08:56:25 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 09, 2023, 12:05:04 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 08, 2023, 09:14:13 PM
Adam Tuss of DC's NBC-4 has a story about plans in the works to fix the mess at Seven Corners. That intersection was bad in the 1970s and a fix is long overdue. The eminent domain costs associated with this proposal would not be trivial, though.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/seven-corners-with-a-name-like-that-you-know-traffics-rough-but-fairfax-county-has-a-redesign-plan/3400541/
I lived near there for a short time.  Unless the businesses have had a steep decline in the meantime, this plan is infeasible.

Infeasible in New York, perhaps.  Not so much in the Southeast.  If the state and county want to plunk enough change down on it (the recent I-66 expansion being a good example), it'll happen.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 09, 2023, 10:11:33 AM
It might also be worth noting that there are some important political reasons for their wanting to route the proposed "ring road" the way they've suggested. If you look at the map in the article I linked, you'll see where the yellow line (phase 4) ends at the top right of the image at what would become a crossroads with Wilson Boulevard and Roosevelt Street. It might look like it would be less costly and less disruptive to ram the road through the shopping center at the top left of that intersection–on the map, it looks like a sea of parking to the right of the "3" icon. Problem is, that would open a massive political can of worms because that shopping center is Eden Center, which over the years has evolved into both the single largest Vietnamese-centric commercial center, and the largest East Asian shopping center, on the East Coast. There are over 120 businesses in there. There would be considerable political sensitivity to displacing them both because of that shopping center's popularity among the DC area's very significant Vietnamese community and because a fair number of those businesses were previously displaced from the Clarendon section of Arlington in the late 1970s/early 1980s after property values spiked once the Metrorail Orange Line opened–there would be an understandable reluctance to displace them again. There was a bunch of controversy earlier this year about redevelopment plans for some nearby property because the Vietnamese business owners fear it's a ploy to spike the rents to drive them out–they're worried it's going to go the way of DC's Chinatown, which is sometimes now referred to as "Chinablock" after most of the Chinese businesses closed due to the spike in property values after the sports arena opened.

(Another likely reason for routing the "ring road" around the way the map shows is that it avoids the issue of crossing jurisdictional lines. Eden Center is within the City of Falls Church, whereas the entire proposed "ring road" would be in Fairfax County. It makes a difference in terms of VDOT jurisdiction.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on August 09, 2023, 10:17:19 PM
How on earth did this happen

The way the sign looks it looks like someone changed the sign to make it wrong  :confused: :confused:

https://twitter.com/AdamTuss/status/1689294361786249216
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 10, 2023, 01:22:35 AM
I noticed this on Street View... IIRC North Carolina is the only state that uses "Reduce Speed Ahead" vs. the typical "Reduced Speed Ahead."

But there's at least once instance along the I-395 Express Lanes that use NCDOT's verbiage.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8565253,-77.0719,3a,55.7y,24.75h,94.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4GobNF8uSC3SUxbE1yN7pQ!2e0!5s20230501T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 10, 2023, 07:41:59 AM
Regarding the I-66 signs, Adam Tuss did a report on that on last night's news. He said VDOT had responded that they planned to fix it overnight. I noticed the apparent greenout as well and I wondered if they had reused signs intended for somewhere else along I-66 and simply mis-corrected them, as it were.

The article on their website doesn't have video of his report:

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/east-or-west-i-66-signs-give-conflicting-directions-to-dc/3401413/




Regarding "Reduce Speed Ahead," I'm aware of at least one other sign in Virginia that uses that phrasing. It's on the left side of the westbound Dulles Toll Road as you approach the main toll plaza (https://maps.app.goo.gl/LBf4X8qnbWATJtMc9?g_st=ic) (oddly, the companion sign in the right side of the road uses "Reduced" instead). I don't know whether the end of cash tolls has already caused, or will cause, the removal of those two signs; I haven't been through there since April, and for that trip I was on the Dulles Access Road and thus didn't notice these signs. Last time I was on the Toll Road was last December.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 10, 2023, 11:34:55 AM
^ Street View from the exit ramp (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2MuAp3Qm5jJR41qL8?g_st=ic) from July 2023 shows it was still there. What is the latest with removing the toll plazas?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 10, 2023, 12:03:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 10, 2023, 11:34:55 AM
^ Street View from the exit ramp (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2MuAp3Qm5jJR41qL8?g_st=ic) from July 2023 shows it was still there. What is the latest with removing the toll plazas?

Don't know. You could try clicking around in Street View to see. I just haven't had reason to head in that direction recently; at the present time, I don't expect to head that way until either November (depending on whether I fly out of Dulles or Reagan for a business trip) or December (for our annual Christmastime trip to L'Auberge Chez Francois).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 10, 2023, 05:01:22 PM
https://twitter.com/AdamTuss/status/1689735231660564480
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 12, 2023, 05:57:52 PM
What the fuuuuucccccckkkkkkkkk! This is what shut down inbound I-395 at the 14th Street Bridge this afternoon!

https://twitter.com/statter911/status/1690477210635816960?s=46&t=4x1IleAiOaGI774Clh5sww

https://Twitter.com/statter911/status/1690469138542567424?s=46&t=4x1IleAiOaGI774Clh5sww
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 12, 2023, 09:49:03 PM
Was the truck stolen too?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 13, 2023, 08:15:00 AM
Quote from: plain on August 12, 2023, 09:49:03 PM
Was the truck stolen too?

Indeed it was! The story developed more after I posted those tweets. It seems he stole the truck, drove it illegally on I-66 and caused crashes there, went down Route 110 to I-395 and caused the crashes seen in the video linked in one of those tweets, abandoned the truck, stole an ambulance, and led cops on a chase in which he caused 13 hit-and-run crashes. Police caught him at 14th and D NW after he caused a head-on collision.

WTOP has the details. (https://wtop.com/arlington/2023/08/man-steals-ambulance-responding-to-arlington-crash-strikes-at-least-10-vehicles-along-i-395/)


Edited to add: The news reports say 14th and D NW, but the pictures I've seen don't match that location, which is across from the Department of Commerce adjacent to the Reagan Building. The pictures I'm seeing look like Southwest, not Northwest.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 13, 2023, 02:05:30 PM
I-95 Beltway to I-295:

1.  The current project, FREDEX and the Rap Bridge, is wholly insufficient.
-After the C/D lanes end south of Route 3, there is a big bottleneck, it needed to extend to exit 126 which itself needed a separate exit for RT 17 so RT 17 s traffic does not have to go on RT 1.

2.  Any reason why, south of exit 126, you get a very nice break in traffic until exit 98 (Route 207) but south of Route 207 congestion starts up?  That exit is in very rural Caroline County...my thinking is that motorists using Route 301 to get to VA would normally pick up 95 here, is that the case?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 13, 2023, 02:31:23 PM
I-64 expansion, drove it for the first time in years from I-295 to the HR beltway.
I am mixed, while there did need to be an expansion, I really liked the landscaped tree median before, and unfortunately it has been lost.
While the capacity is increased, I wish they could have kept that median, because now the vision is not as good which I cannot help but think reduces the improvement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 13, 2023, 03:57:51 PM
^Exit 98 is VA 30.  Exit 104 is for VA 207.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 13, 2023, 04:22:34 PM
Exit 98 is the exit for Kings Dominion. If bluecountry is saying something about traffic there, I'd guess the amusement park is the reason.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 13, 2023, 05:53:29 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 13, 2023, 02:31:23 PM
I-64 expansion, drove it for the first time in years from I-295 to the HR beltway.
I am mixed, while there did need to be an expansion, I really liked the landscaped tree median before, and unfortunately it has been lost.
While the capacity is increased, I wish they could have kept that median, because now the vision is not as good which I cannot help but think reduces the improvement.
Unfortunately, they are not going to acquire more right of way in order to retain the forested median. I do agree though, it was nice to have.

It will likely all be gone soon... the 29 mile gap will be fully widened to 6 lanes by 2030 as three major projects begin to ramp up over the next year or so.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 13, 2023, 07:07:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 13, 2023, 04:22:34 PM
Exit 98 is the exit for Kings Dominion. If bluecountry is saying something about traffic there, I'd guess the amusement park is the reason.

I was presuming that bluecountry was talking about the merge from VA 207 WB onto I-95 SB at Exit 104.

I'd be the last person to ask about Kings Dominion congestion as I probably have not been there since high school.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Strider on August 13, 2023, 09:31:28 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 13, 2023, 07:07:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 13, 2023, 04:22:34 PM
Exit 98 is the exit for Kings Dominion. If bluecountry is saying something about traffic there, I'd guess the amusement park is the reason.

I was presuming that bluecountry was talking about the merge from VA 207 WB onto I-95 SB at Exit 104.

I'd be the last person to ask about Kings Dominion congestion as I probably have not been there since high school.


I think he was talking about Exit 104. Most traffic use VA 207 to access US 301 to bypass Washington, Baltimore and etc. and to pick up I-95 when heading south. It is also the last exit for drivers to access US 301 from I-95.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 14, 2023, 07:38:07 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 13, 2023, 07:07:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 13, 2023, 04:22:34 PM
Exit 98 is the exit for Kings Dominion. If bluecountry is saying something about traffic there, I'd guess the amusement park is the reason.

I was presuming that bluecountry was talking about the merge from VA 207 WB onto I-95 SB at Exit 104.

I'd be the last person to ask about Kings Dominion congestion as I probably have not been there since high school.

I last visited Kings Dominion in 1992 myself (a year after I graduated from high school). The only amusement park I've been to in the past 15 years is Six Flags over in Maryland–the Washington Capitals have occasionally rented it for a "meet-the-team" event for season ticket holders and we've gone to that event. (Not all the rides are open when they've done this.)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jb_va23 on August 25, 2023, 03:12:22 PM
Contacted VDOT regarding missing on signs on US 258/US 17/VA 32 at the US 60 interchange in Newport News. In VDOT's the response, they say that the City of Newport News maintains all signage at this interchange. I contact the city.... according to them, I need to contact VDOT. I decide to contact VDOT over the phone and speak to a person. The customer service agent was very kind and answered my questions, the city maintains all of this interchange as well as the signage. He wasn't sure why the city was trying to send me off to VDOT. Now, I am simply waiting for the response from the City of Newport News.

GMSV Link: https://goo.gl/maps/RA1qvBwphRYkuroC8
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on August 25, 2023, 03:57:59 PM
Quote from: jb_va23 on August 25, 2023, 03:12:22 PM
Contacted VDOT regarding missing on signs on US 258/US 17/VA 32 at the US 60 interchange in Newport News. In VDOT's the response, they say that the City of Newport News maintains all signage at this interchange. I contact the city.... according to them, I need to contact VDOT. I decide to contact VDOT over the phone and speak to a person. The customer service agent was very kind and answered my questions, the city maintains all of this interchange as well as the signage. He wasn't sure why the city was trying to send me off to VDOT. Now, I am simply waiting for the response from the City of Newport News.

GMSV Link: https://goo.gl/maps/RA1qvBwphRYkuroC8

I'm glad the customer service agent steered you right, because this signage is supposed to be maintained by the city, although I'm sure when they replace it they'll contract it out to VDOT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: jb_va23 on August 25, 2023, 04:17:12 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on August 25, 2023, 03:57:59 PM
Quote from: jb_va23 on August 25, 2023, 03:12:22 PM
Contacted VDOT regarding missing on signs on US 258/US 17/VA 32 at the US 60 interchange in Newport News. In VDOT's the response, they say that the City of Newport News maintains all signage at this interchange. I contact the city.... according to them, I need to contact VDOT. I decide to contact VDOT over the phone and speak to a person. The customer service agent was very kind and answered my questions, the city maintains all of this interchange as well as the signage. He wasn't sure why the city was trying to send me off to VDOT. Now, I am simply waiting for the response from the City of Newport News.

GMSV Link: https://goo.gl/maps/RA1qvBwphRYkuroC8

I'm glad the customer service agent steered you right, because this signage is supposed to be maintained by the city, although I'm sure when they replace it they'll contract it out to VDOT.

That is what I thought.... it's commonplace for independent cities in Virginia to maintain all roads (even signed highway), except for interstates. I honestly only contact VDOT because this interchange is near the James River Bridge, and I thought VDOT might maintain that. I was surprised the city tried to pawn me off back to VDOT, but after speaking with the agent and the city again, the city did respond and said they will investigate and (hopefully) replace the signs. There needs to be something there, especially because there is no sign for US-60 East, and it's too easy to miss the ramp!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on August 25, 2023, 10:42:08 PM
Looks like VDOT is installing new traffic poles on Glebe + Randolph in Arlington. Not really sure why they couldnt modify the existing traffic lights and had to plop down new ones?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 28, 2023, 01:55:41 PM
Quote from: Strider on August 13, 2023, 09:31:28 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 13, 2023, 07:07:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 13, 2023, 04:22:34 PM
Exit 98 is the exit for Kings Dominion. If bluecountry is saying something about traffic there, I'd guess the amusement park is the reason.

I was presuming that bluecountry was talking about the merge from VA 207 WB onto I-95 SB at Exit 104.

I'd be the last person to ask about Kings Dominion congestion as I probably have not been there since high school.


I think he was talking about Exit 104. Most traffic use VA 207 to access US 301 to bypass Washington, Baltimore and etc. and to pick up I-95 when heading south. It is also the last exit for drivers to access US 301 from I-95.
I am sorry, yes I meant exit 104.  So is that the reason why the nice 'break' in congestion from 126 south stops at 104?  Because of traffic that used 301 to get to MD/points north?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 28, 2023, 01:57:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 13, 2023, 05:53:29 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 13, 2023, 02:31:23 PM
I-64 expansion, drove it for the first time in years from I-295 to the HR beltway.
I am mixed, while there did need to be an expansion, I really liked the landscaped tree median before, and unfortunately it has been lost.
While the capacity is increased, I wish they could have kept that median, because now the vision is not as good which I cannot help but think reduces the improvement.
Unfortunately, they are not going to acquire more right of way in order to retain the forested median. I do agree though, it was nice to have.

It will likely all be gone soon... the 29 mile gap will be fully widened to 6 lanes by 2030 as three major projects begin to ramp up over the next year or so.
Yea and I mean while obviously there is more physical capacity from 2 to 3 lanes, I feel like the improvement is somewhat limited and cancelled out by the forested median being removed as that tree buffer did block the opposite side traffic from interfering.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 28, 2023, 08:45:54 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 28, 2023, 01:57:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 13, 2023, 05:53:29 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 13, 2023, 02:31:23 PM
I-64 expansion, drove it for the first time in years from I-295 to the HR beltway.
I am mixed, while there did need to be an expansion, I really liked the landscaped tree median before, and unfortunately it has been lost.
While the capacity is increased, I wish they could have kept that median, because now the vision is not as good which I cannot help but think reduces the improvement.
Unfortunately, they are not going to acquire more right of way in order to retain the forested median. I do agree though, it was nice to have.

It will likely all be gone soon... the 29 mile gap will be fully widened to 6 lanes by 2030 as three major projects begin to ramp up over the next year or so.
Yea and I mean while obviously there is more physical capacity from 2 to 3 lanes, I feel like the improvement is somewhat limited and cancelled out by the forested median being removed as that tree buffer did block the opposite side traffic from interfering.
It is not limited nor cancelled out by that... again while nice to have, I much more enjoy traveling at 78-80 mph on the 6 lane portion near Williamsburg vs. the stop-and-go 30-60 mph slog with the forested median. Traffic will move much smoother and conditions will be safer overall.

The tree median being removed is a slight downside but it is not on the magnitude of "cancelling out"  the improvements being built by the widening.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on August 30, 2023, 08:07:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2023, 08:45:54 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 28, 2023, 01:57:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 13, 2023, 05:53:29 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 13, 2023, 02:31:23 PM
I-64 expansion, drove it for the first time in years from I-295 to the HR beltway.
I am mixed, while there did need to be an expansion, I really liked the landscaped tree median before, and unfortunately it has been lost.
While the capacity is increased, I wish they could have kept that median, because now the vision is not as good which I cannot help but think reduces the improvement.
Unfortunately, they are not going to acquire more right of way in order to retain the forested median. I do agree though, it was nice to have.

It will likely all be gone soon... the 29 mile gap will be fully widened to 6 lanes by 2030 as three major projects begin to ramp up over the next year or so.
Yea and I mean while obviously there is more physical capacity from 2 to 3 lanes, I feel like the improvement is somewhat limited and cancelled out by the forested median being removed as that tree buffer did block the opposite side traffic from interfering.
It is not limited nor cancelled out by that... again while nice to have, I much more enjoy traveling at 78-80 mph on the 6 lane portion near Williamsburg vs. the stop-and-go 30-60 mph slog with the forested median. Traffic will move much smoother and conditions will be safer overall.

The tree median being removed is a slight downside but it is not on the magnitude of "cancelling out"  the improvements being built by the widening.
I think if one was traveling at midnight, it would be easier if it was 2 lanes with trees.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on August 30, 2023, 11:47:20 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 30, 2023, 08:07:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2023, 08:45:54 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 28, 2023, 01:57:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 13, 2023, 05:53:29 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 13, 2023, 02:31:23 PM
I-64 expansion, drove it for the first time in years from I-295 to the HR beltway.
I am mixed, while there did need to be an expansion, I really liked the landscaped tree median before, and unfortunately it has been lost.
While the capacity is increased, I wish they could have kept that median, because now the vision is not as good which I cannot help but think reduces the improvement.
Unfortunately, they are not going to acquire more right of way in order to retain the forested median. I do agree though, it was nice to have.

It will likely all be gone soon... the 29 mile gap will be fully widened to 6 lanes by 2030 as three major projects begin to ramp up over the next year or so.
Yea and I mean while obviously there is more physical capacity from 2 to 3 lanes, I feel like the improvement is somewhat limited and cancelled out by the forested median being removed as that tree buffer did block the opposite side traffic from interfering.
It is not limited nor cancelled out by that... again while nice to have, I much more enjoy traveling at 78-80 mph on the 6 lane portion near Williamsburg vs. the stop-and-go 30-60 mph slog with the forested median. Traffic will move much smoother and conditions will be safer overall.

The tree median being removed is a slight downside but it is not on the magnitude of "cancelling out"  the improvements being built by the widening.
I think if one was traveling at midnight, it would be easier if it was 2 lanes with trees.
Overnight sure... but during the day, three lanes is a significant improvement.

Also, the median width being 50 ft or greater in many areas even with 6 lanes, it's not as bad even with oncoming lights. They're further away.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: hbelkins on August 31, 2023, 11:32:11 AM
Wide forested median = prime deer habitat for them to run out in front of your vehicle as you're doing 70 mph.

Cut every tree in the median and either put up a concrete barrier wall or keep it mowed to "front lawn in a homeowners' association-controlled subdivision" levels.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on August 31, 2023, 11:36:27 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2023, 11:32:11 AM
Wide forested median = prime deer habitat for them to run out in front of your vehicle as you're doing 70 mph.

Cut every tree in the median and either put up a concrete barrier wall or keep it mowed to "front lawn in a homeowners' association-controlled subdivision" levels.
I've yet to have a deer jump out in front of me on an Interstate.  If anything, the deer I see along the Thruway and elsewhere around here (and I've seen many as they've become more populous) know their place...rather oddly.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on August 31, 2023, 11:47:40 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2023, 11:36:27 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2023, 11:32:11 AM
Wide forested median = prime deer habitat for them to run out in front of your vehicle as you're doing 70 mph.

Cut every tree in the median and either put up a concrete barrier wall or keep it mowed to "front lawn in a homeowners' association-controlled subdivision" levels.
I've yet to have a deer jump out in front of me on an Interstate.  If anything, the deer I see along the Thruway and elsewhere around here (and I've seen many as they've become more populous) know their place...rather oddly.

I barely missed a deer on I-85 near Dewitt. It can happen...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on August 31, 2023, 12:04:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2023, 11:36:27 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2023, 11:32:11 AM
Wide forested median = prime deer habitat for them to run out in front of your vehicle as you're doing 70 mph.

Cut every tree in the median and either put up a concrete barrier wall or keep it mowed to "front lawn in a homeowners' association-controlled subdivision" levels.
I've yet to have a deer jump out in front of me on an Interstate.  If anything, the deer I see along the Thruway and elsewhere around here (and I've seen many as they've become more populous) know their place...rather oddly.

I came very, very close (add a few more "verys") in May 2012 on I-66 between Broad Run and Exit 31 (Great Meadow and The Plains), and it wasn't even nighttime–it was late afternoon on a Saturday and we were en route to a restaurant in Middleburg. A deer was standing on the right shoulder just west of the overpass over VA-55 and its position, and the bend of its legs, plainly indicated that it was ready to spring into action to try to cross the road. Thankfully, we got past without incident (plus there was a truck behind us, so I couldn't have slammed on the brakes). I-66 in that area doesn't have a treed median, either.

A former colleague of mine was less lucky; his wife hit a deer on I-66 somewhere between Markham and Front Royal and severely smashed up her Honda CR-V. His reaction was that it was a good thing she was driving because he would have been going faster, such that the damage would have been worse.

The closest I ever came to hitting a deer that did jump out into traffic was not on the Interstate; it was on VA-20 northeast of Orange late one night coming back from Charlottesville. I was getting ready to pass a slowpoke when I saw brake lights in the distance ahead. Something made me back off. Good thing: The brake lights came from a guy up ahead who had just hit a deer. The carcass was still spinning in the road. If I'd passed the slowpoke, I'd have hit the deer at 65—70 mph. Then there was the time in 1986 when my father almost hit a moose late one night northwest of Cochrane, Ontario, on the gravel road to Greenwater Provincial Park. I don't think I ever saw my father come so close to shitting his pants as he did that night.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on August 31, 2023, 12:18:06 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2023, 12:04:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2023, 11:36:27 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2023, 11:32:11 AM
Wide forested median = prime deer habitat for them to run out in front of your vehicle as you're doing 70 mph.

Cut every tree in the median and either put up a concrete barrier wall or keep it mowed to "front lawn in a homeowners' association-controlled subdivision" levels.
I've yet to have a deer jump out in front of me on an Interstate.  If anything, the deer I see along the Thruway and elsewhere around here (and I've seen many as they've become more populous) know their place...rather oddly.

I came very, very close (add a few more "verys") in May 2012 on I-66 between Broad Run and Exit 31 (Great Meadow and The Plains), and it wasn't even nighttime–it was late afternoon on a Saturday and we were en route to a restaurant in Middleburg. A deer was standing on the right shoulder just west of the overpass over VA-55 and its position, and the bend of its legs, plainly indicated that it was ready to spring into action to try to cross the road. Thankfully, we got past without incident (plus there was a truck behind us, so I couldn't have slammed on the brakes). I-66 in that area doesn't have a treed median, either.

A former colleague of mine was less lucky; his wife hit a deer on I-66 somewhere between Markham and Front Royal and severely smashed up her Honda CR-V. His reaction was that it was a good thing she was driving because he would have been going faster, such that the damage would have been worse.

The closest I ever came to hitting a deer that did jump out into traffic was not on the Interstate; it was on VA-20 northeast of Orange late one night coming back from Charlottesville. I was getting ready to pass a slowpoke when I saw brake lights in the distance ahead. Something made me back off. Good thing: The brake lights came from a guy up ahead who had just hit a deer. The carcass was still spinning in the road. If I'd passed the slowpoke, I'd have hit the deer at 65—70 mph. Then there was the time in 1986 when my father almost hit a moose late one night northwest of Cochrane, Ontario, on the gravel road to Greenwater Provincial Park. I don't think I ever saw my father come so close to shitting his pants as he did that night.

I have hit 2 deer...one on I-64 near Lewisburg WV (no tree lined median) and on VA 20 southwest of Orange.  Both were around 10:30 in the morning.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tmoore952 on August 31, 2023, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2023, 11:36:27 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2023, 11:32:11 AM
Wide forested median = prime deer habitat for them to run out in front of your vehicle as you're doing 70 mph.

Cut every tree in the median and either put up a concrete barrier wall or keep it mowed to "front lawn in a homeowners' association-controlled subdivision" levels.
I've yet to have a deer jump out in front of me on an Interstate.  If anything, the deer I see along the Thruway and elsewhere around here (and I've seen many as they've become more populous) know their place...rather oddly.

Several times I have come close to hitting deer on the ramps of the Cabin John interchange (Exit 41) of the Capital Beltway (I-495), just on the MD side of the American Legion Bridge. I've had them jump over from one side of the ramp to the other, right in front of me. And I have also seen roadkill both on those ramps and on the interstate near there.

I have hit two deer in my life. Both occurred at night (not here, and not on an interstate) and both did serious damage to my car, I was probably going 40 or 45. For that reason I am reluctant to speed at night anywhere, and particularly not in this interchange at any time, and especially at night. I know I irritate some people at night in that interchange, but I wonder if they ever consider there may be good reasons for it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on September 04, 2023, 05:06:42 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2023, 11:32:11 AM
Wide forested median = prime deer habitat for them to run out in front of your vehicle as you're doing 70 mph.

Cut every tree in the median and either put up a concrete barrier wall or keep it mowed to "front lawn in a homeowners' association-controlled subdivision" levels.
Dear EPA,
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on September 07, 2023, 08:29:06 AM
https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1699620561876373811
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: mrsman on September 08, 2023, 06:14:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 07, 2023, 08:29:06 AM
https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1699620561876373811

I am glad that the police have apprehended a dangerous driver.

But I'm upset that what has caused a lot of the backups is the change in operations that occurred a few years ago.  This being the tolling restriction of the NB 395 express lanes between the Pentagon and DC.  For much of the HOV era for these reversible lanes, the part between Pentagon and DC was open to all traffic at all times.  It is one thing to expand the HOV restriction that existed on the express lanes to be for HOV/toll, but when they converted a previously free and open section of highway that was always free, they basically created a far bigger jam for the rest of 395.

Obviously, I would recommend allowing free travel on this portion.  It seems that there is a toll charge for it even when the reversible lanes are only open in the SB direction.  [This necesssarily means that nobody from the reversible stretch is even possibly on the roadway, only traffic from Eads or 395 main lanes that pay the toll.  I know that part of the justification for tolling this stretch was to make sure that the toll lanes on the reversible portion run smoothly, but why is there a toll when the reversible lanes are not even running northbound at all?  THere are basically two empty lanes running into the city that are hard to access and are tied with a toll, simply there to charge a toll.]

Due to the politics of it, of course, my suggestion won't happen.  Less money for the toll operator.  But maybe they can put a sign on VA-110 approaching the ramp to 395 with time estimates to DC by taking the main road or by taking the express lanes.  There, people who want to avoid the jam can make the sensible choice of accessing the express lanes by taking the Eads street ramp.  Also, put up better signage once VA-110 traffic makes the exit to 395 that there is an easy access to the express lanes there.

At this point here (replacing the Pentagon City exit sign):

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8647023,-77.0522138,3a,75y,283.8h,78.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNdviDWWOP6qqoKhgVdto_Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu



Something like:

Army Navy Dr                                                       395 north
Pentagon City                                                    Washington
TO 395 Express Lanes
^                                                                                  /
|                                                                                  /
|                                                                                 /


All I can say is that they have created a terrible situation.  The number of drivers who make this dangerous manouever should be a cause to rethink the whole policy.  Isn't it wasterful to have a police officer stationed there to apprehend drivers in a situation that seems unfortunatley common, but was non-existent prior to the advent of the toll lanes?  And the reason why the  manouver did not occur before 2019, is because the traffic on this stretch had been allowed to use all of the lanes of the bridge at all times for free without restrictions since the bus-only restrictions ended in the 1970s.  This meant that the traffic on all lanes was about the same and there was no benefit in trying to sneak into the "express lanes."   (traffic evened out)  As non-HOV traffic from Eads or the left side of 395 headed for the "Rochambau" lanes, there was more room for traffic from 110, GW Pkwy and local entrances to use the "Arland Williams" lanes.  Granted, the Rochambau lanes were usually emptier, but not nearly as much of a difference as there is now due to the tolling.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: bluecountry on September 10, 2023, 09:16:24 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 30, 2023, 11:47:20 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 30, 2023, 08:07:27 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 28, 2023, 08:45:54 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 28, 2023, 01:57:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 13, 2023, 05:53:29 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 13, 2023, 02:31:23 PM
I-64 expansion, drove it for the first time in years from I-295 to the HR beltway.
I am mixed, while there did need to be an expansion, I really liked the landscaped tree median before, and unfortunately it has been lost.
While the capacity is increased, I wish they could have kept that median, because now the vision is not as good which I cannot help but think reduces the improvement.
Unfortunately, they are not going to acquire more right of way in order to retain the forested median. I do agree though, it was nice to have.

It will likely all be gone soon... the 29 mile gap will be fully widened to 6 lanes by 2030 as three major projects begin to ramp up over the next year or so.
Yea and I mean while obviously there is more physical capacity from 2 to 3 lanes, I feel like the improvement is somewhat limited and cancelled out by the forested median being removed as that tree buffer did block the opposite side traffic from interfering.
It is not limited nor cancelled out by that... again while nice to have, I much more enjoy traveling at 78-80 mph on the 6 lane portion near Williamsburg vs. the stop-and-go 30-60 mph slog with the forested median. Traffic will move much smoother and conditions will be safer overall.

The tree median being removed is a slight downside but it is not on the magnitude of "cancelling out"  the improvements being built by the widening.
I think if one was traveling at midnight, it would be easier if it was 2 lanes with trees.
Overnight sure... but during the day, three lanes is a significant improvement.

Also, the median width being 50 ft or greater in many areas even with 6 lanes, it's not as bad even with oncoming lights. They're further away.
After driving last Sunday from NOVA to VAB I agree, I did that from Centreville in 3 hours!
Never would have happened before.
Still one does miss how pretty the median is from 206 to 234.

Also, when one goes from 95SB to 295 to 64 and sees 95 SB is 3 lanes, 295 4, and most of 64 3, it screams WTF is 95 NOT 4 lanes!!!
IMO 95 should be four lanes from 295 to exit 126, then the c/d should extend to 126 from 130.
This should be VDOTs top priority and yet I never see anything.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on September 10, 2023, 10:57:01 PM
The southbound lanes of US 29 in Ruckersville are apparently underwater, due to the flooding and storm that is currently still happening as I'm posting this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on September 14, 2023, 09:04:26 AM
The Southern Connector, the new route of U.S. 220 in Henry County, is dead. Funding has been shifted to a study of how to improve the existing U.S. 220.

The revised budget passed by the General Assembly changes the focus. "The study the legislature authorized will look at improving roughly 7 miles of U.S. 220 between the state line and U.S. 58 in Henry County. The study area also includes the U.S. 58/Virginia 641 interchange and the town of Ridgeway, where U.S. 220 connects with Virginia 87, according to Jason Bond, a spokesperson for the Virginia Department of Transportation."

The route of the new Southern Connector was studied two years ago. "The cost was estimated at the time at $745 million.

The Southern Environmental Law Center urged VDOT to scrap the plan, calling the project "a poor use of taxpayer dollars"  and decrying its potential impacts on the environment.

An environmental impact study of the Southern Connector identified four potential minority-owned residential areas that could be affected, as well as other environmental points of concern such as noise pollution and adjacent residential properties. Report researchers also looked at seven endangered species that were in the project area and could be threatened.

That 2021 study is now largely moot, as local voices have shifted away from support for the Southern Connector."

https://cardinalnews.org/2023/09/13/plans-underway-to-improve-u-s-220-the-economic-gateway-between-southern-virginia-and-greensboro-nc/

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 21, 2023, 07:31:59 PM
A 1.9 mile section of Route 29 in Northern Virginia is getting an upgrade:

https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/drones-aid-shirley-contracting-vdot-on-route-29-project/62522
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on October 01, 2023, 09:37:52 PM
What's the deal with VA 895 being allowed? Isn't all state primary numbers to be  between 1-599 as 600 and higher are reserved for secondary designations?

Is that some sort of exception being it's a de facto interstate connecting to I-95 that to be an x-95 has all even numbers from 2 and 4 used elsewhere and doesn't fit for an odd x95?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on October 01, 2023, 10:15:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 01, 2023, 09:37:52 PM
What's the deal with VA 895 being allowed? Isn't all state primary numbers to be  between 1-599 as 600 and higher are reserved for secondary designations?

Is that some sort of exception being it's a de facto interstate connecting to I-95 that to be an x-95 has all even numbers from 2 and 4 used elsewhere and doesn't fit for an odd x95?
Originally, this highway was supposed to be signed as I-895.  However, Virginia used federal funds allocated for this highway to build a tolled highway.  Because of this, Virginia could not sign it as an Interstate highway, so they signed this as VA 895 instead.

It is not really that big a deal that this highway is signed VA 895.  It is just an anomaly from the norms many of us have become accustomed to observing in Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 02, 2023, 06:11:14 AM
It would still be an exception even if it was I-895.  Like I-664, I-785 (officially VA 785 currently), the two cancelled I-795s, and the VDOT-proposed I-864, it is a number >599 that is not a secondary route. 

VDOT explicitly recognizes interstate designations above 599 as exceptions.  See the bottom of page 2 of the 2003 route log (https://virginiadot.org/info/resources/route-index-07012003.pdf)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2023, 06:29:18 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 02, 2023, 06:11:14 AM
It would still be an exception even if it was I-895.  Like I-664, I-785 (officially VA 785 currently), the two cancelled I-795s, and the VDOT-proposed I-864, it is a number >599 that is not a secondary route. 

VDOT explicitly recognizes interstate designations above 599 as exceptions.  See the bottom of page 2 of the 2003 route log (https://virginiadot.org/info/resources/route-index-07012003.pdf)

I understand exceptions for interstates as they're not state issued numbers. Just like in New Jersey, 600 series numbers are for intra county route numbers. Yet I-676 exists as it's an interstate not in the NJ numbering convention.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 02, 2023, 07:50:01 AM
If a simple route number causes you such angst, I'd hate to see your reaction if you saw the mile markers on that road.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2023, 08:13:48 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 02, 2023, 07:50:01 AM
If a simple route number causes you such angst, I'd hate to see your reaction if you saw the mile markers on that road.
I'm not angry. Just wondering if VDOT had a numbering scheme and if they broke it for a good reason. I could care less if it was VA 995 or VA 495 or whatever. I'm not like many on here who digress over I-99 being signed into law cause it's between I-79 and I-81 or like your pal who insisted VA 28 should be I-366. :bigass:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on October 02, 2023, 08:57:05 AM
I didn't say you were angry. I said the number seems to be causing you angst. I guess your reply #6975 suggested to me that the issue bothers you more than you're saying it actually does.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2023, 09:02:44 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 02, 2023, 08:57:05 AM
I didn't say you were angry. I said the number seems to be causing you angst. I guess your reply #6975 suggested to me that the issue bothers you more than you're saying it actually does.
Sorry misunderstood.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: epzik8 on October 02, 2023, 07:54:39 PM
Exits 133 and 130 on 95 are no longer recognizable. "WELCOME CENTER FOR VIRGINIA" will be stuck in my head for a while.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on October 20, 2023, 09:14:33 AM
VA 399 (the Science Museum of Virginia loop road in Richmond) is in the process of being physically destroyed, to be replaced with a green space. There will be a tiny piece saved to use as an access road to the museum's parking deck but no idea if this would still be considered VA 399 or not.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on October 20, 2023, 09:18:42 AM
The title for shortest primary route in Virginia would likely go to VA-79, if the VA-399 designation does get decommissioned.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 20, 2023, 09:42:48 AM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on October 20, 2023, 09:18:42 AM
The title for shortest primary route in Virginia would likely go to VA-79, if the VA-399 designation does get decommissioned.

There are several posted routes shorter than VA 79's 0.23 miles.

300Y - 0.04 mi
342 - 0.16 mi
162 - 0.17 mi
391 - 0.17 mi
341 - 0.20 mi

There are several unposted ones shorter as well.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on October 20, 2023, 09:57:42 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 20, 2023, 09:42:48 AM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on October 20, 2023, 09:18:42 AM
The title for shortest primary route in Virginia would likely go to VA-79, if the VA-399 designation does get decommissioned.

There are several posted routes shorter than VA 79's 0.23 miles.

300Y - 0.04 mi
342 - 0.16 mi
162 - 0.17 mi
391 - 0.17 mi
341 - 0.20 mi

There are several unposted ones shorter as well.
Add in the state secondary system and it becomes a question of how to determine lengths of those routes posted, due to being discontinuous.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 20, 2023, 10:10:10 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 20, 2023, 09:57:42 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 20, 2023, 09:42:48 AM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on October 20, 2023, 09:18:42 AM
The title for shortest primary route in Virginia would likely go to VA-79, if the VA-399 designation does get decommissioned.

There are several posted routes shorter than VA 79's 0.23 miles.

300Y - 0.04 mi
342 - 0.16 mi
162 - 0.17 mi
391 - 0.17 mi
341 - 0.20 mi

There are several unposted ones shorter as well.
Add in the state secondary system and it becomes a question of how to determine lengths of those routes posted, due to being discontinuous.

none of which matters for the winner of shortest *primary* route in Virginia.  F-routes, however, are technically in the primary system but not what is usually included in questions like these.

I would also not characterize the 50+ SR 600s, for example as a discontinuous route.  Rather they are 50+ separate routes.  SC 51 and PA 97 are examples of primary routes that I would also characterize as separate routes instead of discontinuous like VA 42 and VA 43 are.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 20, 2023, 10:29:52 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on October 20, 2023, 09:14:33 AM
VA 399 (the Science Museum of Virginia loop road in Richmond) is in the process of being physically destroyed, to be replaced with a green space. There will be a tiny piece saved to use as an access road to the museum's parking deck but no idea if this would still be considered VA 399 or not.

Well I am definitely glad in regards to the lowest route-numbered game that rickmastfan67 put FL 399 in Travel Mapping.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on October 20, 2023, 12:30:31 PM


Quote from: Mapmikey on October 20, 2023, 10:10:10 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 20, 2023, 09:57:42 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 20, 2023, 09:42:48 AM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on October 20, 2023, 09:18:42 AM
The title for shortest primary route in Virginia would likely go to VA-79, if the VA-399 designation does get decommissioned.

There are several posted routes shorter than VA 79's 0.23 miles.

300Y - 0.04 mi
342 - 0.16 mi
162 - 0.17 mi
391 - 0.17 mi
341 - 0.20 mi

There are several unposted ones shorter as well.
Add in the state secondary system and it becomes a question of how to determine lengths of those routes posted, due to being discontinuous.

none of which matters for the winner of shortest *primary* route in Virginia.  F-routes, however, are technically in the primary system but not what is usually included in questions like these.

I would also not characterize the 50+ SR 600s, for example as a discontinuous route.  Rather they are 50+ separate routes.  SC 51 and PA 97 are examples of primary routes that I would also characterize as separate routes instead of discontinuous like VA 42 and VA 43 are.

Wikipedia treats them as discontinuous. :D
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: rover on October 20, 2023, 11:47:21 PM
1.  Where 664/64/264/460 intersect, I can never figure out where does 664 start/end and likewise 64?
2.  Driving on 295 from 64 to 95, it is so smooth.  I love the 8 lane wide median and the great long merge from 64 WB to 295 NB. 
- Why won't they fix the 295 SB to 64 EB merge to also be high speed?
- Why can't we get 95 from 295 to Fredericksburg the same 4+4 wide median as 295?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 12:09:35 AM
Quote from: rover on October 20, 2023, 11:47:21 PM
1.  Where 664/64/264/460 intersect, I can never figure out where does 664 start/end and likewise 64?
Right where the Y-interchange is. I-64, I-664, and I-264 all meet at that point.

Technically, the interchange with US-58 is with I-664, not I-64 nor I-264.

Quote
- Why won't they fix the 295 SB to 64 EB merge to also be high speed?
That flyover was only built around 20 years ago or so, so they wouldn't be replacing it anytime soon. Prior to that, all traffic had to take the loop ramp (that still exists as a redundancy)... imagine that with today's volumes! I do agree though, it should have been built with a 55 to 60 mph design speed. Also the merge with the C/D road is abrupt and striped interestingly. That could've been designed better, IMO. But it functions well with the traffic volumes, nonetheless, and probably won't see any modifications in the near future.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: rover on October 21, 2023, 09:51:01 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 12:09:35 AM
Quote from: rover on October 20, 2023, 11:47:21 PM
1.  Where 664/64/264/460 intersect, I can never figure out where does 664 start/end and likewise 64?
Right where the Y-interchange is. I-64, I-664, and I-264 all meet at that point.

Technically, the interchange with US-58 is with I-664, not I-64 nor I-264.


Quote
- Why won't they fix the 295 SB to 64 EB merge to also be high speed?
That flyover was only built around 20 years ago or so, so they wouldn't be replacing it anytime soon. Prior to that, all traffic had to take the loop ramp (that still exists as a redundancy)... imagine that with today's volumes! I do agree though, it should have been built with a 55 to 60 mph design speed. Also the merge with the C/D road is abrupt and striped interestingly. That could've been designed better, IMO. But it functions well with the traffic volumes, nonetheless, and probably won't see any modifications in the near future.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadstothefuture.com%2FBowers_Hill_Interchange.jpg&hash=bfc101cba3e35eaa87e0dbee1bff1bf19e5a44ec)
So and 264 end where they meet at Bowers Hill
664 starts where it meets the 460/58/264 E-W road
So between 664 and the 264/64 interchange, what is that road signed as?

I totally forgot the 295 SB to 64 EB had a prior cloverleaf until recently, are there any images?
I wonder why if they did redo this so soon they did not make it high speed?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 21, 2023, 10:49:06 AM
64-264-664 all begin/end at the interchange next to the word Bowers in the diagram above.

'Begin project' is just where construction began as there was already a stub connection between 64-264 and US 13-58-460. This stub is now signed as I-664.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: rover on October 21, 2023, 07:42:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 21, 2023, 10:49:06 AM
64-264-664 all begin/end at the interchange next to the word Bowers in the diagram above.

'Begin project' is just where construction began as there was already a stub connection between 64-264 and US 13-58-460. This stub is now signed as I-664.
Ok, makes sense.  So at the 'Y' interchange:
- The road segment which goes to the SE of it is I-64
- The road segment which goes to the NE is I-264
- The road segment which goes to the SW is I-664 before it cuts N.

So what happens to 12/48/460 at the interchange with I-664?

Also, was there ever any plans originally for I-64 not to cul-de-sac loop but instead maybe be routed onto I-264 to VA Beach?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 21, 2023, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: rover on October 21, 2023, 07:42:34 PM
So what happens to 12/48/460 at the interchange with I-664?

Presuming you mean 13/58/460.  They all continue through the interchange to the first traffic signal to the east, where US 58 continues straight towards Portsmouth and 13/460 turn south, cross under I-664, and then turn onto Military Hwy (Google Maps erroneously labels this as "ALT US 460").  It's the same intersection at which VA 191 begins and heads to the northwest.

QuoteAlso, was there ever any plans originally for I-64 not to cul-de-sac loop but instead maybe be routed onto I-264 to VA Beach?

Not originally.  The "original" plan did not have an Interstate towards the Virginia Beach Oceanfront....that wasn't added until 1999.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 11:58:23 PM
Quote
QuoteAlso, was there ever any plans originally for I-64 not to cul-de-sac loop but instead maybe be routed onto I-264 to VA Beach?

Not originally.  The "original" plan did not have an Interstate towards the Virginia Beach Oceanfront....that wasn't added until 1999.
I'll add that I believe VDOT explored options to address I-64's "wrong way" routing in the mid 1990s, and one of those did indeed involve routing I-64 onto I-264, and redesignating I-64 in Chesapeake as I-664.

But in the original 1950s / 1960s interstate plan, I-64 looped around to Bowers Hill where it ended at US-13/58/460, I-464 connected I-64 to I-264, I-264 went between either side of I-64 (except through Downtown Norfolk / the tunnel / Berkley Bridge) and I-564 connected to the Naval Base. That was it for interstates.

What is now I-264 east of I-64 to the Oceanfront was built in the late 1960s as VA-44, a toll road. In the 1990s, the tolls came off and was eventually redesignated as an extension of I-264 since it effectively acted as it.

I-664 was first approved in 1968 and was constructed throughout the 1980s and complete in the early 1990s.

Here is the original 1956 interstate plan for Hampton Roads from the FHWA's Yellow Book.
(https://i.ibb.co/dK4qLz3/3-DACFEFD-3-E10-4064-9-F5-C-A84925-FD6-DC9.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on October 22, 2023, 10:28:51 AM
Here is what the 1956 plan became by 1958

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2Fi364.jpg&hash=18995cbe1410091e69dd21a3a41555eb4305a7fe)

The earliest reference I know of for VA 44 expressway to Virginia Beach is in 1962.

The CTB did consider moving I-64 to replace VA 44 in 1996:
In May 1996 (CTB), VDOT presented 4 options to renumber the interstates in the Hampton Roads area:
1. Extend I-664 around to I-264/VA 44 and replace VA 44 with I-64
2. Extend I-664 around to I-264/VA 44 and replace VA 44 with I-664
3. Replace I-664 with I-64 and replace VA 44 with I-64; Replace I-64 across HRBT to I-264/VA 44 with I-664
4. Replace I-664 with I-64 and replace VA 44 with I-64; Replace I-64 across HRBT to I-264/VA 44 with I-864
The CTB deferred action to June 1996 whereby they elected to defer again. There was no further mention of anything related to this until they renumbered VA 44 as I-264 in Aug 1997.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on October 22, 2023, 05:17:09 PM
What was the dashed line west of 264/64 intended to be?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 22, 2023, 11:59:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 22, 2023, 05:17:09 PM
What was the dashed line west of 264/64 intended to be?

Tie-in to what is now 13/58/460 across the swamp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on October 23, 2023, 06:06:30 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 22, 2023, 11:59:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 22, 2023, 05:17:09 PM
What was the dashed line west of 264/64 intended to be?

Tie-in to what is now 13/58/460 across the swamp.
I-764??
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2023, 07:53:43 AM
It wasn't going to be an Interstate.  Just a connection.  You're reading too much into what the map shows.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on October 25, 2023, 12:00:53 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2023, 07:53:43 AM
It wasn't going to be an Interstate.  Just a connection.  You're reading too much into what the map shows.

The map was showing Interstates.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on October 25, 2023, 11:36:49 AM
Found another pic of the RPT online, this time in Petersburg. It's a postcard showing Exit 3 (today's Exit 52 on I-95) Washington St, looking south. Note the median.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20231025/e0f150445e14d5a6d3f35aaaa1d09533.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: rover on October 30, 2023, 10:14:14 PM
Everytime I am on I-295 from I-64 to I-95 I always shake my head at how great the I-295 design is and why I-95 N to I-495 can't be this way.

Also, the I-64EB to I-264EB interchange needs a redo to be high speed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 02, 2023, 10:05:40 AM
Northbound I-95's new configuration across the Rappahannock is set to open on November 16. Nice timing, as that's a week before Thanksgiving and its higher traffic volumes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ixnay on November 02, 2023, 11:00:45 AM
Quote from: plain on October 25, 2023, 11:36:49 AM
Found another pic of the RPT online, this time in Petersburg. It's a postcard showing Exit 3 (today's Exit 52 on I-95) Washington St, looking south. Note the median.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20231025/e0f150445e14d5a6d3f35aaaa1d09533.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL) :)

Median noted.  Interesting (an understatement on my part, I hope). :)

I wonder what the smaller sign (underneath "Washington Street") at the exit gore says?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on November 02, 2023, 12:17:55 PM
Quote from: ixnay on November 02, 2023, 11:00:45 AM
Quote from: plain on October 25, 2023, 11:36:49 AM
Found another pic of the RPT online, this time in Petersburg. It's a postcard showing Exit 3 (today's Exit 52 on I-95) Washington St, looking south. Note the median.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20231025/e0f150445e14d5a6d3f35aaaa1d09533.jpg)

moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL) :)

Median noted.  Interesting (an understatement on my part, I hope). :)

I wonder what the smaller sign (underneath "Washington Street") at the exit gore says?

I can barely read it, but I believe it says DOWNTOWN PETERSBURG.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on November 02, 2023, 12:22:31 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 02, 2023, 10:05:40 AM
Northbound I-95's new configuration across the Rappahannock is set to open on November 16. Nice timing, as that's a week before Thanksgiving and its higher traffic volumes.

That is great news! That should make the area much better for both holiday travel and Black Friday. We'll see how it performs. SB has already seen a big improvement.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 02, 2023, 12:54:41 PM
Downtown Petersburg is correct.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on November 02, 2023, 06:02:17 PM
This got me to look at Historic Aerials which shows the original Turnpike went west from I-95 along I-85 and ended in a wye intersection/interchange with US 1. Except their 1959 topo shows an I-95 shield right at 1, which I assume is just being incorrect. Sure, that could have been signed I-95 from US 1, but I imagine that was already planned as I-85 then? Or was there a different routing for I-95 south of Petersburg planned?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 03, 2023, 10:30:41 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 02, 2023, 06:02:17 PM
This got me to look at Historic Aerials which shows the original Turnpike went west from I-95 along I-85 and ended in a wye intersection/interchange with US 1. Except their 1959 topo shows an I-95 shield right at 1, which I assume is just being incorrect. Sure, that could have been signed I-95 from US 1, but I imagine that was already planned as I-85 then? Or was there a different routing for I-95 south of Petersburg planned?

From my I-85 page (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/i085.htm)
Quote
I-95 is erroneously labeled on the 1959 topo to include the part that I-85 occupies. However, there is an Apr 1960 CTB item that also refers to the US 1 Dinwiddie County interchange with the Richmond-Petersburg Tpk as being with "Route 95" - was 95 briefly signed over to US 1?

I have not seen any evidence 95 was going to be routed any differently than it is south of Petersburg.  Looking at historic views and topos it is clear there was no reason to swing 95 out that way before resuming its long-defined US 301 corridor routing.

I assume the Tpk was built this way so that US 1 and US 460 traffic had a way to bypass Petersburg and topos/views show where US 301 ran into it was sufficient to not build the Tpk or a stub of the Tpk due south of there for US 301's benefit.

I-95 was labeled on the 1959 official only in the Richmond inset.  There is no 1960 Official.  The 1961 official shows I-85 on the stub southwest to US 1-460.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on November 03, 2023, 11:21:08 PM
Got a chuckle when I saw this sign  :-D

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9161538,-77.2199269,3a,68.7y,231.29h,78.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s436ExgkO_9fU7ZJ5T8uzeQ!2e0!5s20230801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: MASTERNC on November 05, 2023, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on November 03, 2023, 11:21:08 PM
Got a chuckle when I saw this sign  :-D

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9161538,-77.2199269,3a,68.7y,231.29h,78.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s436ExgkO_9fU7ZJ5T8uzeQ!2e0!5s20230801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Feels more appropriate for the Christiana Fashion Center in Delaware (which is by SR 7).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 09, 2023, 05:03:57 PM
Somebody posted this old picture of Charlottesville on a UVA forum. There's a thread trying to figure out what year it was; about all that's been established for sure is that one of the cars seen is a '55 Chevy, so it can't be prior to late 1954. Anyone have any ideas?

The street shown is now the Downtown Mall. Can't really get a comparable image on Google Street View today because with the pedestrian mall, combined with trees having been planted down the middle, it's more or less impossible for someone to get the same vantage point.

(https://virginia.sportswar.com/uploads/2023/11/624586726137.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on November 09, 2023, 05:46:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 09, 2023, 05:03:57 PM
Somebody posted this old picture of Charlottesville on a UVA forum. There's a thread trying to figure out what year it was; about all that's been established for sure is that one of the cars seen is a '55 Chevy, so it can't be prior to late 1954. Anyone have any ideas?

The street shown is now the Downtown Mall. Can't really get a comparable image on Google Street View today because with the pedestrian mall, combined with trees having been planted down the middle, it's more or less impossible for someone to get the same vantage point.

(https://virginia.sportswar.com/uploads/2023/11/624586726137.jpg)

I love seeing old pics of Cville + surrounding areas, I'm currently trying to find pictures of US 33 in Greene County before the widening in 1993/94.

And for your picture, according to Historic Aerials, the Downtown Mall became a pedestrian mall between 1968 and 1984. That leaves the timeframe as 1955-1984.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tmoore952 on November 15, 2023, 12:25:44 PM
On a return from a business trip yesterday, and trying to avoid backups at Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, and Washington in general at evening rush, I crossed both the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel and Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and also made a 5 minute side trip to enter Delaware when US 50 passes close to it.

It all went rather well, despite being 20 or so miles longer than my normal route, except when I got to Annapolis area, it was backed up there.

First time I had ever crossed both spans in one day. A long time ago, as a youngster, I drove from Philadelphia down to NC and back in one day to use the Cape May Lewes Ferry and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel on the same day.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 17, 2023, 08:51:33 AM
The new I-95 local lanes across the Rappahannock opened yesterday. VDOT tweeted this diagram (note, it shows only the northbound side of the highway):

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_IxCE1WQAAyYme?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ixnay on November 17, 2023, 09:04:09 PM
With the holiday season close at hand, I must say that DT Charlottesville scene look straight out of "Silver Bells".
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on November 17, 2023, 09:35:27 PM
Downtown Gordonsville looks absolutely stunning during the holidays.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 18, 2023, 05:22:37 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 09, 2023, 05:03:57 PM
Somebody posted this old picture of Charlottesville on a UVA forum. There's a thread trying to figure out what year it was; about all that's been established for sure is that one of the cars seen is a '55 Chevy, so it can't be prior to late 1954. Anyone have any ideas?

The street shown is now the Downtown Mall. Can't really get a comparable image on Google Street View today because with the pedestrian mall, combined with trees having been planted down the middle, it's more or less impossible for someone to get the same vantage point.

(https://virginia.sportswar.com/uploads/2023/11/624586726137.jpg)

This is prior to the late 1960s.  Per https://www.cvilleimages.com/portfolio/gone-2/ (scroll down), the A & N building was reduced to a single story building by a fire in the late 60s.

The 4th picture here - https://www.cvilleimages.com/portfolio/roseberrys-charlottesville/  shows a more modern Coca-Cola billboard and is labeled circa 1960.  Towards the bottom of that same page is an Oct 1963 night photo that does not rule anything in/out.  The billboard slogan in the photo Hoo posted appears to match the 1952-56 slogan in the list here - https://www.pastimes.org/coke. 

My conclusion is the photo is not long after 1955.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: dlsterner on November 18, 2023, 09:37:41 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 18, 2023, 05:22:37 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 09, 2023, 05:03:57 PM
Somebody posted this old picture of Charlottesville on a UVA forum. There's a thread trying to figure out what year it was; about all that's been established for sure is that one of the cars seen is a '55 Chevy, so it can't be prior to late 1954. Anyone have any ideas?

The street shown is now the Downtown Mall. Can't really get a comparable image on Google Street View today because with the pedestrian mall, combined with trees having been planted down the middle, it's more or less impossible for someone to get the same vantage point.

(https://virginia.sportswar.com/uploads/2023/11/624586726137.jpg)

This is prior to the late 1960s.  Per https://www.cvilleimages.com/portfolio/gone-2/ (scroll down), the A & N building was reduced to a single story building by a fire in the late 60s.

The 4th picture here - https://www.cvilleimages.com/portfolio/roseberrys-charlottesville/  shows a more modern Coca-Cola billboard and is labeled circa 1960.  Towards the bottom of that same page is an Oct 1963 night photo that does not rule anything in/out.  The billboard slogan in the photo Hoo posted appears to match the 1952-56 slogan in the list here - https://www.pastimes.org/coke. 

My conclusion is the photo is not long after 1955.

Also, the majority of automobiles in the image appear to be of 1950s vintage.  I would expect to see at least a few 1960s cars after a year or so into the decade.  I suspect Mapmikey is close.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tmoore952 on November 18, 2023, 11:29:52 PM
As I mentioned elsewhere (above), I drove over the CBBT northbound a couple days ago.

The mileposts on the CBBT itself counted from its southern end, and they obviously superceded the "state length" mileposts. When I got to the Eastern Shore, the first milepost I saw was (about) MP 71. I thought to myself, with the CBBT being about 20 miles long, that means US 13 goes for 50 miles in VA between the NC line and the CBBT.

Initially, that seemed high to me. But looking at a map, I can see that is correct. I did not realize that US 13 takes its time getting to NC, as it angles to the southwest. I thought it took a more direct route south similar to VA 168 or US 17. Also, the bypass around Suffolk adds a few miles vice the older route (pre-bypass).
Title: Re: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on November 19, 2023, 11:30:20 AM
Quote from: tmoore952 on November 18, 2023, 11:29:52 PM
The mileposts on the CBBT itself counted from its southern end, and they obviously superceded the "state length" mileposts. When I got to the Eastern Shore, the first milepost I saw was (about) MP 71. I thought to myself, with the CBBT being about 20 miles long, that means US 13 goes for 50 miles in VA between the NC line and the CBBT.

CBBT is its own quasi-governmental jurisdiction...definitely not under VDOT maintenance. 

There used to be a MP 70 sign northbound just before SR 600, about 1/4mi past the CBBT/Welcome Center parking access.  Looks like it's no longer there.  The southbound MP 70 sign still exists per recent GMSV.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 19, 2023, 11:38:49 AM
I originally moved the CBBT conversation to the CBBT Thread, but I decided to move it back.  -Mark
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on November 22, 2023, 12:48:32 PM
This showed up yesterday in the Cardinal News feed as part of an article about Kennedy's influence on Virginia (https://cardinalnews.org/2023/11/21/60-years-on-john-kennedys-legacy-in-virginia-can-be-measured-with-i-64-and-clean-drinking-water/). The article also mentions the political implications of Kennedy's run for president and his administration, including mentioning that he created the Appalachian Regional Commission, which is still doling out grants.

------------------

Interstate 64 was routed through Charlottesville, not Lynchburg
The interstate highway system is one of Eisenhower's great legacies, but many of the key routing decisions came under Kennedy.

One of the big debates, which began in the 1950s, was whether Interstate 64 would take the "northern route" through Charlottesville and Waynesboro (as it presently does) or the "southern route" through Farmville, Lynchburg, Bedford and southern Botetourt County on its way to Clifton Forge.

The State Highway Commission, as it was called then, hired a consultant who recommended the northern route because it was 50 miles shorter and thus less expensive. Clearly that consultant did not understand state politics. Gov. Almond (who was from Roanoke) backed the southern route, and that's what the state highway commission preferred, by a "surprise" 5-3 vote in 1959. The feds, though, were paying 90% of the cost and they got the final say. When the decision got to the newly installed Kennedy administration in 1961, Secretary of Commerce Luther Hodges rejected Virginia's advice and picked the northern route. Some darkly blamed Bill Battle, who was Kennedy's campaign manager in Virginia — and was from Charlottesville.

Kennedy and Battle went back a long way: He served with Kennedy in the same naval squadron during World War II and took part in rescuing Kennedy and his crewmates on PT-109 after their vessel was sunk by the Japanese and the men took refuge on a nearby island. Kennedy rewarded Battle by naming him ambassador to Australia; the name Battle may be familiar to some because a) he was Gov. Battle's son and b) he later became the Democratic nominee for governor in 1969, losing to Linwood Holton in that famous election. Did Kennedy also reward Battle's hometown with an interstate? Or was this just a perfunctory bureaucratic decision based on the fact that the Charlottesville route was cheaper? In an interview in 1999 with the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Battle said he never spoke with Kennedy about the routing decision. "There was nothing behind the scenes," he said. "I never
talked to [Kennedy] about it. I just went up there with a delegation from here and made our case. ... I guess we made a better case."

Whatever the circumstances of the decision, the fact remains: The Kennedy administration overruled Virginia's recommendation and routed I-64 through Charlottesville instead of Lynchburg. That's a decision that's arguably slowed the growth of Lynchburg's economy; it's unusual to find a city that size without an interstate. It's also arguably helped spur growth in Augusta County, where I-64 joins up with I-81. Over the years, I've met multiple people who work in Charlottesville but live in Staunton and Augusta County because it's cheaper — and an easy commute over Afton Mountain (at least when there's not any fog).

----------
One wonders how things might have played out if the southern route for I-64 was chosen to favor Lynchburg, Farmville, Bedford, and replace U.S. 220 from I-81 to Clifton Forge. U.S. 460 has been improved with bypasses around Bedford (although businesses are creeping east past the end of the bypass, adding traffic lights that slow progress), Lynchburg, and Appomattox. Getting from I-81 to Bedford is still at times a challenge, even with improvements at exit 150 on I-81. U.S. 220 north from there isn't too bad of a trip, unless there is a major wreck, until one gets to Eagle Rock and the end of the four lane.

Bruce in Blacksburg


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Bitmapped on November 22, 2023, 03:55:20 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on November 22, 2023, 12:48:32 PM
One wonders how things might have played out if the southern route for I-64 was chosen to favor Lynchburg, Farmville, Bedford, and replace U.S. 220 from I-81 to Clifton Forge. U.S. 460 has been improved with bypasses around Bedford (although businesses are creeping east past the end of the bypass, adding traffic lights that slow progress), Lynchburg, and Appomattox. Getting from I-81 to Bedford is still at times a challenge, even with improvements at exit 150 on I-81. U.S. 220 north from there isn't too bad of a trip, unless there is a major wreck, until one gets to Eagle Rock and the end of the four lane.

Does anyone have a map showing what this proposed southern alignment would have been? I've read the past Lynchburg then US 220 to Clifton Forge part before, but was the plan to bring the route that close to Roanoke without actually going into Roanoke? That seems way out of the way versus paralleling US 501 through the James River gap in the Blue Ridge coming northwest out of Lynchburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 22, 2023, 04:19:38 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 22, 2023, 03:55:20 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on November 22, 2023, 12:48:32 PM
One wonders how things might have played out if the southern route for I-64 was chosen to favor Lynchburg, Farmville, Bedford, and replace U.S. 220 from I-81 to Clifton Forge. U.S. 460 has been improved with bypasses around Bedford (although businesses are creeping east past the end of the bypass, adding traffic lights that slow progress), Lynchburg, and Appomattox. Getting from I-81 to Bedford is still at times a challenge, even with improvements at exit 150 on I-81. U.S. 220 north from there isn't too bad of a trip, unless there is a major wreck, until one gets to Eagle Rock and the end of the four lane.

Does anyone have a map showing what this proposed southern alignment would have been? I've read the past Lynchburg then US 220 to Clifton Forge part before, but was the plan to bring the route that close to Roanoke without actually going into Roanoke? That seems way out of the way versus paralleling US 501 through the James River gap in the Blue Ridge coming northwest out of Lynchburg.


There is a map here - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/i64vastudy.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: VTGoose on November 22, 2023, 06:14:38 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 22, 2023, 03:55:20 PM
Does anyone have a map showing what this proposed southern alignment would have been? I've read the past Lynchburg then US 220 to Clifton Forge part before, but was the plan to bring the route that close to Roanoke without actually going into Roanoke? That seems way out of the way versus paralleling US 501 through the James River gap in the Blue Ridge coming northwest out of Lynchburg.

The article has the Virginia Department of Highways map that shows (broadly) the southern route pretty much following Alt. U.S. 220 west from U.S 460 around Bonsack. Getting to U.S. 501 from the southeast side of Lynchburg would not be an easy route, either crossing the James River around today's Mt. Athos exit on U.S. 460 and cutting though Madison Heights, or striking north after crossing U.S. 29, somewhere around Timberlake and heading toward Forest. From there, it would require quite a few cuts to get through the terrain to reach the river. At that, U.S. 501 is in tight quarters along the river. The gap to reach Glasgow isn't that big; would the interstate head west to reach I-81 near there or run a bit north to Buena Vista and a connection close to Lexington? Coming close to Roanoke, then up U.S. 220 really isn't much more out of the way than going through Whooville to Staunton, then south to Lexington.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on November 23, 2023, 03:28:53 AM
Construction for I-64 'Gap Widening Project' to begin in New Kent County (https://www.wric.com/traffic/road-projects-and-closures/construction-for-i-64-gap-widening-project-to-begin-in-new-kent-county/?)
QuoteNEW KENT COUNTY, Va. (WRIC) — Work will soon begin for the $756 million widening project of Interstate 64, which will include nightly closures.

Closures for the project — which is federally funded — will begin on Monday, Nov. 27. Nightly eastbound and westbound lanes will be closed from 7 p.m. to 5 a.m. for the installation of temporary median barriers.

Median barriers will be installed from Bottoms Bridge to just east of Providence Forge, according to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). All lanes will remain operational throughout daytime hours.

After the barrier installation, trees in the median will be cleared behind the barrier. This early tree-clearing work will take place over the next few months, and the project road widening is anticipated to begin in early Spring of 2024.

The project has been divided into three segments: A, B and C, with each being constructed as an independent project. Segment A is the first of the three segments and will widen about ten miles of I-64 from two to three lanes with 10-foot-wide paved shoulders in each direction.

This marks the beginning of a three phase project to finally close the 29 mile four lane gap on I-64 between Richmond and Hampton Roads. This first phase (https://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-64-gap-segment-a-widening.asp) will be complete in the summer 2027, followed by the other two phases by the spring of 2028 (https://www.wavy.com/news/virginia/gov-youngkin-breaks-ground-on-i-64-widening-project/amp/).

In total, it will be 29 miles of rural interstate highway widening for $756 million in about 4 years total. It will complete a six lane I-64 between Richmond and Hampton Roads before the end of the decade.



As far as the technical details of the project go, this project will simply widen to the inside, adding a full 12 foot lane and 10 foot paved shoulder. None of the interchanges will be reconfigured. This seems to be fine at most locations given low-volume rural interchanges, but I'm concerned with Exit 211 at VA-106. Currently this is a conventional diamond interchange with a two-lane overpass (no turn lanes) over the interstate. To the north, it widens to a 4 lane road and a roundabout where Buc-ee's is getting ready to be built and open within a few years.

Mixed with the growth out in New Kent County, the traffic that Buc-ee's will generate (look anywhere else a Buc-ee's has been built), and the existing truck stops Loves and Pilot to the south of the interchange, I feel that widening or replacing the overpass with a 4 lane bridge & turn lanes, along with traffic signals (perhaps even a loop ramp in one of the quadrants), is inevitable. I'm not sure why that was not included in this widening project. Instead, they'll have to come back in 10 years after traffic congestion grows, and start another bridge replacement / widening project.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on November 23, 2023, 12:20:13 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on November 22, 2023, 06:14:38 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 22, 2023, 03:55:20 PM
Does anyone have a map showing what this proposed southern alignment would have been? I've read the past Lynchburg then US 220 to Clifton Forge part before, but was the plan to bring the route that close to Roanoke without actually going into Roanoke? That seems way out of the way versus paralleling US 501 through the James River gap in the Blue Ridge coming northwest out of Lynchburg.

The article has the Virginia Department of Highways map that shows (broadly) the southern route pretty much following Alt. U.S. 220 west from U.S 460 around Bonsack. Getting to U.S. 501 from the southeast side of Lynchburg would not be an easy route, either crossing the James River around today's Mt. Athos exit on U.S. 460 and cutting though Madison Heights, or striking north after crossing U.S. 29, somewhere around Timberlake and heading toward Forest. From there, it would require quite a few cuts to get through the terrain to reach the river. At that, U.S. 501 is in tight quarters along the river. The gap to reach Glasgow isn't that big; would the interstate head west to reach I-81 near there or run a bit north to Buena Vista and a connection close to Lexington? Coming close to Roanoke, then up U.S. 220 really isn't much more out of the way than going through Whooville to Staunton, then south to Lexington.

In the Richmond area it looks like it was originally planned to follow what is now I-195 and Powhite Parkway, then generally paralleling US 360 to north of Burkeville. I wonder how the development of Richmond suburbia would have been different.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on November 23, 2023, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: Takumi on November 23, 2023, 12:20:13 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on November 22, 2023, 06:14:38 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 22, 2023, 03:55:20 PM
Does anyone have a map showing what this proposed southern alignment would have been? I've read the past Lynchburg then US 220 to Clifton Forge part before, but was the plan to bring the route that close to Roanoke without actually going into Roanoke? That seems way out of the way versus paralleling US 501 through the James River gap in the Blue Ridge coming northwest out of Lynchburg.

The article has the Virginia Department of Highways map that shows (broadly) the southern route pretty much following Alt. U.S. 220 west from U.S 460 around Bonsack. Getting to U.S. 501 from the southeast side of Lynchburg would not be an easy route, either crossing the James River around today's Mt. Athos exit on U.S. 460 and cutting though Madison Heights, or striking north after crossing U.S. 29, somewhere around Timberlake and heading toward Forest. From there, it would require quite a few cuts to get through the terrain to reach the river. At that, U.S. 501 is in tight quarters along the river. The gap to reach Glasgow isn't that big; would the interstate head west to reach I-81 near there or run a bit north to Buena Vista and a connection close to Lexington? Coming close to Roanoke, then up U.S. 220 really isn't much more out of the way than going through Whooville to Staunton, then south to Lexington.

In the Richmond area it looks like it was originally planned to follow what is now I-195 and Powhite Parkway, then generally paralleling US 360 to north of Burkeville. I wonder how the development of Richmond suburbia would have been different.

The 1958 routing of I-64 west out of Richmond was proposed to be similar to what was actually built.  See https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=97cd02d6-36e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true after going to the AASHTO database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default)

In Dec 1960, the CTB changed I-64 west exit from Richmond to be south of the James River.  See the last page here - https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-12-1960-01.pdf.  Note that the CTB also said to have 64 overlay with I-81 to Lexington, then follow the 'northern route' to Clifton Forge

The map from Scott Kozel's page showing I-64 using roughly Powhite Pkwy corridor is from a 1961 location study.

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 25, 2023, 08:08:00 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 27, 2019, 10:30:38 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 12, 2019, 03:54:36 PM
VA 357 decommissioning on the March 2019 CTB agenda...

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/mar/agendas/ctb_action_meeting_march_2019.pdf

The Southside Training Facility was torn down and redeveloped by private interests.

Annnnnnd it's gone. (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/mar/reso/1.pdf) VA 357 decommissioned.

Potentially related to this, I noticed yesterday that 2 lanes now continue on US 1 SB/US 460 BUS WB to the VA 226 intersection.  It is still only one lane EB.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 30, 2023, 12:47:13 PM
https://twitter.com/VaDOTNOVA/status/1730274858695623024
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on November 30, 2023, 03:58:35 PM
Pretty sure this project is meant to eliminate weaving on 395 SB, both here and at VA 110. Always a good thing.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on November 30, 2023, 04:45:38 PM
Quote from: plain on November 30, 2023, 03:58:35 PM
Pretty sure this project is meant to eliminate weaving on 395 SB, both here and at VA 110. Always a good thing.

I believe part of it has to do with all the crashes that occur when people use the existing ramp and then try to slice all the way across to the left-side exit for Route 1. I must say I hate driving through that area in the mainline, and I really hate using the loop ramp coming from Reagan Airport to southbound I-395 to the point where I often just go through Old Town instead.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: ElishaGOtis on December 08, 2023, 01:38:20 PM
Did TransUrban start accepting regular SunPass (not PRO, which has already been accepted since 2021) for their express lanes? I'm aware PeachPass became compatible last summer, but this wording in the FAQ is news to me.

https://www.expresslanes.com/faqs#tabexpress-lanes-and-e-zpass (4th question down).

Currently, the SunPass website says only the PRO is accepted in VA.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 08, 2023, 06:34:11 PM
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on December 08, 2023, 01:38:20 PM
Did TransUrban start accepting regular SunPass (not PRO, which has already been accepted since 2021) for their express lanes? I'm aware PeachPass became compatible last summer, but this wording in the FAQ is news to me.

https://www.expresslanes.com/faqs#tabexpress-lanes-and-e-zpass (4th question down).

Currently, the SunPass website says only the PRO is accepted in VA.

The SunPass PRO is the only SunPass that has interoperability with other networks, so the answer inherently refers to that. The standard SunPass transponder only works in Florida.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: LM117 on December 10, 2023, 03:26:02 PM
Looks like Eastville is taking a page out of Hopewell's playbook...

https://www.wtkr.com/investigations/dont-speed-on-the-eastern-shore-especially-in-eastville (https://www.wtkr.com/investigations/dont-speed-on-the-eastern-shore-especially-in-eastville)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 10, 2023, 05:56:46 PM
Well designed highway bypass segment with mostly limited access, straight as an arrow, full shoulders, a single traffic light. An underposted 45-55 mph zone that should easily be 65 mph or 70 mph in a reasonable 85th percentile speed setting environment.

But in the article, they claim speeding is dangerous and 70+ mph is a safety hazard... sure. I think the underposted limits are the hazard.

Yep, sounds like Virginia & especially the Eastern Shore!

Reminds me of Emporia on US-58... at least it's... 60  :no: mph there. Summersville, WV is a similar instance with their artificial 65 mph to 50 mph drop.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: lordsutch on December 11, 2023, 12:49:03 AM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on December 08, 2023, 06:34:11 PM
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on December 08, 2023, 01:38:20 PM
Did TransUrban start accepting regular SunPass (not PRO, which has already been accepted since 2021) for their express lanes? I'm aware PeachPass became compatible last summer, but this wording in the FAQ is news to me.

https://www.expresslanes.com/faqs#tabexpress-lanes-and-e-zpass (4th question down).

Currently, the SunPass website says only the PRO is accepted in VA.

The SunPass PRO is the only SunPass that has interoperability with other networks, so the answer inherently refers to that. The standard SunPass transponder only works in Florida.

And Georgia and North Carolina.

It's possible the work the E-ZPass states have done so far to accommodate Peach Pass also has the side effect of accommodating the non-PRO SunPass, but SunPass isn't saying anything about those states/facilities at this point (and they'd rather sell you a SunPass PRO anyway).

Now what's interesting is that Peach Pass says (https://peachpass.com/e-zpass/) that compatibility in Virginia is "coming soon" even though apparently Peach Pass is already accepted at least on the TransUrban express lanes; I assume they're waiting for it to work on other facilities before announcing it works in Virginia statewide.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 11, 2023, 02:45:46 AM
https://www.pilotonline.com/2023/12/10/massive-suffolk-warehouse-project-moves-ahead-with-construction-plans-despite-opposition/

New warehouse / industrial park planned at the interchange of US-58 and US-460 in Suffolk. This will take up the proposed right of way of a conceptual relocated US-460 freeway interchange / tie in with US-58, essentially killing any potential for that ever being revived.

Terrible planning, expect no less from a city government and future proofing. US-460 is a major freight route between Suffolk and Petersburg and is long overdue for a relocation / widening to a divided highway or freeway. The current road is inadequate and in typical Virginia fashion, VDOT has zero plans for either US-58 or US-460 leaving the region to the west - both routes that should be full freeways to I-95 / I-295.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 13, 2023, 05:34:13 PM
VDOT launched their redesigned website: https://roanoke.com/news/state-regional/business/vdot-launches-new-website/article_411ac7be-9921-11ee-a4ec-d738bf3966ce.html
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 14, 2023, 02:11:58 PM
I noticed today VDOT has silently increased the speed limit from 55 mph to 60 mph along a 4 mile segment of I-64 from the Virginia Beach / Chesapeake city line near Indian River Road to just beyond the I-264 interchange in Norfolk.

The speed limit drops to 55 mph once I-264 ramps merge in going towards Northampton Blvd / US-13.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: wriddle082 on December 14, 2023, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2023, 02:11:58 PM
I noticed today VDOT has silently increased the speed limit from 55 mph to 60 mph along a 4 mile segment of I-64 from the Virginia Beach / Chesapeake city line near Indian River Road to just beyond the I-264 interchange in Norfolk.

The speed limit drops to 55 mph once I-264 ramps merge in going towards Northampton Blvd / US-13.

I noticed this as well, as I was up this week.  And the VSP "campsite" in the median b/w the Elizabeth River and Indian River Rd seemed to be abandoned.  Wonder why...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 14, 2023, 11:39:13 PM
I haven't gotten a chance to drive around on other area interstates, but I'm curious if they've increased other areas as well. I'm doubtful. To be honest, when I saw the 60 mph signs on this portion, I was quite surprised. They can all realistically be 65 mph, but seeing them go over 55 mph at all caught me off guard.

I would like to see I-264 east of Witchduck Rd or Independence Blvd bumped up to at least 60 mph as well. Again, should be 65 mph, but 60 mph would be a welcome improvement nonetheless.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on December 18, 2023, 07:24:16 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on December 14, 2023, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2023, 02:11:58 PM
I noticed today VDOT has silently increased the speed limit from 55 mph to 60 mph along a 4 mile segment of I-64 from the Virginia Beach / Chesapeake city line near Indian River Road to just beyond the I-264 interchange in Norfolk.

The speed limit drops to 55 mph once I-264 ramps merge in going towards Northampton Blvd / US-13.

I noticed this as well, as I was up this week.  And the VSP "campsite" in the median b/w the Elizabeth River and Indian River Rd seemed to be abandoned.  Wonder why...
I noticed a couple of weeks ago while looking at the area on GoogleMaps that the speed limit did increase from 55 to 60.  It changed between April and August of 2023.
April: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NYpUDUmsFKPmXLDd8
August: https://maps.app.goo.gl/reBNgo85jHANZGJz5

Once all roadwork is completed along I-64 through Chesapeake, VDOT should raise the speed limit to 65 from just south of I-264 (Exit 284) to the Bowers Hill Interchange—but they will not.  It is probably lucky to be at 60 currently.  Of course, I-64/US 13 Bypass was 70 mph when it first opened until 1974's NMSL of 55 mph, before much development occurred around the Greenbrier interchange through the Oak Grove Interchange.  Most of the scenery that is seen currently between the High Rise Bridge(s) and the Bowers Hill Interchange has looked the same since 1969.

Allow me to give a comparison.  As a resident of the Northern Kentucky area who used to live in Chesapeake, there are some similarities in the highways.  I-275 is the beltway around Cincinnati with a 65 mph speed limit for the entire length.  It has more development above Cincinnati than anywhere along I-64 south of I-264 or along I-664 from Bowers Hill to the MMMBT, yet it is 65 through there: https://maps.app.goo.gl/jkBVTibxRswTTa3Q8.  In Northern Kentucky, I-75 is 65 mph from I-275 (Exit 185) to the Florence/Union interchange (US 42, Exit 180) and then 70 mph south of there.  This is what the view is in Florence, KY between Exits 181 & 182: https://maps.app.goo.gl/m8gogzKA1VEu7LuB7.  This view is near Florence Mall: https://maps.app.goo.gl/wfdfF1PXoGRkqReU7 (view is from the Mall Road to I-75 North overpass).

The speed limits in the Hampton Roads area were ridiculously low for a long time until recently (within the last 12-15 years) when some portions of the freeways there were bumped up to 60 mph—although they are still low in some places, even at 60.  So, I agree with sprjus4.  I-64 from I-264 to Bowers Hill as well as I-664 from Bowers Hill to the MMMBT should be 65 mph.  Most drivers are probably going that speed anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on December 18, 2023, 11:29:59 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on December 18, 2023, 07:24:16 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on December 14, 2023, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 14, 2023, 02:11:58 PM
I noticed today VDOT has silently increased the speed limit from 55 mph to 60 mph along a 4 mile segment of I-64 from the Virginia Beach / Chesapeake city line near Indian River Road to just beyond the I-264 interchange in Norfolk.

The speed limit drops to 55 mph once I-264 ramps merge in going towards Northampton Blvd / US-13.

I noticed this as well, as I was up this week.  And the VSP "campsite" in the median b/w the Elizabeth River and Indian River Rd seemed to be abandoned.  Wonder why...
I noticed a couple of weeks ago while looking at the area on GoogleMaps that the speed limit did increase from 55 to 60.  It changed between April and August of 2023.
April: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NYpUDUmsFKPmXLDd8
August: https://maps.app.goo.gl/reBNgo85jHANZGJz5

Once all roadwork is completed along I-64 through Chesapeake, VDOT should raise the speed limit to 65 from just south of I-264 (Exit 284) to the Bowers Hill Interchange—but they will not.  It is probably lucky to be at 60 currently.  Of course, I-64/US 13 Bypass was 70 mph when it first opened until 1974's NMSL of 55 mph, before much development occurred around the Greenbrier interchange through the Oak Grove Interchange.  Most of the scenery that is seen currently between the High Rise Bridge(s) and the Bowers Hill Interchange has looked the same since 1969.

Allow me to give a comparison.  As a resident of the Northern Kentucky area who used to live in Chesapeake, there are some similarities in the highways.  I-275 is the beltway around Cincinnati with a 65 mph speed limit for the entire length.  It has more development above Cincinnati than anywhere along I-64 south of I-264 or along I-664 from Bowers Hill to the MMMBT, yet it is 65 through there: https://maps.app.goo.gl/jkBVTibxRswTTa3Q8.  In Northern Kentucky, I-75 is 65 mph from I-275 (Exit 185) to the Florence/Union interchange (US 42, Exit 180) and then 70 mph south of there.  This is what the view is in Florence, KY between Exits 181 & 182: https://maps.app.goo.gl/m8gogzKA1VEu7LuB7.  This view is near Florence Mall: https://maps.app.goo.gl/wfdfF1PXoGRkqReU7 (view is from the Mall Road to I-75 North overpass).

The speed limits in the Hampton Roads area were ridiculously low for a long time until recently (within the last 12-15 years) when some portions of the freeways there were bumped up to 60 mph—although they are still low in some places, even at 60.  So, I agree with sprjus4.  I-64 from I-264 to Bowers Hill as well as I-664 from Bowers Hill to the MMMBT should be 65 mph.  Most drivers are probably going that speed anyway.
The change must've happened in late August, or I was not paying attention. I believe the last time I was on the segment of highway was early or mid August.

Either way, I agree. I-664 between Bowers Hill and the MMMBT, and the entire length of I-464 was raised to 60 mph in 2001, but everything else remained at 55 mph. In 2012, they raised the MMMBT and I-664 on the Peninsula to 60 mph, as well as I-64 between Bowers Hill and the Chesapeake / Virginia Beach city line.

This latest increase just extended that 60 mph zone a few miles to cover the entire portion south of I-64. And you are correct - most motorists are traveling north of 70 mph, especially on the wide 8 lane portion between I-264 in Norfolk and I-464, where it is largely straight and wide open. That, unsurprisingly, is where the police often set up in the median in several different areas - though they usually don't mess with people going 70-75 mph, only targeting those going 80+ mph. At least, at the bare minimum, that well designed portion will be a uniform 60 mph now, instead of the random 55 mph drop halfway.

The interstates already here in general are slow. I-264, particularly east of I-64, was constructed with a 70 mph design speed and was posted at 65 mph. It, similar to the 8 lane portion of I-64, is relatively straight and well designed. Similarly, that highway in particular, it is common to see 80+ mph drivers, with most between 70 and 80 mph in my experience. I understand that part of Virginia Beach is more urban, but at the same time, the highway can easily be posted at 65 mph. They won't raise it over 55 mph.

I-664, VA-164, I-64 below of I-264, I-264 east of I-64, and I-464 could all handle a 65 mph posted speed limit. The US-58 bypass segments around Suffolk, Franklin, and Courtland should also be raised from 60 to 65 mph - I would even argue 70 mph on the Franklin bypass, given it's a rural freeway. Additionally, I-64 north of I-264, and I-564 could reasonable be raised to 60 mph. People drive equally as fast there, but the turns and urban nature could make it more questionable above 60 mph, particularly by Virginia's standards.

Then there's VA-168 and US-17 which are annoyingly slow at 55 mph (both also should be 65 mph), but those are city maintained and Chesapeake has pushed off doing a speed study due to costs.

One positive thing VDOT did though - they did raise I-64 on the Peninsula back in 2018 from 60 mph up to 65 mph all the way down into Hampton, which was surprising, and unfortunately was not followed by any other increases.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 21, 2023, 09:08:59 PM
I just realized that Co is used here instead of CH for Courthouse for some reason.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882373731500&set=a.10217882434013007)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53413608425_98d85fe564_c.jpg)

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on December 21, 2023, 11:03:44 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 21, 2023, 09:08:59 PM
I just realized that Co is used here instead of CH for Courthouse for some reason.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882373731500&set=a.10217882434013007)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53413608425_98d85fe564_c.jpg)

I've noticed it both times I've passed the sign, the sign looks like it says Hanover County is in 10 miles.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 04, 2024, 10:42:14 PM
I have run across an archive of Norfolk television footage.

I-64 construction with some signage up - https://olddomuni.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_35b8b0d1-4d1c-4626-bba7-4bfa3d942c35/

Midtown Tunnel, Norfolk side near the end of construction, within the first 5 minutes.  There are interesting bits sprinkled throughout this 29 minute compilation - https://olddomuni.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_d86c43ca-3153-40bf-b85f-20a2ad2c6962/

ribbon cutting of VA 225, not much to see though - https://olddomuni.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_040195e4-2b0c-41b8-a372-a0b508e69a64/

1968 color footage (72 sec) of Shirley Highway construction; shows a VA 120 posting and a cool electronic model of the new busway at the very end - https://olddomuni.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_c5b253d3-5cae-43d2-87b3-e25c54ca027f/

Most of this video is driving along a lot of Hampton Blvd, though manages not to show any route markers - https://olddomuni.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_f711813c-9f38-410b-95a2-b15cbf856906/

aerial footage of construction of I-64 from Wards Corner across HRBT - https://olddomuni.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_0a07a6f8-9081-4f40-8de8-1c7c4bfbe110/

interview with some footage of construction of first HRBT - https://olddomuni.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_8a5c5051-8e1d-44cf-b5b4-325330455b3d/

color footage of the 1968 barge crash into CBBT - https://olddomuni.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_902cb2f9-f6de-4c9c-903f-c060f90ac390/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 05, 2024, 08:31:08 AM
Did you perhaps forget the link to the Shirley Highway video? That one is the one I would find the most interesting of those and I don't see the link, unless it's part of one of the others (I haven't tried to watch them all).

Thanks for posting those.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 05, 2024, 09:18:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2024, 08:31:08 AM
Did you perhaps forget the link to the Shirley Highway video? That one is the one I would find the most interesting of those and I don't see the link, unless it's part of one of the others (I haven't tried to watch them all).

Thanks for posting those.


Added link. There could be more stuff that has keywords I didn't search. There are definitely more construction clips of the same facilities I cited
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 05, 2024, 10:39:33 AM
I'm not sure if these are the exact same (I seem to recall similar videos), but WAVY TV 10 on YouTube has hundreds of "WAVY Archive" clips posted on YouTube from the 70s through the 90s - some of these including highway construction and footage.

A simple search on YouTube of "WAVY Archive" will reveal a lot of these.

Opening of the second Berkley Bridge / Downtown Norfolk interchange complex 1991: https://youtu.be/E_6RfcqbV34?si=VGVBilraxaSntGD1

More specifically, a search of "WAVY Archive tunnel" will reveal several project update videos throughout the 1980s of construction of the second Downtown Tunnel and I-464 interchange.

Here are some (and you can find more on YouTube as well):
https://youtu.be/GOTd7fdqqE0?si=7ZDb-OGY6tk4K-Du

https://youtu.be/R5J7N3EIorw?si=b8QC-PxwBjLIWFI4

https://youtu.be/v-sF0xcukPc?si=0IzDmCKqZNxNIziZ

https://youtu.be/Rch82AJCVwY?si=liVBOqzITjQVye23

https://youtu.be/8aYaCfLXB7Q?si=K9dBeDjuN6x2zy0r

https://youtu.be/uBfT5ovROxg?si=tgHOrJOTt6KnKGot

https://youtu.be/oOjMA5P9cyQ?si=eU-0ssqANY6C478h

https://youtu.be/B452nT3tAQs?si=1NKHi3LVqyHOVtVL
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on January 05, 2024, 12:23:42 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 05, 2024, 09:18:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2024, 08:31:08 AM
Did you perhaps forget the link to the Shirley Highway video? That one is the one I would find the most interesting of those and I don't see the link, unless it's part of one of the others (I haven't tried to watch them all).

Thanks for posting those.


Added link. There could be more stuff that has keywords I didn't search. There are definitely more construction clips of the same facilities I cited

Thanks again for posting that. I just got around to watching it. One of the things I love about watching videos like that is to see how much some things have changed (in that one, obviously the road itself is the most notable) while also seeing how much some other things remain the same (in that one, primarily some of the apartment buildings along the highway).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: froggie on January 05, 2024, 05:22:48 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 04, 2024, 10:42:14 PM
1968 color footage (72 sec) of Shirley Highway construction; shows a VA 120 posting and a cool electronic model of the new busway at the very end - https://olddomuni.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_c5b253d3-5cae-43d2-87b3-e25c54ca027f/

At ~0:39, one is looking south(west)bound, after Seminary.  The Landmark and Key Towers are visible.

The last bit of the video looks to me more like a model of the I-95/Franconia Rd interchange.

QuoteMost of this video is driving along a lot of Hampton Blvd, though manages not to show any route markers - https://olddomuni.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_f711813c-9f38-410b-95a2-b15cbf856906/

I'm not convinced that the straightaway scene with the rail bridge around 1:35 is on Hampton Blvd.

The left turn in the last piece (at around 6:10), I believe is from SB Hampton Blvd to Bolling Ave.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 05, 2024, 08:35:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 05, 2024, 05:22:48 PM

I'm not convinced that the straightaway scene with the rail bridge around 1:35 is on Hampton Blvd.


The railroad bridge is on the 1963 aerial and is ~500 ft south of Taussig Blvd.  They are driving south from there.  The building on the left past the bridge appears to be this building, though it has been altered since this circa 1955 clip - https://maps.app.goo.gl/kYmjdM5KT2Vumgsy6

The stoplight at 2:07 appears to be at B Ave, ~2050 ft from the bridge which works out to about 44 mph.

At 2:36 look carefully and you can see the back of a circle RR warning sign, then at 2:41-42 a quick flash of the railroad crossbuck/signal before it transitions to a new scene at 2:44.  Here was what it looked like in 2009 before removing it for the intermodal connector and is about 3500 ft from the overpass (works out to about 40 mph) - https://maps.app.goo.gl/pSfEqb6kefjnS9N98    The barracks structure on the left just before the RR here is also visible in the 1963 aerial.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Thing 342 on January 06, 2024, 11:46:41 AM
VDOT has posted the project site for the proposed I-64 / VA-173 Denbigh Blvd. interchange:


This project would help reduce the queuing at Exit 255B from westbound I-64 to westbound VA-143 that occurs at rush hour. I have some concerns about the length of the ramp here, as I expect a decent amount of the traffic here to be turning left from westbound I-64 to eastbound VA-173. Also I'm curious why they didn't add the required width for turn lanes as part of the total replacement of this bridge that wrapped up recently.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on January 08, 2024, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 21, 2023, 11:03:44 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 21, 2023, 09:08:59 PM
I just realized that Co is used here instead of CH for Courthouse for some reason.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882373731500&set=a.10217882434013007)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53413608425_98d85fe564_c.jpg)

I've noticed it both times I've passed the sign, the sign looks like it says Hanover County is in 10 miles.
Why would VDOT change the mileage sign to "Hanover Co" (of all things instead of "Hanover CH") when just "Hanover" was good enough up until 2019?  A possibility of "We have to change this for the sake of change!"?

Plus, even though the sign apparatus has been this way for quite a while, the SR 1000 shield should not be used there.  It needs to be on its own post—probably 100 feet before the mileage sign.

I am amazed at how bad signage is in Virginia compared to how signage was throughout the 1970's—which was wonderful compared to now.  I do like the mixed case lettering on mileage and wayfinding signs but some presentations are mind boggling, such as the mileage sign discussed above.  I do know that independent cities are responsible for signage along non-Interstate highways, however, some of these cities (Norfolk and Virginia Beach especially) need to improve their signage.  Perhaps increase their budgets for this to make it happen?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on January 08, 2024, 08:25:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2024, 10:39:33 AM
I'm not sure if these are the exact same (I seem to recall similar videos), but WAVY TV 10 on YouTube has hundreds of "WAVY Archive" clips posted on YouTube from the 70s through the 90s - some of these including highway construction and footage.

A simple search on YouTube of "WAVY Archive" will reveal a lot of these.

Opening of the second Berkley Bridge / Downtown Norfolk interchange complex 1991: https://youtu.be/E_6RfcqbV34?si=VGVBilraxaSntGD1

More specifically, a search of "WAVY Archive tunnel" will reveal several project update videos throughout the 1980s of construction of the second Downtown Tunnel and I-464 interchange.

Here are some (and you can find more on YouTube as well):
https://youtu.be/GOTd7fdqqE0?si=7ZDb-OGY6tk4K-Du

https://youtu.be/R5J7N3EIorw?si=b8QC-PxwBjLIWFI4

https://youtu.be/v-sF0xcukPc?si=0IzDmCKqZNxNIziZ

https://youtu.be/Rch82AJCVwY?si=liVBOqzITjQVye23

https://youtu.be/8aYaCfLXB7Q?si=K9dBeDjuN6x2zy0r

https://youtu.be/uBfT5ovROxg?si=tgHOrJOTt6KnKGot

https://youtu.be/oOjMA5P9cyQ?si=eU-0ssqANY6C478h

https://youtu.be/B452nT3tAQs?si=1NKHi3LVqyHOVtVL
As one who witnessed the construction and completion of all the projects above (as well as the construction and completion of I-664 and the MMMBT), these bring back wonderful memories of how much the Hampton Roads road system was improved from when I first moved to the area in 1972.  This Downtown Tunnels project was a welcome relief from the incredible long traffic lines due to the toll payment on the Norfolk side and the narrowing of the lanes on I-264 to the tunnel approach on the Portsmouth side.  It actually made it much easier to travel from Portsmouth and Chesapeake to Norfolk and Virginia Beach and vice versa (although there were more activities on the Norfolk/Va Beach side).  Also, with I-464 completed, those living in the Great Bridge and Greenbrier areas of Chesapeake could drive to Norfolk much quicker than using Bainbridge, Poindexter, or Campostella to get there.

And the image of the late, great Terry Zahn.  Thank you sprjus4!  :clap: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 09, 2024, 09:24:01 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 08, 2024, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 21, 2023, 11:03:44 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 21, 2023, 09:08:59 PM
I just realized that Co is used here instead of CH for Courthouse for some reason.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882373731500&set=a.10217882434013007)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53413608425_98d85fe564_c.jpg)

I've noticed it both times I've passed the sign, the sign looks like it says Hanover County is in 10 miles.
Why would VDOT change the mileage sign to "Hanover Co" (of all things instead of "Hanover CH") when just "Hanover" was good enough up until 2019?  A possibility of "We have to change this for the sake of change!"?

Plus, even though the sign apparatus has been this way for quite a while, the SR 1000 shield should not be used there.  It needs to be on its own post—probably 100 feet before the mileage sign.

I am amazed at how bad signage is in Virginia compared to how signage was throughout the 1970's—which was wonderful compared to now.  I do like the mixed case lettering on mileage and wayfinding signs but some presentations are mind boggling, such as the mileage sign discussed above.  I do know that independent cities are responsible for signage along non-Interstate highways, however, some of these cities (Norfolk and Virginia Beach especially) need to improve their signage.  Perhaps increase their budgets for this to make it happen?

I'm fine with the SR 1000 signage being there, but it needs to be on the right.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 10, 2024, 01:51:23 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 08, 2024, 08:25:06 PM
As one who witnessed the construction and completion of all the projects above (as well as the construction and completion of I-664 and the MMMBT), these bring back wonderful memories of how much the Hampton Roads road system was improved from when I first moved to the area in 1972.  This Downtown Tunnels project was a welcome relief from the incredible long traffic lines due to the toll payment on the Norfolk side and the narrowing of the lanes on I-264 to the tunnel approach on the Portsmouth side.  It actually made it much easier to travel from Portsmouth and Chesapeake to Norfolk and Virginia Beach and vice versa (although there were more activities on the Norfolk/Va Beach side).  Also, with I-464 completed, those living in the Great Bridge and Greenbrier areas of Chesapeake could drive to Norfolk much quicker than using Bainbridge, Poindexter, or Campostella to get there.

And the image of the late, great Terry Zahn.  Thank you sprjus4!  :clap: :thumbsup:
I-464 has always been interesting to me. It was one of the newest interstates built from the original 1956 plan in the area and was built out to its ultimate design of  6 lanes immediately.

Just a few years later, I-664 was constructed with a similar ultimate design of 6 lanes, however it was only initially constructed with 4 lanes - which remains the same today.

I-464 carries just around 50,000 AADT along most of its length and does a flawless job moving traffic between Downtown Norfolk and the VA-168 / US-17 freeways (built even later on) down near Great Bridge, even during peak hours. Similarly, I-664 carries nearly 90,000 AADT and is frequently choked up during peak hours.

Was there an assumption of a large growth pattern towards Norfolk? Why was there priority on giving I-464 its six lanes immediately, but they deemed I-664 adequate enough to simply be 4 lanes?

Also, sort of unrelated, but US-58 was widened to six lanes divided in the early 1970s heading out to Suffolk. Was there any particular reason that route - at the time, in the middle of nowhere and away from the urban core - was built out to six lanes that far back? Again - it has proved wonders today, carrying nearly 80,000 AADT with no congestion issues.

These two cases of I-464 and US-58 have always fascinated me, built with six lanes initially and never need to be improved (although, US-58 could have its intersections closed), and then I-664 and I-64 in the western part of the metro with only 4, and needing tolled express lanes added. Imagine both I-664 and I-64 were built to six lanes immediately as well (or if they widened with GP lanes over express)... these express lanes wouldn't even be a discussion or need, and the traffic woes on this side of the metro wouldn't exist or be nearly as bad.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on January 10, 2024, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 09, 2024, 09:24:01 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 08, 2024, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 21, 2023, 11:03:44 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 21, 2023, 09:08:59 PM
I just realized that Co is used here instead of CH for Courthouse for some reason.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882373731500&set=a.10217882434013007)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53413608425_98d85fe564_c.jpg)

I've noticed it both times I've passed the sign, the sign looks like it says Hanover County is in 10 miles.
Why would VDOT change the mileage sign to "Hanover Co" (of all things instead of "Hanover CH") when just "Hanover" was good enough up until 2019?  A possibility of "We have to change this for the sake of change!"?

Plus, even though the sign apparatus has been this way for quite a while, the SR 1000 shield should not be used there.  It needs to be on its own post—probably 100 feet before the mileage sign.

I am amazed at how bad signage is in Virginia compared to how signage was throughout the 1970's—which was wonderful compared to now.  I do like the mixed case lettering on mileage and wayfinding signs but some presentations are mind boggling, such as the mileage sign discussed above.  I do know that independent cities are responsible for signage along non-Interstate highways, however, some of these cities (Norfolk and Virginia Beach especially) need to improve their signage.  Perhaps increase their budgets for this to make it happen?

I'm fine with the SR 1000 signage being there, but it needs to be on the right.
I'm not fine with it, because there's a distance sign there. The 1000 should be paired with its own distance sign, not the one for the mainline. The mainline one should be after the intersection anyway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on January 11, 2024, 07:01:06 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 10, 2024, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 09, 2024, 09:24:01 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 08, 2024, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 21, 2023, 11:03:44 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 21, 2023, 09:08:59 PM
I just realized that Co is used here instead of CH for Courthouse for some reason.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882373731500&set=a.10217882434013007)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53413608425_98d85fe564_c.jpg)

I've noticed it both times I've passed the sign, the sign looks like it says Hanover County is in 10 miles.
Why would VDOT change the mileage sign to "Hanover Co" (of all things instead of "Hanover CH") when just "Hanover" was good enough up until 2019?  A possibility of "We have to change this for the sake of change!"?

Plus, even though the sign apparatus has been this way for quite a while, the SR 1000 shield should not be used there.  It needs to be on its own post—probably 100 feet before the mileage sign.

I am amazed at how bad signage is in Virginia compared to how signage was throughout the 1970's—which was wonderful compared to now.  I do like the mixed case lettering on mileage and wayfinding signs but some presentations are mind boggling, such as the mileage sign discussed above.  I do know that independent cities are responsible for signage along non-Interstate highways, however, some of these cities (Norfolk and Virginia Beach especially) need to improve their signage.  Perhaps increase their budgets for this to make it happen?

I'm fine with the SR 1000 signage being there, but it needs to be on the right.
I'm not fine with it, because there's a distance sign there. The 1000 should be paired with its own distance sign, not the one for the mainline. The mainline one should be after the intersection anyway.
The distance sign is placed there because the interchange with I-295 is about 1000 feet behind the photo.  Virginia DOT usually places mileage signs within 1000 feet after an interchange or intersection, from what I have seen.  I also agree that the SR 1000 shield should not be anywhere on that US 301/VA 2 mileage sign.  If one looks at the photo, the next intersection has SR 1000 and SR 1364.  SR 1364 doesn't have an advance sign, why does SR 1000 need to have one?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: amroad17 on January 11, 2024, 07:29:17 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 10, 2024, 01:51:23 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 08, 2024, 08:25:06 PM
As one who witnessed the construction and completion of all the projects above (as well as the construction and completion of I-664 and the MMMBT), these bring back wonderful memories of how much the Hampton Roads road system was improved from when I first moved to the area in 1972.  This Downtown Tunnels project was a welcome relief from the incredible long traffic lines due to the toll payment on the Norfolk side and the narrowing of the lanes on I-264 to the tunnel approach on the Portsmouth side.  It actually made it much easier to travel from Portsmouth and Chesapeake to Norfolk and Virginia Beach and vice versa (although there were more activities on the Norfolk/Va Beach side).  Also, with I-464 completed, those living in the Great Bridge and Greenbrier areas of Chesapeake could drive to Norfolk much quicker than using Bainbridge, Poindexter, or Campostella to get there.

And the image of the late, great Terry Zahn.  Thank you sprjus4!  :clap: :thumbsup:
I-464 has always been interesting to me. It was one of the newest interstates built from the original 1956 plan in the area and was built out to its ultimate design of  6 lanes immediately.

Just a few years later, I-664 was constructed with a similar ultimate design of 6 lanes, however it was only initially constructed with 4 lanes - which remains the same today.

I-464 carries just around 50,000 AADT along most of its length and does a flawless job moving traffic between Downtown Norfolk and the VA-168 / US-17 freeways (built even later on) down near Great Bridge, even during peak hours. Similarly, I-664 carries nearly 90,000 AADT and is frequently choked up during peak hours.

Was there an assumption of a large growth pattern towards Norfolk? Why was there priority on giving I-464 its six lanes immediately, but they deemed I-664 adequate enough to simply be 4 lanes?

Also, sort of unrelated, but US-58 was widened to six lanes divided in the early 1970s heading out to Suffolk. Was there any particular reason that route - at the time, in the middle of nowhere and away from the urban core - was built out to six lanes that far back? Again - it has proved wonders today, carrying nearly 80,000 AADT with no congestion issues.

These two cases of I-464 and US-58 have always fascinated me, built with six lanes initially and never need to be improved (although, US-58 could have its intersections closed), and then I-664 and I-64 in the western part of the metro with only 4, and needing tolled express lanes added. Imagine both I-664 and I-64 were built to six lanes immediately as well (or if they widened with GP lanes over express)... these express lanes wouldn't even be a discussion or need, and the traffic woes on this side of the metro wouldn't exist or be nearly as bad.
When I-664 was completed in 1992, there was not a whole lot of development in that area.  Yes, Chesapeake Square was there (finished in 1989) along with the two other centers, however, there wasn't anything of importance west of I-664.  Harbour View was in its early, and I do mean early, infancy—just the Towne Point Road overpass between Exits 8 & 9 and a little bit of the Harbour View Blvd heading north from Towne Point.  Trees were not cut down back there yet.  VA 135 NB led to the old GE plant and the former Tidewater Community College-Portsmouth campus.  There was nothing but fields and woods east of College Drive (VA 135). 

With the advent of Harbour View and all the development that exploded in the late 1990's to early 2000's along College Drive, Towne Point Road, and US 17 toward Bennett's Creek as well as the development occurring on VA 337 west of I-664 in addition to the increase in population in that area, it is no wonder traffic counts are at 90,000 AADT.

Yes, I-664 should have been constructed with six lanes.  It seems as if no one realized that this highway would end up as busy as it is.  They should have since this is a quicker way to get to the Peninsula from Portsmouth and western Chesapeake and that the Harbour View development was going to be built.  Now with the Amazon buildings along VA 337 (Portsmouth Blvd/Nansemond Pkwy) as well as some more businesses along that stretch of road I-664 is going to have more issues.  Adding one extra lane to both NB and SB needs to be a sooner rather than later priority.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 11, 2024, 07:51:51 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 11, 2024, 07:01:06 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 10, 2024, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 09, 2024, 09:24:01 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 08, 2024, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 21, 2023, 11:03:44 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 21, 2023, 09:08:59 PM
I just realized that Co is used here instead of CH for Courthouse for some reason.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882373731500&set=a.10217882434013007)



I've noticed it both times I've passed the sign, the sign looks like it says Hanover County is in 10 miles.
Why would VDOT change the mileage sign to "Hanover Co" (of all things instead of "Hanover CH") when just "Hanover" was good enough up until 2019?  A possibility of "We have to change this for the sake of change!"?

Plus, even though the sign apparatus has been this way for quite a while, the SR 1000 shield should not be used there.  It needs to be on its own post—probably 100 feet before the mileage sign.

I am amazed at how bad signage is in Virginia compared to how signage was throughout the 1970's—which was wonderful compared to now.  I do like the mixed case lettering on mileage and wayfinding signs but some presentations are mind boggling, such as the mileage sign discussed above.  I do know that independent cities are responsible for signage along non-Interstate highways, however, some of these cities (Norfolk and Virginia Beach especially) need to improve their signage.  Perhaps increase their budgets for this to make it happen?

I'm fine with the SR 1000 signage being there, but it needs to be on the right.
I'm not fine with it, because there's a distance sign there. The 1000 should be paired with its own distance sign, not the one for the mainline. The mainline one should be after the intersection anyway.
The distance sign is placed there because the interchange with I-295 is about 1000 feet behind the photo.  Virginia DOT usually places mileage signs within 1000 feet after an interchange or intersection, from what I have seen.  I also agree that the SR 1000 shield should not be anywhere on that US 301/VA 2 mileage sign.  If one looks at the photo, the next intersection has SR 1000 and SR 1364.  SR 1364 doesn't have an advance sign, why does SR 1000 need to have one?

Neither route has advance signage from the other direction
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 13, 2024, 11:53:49 AM
Anyone have a problem with this mileage sign on VA 156 SB in Mechanicsville having the junction shield for SR 1131 on it.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219790361710007&set=a.10219791255612354)


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53461686310_1221732397_c.jpg)


Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on January 13, 2024, 04:12:01 PM
https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/01/13/abortion-guns-housing-and-more-a-breakdown-of-bills-introduced-in-virginias-general-assembly/

Two interesting bills being proposed this year that are transportation related in Virginia.

QuoteTransportation

Hampton Roads might be getting a new bridge.

Del. Kim Taylor, R-Petersburg, introduced legislation that would order a study to explore constructing a bridge from James City County to Hog Island in Surry County. She said Surry County's population is growing and many residents rely on the ferry to get to work.

"People are living in Surry but working elsewhere," Taylor said. "This is not the beginning of the bridge project, but a study that will provide us with valuable information about the impacts of a bridge across the (James) river."

Another bill from Del. Candi Mundon King, D-Richmond, would cap electronic toll collection charges at $200 per month for state residents using toll bridges, ferries, roads or tunnels. The bill would further allow those who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits to use such infrastructure for free.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 13, 2024, 09:15:56 PM
I wonder where that bridge would go. The logical directions would be either northwest of where the nuclear power plant is, to meet up around SR 617 across the river, or northeast to the Grove area. Due north is likely blocked by Kingsmill.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 13, 2024, 09:45:49 PM
Virginia twice issued permits to build a bridge in this area - 1928 and 1933. Both to the same company. Never got anywhere.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on January 14, 2024, 08:11:17 AM
I'm sure such a bridge would be a drawbridge. A high level bridge would not be worth the costs for the amount of traffic using it, despite how much Surry is "growing". And either way it would be lengthy.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 14, 2024, 09:08:51 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 10, 2024, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on January 09, 2024, 09:24:01 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on January 08, 2024, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 21, 2023, 11:03:44 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 21, 2023, 09:08:59 PM
I just realized that Co is used here instead of CH for Courthouse for some reason.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217882373731500&set=a.10217882434013007)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53413608425_98d85fe564_c.jpg)

I've noticed it both times I've passed the sign, the sign looks like it says Hanover County is in 10 miles.
Why would VDOT change the mileage sign to "Hanover Co" (of all things instead of "Hanover CH") when just "Hanover" was good enough up until 2019?  A possibility of "We have to change this for the sake of change!"?

Plus, even though the sign apparatus has been this way for quite a while, the SR 1000 shield should not be used there.  It needs to be on its own post—probably 100 feet before the mileage sign.

I am amazed at how bad signage is in Virginia compared to how signage was throughout the 1970's—which was wonderful compared to now.  I do like the mixed case lettering on mileage and wayfinding signs but some presentations are mind boggling, such as the mileage sign discussed above.  I do know that independent cities are responsible for signage along non-Interstate highways, however, some of these cities (Norfolk and Virginia Beach especially) need to improve their signage.  Perhaps increase their budgets for this to make it happen?

I'm fine with the SR 1000 signage being there, but it needs to be on the right.
I'm not fine with it, because there's a distance sign there. The 1000 should be paired with its own distance sign, not the one for the mainline. The mainline one should be after the intersection anyway.

I also got the US 301 SB/VA 2 SB version of this.  (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219276702868857&set=a.10219276900353794)


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53463343653_ddf0bd461b_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on January 16, 2024, 12:34:07 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HGLauE2hT3BZUyNHA
Are the independent cities of Virginia ever going to sign business routes through their city limits? I couldn't help noticing that Suffolk, among many others, is still not signing BUSINESS headers for the US routes that have long bypassed the city center.  Not to mention, this assembly in particular, is been erected long after all three routes got realigned to the bypass freeway. So this is been, no doubt, copied from an older shield assembly as most independent cities now seem to all post shields on small guides.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 16, 2024, 01:33:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 16, 2024, 12:34:07 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HGLauE2hT3BZUyNHA
Are the independent cities of Virginia ever going to sign business routes through their city limits? I couldn't help noticing that Suffolk, among many others, is still not signing BUSINESS headers for the US routes that have long bypassed the city center.  Not to mention, this assembly in particular, is been erected long after all three routes got realigned to the bypass freeway. So this is been, no doubt, copied from an older shield assembly as most independent cities now seem to all post shields on small guides.

A lot of the independent cities of Virginia don't sign mainline routes properly, especially Richmond. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 16, 2024, 01:41:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 16, 2024, 12:34:07 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HGLauE2hT3BZUyNHA
Are the independent cities of Virginia ever going to sign business routes through their city limits? I couldn't help noticing that Suffolk, among many others, is still not signing BUSINESS headers for the US routes that have long bypassed the city center.  Not to mention, this assembly in particular, is been erected long after all three routes got realigned to the bypass freeway. So this is been, no doubt, copied from an older shield assembly as most independent cities now seem to all post shields on small guides.

Suffolk in general does post the business banners:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zT7yxqijfuQexCgp9
https://maps.app.goo.gl/sg5neqjqnpBCgK6L6
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MGuVS5EgyX7h749u8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/X1C16P7jpDFGWE9bA

Some cities are better than others at Business route signage...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on January 16, 2024, 03:06:36 PM
One thing I do miss is the cities like Williamsburg that once used small cut out shields.   I used to like them over the rectangular shield guide signs of today.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 16, 2024, 03:27:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 16, 2024, 03:06:36 PM
One thing I do miss is the cities like Williamsburg that once used small cut out shields.   I used to like them over the rectangular shield guide signs of today.

When I lived in Norfolk 1991-93 we used to go to Williamsburg a lot.  Always enjoyed the piles of cutouts.  Wished I'd taken some pictures.  Paying $ for each photo changes the philosophy on what you photograph.

I will admit the replacement signage they used, along with Newport News and more recently, Covington, are pretty sharp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 16, 2024, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: plain on January 14, 2024, 08:11:17 AM
I'm sure such a bridge would be a drawbridge. A high level bridge would not be worth the costs for the amount of traffic using it, despite how much Surry is "growing". And either way it would be lengthy.

It's an awful idea.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 16, 2024, 06:28:36 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 16, 2024, 03:27:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 16, 2024, 03:06:36 PM
One thing I do miss is the cities like Williamsburg that once used small cut out shields.   I used to like them over the rectangular shield guide signs of today.

When I lived in Norfolk 1991-93 we used to go to Williamsburg a lot.  Always enjoyed the piles of cutouts.  Wished I'd taken some pictures.  Paying $ for each photo changes the philosophy on what you photograph.

I will admit the replacement signage they used, along with Newport News and more recently, Covington, are pretty sharp.

It looks like they use the same sign specs as the cutouts and the old white border signage, just...not cut out.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on January 24, 2024, 11:07:52 AM
What's up with VA Route 35 having its northern terminus at a rural intersection in the middle of nowhere instead of at I-95/ US 301 nearby in Templeton?  I would think that Secondary Route 622 could easily be extended to mutual end at I-95 Exit 41.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 24, 2024, 11:25:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 24, 2024, 11:07:52 AM
What's up with VA Route 35 having its northern terminus at a rural intersection in the middle of nowhere instead of at I-95/ US 301 nearby in Templeton?  I would think that Secondary Route 622 could easily be extended to mutual end at I-95 Exit 41.

US 301 is concurrent with VA 35 at the I-95 interchange so SR 622 would have to end where US 301 turns north of the interchange at Sunnyside (the west frontage road to I-95 north of the interchange).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on January 24, 2024, 11:28:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 24, 2024, 11:07:52 AM
What's up with VA Route 35 having its northern terminus at a rural intersection in the middle of nowhere instead of at I-95/ US 301 nearby in Templeton?  I would think that Secondary Route 622 could easily be extended to mutual end at I-95 Exit 41.

I guess it's a relic of when VA 35 ran to Petersburg?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 24, 2024, 11:34:58 AM
The VA 35 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va035.htm) page on the VA Highways Project states the following:

QuoteAround 1961, VA 35 was rerouted over new construction to its current end west of I-95. The old approach to US 301 became SR 668 and also part of a rerouted US 301. VA 35's endpoint was roughly across I-95 from the end of now-SR 696, 0.78 miles south of SR 711.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 24, 2024, 11:56:32 AM
This is how it was configured up until when 95 was being built:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2F35y_1963.jpg&hash=193e3ba6862fdbe1bb99f6ce3e0c832fb6339c86)

The current setup is an early example of a state route extending past a natural endpoint at an interchange.  Today there is also VA 76, VA 112, VA 114, VA 130, VA 177, VA 185, VA 210
Title: Re: VirginiA
Post by: roadman65 on January 24, 2024, 12:09:06 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/bLBTGQBUmXT3a1m79
This to the right was old VA 35 I take before I-95.


Although interesting to see before I-95 that 301 went through what is now Exit 41. That I figured much as US 301 makes too many turns at that location.  Was going to check historical aerials, but now I do not thanks to Mike.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/9RDot3fV259utvyt7
This opening in the trees must of been where US 301 veered off to the right to continue south while the current US 301 ahead was where VA 35 split off.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/D9bgioEZXWbvYixe7
Also the black on white route number sign next to the street blades is something I noticed VDOT uses at intersections for 600 routes. Never did I see a state primary route have a sign like VA 156 here does.  However the sign shows VA 156 concurrent with US 301 for that short stretch to VA 35 which shield assemblies say otherwise that Route 156 starts at this intersection.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zD4kxskpzNggSwHk7
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 24, 2024, 12:27:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 24, 2024, 12:09:06 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/bLBTGQBUmXT3a1m79
This to the right was old VA 35 I take before I-95.


Although interesting to see before I-95 that 301 went through what is now Exit 41. That I figured much as US 301 makes too many turns at that location.  Was going to check historical aerials, but now I do not thanks to Mike.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/9RDot3fV259utvyt7
This opening in the trees must of been where US 301. Veered off to the right to continue south while the US 301 ahead was where VA 35 split off.

The 1958 aerial is interesting, because it shows the original 301 routing (roughly the 95 NB ramp location plus 156-301 overlay) and the then-modern 301 routing (may have been built as early as 1939), which used 95's current footprint through exit 41 and a bit beyond.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on January 24, 2024, 12:44:44 PM
It gets more interesting as after I-95 got built, rather than complete the freeway between Exits 12 and 41 at the time, the Commonwealth chose to four lane US 301 instead while leaving a 29 mile freeway gap between two completed segments.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on January 24, 2024, 12:55:35 PM
I always figured it's because there's a VDOT building in that little stretch.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on January 24, 2024, 09:07:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 24, 2024, 12:44:44 PM
It gets more interesting as after I-95 got built, rather than complete the freeway between Exits 12 and 41 at the time, the Commonwealth chose to four lane US 301 instead while leaving a 29 mile freeway gap between two completed segments.

Most of US 301 was either already 4-laned or under construction (references begin in 1953 in the CTB) to be 4-laned when I-95 came along.  Page 7 of the Dec 1957 CTB Minutes (https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-12-1957-01.pdf) has an interesting note:
QuoteMr Fugate reported on the proposed development of Route 301 between Route 35 and Emporia Bypass and gave the reasons for the recommendation of our engineers to abandon further improvement of the 4-lane section of road to interstate standards at this time

Here is a photo of US 301 NB at VA 35Y from the mid-late 1950s:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fold%2Fold35y_st.jpg&hash=51b96c2b716079ee519ab4bf027acac258c72b89)
Virginia Hwy Bulletin
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 05, 2024, 06:39:43 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 24, 2024, 09:07:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 24, 2024, 12:44:44 PM
It gets more interesting as after I-95 got built, rather than complete the freeway between Exits 12 and 41 at the time, the Commonwealth chose to four lane US 301 instead while leaving a 29 mile freeway gap between two completed segments.

Most of US 301 was either already 4-laned or under construction (references begin in 1953 in the CTB) to be 4-laned when I-95 came along.  Page 7 of the Dec 1957 CTB Minutes (https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-12-1957-01.pdf) has an interesting note:
QuoteMr Fugate reported on the proposed development of Route 301 between Route 35 and Emporia Bypass and gave the reasons for the recommendation of our engineers to abandon further improvement of the 4-lane section of road to interstate standards at this time

Here is a photo of US 301 NB at VA 35Y from the mid-late 1950s:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fold%2Fold35y_st.jpg&hash=51b96c2b716079ee519ab4bf027acac258c72b89)
Virginia Hwy Bulletin
The image is busted, but I think I've seen some of the pre-I-95 configurations of US 301 before within southern Virginia.


On another topic, if I-95 is ever six-laned in southern Virginia, should the Carson Rest Area be reconfigured as a bi-directional one? Maybe add a quarter-cloverleaf ramp to the southbound lanes?

Quote from: roadman65 on January 24, 2024, 12:09:06 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9RDot3fV259utvyt7
This opening in the trees must of been where US 301 veered off to the right to continue south while the current US 301 ahead was where VA 35 split off.
Move forward and turn that image around, and you'll see a nice brand new sign on I-95.  :)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Petersburg,+VA/@37.0908618,-77.3572976,3a,75y,323.93h,91.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH7Wo9F-778TmGzLKoBLA9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m7!3m6!1s0x89b1a49a20af6a6f:0xc365091b0b506c76!8m2!3d37.2279279!4d-77.4019267!10e5!16zL20vMG1uOXg?entry=ttu
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 05, 2024, 08:58:55 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 05, 2024, 06:39:43 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 24, 2024, 09:07:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 24, 2024, 12:44:44 PM
It gets more interesting as after I-95 got built, rather than complete the freeway between Exits 12 and 41 at the time, the Commonwealth chose to four lane US 301 instead while leaving a 29 mile freeway gap between two completed segments.

Most of US 301 was either already 4-laned or under construction (references begin in 1953 in the CTB) to be 4-laned when I-95 came along.  Page 7 of the Dec 1957 CTB Minutes (https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-12-1957-01.pdf) has an interesting note:
QuoteMr Fugate reported on the proposed development of Route 301 between Route 35 and Emporia Bypass and gave the reasons for the recommendation of our engineers to abandon further improvement of the 4-lane section of road to interstate standards at this time

Here is a photo of US 301 NB at VA 35Y from the mid-late 1950s:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fold%2Fold35y_st.jpg&hash=51b96c2b716079ee519ab4bf027acac258c72b89)
Virginia Hwy Bulletin
The image is busted, but I think I've seen some of the pre-I-95 configurations of US 301 before within southern Virginia.


On another topic, if I-95 is ever six-laned in southern Virginia, should the Carson Rest Area be reconfigured as a bi-directional one? Maybe add a quarter-cloverleaf ramp to the southbound lanes?

Quote from: roadman65 on January 24, 2024, 12:09:06 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9RDot3fV259utvyt7
This opening in the trees must of been where US 301 veered off to the right to continue south while the current US 301 ahead was where VA 35 split off.
Move forward and turn that image around, and you'll see a nice brand new sign on I-95.  :)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Petersburg,+VA/@37.0908618,-77.3572976,3a,75y,323.93h,91.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH7Wo9F-778TmGzLKoBLA9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m7!3m6!1s0x89b1a49a20af6a6f:0xc365091b0b506c76!8m2!3d37.2279279!4d-77.4019267!10e5!16zL20vMG1uOXg?entry=ttu

Picture shows on some of my devices but not others.

Here's the actual link to it:  http://www.vahighways.com/va-ends/old/old35y_st.jpg

The point where 301 slid over to use 95's footprint is at the median crossover on 95, per the 1958 aerial - https://maps.app.goo.gl/eywiGtEzyUdKZzz2A

The location cited by Roadman65 was fully treed as late as Dec 2021 - https://maps.app.goo.gl/rFUxmSdhV8aq3k9v5 - and was likely cleared to install the new sign.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 06, 2024, 07:22:57 PM
That sign was installed last year. Actually there are similar signs on I-95 SB just south of VA 802 north of Richmond, as well as I-64 WB approaching VA 249 and EB approaching VA 623, and I'm pretty sure on I-85 also.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 07, 2024, 02:20:25 PM
Richmond seems to be moving forward with the replacement of the Arthur Ashe Boulevard (VA 161) bridge over the railroad tracks near I-95/64. Besides being old, this bridge is the site of a fairly recent train derailment.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2024/02/07/planning-commission-approves-boutique-hotel-in-the-fan-new-bridge-on-arthur-ashe-blvd/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on February 10, 2024, 08:39:43 AM
I just realized that I-495 independent of I-95 doesn't use the conventional clockwise beltway exit numbers.  I know I-95 uses its own based on the zero milepost south of Emporia, and ditto in MD from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, but you figure they would start from zero at Springfield and head north or clockwise to College Park, MD.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 10, 2024, 09:28:33 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 10, 2024, 08:39:43 AM
I just realized that I-495 independent of I-95 doesn't use the conventional clockwise beltway exit numbers.  I know I-95 uses its own based on the zero milepost south of Emporia, and ditto in MD from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, but you figure they would start from zero at Springfield and head north or clockwise to College Park, MD.

The Beltway used to have sequential clockwise numbers starting at Exit 1 in Alexandria and running around to Exit 38 at I-295 in Maryland. The latter state renumbered its exits around 1980-ish when it switched to milepost numbering, so the numbers counted up from Exit 2 at I-295. The numbers on I-495 continued the I-95 numbering. Virginia, meanwhile, didn't change its numbers, so they continued to run from Exit 1 to Exit 14. People complained that it was too confusing to have the numbers change from Exit 14 to Exit 41 at the state line (this argument never made any sense to me at all because exit numbers almost always reset at state lines), and apparently there was some confusion over duplicated exit numbers (maybe more logical because Virginia's Exit 2 was about three miles west of Maryland's). So eventually Virginia renumbered some of its Beltway exits to continue Maryland's numbering, with the exception of the part of the Virginia Beltway that carries I-95. (This, in turn, confuses people—if I give someone directions, I always have to explain that Exit 173 comes up three miles after Exit 57.)

Virginia had not renumbered the Beltway exits when it adopted milepost numbering throughout most of the rest of the state.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tmoore952 on February 10, 2024, 10:21:22 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 10, 2024, 09:28:33 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 10, 2024, 08:39:43 AM
I just realized that I-495 independent of I-95 doesn't use the conventional clockwise beltway exit numbers.  I know I-95 uses its own based on the zero milepost south of Emporia, and ditto in MD from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, but you figure they would start from zero at Springfield and head north or clockwise to College Park, MD.

The Beltway used to have sequential clockwise numbers starting at Exit 1 in Alexandria and running around to Exit 38 at I-295 in Maryland. The latter state renumbered its exits around 1980-ish when it switched to milepost numbering, so the numbers counted up from Exit 2 at I-295. The numbers on I-495 continued the I-95 numbering. Virginia, meanwhile, didn't change its numbers, so they continued to run from Exit 1 to Exit 14. People complained that it was too confusing to have the numbers change from Exit 14 to Exit 41 at the state line (this argument never made any sense to me at all because exit numbers almost always reset at state lines), and apparently there was some confusion over duplicated exit numbers (maybe more logical because Virginia's Exit 2 was about three miles west of Maryland's). So eventually Virginia renumbered some of its Beltway exits to continue Maryland's numbering, with the exception of the part of the Virginia Beltway that carries I-95. (This, in turn, confuses people—if I give someone directions, I always have to explain that Exit 173 comes up three miles after Exit 57.)

Virginia had not renumbered the Beltway exits when it adopted milepost numbering throughout most of the rest of the state.
If that Maryland renumbering occurred around 1980, was that also during the time when the eastern half of the beltway was "just" I-95?
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 10, 2024, 10:33:11 AM
Quote from: tmoore952 on February 10, 2024, 10:21:22 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 10, 2024, 09:28:33 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 10, 2024, 08:39:43 AM
I just realized that I-495 independent of I-95 doesn't use the conventional clockwise beltway exit numbers.  I know I-95 uses its own based on the zero milepost south of Emporia, and ditto in MD from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, but you figure they would start from zero at Springfield and head north or clockwise to College Park, MD.

The Beltway used to have sequential clockwise numbers starting at Exit 1 in Alexandria and running around to Exit 38 at I-295 in Maryland. The latter state renumbered its exits around 1980-ish when it switched to milepost numbering, so the numbers counted up from Exit 2 at I-295. The numbers on I-495 continued the I-95 numbering. Virginia, meanwhile, didn't change its numbers, so they continued to run from Exit 1 to Exit 14. People complained that it was too confusing to have the numbers change from Exit 14 to Exit 41 at the state line (this argument never made any sense to me at all because exit numbers almost always reset at state lines), and apparently there was some confusion over duplicated exit numbers (maybe more logical because Virginia's Exit 2 was about three miles west of Maryland's). So eventually Virginia renumbered some of its Beltway exits to continue Maryland's numbering, with the exception of the part of the Virginia Beltway that carries I-95. (This, in turn, confuses people—if I give someone directions, I always have to explain that Exit 173 comes up three miles after Exit 57.)

Virginia had not renumbered the Beltway exits when it adopted milepost numbering throughout most of the rest of the state.
If that Maryland renumbering occurred around 1980, was that also during the time when the eastern half of the beltway was "just" I-95?

I-95 replaced I-495 on the eastern half of the beltway in 1975.

From 1977 until the exit renumbering in 1992, I-95 in Virginia had to be the only route in the country to use the same exit number three times in one state. You had Exit 2 (US 301 south of Emporia), Exit 2 (I-85) on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike, and Exit 2 (VA 241) on the Capital Beltway; There was Exit 3 (US 58 Emporia), Exit 3 (Downtown Petersburg) on the Richmond-Petersburg Tpk., and Exit 3 (SR 613 Van Dorn St.) on the Capital Beltway; Finally, there was also Exit 4 (US 301 north of Emporia), Exit 4 (Colonial Heights), and Exit 4 (I-395/495) on the Capital Beltway.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: tmoore952 on February 10, 2024, 10:55:49 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 10, 2024, 10:33:11 AM
Quote from: tmoore952 on February 10, 2024, 10:21:22 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 10, 2024, 09:28:33 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 10, 2024, 08:39:43 AM
I just realized that I-495 independent of I-95 doesn't use the conventional clockwise beltway exit numbers.  I know I-95 uses its own based on the zero milepost south of Emporia, and ditto in MD from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, but you figure they would start from zero at Springfield and head north or clockwise to College Park, MD.

The Beltway used to have sequential clockwise numbers starting at Exit 1 in Alexandria and running around to Exit 38 at I-295 in Maryland. The latter state renumbered its exits around 1980-ish when it switched to milepost numbering, so the numbers counted up from Exit 2 at I-295. The numbers on I-495 continued the I-95 numbering. Virginia, meanwhile, didn't change its numbers, so they continued to run from Exit 1 to Exit 14. People complained that it was too confusing to have the numbers change from Exit 14 to Exit 41 at the state line (this argument never made any sense to me at all because exit numbers almost always reset at state lines), and apparently there was some confusion over duplicated exit numbers (maybe more logical because Virginia's Exit 2 was about three miles west of Maryland's). So eventually Virginia renumbered some of its Beltway exits to continue Maryland's numbering, with the exception of the part of the Virginia Beltway that carries I-95. (This, in turn, confuses people—if I give someone directions, I always have to explain that Exit 173 comes up three miles after Exit 57.)

Virginia had not renumbered the Beltway exits when it adopted milepost numbering throughout most of the rest of the state.
If that Maryland renumbering occurred around 1980, was that also during the time when the eastern half of the beltway was "just" I-95?

I-95 replaced I-495 on the eastern half of the beltway in 1975.

From 1977 until the exit renumbering in 1992, I-95 in Virginia had to be the only route in the country to use the same exit number three times in one state. You had Exit 2 (US 301 south of Emporia), Exit 2 (I-85) on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike, and Exit 2 (VA 241) on the Capital Beltway; There was Exit 3 (US 58 Emporia), Exit 3 (Downtown Petersburg) on the Richmond-Petersburg Tpk., and Exit 3 (SR 613 Van Dorn St.) on the Capital Beltway; Finally, there was also Exit 4 (US 301 north of Emporia), Exit 4 (Colonial Heights), and Exit 4 (I-395/495) on the Capital Beltway.

Wikipedia says that the change to I-95 occurred in 1977 when the highway that would have connected current I-95 MD exit 27 to I-395 in DC was cancelled.

I was never on the beltway until 1979, so I cannot speak to this.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 10, 2024, 12:10:53 PM
That date is straight out of the VDOT CTB minutes. It is certainly possible the postings didn't change until 1977. And
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 10, 2024, 12:46:30 PM
I was four years old in 1977, so I don't recall when the signs actually appeared. I do remember some I-95 shields on I-395 with white-on-blue "OLD" banners where the direction would normally be.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on February 10, 2024, 02:33:01 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 10, 2024, 10:33:11 AM
Quote from: tmoore952 on February 10, 2024, 10:21:22 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 10, 2024, 09:28:33 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 10, 2024, 08:39:43 AM
I just realized that I-495 independent of I-95 doesn't use the conventional clockwise beltway exit numbers.  I know I-95 uses its own based on the zero milepost south of Emporia, and ditto in MD from the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, but you figure they would start from zero at Springfield and head north or clockwise to College Park, MD.

The Beltway used to have sequential clockwise numbers starting at Exit 1 in Alexandria and running around to Exit 38 at I-295 in Maryland. The latter state renumbered its exits around 1980-ish when it switched to milepost numbering, so the numbers counted up from Exit 2 at I-295. The numbers on I-495 continued the I-95 numbering. Virginia, meanwhile, didn't change its numbers, so they continued to run from Exit 1 to Exit 14. People complained that it was too confusing to have the numbers change from Exit 14 to Exit 41 at the state line (this argument never made any sense to me at all because exit numbers almost always reset at state lines), and apparently there was some confusion over duplicated exit numbers (maybe more logical because Virginia's Exit 2 was about three miles west of Maryland's). So eventually Virginia renumbered some of its Beltway exits to continue Maryland's numbering, with the exception of the part of the Virginia Beltway that carries I-95. (This, in turn, confuses people—if I give someone directions, I always have to explain that Exit 173 comes up three miles after Exit 57.)

Virginia had not renumbered the Beltway exits when it adopted milepost numbering throughout most of the rest of the state.
If that Maryland renumbering occurred around 1980, was that also during the time when the eastern half of the beltway was "just" I-95?

I-95 replaced I-495 on the eastern half of the beltway in 1975.

From 1977 until the exit renumbering in 1992, I-95 in Virginia had to be the only route in the country to use the same exit number three times in one state. You had Exit 2 (US 301 south of Emporia), Exit 2 (I-85) on the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike, and Exit 2 (VA 241) on the Capital Beltway; There was Exit 3 (US 58 Emporia), Exit 3 (Downtown Petersburg) on the Richmond-Petersburg Tpk., and Exit 3 (SR 613 Van Dorn St.) on the Capital Beltway; Finally, there was also Exit 4 (US 301 north of Emporia), Exit 4 (Colonial Heights), and Exit 4 (I-395/495) on the Capital Beltway.


I-87 in New York has three sets of exit numbers. :bigass:


Exit 2 https://maps.app.goo.gl/LoZmxKNwNKUGFAsu8
Exit 2 https://maps.app.goo.gl/pYkWbgLYrzUPEMrk8
Exit 2 https://maps.app.goo.gl/RX5z8UBwDLKQpTJk8
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: elsmere241 on February 12, 2024, 10:05:15 AM
I remember in 1981, the signs on the Maryland part of the Beltway showed old and new numbers.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 20, 2024, 11:20:27 AM
A Facebook group I'm in posted some photos of US 1 in Fredericksburg from the late 1940s, including the original version of the now-erroneous US 1 ALT signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3188558,-77.4717364,3a,44.7y,209.65h,93.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDoY6F41YPlpiKA79b1Y50Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) just across the Falmouth Bridge. VA 51 is now VA 208, and the VA 218 mentioned on the sign in the third picture is now VA 212.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bY9CH8ty/428331512-10225159776887808-1915327107636128626-n.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/tg9GkD4w/428379837-10225149908121095-6158417652492978698-n.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/CMcCxK8q/IMG-9760.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 20, 2024, 01:16:34 PM
The 2nd picture reminds me of the sign that used to be on US 1/301 at Terminal Ave in Richmond telling drivers this is the way to bypass downtown, etc. (via VA 161)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 20, 2024, 02:03:16 PM
I honestly forgot that VA 30 ever went that far north.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 20, 2024, 02:26:17 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 20, 2024, 02:03:16 PM
I honestly forgot that VA 30 ever went that far north.

The strange thing is it didn't. I posted the pictures in the wrong order - you can see the sign in the second picture in the first picture, but the VA 30 shield is gone. I think the idea was that Hampton Roads-bound traffic could use VA 2 to reach VA 30 (which ended at US 301/VA 2 in Dawn at the time).
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Alps on February 20, 2024, 06:57:05 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 20, 2024, 11:20:27 AM
A Facebook group I'm in posted some photos of US 1 in Fredericksburg from the late 1940s, including the original version of the now-erroneous US 1 ALT signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3188558,-77.4717364,3a,44.7y,209.65h,93.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDoY6F41YPlpiKA79b1Y50Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) just across the Falmouth Bridge. VA 51 is now VA 208, and the VA 218 mentioned on the sign in the third picture is now VA 212.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bY9CH8ty/428331512-10225159776887808-1915327107636128626-n.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/tg9GkD4w/428379837-10225149908121095-6158417652492978698-n.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/CMcCxK8q/IMG-9760.jpg)
please give these images their own home. in a museum. of sign images. <3
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 20, 2024, 09:12:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 20, 2024, 06:57:05 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 20, 2024, 11:20:27 AM
A Facebook group I'm in posted some photos of US 1 in Fredericksburg from the late 1940s, including the original version of the now-erroneous US 1 ALT signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3188558,-77.4717364,3a,44.7y,209.65h,93.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDoY6F41YPlpiKA79b1Y50Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) just across the Falmouth Bridge. VA 51 is now VA 208, and the VA 218 mentioned on the sign in the third picture is now VA 212.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bY9CH8ty/428331512-10225159776887808-1915327107636128626-n.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/tg9GkD4w/428379837-10225149908121095-6158417652492978698-n.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/CMcCxK8q/IMG-9760.jpg)
please give these images their own home. in a museum. of sign images. <3

After finding these I might be checking out similar groups for other areas. I'd never seen the third one before.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 20, 2024, 11:14:59 PM
There are hundreds of 1950s photos where those came from.

I should probably put together a then and now gallery.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2024, 12:31:14 AM
This happened overnight Sunday night into Monday morning...

NEW SEGMENT OF EXPRESS LANES TO OPEN IN CHESAPEAKE (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/NEW-SEGMENT-OF-EXPRESS-LANES-TO-OPEN-IN-CHESAPEAKE-.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=NS_4Zy7hiDo)
Quote CHESAPEAKE – Starting as early as overnight Sunday, Feb. 18, into Monday morning, Feb. 19, motorists can enjoy the benefits of a new third travel lane open on I-64 between the I-664/I-264 Bowers Hill interchange and the I-464 interchange in Chesapeake, constructed as part of the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) I-64 Southside Widening and High Rise Bridge Expansion Project. 

These new lanes, combined with VDOT's recent conversion of the previous HOV-2 restricted lanes to Express Lanes between the I-464 and I-264 interchanges, establishes the new Hampton Roads Express Lanes Chesapeake Segment that will soon operate as high-occupancy tolled Express Lanes to help manage traffic flow and congestion on I-64 between the I-664/I-264 Bowers Hill interchange in Chesapeake and the I-264 interchange in Norfolk. 

Once these lanes open to traffic, all motorists—whether driving alone or with passengers—are invited to test drive the new Chesapeake Express Lanes toll-free for the next several weeks to familiarize themselves with navigating this new roadway and its multiple entrance and exit points along the corridor.

While final tolling systems testing and installation of remaining white delineator posts and pavement markings are underway, motorists may encounter additional lane closures during the daytime and overnight hours as needed. These closures ensure the safety of our crews while still allowing the region's motorists the benefit of earlier access to these new travel lanes as soon as possible outside of these closure periods.

Upon the start of Chesapeake's high-occupancy tolling operations, estimated to begin no earlier than March 17, motorists driving alone will now experience additional commuting choices. These solo drivers are now provided the option to choose the free general purpose lanes or pay a variable toll to use the Express Lanes with an E-ZPass transponder—an option not previously available to solo drivers under the former HOV-2 restrictions during peak travel periods. For vehicles with two or more passengers, the Express Lanes will remain free with a required E-ZPass Flex transponder switched to "HOV-On." Regardless of which lanes motorists choose, Express Lanes are designed to improve congestion and overall travel times for motorists in both the general purpose and Express Lanes.   

In addition to the Chesapeake Express Lanes operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the tolling operations schedule for the existing I-64 Norfolk Reversible Express Lanes, located between the I-264 and I-564 interchanges, will also transition to continuous high-occupancy tolling operations full-time as soon as the Chesapeake Express Lanes' tolling begins.

The Chesapeake and Norfolk Reversible Express Lanes will ultimately become a part of an overall continuous 45-mile Express Lanes network on I-64 from the Bowers Hill interchange in Chesapeake to Denbigh Boulevard in Newport News. As traffic demand continues to increase in the region, incorporating the high-occupancy tolling Express Lanes model provides an additional approach to managing congestion long-term and providing a more reliable travel network. 

For more information on the Hampton Roads Express Lanes network, operations, and to view an interactive map, visit www.64expresslanes.org/drive.
After nearly 6 years of construction, originally to be completed in 2021, one new HO/T lane is open to traffic between Bowers Hill (I-64 / I-664 / I-264 / US-58) and I-464 in either direction. For the next month or so, the lanes will be toll free. Beginning mid-March, tolling will be in effect 24/7, and will also become 24/7 in Norfolk in the reversible lanes which were never tolled outside of rush hour. This is a recent change silently made by VDOT, as the new lanes and existing lanes were originally to be 5-9am and 2-6pm tolling only. HOV vehicles with 2 or more passengers and an E-ZPass Flex transponder will be free.

The HOV lane in either direction between I-464 and I-264 in Norfolk has also been repurposed to a HO/T lane and is now divided by a double solid line (and will soon have flex posts installed). The speed limit on the general purpose lanes has been restored to 60 mph, and the express lane has a posted speed limit of 65 mph between either end of I-264.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 21, 2024, 06:09:45 AM
Looks like I am headed to Virginia this weekend!!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 21, 2024, 08:42:12 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 21, 2024, 06:09:45 AM
Looks like I am headed to Virginia this weekend!!

Cool!
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 21, 2024, 08:58:03 AM
A couple more from another group, and originally from the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the News-Advance:

Westbound US 33/250 approaching US 1/301, early 1960s:
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGhfmb6B/415502097-10230895010536061-3884664363143714128-n.jpg)

Southbound US 1/301 approaching US 33/250, 1959. US 33/250 is erroneously signed as VA 33/250:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dy2fsP4M/415476431-10230895010456059-5008067194230879858-n.jpg)

VA 291 posted in Lynchburg, 1973:
(https://i.postimg.cc/qBsTM6qM/62e0088bd403d.jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 21, 2024, 09:18:31 AM
I would rather have those beauties than debate about the east end of US 33.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 21, 2024, 11:33:47 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 05, 2024, 08:58:55 PM
Picture shows on some of my devices but not others.

Here's the actual link to it:  http://www.vahighways.com/va-ends/old/old35y_st.jpg
That's the one.


Quote from: Mapmikey on February 05, 2024, 08:58:55 PM
The point where 301 slid over to use 95's footprint is at the median crossover on 95, per the 1958 aerial - https://maps.app.goo.gl/eywiGtEzyUdKZzz2A
Dammit, now you made me want to hit that section of 301!


Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 20, 2024, 11:20:27 AM
A Facebook group I'm in posted some photos of US 1 in Fredericksburg from the late 1940s, including the original version of the now-erroneous US 1 ALT signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3188558,-77.4717364,3a,44.7y,209.65h,93.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDoY6F41YPlpiKA79b1Y50Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) just across the Falmouth Bridge. VA 51 is now VA 208, and the VA 218 mentioned on the sign in the third picture is now VA 212.

(https://i.postimg.cc/bY9CH8ty/428331512-10225159776887808-1915327107636128626-n.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/tg9GkD4w/428379837-10225149908121095-6158417652492978698-n.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/CMcCxK8q/IMG-9760.jpg)
Where is the site of the second pic today?

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 21, 2024, 11:42:24 AM
The second picture looks like it's a close-up of the background of the first picture—look at the left side of the road (from the camera viewpoint) on the far side of the intersection. This Street View link is as close as I can get to the original camera viewpoint seen above. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/SrV1TKZXcU1fj2pS7)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 21, 2024, 11:56:03 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 21, 2024, 11:42:24 AM
The second picture looks like it's a close-up of the background of the first picture—look at the left side of the road (from the camera viewpoint) on the far side of the intersection. This Street View link is as close as I can get to the original camera viewpoint seen above. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/SrV1TKZXcU1fj2pS7)

Yeah, it's where that brick building is today on that GSV image.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: roadman65 on February 21, 2024, 12:22:30 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/g9kYHXqXL59Z1sDB9
Speaking of Fredericksburg and Falmouth, I see this problematic intersection got expanded by removing all the corner buildings.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ssW84CrW6aCq7feU6

I always thought that one could never be remedied but the powers at be can do anything.


Although that signal was the worst with four phases due to lack of room to add proper turn lanes and creating backups across the bridge, eminent domain still seems too aggressive.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 21, 2024, 05:20:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2024, 12:22:30 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/g9kYHXqXL59Z1sDB9
Speaking of Fredericksburg and Falmouth, I see this problematic intersection got expanded by removing all the corner buildings.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ssW84CrW6aCq7feU6

I always thought that one could never be remedied but the powers at be can do anything.


Although that signal was the worst with four phases due to lack of room to add proper turn lanes and creating backups across the bridge, eminent domain still seems too aggressive.

2 of the 3 businesses still exist in new locations within Fredericksburg.  The 4th corner had an abandoned bank that the Republican HQ was using at the time, the run-up to the 2012 election.

Quote
The second picture looks like it's a close-up of the background of the first picture—look at the left side of the road (from the camera viewpoint) on the far side of the intersection. This Street View link is as close as I can get to the original camera viewpoint seen above.

Note the first picture doesn't have a VA 30 shield on the billboard. The billboard was removed by 1962.

Here is a picture (1949) from the opposite direction, with a shield assembly erroneously implying US 17 continues north of here. - https://catalog.archives.gov/id/234116057
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 21, 2024, 07:40:59 PM
^^^ wow that awesome. Night and day difference.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Hunty2022 on February 21, 2024, 11:35:12 PM
I've also decided to look around for old road photos in the state.

This is US 29 getting widened from 2 lane undivided to 4 lane divided, somewhere near the current Rio Hill area looking south. That hill might be where the Rio Road interchange or Branchlands Blvd intersection is. This is from 1954:

(https://i.postimg.cc/SQYVLT38/IMG-7858.webp)
Credit: VDOT.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 22, 2024, 02:21:36 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 27, 2023, 11:11:39 AM
In regard to Travel Mapping, we discussed the odd situation with VA 244 last year (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4904.msg28175#msg28175).  I am unsure what would have been changed this year.

VDOT updated their LRS Route Master ArcGIS map (https://www.virginiaroads.org/datasets/VDOT::lrs-route-master/explore) today, and while I've only just started looking around for changes, I will note that the "orphaned" piece of VA 244 has been removed.

EDIT:

VA 460 has been added, as well - VA 80 has been truncated to end at VA 460, so it is no longer continuous with KY 80.

US 460 no longer appears to be on any part of County Dr or Wagner Rd in Petersburg...not sure if the US 460 BUSINESS there was truncated.

The Intermodal Connector in Norfolk has been added with the designation of "EXT I-564", so I guess it's not getting its own number.

VA 190 has been put onto Pembroke Blvd in Virginia Beach after North Witchduck Road was disconnected from it, even though Virginia Beach continues to sign VA 190 at Witchduck Road from VA 225.

US 60 has been truncated to the beginning of the Atlantic Ave loop in Virginia Beach - it no longer includes the loop (and the END US 60 signage on Pacific Ave/General Booth Blvd is still erroneous).

VA 399 in Richmond is still there even though it has been destroyed.

There is a brand new VA 410 in Powhatan County that serves Powhatan State Park. It branches off SR 617 and does not touch US 522.

EDIT 2:

VA 169 appears to have been truncated to VA 143 in Phoebus and no longer touches I-64.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 22, 2024, 04:35:17 PM
Thanks for posting...

This does not seem to show route overlays, so i wouldn't call VA 80 truncated just yet.

Surprised about VA 410.  I thought i read somewhere the Beaumont facility was going to become part of the park eventually, so I thought VA 313 might get extended over there.  Spring 2023 GMSV has no postings.

Looks like they're treating the entire intermodal connector as just ramps from I-564.

The VA 169 truncation contradicts the 2019 action of the CTB on relinquishing VA 169 from US 258 to VA 351 - https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/sep/reso/10.pdf

The relinquished portion of VA 237 between VA 120 and US 50 is shown as VA 237 still.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 22, 2024, 04:40:48 PM
QuoteUS 460 no longer appears to be on any part of County Dr or Wagner Rd in Petersburg...not sure if the US 460 BUSINESS there was truncated.

Nothing had changed in regard to signage when I visited my parents last month.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 22, 2024, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 22, 2024, 02:21:36 PM

US 460 no longer appears to be on any part of County Dr or Wagner Rd in Petersburg...not sure if the US 460 BUSINESS there was truncated.

This has to be an error on VDOT's part. Did they route US 460 to continue on I-95 to I-295 and then back north on that to pick it up at Exit 3? That doesn't make any sense.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 22, 2024, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2024, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 22, 2024, 02:21:36 PM

US 460 no longer appears to be on any part of County Dr or Wagner Rd in Petersburg...not sure if the US 460 BUSINESS there was truncated.

This has to be an error on VDOT's part. Did they route US 460 to continue on I-95 to I-295 and then back north on that to pick it up at Exit 3? That doesn't make any sense.

Actually I saw US 460 on County Dr in Petersburg.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 22, 2024, 04:53:14 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 22, 2024, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2024, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 22, 2024, 02:21:36 PM

US 460 no longer appears to be on any part of County Dr or Wagner Rd in Petersburg...not sure if the US 460 BUSINESS there was truncated.

This has to be an error on VDOT's part. Did they route US 460 to continue on I-95 to I-295 and then back north on that to pick it up at Exit 3? That doesn't make any sense.

Actually I saw US 460 on County Dr in Petersburg.

I get that but if they did change something very recently, the signs probably just wasn't taken down yet. But I don't think anything changed.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on February 22, 2024, 04:54:13 PM
FWIW, the piece of Columbia Pike between South Nash and South Joyce Streets doesn't exist at all anymore. It's been demolished as part of the Arlington Cemetery expansion project, though a realigned routing is under construction. It'll be closer to I-395 and will not have the S-curve along the hill passing the Air Force Memorial. I haven't seen much of the progress because the detour route via Southgate Road was in pretty rotten shape the last time I went that way, so I've made a point of not driving through there if I can avoid it.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on February 22, 2024, 05:09:25 PM
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2024, 04:53:14 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 22, 2024, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2024, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 22, 2024, 02:21:36 PM

US 460 no longer appears to be on any part of County Dr or Wagner Rd in Petersburg...not sure if the US 460 BUSINESS there was truncated.

This has to be an error on VDOT's part. Did they route US 460 to continue on I-95 to I-295 and then back north on that to pick it up at Exit 3? That doesn't make any sense.

Actually I saw US 460 on County Dr in Petersburg.

I get that but if they did change something very recently, the signs probably just wasn't taken down yet. But I don't think anything changed.

The LRS continues to show US 460 on County Dr...only Wagner Dr shows as not a primary route on there.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 22, 2024, 05:20:08 PM
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2024, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 22, 2024, 02:21:36 PM

US 460 no longer appears to be on any part of County Dr or Wagner Rd in Petersburg...not sure if the US 460 BUSINESS there was truncated.

This has to be an error on VDOT's part. Did they route US 460 to continue on I-95 to I-295 and then back north on that to pick it up at Exit 3? That doesn't make any sense.

I really wish the map showed overlays because it's hard to tell. Older versions of the map did.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on February 22, 2024, 05:51:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 22, 2024, 05:09:25 PM
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2024, 04:53:14 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 22, 2024, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2024, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 22, 2024, 02:21:36 PM

US 460 no longer appears to be on any part of County Dr or Wagner Rd in Petersburg...not sure if the US 460 BUSINESS there was truncated.

This has to be an error on VDOT's part. Did they route US 460 to continue on I-95 to I-295 and then back north on that to pick it up at Exit 3? That doesn't make any sense.

Actually I saw US 460 on County Dr in Petersburg.

I get that but if they did change something very recently, the signs probably just wasn't taken down yet. But I don't think anything changed.

The LRS continues to show US 460 on County Dr...only Wagner Dr shows as not a primary route on there.

So if something did change there it would mean US 460 reverted back to being on County Dr in its entirety.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 22, 2024, 06:10:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 21, 2024, 12:31:14 AM
This happened overnight Sunday night into Monday morning...

NEW SEGMENT OF EXPRESS LANES TO OPEN IN CHESAPEAKE (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/NEW-SEGMENT-OF-EXPRESS-LANES-TO-OPEN-IN-CHESAPEAKE-.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=NS_4Zy7hiDo)
Quote CHESAPEAKE – Starting as early as overnight Sunday, Feb. 18, into Monday morning, Feb. 19, motorists can enjoy the benefits of a new third travel lane open on I-64 between the I-664/I-264 Bowers Hill interchange and the I-464 interchange in Chesapeake, constructed as part of the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) I-64 Southside Widening and High Rise Bridge Expansion Project. 

These new lanes, combined with VDOT's recent conversion of the previous HOV-2 restricted lanes to Express Lanes between the I-464 and I-264 interchanges, establishes the new Hampton Roads Express Lanes Chesapeake Segment that will soon operate as high-occupancy tolled Express Lanes to help manage traffic flow and congestion on I-64 between the I-664/I-264 Bowers Hill interchange in Chesapeake and the I-264 interchange in Norfolk. 

Once these lanes open to traffic, all motorists—whether driving alone or with passengers—are invited to test drive the new Chesapeake Express Lanes toll-free for the next several weeks to familiarize themselves with navigating this new roadway and its multiple entrance and exit points along the corridor.

While final tolling systems testing and installation of remaining white delineator posts and pavement markings are underway, motorists may encounter additional lane closures during the daytime and overnight hours as needed. These closures ensure the safety of our crews while still allowing the region's motorists the benefit of earlier access to these new travel lanes as soon as possible outside of these closure periods.

Upon the start of Chesapeake's high-occupancy tolling operations, estimated to begin no earlier than March 17, motorists driving alone will now experience additional commuting choices. These solo drivers are now provided the option to choose the free general purpose lanes or pay a variable toll to use the Express Lanes with an E-ZPass transponder—an option not previously available to solo drivers under the former HOV-2 restrictions during peak travel periods. For vehicles with two or more passengers, the Express Lanes will remain free with a required E-ZPass Flex transponder switched to "HOV-On." Regardless of which lanes motorists choose, Express Lanes are designed to improve congestion and overall travel times for motorists in both the general purpose and Express Lanes.   

In addition to the Chesapeake Express Lanes operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the tolling operations schedule for the existing I-64 Norfolk Reversible Express Lanes, located between the I-264 and I-564 interchanges, will also transition to continuous high-occupancy tolling operations full-time as soon as the Chesapeake Express Lanes' tolling begins.

The Chesapeake and Norfolk Reversible Express Lanes will ultimately become a part of an overall continuous 45-mile Express Lanes network on I-64 from the Bowers Hill interchange in Chesapeake to Denbigh Boulevard in Newport News. As traffic demand continues to increase in the region, incorporating the high-occupancy tolling Express Lanes model provides an additional approach to managing congestion long-term and providing a more reliable travel network. 

For more information on the Hampton Roads Express Lanes network, operations, and to view an interactive map, visit www.64expresslanes.org/drive.
After nearly 6 years of construction, originally to be completed in 2021, one new HO/T lane is open to traffic between Bowers Hill (I-64 / I-664 / I-264 / US-58) and I-464 in either direction. For the next month or so, the lanes will be toll free. Beginning mid-March, tolling will be in effect 24/7, and will also become 24/7 in Norfolk in the reversible lanes which were never tolled outside of rush hour. This is a recent change silently made by VDOT, as the new lanes and existing lanes were originally to be 5-9am and 2-6pm tolling only. HOV vehicles with 2 or more passengers and an E-ZPass Flex transponder will be free.

The HOV lane in either direction between I-464 and I-264 in Norfolk has also been repurposed to a HO/T lane and is now divided by a double solid line (and will soon have flex posts installed). The speed limit on the general purpose lanes has been restored to 60 mph, and the express lane has a posted speed limit of 65 mph between either end of I-264.
As I predicted years ago, the single lane issue is happening. You have one lane, no passing permitted for several miles. Speed limit is 65 mph in the Express Lane and "only" 60 mph in the general purpose lanes. Great! You can "pay" to go faster (when there's no congestion)... but here's the reality.

One person decides to jump in the Express Lane and crawl along at 55-60 mph minding their own business, completely oblivious to anyone around them. Meanwhile, 7, 8, 9 cars are stacking up behind, stuck for miles. This is happening, time and time again. The general purpose lanes, "only" posted at 60 mph, are moving 70-75 mph free flowing. I've found it's best to avoid the Express Lane unless there's truly a backup in the general purpose lanes.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 23, 2024, 01:18:19 PM
Chesterfield County has its own Route Number Document (https://www.chesterfield.gov/DocumentCenter/View/502/Route-Number-Index-PDF) for anyone interested in finding all of the high numbers. 
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on February 23, 2024, 03:17:48 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 22, 2024, 04:35:17 PM
Thanks for posting...

This does not seem to show route overlays, so i wouldn't call VA 80 truncated just yet.

Surprised about VA 410.  I thought i read somewhere the Beaumont facility was going to become part of the park eventually, so I thought VA 313 might get extended over there.  Spring 2023 GMSV has no postings.

Looks like they're treating the entire intermodal connector as just ramps from I-564.

The VA 169 truncation contradicts the 2019 action of the CTB on relinquishing VA 169 from US 258 to VA 351 - https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/sep/reso/10.pdf

The relinquished portion of VA 237 between VA 120 and US 50 is shown as VA 237 still.


I completely forgot about the separate ArcGIS map that does show route overlays (https://www.virginiaroads.org/datasets/VDOT::lrs-route-overlap/explore). That one also does not show VA 80 duplexing with VA 460 at the state line. It also shows US 258 and VA 143 uselessly duplexing on Fort Monroe.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on February 25, 2024, 03:39:21 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 23, 2024, 01:18:19 PM
Chesterfield County has its own Route Number Document (https://www.chesterfield.gov/DocumentCenter/View/502/Route-Number-Index-PDF) for anyone interested in finding all of the high numbers. 

Notably the newest routes (Abercrombie Drive, for example, which was just built in 2023) don't have numbers listed yet.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 25, 2024, 03:43:02 PM
I clarified this morning that VA 410 is currently not posted at all.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: wriddle082 on February 26, 2024, 04:28:40 PM
Just drove the I-64 Express Lanes about an hour ago, counter-clockwise, from Bowers Hill to what I like to call the "Higher Rise".  Indeed, I was stuck behind a car doing 70 when I wanted to go a little faster, and at one point traffic in the GP lanes was moving faster, but for the most part I was moving faster.  What's really interesting is that the first exit out of the Express Lanes is on the downslope of the "Higher Rise", which does make sense because it gives access to the next four interchanges, which all come in relatively close succession.  They still have a little bit of work to do at the 464 cloverleaf to separate the C/D lanes from the GP lanes.

All in all, I will pay to use this lane once the tolls start, if my timing is closer to rush hour.  But I still wish they had built two express lanes in each direction.  The left shoulder is wide enough for an additional lane, but it would come at the cost of most of that shoulder.  They really should have just built the barrier wall and drainage culvert pipe so the entire median could be used.  The bridges at least shouldn't need much additional work.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on February 26, 2024, 05:09:25 PM
Quote from: wriddle082 on February 26, 2024, 04:28:40 PM
Just drove the I-64 Express Lanes about an hour ago, counter-clockwise, from Bowers Hill to what I like to call the "Higher Rise".  Indeed, I was stuck behind a car doing 70 when I wanted to go a little faster, and at one point traffic in the GP lanes was moving faster, but for the most part I was moving faster.
You got lucky! My luck seems to be 55-60, or right at 65 (speed limit is 65 mph) - with about 8-14 cars stacked up behind unable to pass, with the GP lanes moving 70+ to my right. My rule of thumb has been use the lanes when the GP lanes have a slowdown, but otherwise avoid them at all cost (even without tolls).

QuoteBut I still wish they had built two express lanes in each direction.  The left shoulder is wide enough for an additional lane, but it would come at the cost of most of that shoulder.  They really should have just built the barrier wall and drainage culvert pipe so the entire median could be used.  The bridges at least shouldn't need much additional work.
I believe the left shoulder is 14 ft to accommodate a future "shoulder express lane" that opens during rush hour... when in reality it should be striped as a second HO/T lane full time. Not the first place there would be an express lane without a shoulder... in fact, over in Norfolk they're removing the general purpose right shoulder permanently - that somehow snuck past the FHWA.

In full truthfulness, the best solution ultimately should be six general purpose lanes... there is genuinely no reason a toll lane is warranted in this area, taking into account traffic volumes and readily available right of way for a future 3 GP + 1-2 HO/T each way if they desired further growth. But the current setup of 2 GP + 1 HO/T is a waste, IMO.

Who knows... we'll see how effective the lanes become once tolling starts... especially since they'll be 24/7. No reason to pay outside of those peak hours, so they'll probably be a ghost town.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 01, 2024, 02:31:39 PM
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2024, 05:51:34 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 22, 2024, 05:09:25 PM
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2024, 04:53:14 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 22, 2024, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: plain on February 22, 2024, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on February 22, 2024, 02:21:36 PM

US 460 no longer appears to be on any part of County Dr or Wagner Rd in Petersburg...not sure if the US 460 BUSINESS there was truncated.

This has to be an error on VDOT's part. Did they route US 460 to continue on I-95 to I-295 and then back north on that to pick it up at Exit 3? That doesn't make any sense.

Actually I saw US 460 on County Dr in Petersburg.

I get that but if they did change something very recently, the signs probably just wasn't taken down yet. But I don't think anything changed.

The LRS continues to show US 460 on County Dr...only Wagner Dr shows as not a primary route on there.

So if something did change there it would mean US 460 reverted back to being on County Dr in its entirety.

I went and looked at the version (https://www.virginiaroads.org/datasets/VDOT::lrs-route-overlap/explore?filters=eyJSVEVfTkJSIjpbMSw1OTldfQ%3D%3D&location=37.213230%2C-77.350634%2C15.48) of the ArcGIS map that shows route overlaps to get an idea of how US 460 is routed in the Petersburg area now.

From I-295, US 460 is shown as continuing along County Dr past Wagner Rd into Petersburg. US 460 does not use Wagner Rd at all.

US 460 continues along County Dr to I-95 (exit 50), where it becomes concurrent with I-95. US 460 Business now begins where Winfield Road splits off just east of the I-95 interchange and joins Crater Rd/US 301.

Despite the map showing most overlaps, it doesn't show US 460 along I-95 at all, but I assume it runs concurrent with I-95 before exiting onto I-85 (which it runs concurrent with until exiting at Airport St).

US 460 Business follows Crater Rd/Wythe St/Boydton Plank Rd.

So basically, the US 460 Business appears to have been truncated to I-95 exit 50, and County Dr is regular US 460.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Takumi on March 02, 2024, 01:43:49 PM
In a related story, VDOT is looking at design studies to rebuild the exit 50 and 52 interchange areas. Proposals include:

-converting the Washington/Wythe exit to either a parclo or a SPUI, with access only to Washington

-converting either two or three of the northbound exit 50 ramps to one, and using an upgraded Winfield Road as access between I-95 and Crater Road in both directions

-getting rid of the one-way splits of Washington & Wythe in their entirety

https://vdot.virginia.gov/projects/richmond-district/petersburg---i-95i-85-interstate-access-stars-study/

There's also a survey (https://publicinput.com/i95i85studyalts) that asks people to rank the alternatives.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Strider on March 02, 2024, 08:57:53 PM
Quote from: Takumi on March 02, 2024, 01:43:49 PM
In a related story, VDOT is looking at design studies to rebuild the exit 50 and 52 interchange areas. Proposals include:

-converting the Washington/Wythe exit to either a parclo or a SPUI

-converting either two or three of the northbound exit 50 ramps to one, and using Winfield Road as access from I-95 to Crater Road in both directions

-getting rid of the one-way splits of Washington & Wythe in their entirety

https://vdot.virginia.gov/projects/richmond-district/petersburg---i-95i-85-interstate-access-stars-study/

There's also a survey (https://publicinput.com/i95i85studyalts) that asks people to rank the alternatives.

I hope they plan on modifiying the I-85/I-95 interchange. I remembered in one of their early studies show the proposed T-directional interchange between I-85 and I-95 with I-95S to I-85S ramp being the flyover and removes the existing loop ramp.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 10, 2024, 12:22:03 PM
Anyone traveling on I-95 through VA today should use I-295 to avoid downtown Richmond. It looks like the project to replace the US 250 Broad St overpass has begun (Broad is shut down) and VDOT has both directions of the interstate using the SB lanes. It's barely after noon and the delays are already significant. I don't think this configuration will be in place for tomorrow morning's rush, at least I hope not.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240310/0c0a17720e94cdc38ae7406b8f1bb01f.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240310/6421534dca360b5c37bd1840e37454fb.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240310/0941b12005f7932ee897824579591446.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240310/c4399f009b4d058fbe56bf4a2b4308ec.jpg)

MX-A65

Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Rothman on March 10, 2024, 12:54:20 PM
Just use the Goog/Waze.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on March 10, 2024, 05:37:54 PM
Quote from: plain on March 10, 2024, 12:22:03 PM
Anyone traveling on I-95 through VA today should use I-295 to avoid downtown Richmond. It looks like the project to replace the US 250 Broad St overpass has begun (Broad is shut down) and VDOT has both directions of the interstate using the SB lanes. It's barely after noon and the delays are already significant. I don't think this configuration will be in place for tomorrow morning's rush, at least I hope not.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240310/0c0a17720e94cdc38ae7406b8f1bb01f.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240310/6421534dca360b5c37bd1840e37454fb.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240310/0941b12005f7932ee897824579591446.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240310/c4399f009b4d058fbe56bf4a2b4308ec.jpg)

MX-A65



The project is supposed to be complete by around 6am tomorrow morning. There will probably be significant residual delays though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: plain on March 12, 2024, 10:05:40 AM
Some more funding geared towards I-81 widening.

https://www.wdbj7.com/2024/03/11/budget-approved-by-lawmakers-includes-additional-funding-interstate-81/
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: sprjus4 on March 14, 2024, 05:37:17 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 22, 2024, 06:10:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 21, 2024, 12:31:14 AM
This happened overnight Sunday night into Monday morning...

NEW SEGMENT OF EXPRESS LANES TO OPEN IN CHESAPEAKE (https://myemail.constantcontact.com/NEW-SEGMENT-OF-EXPRESS-LANES-TO-OPEN-IN-CHESAPEAKE-.html?soid=1124277087205&aid=NS_4Zy7hiDo)
Quote CHESAPEAKE – Starting as early as overnight Sunday, Feb. 18, into Monday morning, Feb. 19, motorists can enjoy the benefits of a new third travel lane open on I-64 between the I-664/I-264 Bowers Hill interchange and the I-464 interchange in Chesapeake, constructed as part of the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) I-64 Southside Widening and High Rise Bridge Expansion Project. 

These new lanes, combined with VDOT's recent conversion of the previous HOV-2 restricted lanes to Express Lanes between the I-464 and I-264 interchanges, establishes the new Hampton Roads Express Lanes Chesapeake Segment that will soon operate as high-occupancy tolled Express Lanes to help manage traffic flow and congestion on I-64 between the I-664/I-264 Bowers Hill interchange in Chesapeake and the I-264 interchange in Norfolk. 

Once these lanes open to traffic, all motorists—whether driving alone or with passengers—are invited to test drive the new Chesapeake Express Lanes toll-free for the next several weeks to familiarize themselves with navigating this new roadway and its multiple entrance and exit points along the corridor.

While final tolling systems testing and installation of remaining white delineator posts and pavement markings are underway, motorists may encounter additional lane closures during the daytime and overnight hours as needed. These closures ensure the safety of our crews while still allowing the region's motorists the benefit of earlier access to these new travel lanes as soon as possible outside of these closure periods.

Upon the start of Chesapeake's high-occupancy tolling operations, estimated to begin no earlier than March 17, motorists driving alone will now experience additional commuting choices. These solo drivers are now provided the option to choose the free general purpose lanes or pay a variable toll to use the Express Lanes with an E-ZPass transponder—an option not previously available to solo drivers under the former HOV-2 restrictions during peak travel periods. For vehicles with two or more passengers, the Express Lanes will remain free with a required E-ZPass Flex transponder switched to "HOV-On." Regardless of which lanes motorists choose, Express Lanes are designed to improve congestion and overall travel times for motorists in both the general purpose and Express Lanes.   

In addition to the Chesapeake Express Lanes operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the tolling operations schedule for the existing I-64 Norfolk Reversible Express Lanes, located between the I-264 and I-564 interchanges, will also transition to continuous high-occupancy tolling operations full-time as soon as the Chesapeake Express Lanes' tolling begins.

The Chesapeake and Norfolk Reversible Express Lanes will ultimately become a part of an overall continuous 45-mile Express Lanes network on I-64 from the Bowers Hill interchange in Chesapeake to Denbigh Boulevard in Newport News. As traffic demand continues to increase in the region, incorporating the high-occupancy tolling Express Lanes model provides an additional approach to managing congestion long-term and providing a more reliable travel network. 

For more information on the Hampton Roads Express Lanes network, operations, and to view an interactive map, visit www.64expresslanes.org/drive.
After nearly 6 years of construction, originally to be completed in 2021, one new HO/T lane is open to traffic between Bowers Hill (I-64 / I-664 / I-264 / US-58) and I-464 in either direction. For the next month or so, the lanes will be toll free. Beginning mid-March, tolling will be in effect 24/7, and will also become 24/7 in Norfolk in the reversible lanes which were never tolled outside of rush hour. This is a recent change silently made by VDOT, as the new lanes and existing lanes were originally to be 5-9am and 2-6pm tolling only. HOV vehicles with 2 or more passengers and an E-ZPass Flex transponder will be free.

The HOV lane in either direction between I-464 and I-264 in Norfolk has also been repurposed to a HO/T lane and is now divided by a double solid line (and will soon have flex posts installed). The speed limit on the general purpose lanes has been restored to 60 mph, and the express lane has a posted speed limit of 65 mph between either end of I-264.
As I predicted years ago, the single lane issue is happening. You have one lane, no passing permitted for several miles. Speed limit is 65 mph in the Express Lane and "only" 60 mph in the general purpose lanes. Great! You can "pay" to go faster (when there's no congestion)... but here's the reality.

One person decides to jump in the Express Lane and crawl along at 55-60 mph minding their own business, completely oblivious to anyone around them. Meanwhile, 7, 8, 9 cars are stacking up behind, stuck for miles. This is happening, time and time again. The general purpose lanes, "only" posted at 60 mph, are moving 70-75 mph free flowing. I've found it's best to avoid the Express Lane unless there's truly a backup in the general purpose lanes.
Tolling will begin on the new Express Lanes beginning Sunday morning (March 17) at 5am. Additionally, the reversible lanes in Norfolk will now be tolled 24/7. Currently, they are only tolled between 5am-9am and 2pm-6pm. Before 2019, they were only HOV restricted between 7am-9am and 4pm-6pm. Outside of rush hour, the lanes have always been free for all motorist since they were constructed in the 1990s. That will no longer be the case.

When they began construction on the High Rise Bridge project, they said the new lanes would only be tolled during rush hour - the concept of 24/7 tolling was never to implemented. After the public hearings for the project and construction began, they quietly switched it behind the scenes, meaning a project that was fully funded by tax dollars ($500 million) will now also collect tolls to fund... who knows what - even at 3am when there's virtually nobody on the road.

Another situation very analogous to what this same state did on I-95 in Northern Virginia.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 23, 2024, 12:58:06 PM
This picture has appeared several times on Twitter this week in tweets about the I-395 express lanes. I just find the picture interesting because someone who doesn't live here or who is unfamiliar with the road might find this somewhat disturbing even though there's nothing wrong with what you see here.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GI-GBUMW0AAC7fA?format=jpg)
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 26, 2024, 02:00:06 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 23, 2024, 12:58:06 PMThis picture has appeared several times on Twitter this week in tweets about the I-395 express lanes. I just find the picture interesting because someone who doesn't live here or who is unfamiliar with the road might find this somewhat disturbing even though there's nothing wrong with what you see here.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GI-GBUMW0AAC7fA?format=jpg)

You mean like folks in North Carolina that are disturbed at the sight of a yellow school bus travelling at a speed of more than 45MPH?   :poke:
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 26, 2024, 02:25:30 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 26, 2024, 02:00:06 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 23, 2024, 12:58:06 PMThis picture has appeared several times on Twitter this week in tweets about the I-395 express lanes. I just find the picture interesting because someone who doesn't live here or who is unfamiliar with the road might find this somewhat disturbing even though there's nothing wrong with what you see here.

(image omitted)

You mean like folks in North Carolina that are disturbed at the sight of a yellow school bus travelling at a speed of more than 45MPH?   :poke:

That used to be the law in Virginia. I remember when I was in high school, one teacher tried to avoid using school buses for trips to Richmond or the like because the drive would take too long going that slowly. I don't remember when it was changed, but I'm pretty sure it was.

My comment about people unfamiliar with the road finding it disturbing was directed at something else, though.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 26, 2024, 02:31:30 PM
^I remember that any time we were on an interstate on a school bus that we would just see tons and tons of vehicles flying by us in the right lane.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 26, 2024, 03:08:30 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 26, 2024, 02:25:30 PMMy comment about people unfamiliar with the road finding it disturbing was directed at something else, though.

Disconcerting to me because I never see this view in the daylight.  Always about 5:30 a.m. when I battle traffic through there...
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: 1995hoo on March 26, 2024, 03:22:45 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 26, 2024, 03:08:30 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 26, 2024, 02:25:30 PMMy comment about people unfamiliar with the road finding it disturbing was directed at something else, though.

Disconcerting to me because I never see this view in the daylight.  Always about 5:30 a.m. when I battle traffic through there...

If you go through there at 5:30 AM, I really hope you never encounter the precise view seen in that image.
Title: Re: Virginia
Post by: Mapmikey on March 26, 2024, 04:02:00 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 26, 2024, 03:22:45 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 26, 2024, 03:08:30 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 26, 2024, 02:25:30 PMMy comment about people unfamiliar with the road finding it disturbing was directed at something else, though.

Disconcerting to me because I never see this view in the daylight.  Always about 5:30 a.m. when I battle traffic through there...

If you go through there at 5:30 AM, I really hope you never encounter the precise view seen in that image.

Only in my rear view mirror at 5 p.m....