Virginia

[WillWeaverRVA]

More ArcGIS randomness: VA 41 is now shown as continuous along its entire posted route. The piece between US 29 Business and VA 293 was previously not part of VA 41 and was listed as an urban route in VDOT's traffic logs. The 2021 traffic logs for the City of Danville no longer show this urban route, so I'm guessing it was taken back into the primary system.

https://www.virginiaroads.org/datasets/VDOT::lrs-route-master/explore?location=36.628992%2C-79.389410%2C15.96

[1995hoo]

Here's a new one. That's the loop ramp from southbound VA-110 to northbound I-395 (same ramp that featured in his other videos showing people making bizarre movements to access the express lanes).

https://twitter.com/STATter911/status/1676427934251335680

[froggie]

Next year, I expect to see an ice cream truck on the shoulder of the Inner Loop Local Lanes for those who watch the fireworks from the WWB (like I used to when I lived there).

[sprjus4]

The I-64 Southside Widening & High Rise Bridge project's completion date has now been pushed back from early August to late September 2023.

The project began construction in November 2017 and has been under construction for almost six years now. The new bridge opened a year ago. The rest of the project is standard land side widening and a few overpass widenings.

For those unfamiliar, the project is widening 9 miles of I-64 in Chesapeake between Bowers Hill (MM 299) and VA-168 Battlefield Blvd (MM 290) by adding a single HO/T lane in each direction.

It's amazing a project of this scale (besides the bridge, the rest is traditional widening) has lasted this long, and it's amazing how many times they've pushed back this project. It was originally supposed to be complete two years ago. They've not provided any logical explanation why these delays have occurred.

https://www.hrtpo.org/uploads/docs/070523%20TTAC%2000A%20Full%20Agenda.pdf

[wriddle082]

^ If I were to venture a guess, seeing that I have been driving this stretch several times a year for work since 2018, the construction zone has often seemed like one big muddy mess.  If it's not raining, then there are large puddles everywhere.  Waiting for everything to dry out, I'm sure, has probably contributed significantly to the delays.  That and the general labor shortage in the construction industry.

[FLAVORTOWN]

Seeing new traffic lights get installed in Arlington and Tysons and the signs are no longer in Clearview. Interesting 

I was messing around with the VDOT LRS Route Master ArcGIS map and noticed something odd: There is an orphaned segment of VA 244 in Arlington County near the Pentagon that runs from the Pentagon South Parking Lot to Joyce St (including the VA 27 Pentagon interchange). It's also shown this way on the VDOT LRS Route Overlap map, which ONLY shows VDOT-maintained roads. The change date is January 2023. Not sure if this is an error in their system or if VDOT really did redesignate this segment as part of VA 244 (which was otherwise truncated to the Arlington-Fairfax county line).

You know, theres a small section of VA-237 near US-50 that is still under VDOT control so maybe they kept that portion of VA-244 for similar reasons?

But then again it shows the entire stretch of VA-237 belonging to VDOT, even the Arlington portion so maybe there was a data error.

[1995hoo]

So on Saturday morning I exited the Beltway at Van Dorn on my way home from a funeral. For years, there's been a sign next to the far right lane saying right on red is permitted from that lane only, and there's been a second sign next to the traffic light for the middle lane that says no turn on red is permitted from that lane.

But on Saturday, for the first time I noticed the traffic light for the far right lane has been replaced with a red arrow. Under the Virginia statute as amended a few years back, a red arrow means no turn on red.

So which controls? The red arrow or the sign that says you can go right on red from the curb lane? Right on red has been allowed there since at least 2001 and pretty much everybody else was making that maneuver (thankfully, it turned green right as I got to the light), but the behavior of the average driver is hardly a valid way to guess what the rule is. I sent VDOT Northern Virginia a tweet to ask about it, noting that it's now ambiguous what the rule there is, but they haven't answered yet.

[MASTERNC]

So on Saturday morning I exited the Beltway at Van Dorn on my way home from a funeral. For years, there's been a sign next to the far right lane saying right on red is permitted from that lane only, and there's been a second sign next to the traffic light for the middle lane that says no turn on red is permitted from that lane.

But on Saturday, for the first time I noticed the traffic light for the far right lane has been replaced with a red arrow. Under the Virginia statute as amended a few years back, a red arrow means no turn on red.

So which controls? The red arrow or the sign that says you can go right on red from the curb lane? Right on red has been allowed there since at least 2001 and pretty much everybody else was making that maneuver (thankfully, it turned green right as I got to the light), but the behavior of the average driver is hardly a valid way to guess what the rule is. I sent VDOT Northern Virginia a tweet to ask about it, noting that it's now ambiguous what the rule there is, but they haven't answered yet.

I'd wait for official word but I would think the sign overrides the arrow, the same way a NTOR sign overrides a red ball for right on red.

[1995hoo]

So on Saturday morning I exited the Beltway at Van Dorn on my way home from a funeral. For years, there's been a sign next to the far right lane saying right on red is permitted from that lane only, and there's been a second sign next to the traffic light for the middle lane that says no turn on red is permitted from that lane.

But on Saturday, for the first time I noticed the traffic light for the far right lane has been replaced with a red arrow. Under the Virginia statute as amended a few years back, a red arrow means no turn on red.

So which controls? The red arrow or the sign that says you can go right on red from the curb lane? Right on red has been allowed there since at least 2001 and pretty much everybody else was making that maneuver (thankfully, it turned green right as I got to the light), but the behavior of the average driver is hardly a valid way to guess what the rule is. I sent VDOT Northern Virginia a tweet to ask about it, noting that it's now ambiguous what the rule there is, but they haven't answered yet.

I'd wait for official word but I would think the sign overrides the arrow, the same way a NTOR sign overrides a red ball for right on red.

The problem in this case is that the sign was there first and the light used to be a red ball, so they've changed the light without changing the signs.

Edited to add: I retweeted it both to VDOT Northern Virginia and the main VDOT account.

[sprjus4]

So on Saturday morning I exited the Beltway at Van Dorn on my way home from a funeral. For years, there's been a sign next to the far right lane saying right on red is permitted from that lane only, and there's been a second sign next to the traffic light for the middle lane that says no turn on red is permitted from that lane.

But on Saturday, for the first time I noticed the traffic light for the far right lane has been replaced with a red arrow. Under the Virginia statute as amended a few years back, a red arrow means no turn on red.

So which controls? The red arrow or the sign that says you can go right on red from the curb lane? Right on red has been allowed there since at least 2001 and pretty much everybody else was making that maneuver (thankfully, it turned green right as I got to the light), but the behavior of the average driver is hardly a valid way to guess what the rule is. I sent VDOT Northern Virginia a tweet to ask about it, noting that it's now ambiguous what the rule there is, but they haven't answered yet.

Based on the verbiage of the law, it would seem to me that the sign overrides, meaning that you should be allowed to turn on the red arrow.

Section 46.2-835

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed permitting turns on a steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow, after coming to a full stop, shall remain standing until a signal to proceed is shown.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-835

[1995hoo]

Outstanding. I should have looked up the statute to refresh myself on its wording. Thank you. That language is certainly a good defense in the unlikely event one gets a ticket there.

[plain]

Nothing newsworthy, just thought this was funny.

I'm in Hampton at the moment and saw this down the street from my mother's place. It's some sealant that splattered on the street and formed an almost Virginia! Minus the Eastern Shore



moto g(7) optimo (XT1952DL)

[kendancy66]

So on Saturday morning I exited the Beltway at Van Dorn on my way home from a funeral. For years, there's been a sign next to the far right lane saying right on red is permitted from that lane only, and there's been a second sign next to the traffic light for the middle lane that says no turn on red is permitted from that lane.

But on Saturday, for the first time I noticed the traffic light for the far right lane has been replaced with a red arrow. Under the Virginia statute as amended a few years back, a red arrow means no turn on red.

So which controls? The red arrow or the sign that says you can go right on red from the curb lane? Right on red has been allowed there since at least 2001 and pretty much everybody else was making that maneuver (thankfully, it turned green right as I got to the light), but the behavior of the average driver is hardly a valid way to guess what the rule is. I sent VDOT Northern Virginia a tweet to ask about it, noting that it's now ambiguous what the rule there is, but they haven't answered yet.

Is that lane for right turn only? If so, should there also be an overhead right turn only sign for that lane? Maybe VDOT is trying to convey the message of right turn only in the signal, and don't understand the reason for using a right turn only light.  Would putting a yield sign instead of an allow right turn on red sign be safer?

[WillWeaverRVA]

Nothing newsworthy, just thought this was funny.

I'm in Hampton at the moment and saw this down the street from my mother's place. It's some sealant that splattered on the street and formed an almost Virginia! Minus the Eastern Shore

Everyone forgets the Eastern Shore.

[1995hoo]

https://twitter.com/VaDOTBristol/status/1684279220988416000

[Jmiles32]

The latest on the planned I-64/Denbigh Blvd Interchange in Newport News: https://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2023/july/pres/5.pdf

Certainly needed but man over $260 million for the full interchange is brutal. Not to mention it won't be complete until 2033 at the earliest. Crazy how an interchange wasn't put here originally as its seemed pretty obvious for a while.

[Mapmikey]

https://twitter.com/VaDOTBristol/status/1684279220988416000

Once the Phase A portion is complete, they could reroute US 460 over VA 83 west to the completely rebuilt SR 744 which connects to the soon-to-be-completed Future US 460.  Otherwise, if they don't move US 460 until 2027 when the whole thing to Grundy is done, what will it be posted as?  And what will former US 460 from Grundy to Kentucky be renumbered as?  Could a 2-digit number make a return to the system (12, 44 and 88 are available)?

[Bitmapped]

Once the Phase A portion is complete, they could reroute US 460 over VA 83 west to the completely rebuilt SR 744 which connects to the soon-to-be-completed Future US 460.  Otherwise, if they don't move US 460 until 2027 when the whole thing to Grundy is done, what will it be posted as?  And what will former US 460 from Grundy to Kentucky be renumbered as?  Could a 2-digit number make a return to the system (12, 44 and 88 are available)?

I can't imagine they would reroute US 460 out of Grundy only to put it back on that alignment in a couple years. Just give it a secondary route number in the meantime.

[Takumi]

https://twitter.com/VaDOTBristol/status/1684279220988416000

Once the Phase A portion is complete, they could reroute US 460 over VA 83 west to the completely rebuilt SR 744 which connects to the soon-to-be-completed Future US 460.  Otherwise, if they don't move US 460 until 2027 when the whole thing to Grundy is done, what will it be posted as?  And what will former US 460 from Grundy to Kentucky be renumbered as?  Could a 2-digit number make a return to the system (12, 44 and 88 are available)?

25 is also available.

Also interesting that they're referencing 121. Wonder if they're going to make it a secondary route while it's in progress, or a different primary number.

[Mapmikey]

Once the Phase A portion is complete, they could reroute US 460 over VA 83 west to the completely rebuilt SR 744 which connects to the soon-to-be-completed Future US 460.  Otherwise, if they don't move US 460 until 2027 when the whole thing to Grundy is done, what will it be posted as?  And what will former US 460 from Grundy to Kentucky be renumbered as?  Could a 2-digit number make a return to the system (12, 44 and 88 are available)?

25 is also available.

Also interesting that they're referencing 121. Wonder if they're going to make it a secondary route while it's in progress, or a different primary number.

Virginia has a history of temp numbers in US 460's situation:  VA 224 in Lynchburg (now US 460); VA 280 in Franklin (now US 58); VA 212 west of Galax (now US 58-221); VA 265 in Danville (now US 29)

US 121's situation was always to just give the partially opened segments the eventual number, even if it didn't connect to any other primary route yet.  Today's VA 225 (maybe), VA 262, maybe VA 275 (now also VA 262), and VA 280 are modern examples.  The existence of VA 121 already complicates things but that could be renumbered as VA 94 easily.  Also, Virginia had no trouble posting US 48 when W Va didn't post their side for 7 years.

Virginia did the temp routing thing like I speculated with US 460 moving temporarily to an interim connecting route when US 460 TEMP was established when only part of the Bluefield bypass was open.  TEMP US 460 was placed on SR 720.

[74/171FAN]

^Is it safe to say at this point that the current VA 224 will remain as-is?  I think that I tried to look up the Moccasin Gap Bypass after clinching it recently, and got nowhere.

[hbelkins]

https://twitter.com/VaDOTBristol/status/1684279220988416000

Once the Phase A portion is complete, they could reroute US 460 over VA 83 west to the completely rebuilt SR 744 which connects to the soon-to-be-completed Future US 460.  Otherwise, if they don't move US 460 until 2027 when the whole thing to Grundy is done, what will it be posted as?  And what will former US 460 from Grundy to Kentucky be renumbered as?  Could a 2-digit number make a return to the system (12, 44 and 88 are available)?

They have the Breaks spur signed as 460 already. As has been discussed before, I'm curious as to what will happen with VA 80, and KY 80.

On a recent trip up that way, coming out of Grundy toward Kentucky, I noticed some work going up a hill on the left. I presume that's the routing of the future 460.

[Bitmapped]

They have the Breaks spur signed as 460 already. As has been discussed before, I'm curious as to what will happen with VA 80, and KY 80.

On a recent trip up that way, coming out of Grundy toward Kentucky, I noticed some work going up a hill on the left. I presume that's the routing of the future 460.

That's interesting they have the route signed as US 460 when it doesn't connect to the rest of US 460.

I would think KYTC and VDOT would just keep KY 80 and VA 80 on its existing alignment. The routes provide access to Elkhorn City and Breaks Interstate Park, which would justify a primary state route number in Virginia. There's no point in assigning a new number when an existing one would work perfectly well.

[WillWeaverRVA]

They have the Breaks spur signed as 460 already. As has been discussed before, I'm curious as to what will happen with VA 80, and KY 80.

On a recent trip up that way, coming out of Grundy toward Kentucky, I noticed some work going up a hill on the left. I presume that's the routing of the future 460.

That's interesting they have the route signed as US 460 when it doesn't connect to the rest of US 460.

I would think KYTC and VDOT would just keep KY 80 and VA 80 on its existing alignment. The routes provide access to Elkhorn City and Breaks Interstate Park, which would justify a primary state route number in Virginia. There's no point in assigning a new number when an existing one would work perfectly well.

It's really weird. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the VDOT ArcGIS map shows the spur as US 460 (along with the existing US 460), but shows current VA 80 as SR 768. "Old VA 80"  is labeled as the actual VA 80 connecting to the spur.

[LM117]

A proposed R-cut for the Tightsqueeze intersection on US-29 just south of Chatham did not go over well, so it got canned.

Behind paywall:

https://godanriver.com/news/local/government-politics/for-troubled-tightsqueeze-intersection-fix-vdot-prepares-new-plan-after-public-outcry/article_78830cd6-2bb5-11ee-966c-2393b6729ed8.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

TIGHTSQUEEZE – A proposed change to a troubled intersection in Tightsqueeze essentially has been killed following public outcry and a new option is being explored.

It all started in 2019 when the Virginia Department of Transportation developed a plan for the U.S. 29 corridor in Pittsylvania County. Part of that involved studying the intersections.

This particular intersection is along U.S. 29 with Tightsqueeze Road to one side and Fairview Road to the other.

"The concerns are both operational and safety,"  VDOT spokesperson Len Stevens told the Register & Bee. "The safety concerns are a result of crashes that have occurred."

One change pitched for the often congested area was a restricted crossing U-turn, or RCUT. The idea of the somewhat convoluted plan is to keep vehicles from turning left out of a connecting road onto a main highway like U.S. 29.

Instead, drivers would turn right, go a short distance and then make a U-turn at a specially designed median space.

According to VDOT, the RCUTs increase capacity and reduce crashes by about 20%. However, it would restrict some turning movement and could involve right-of-way acquisitions.

Residents strongly pushed back against VDOT's solution during a public hearing, mainly because of the RCUT concept, Stevens said.

"Most of the feedback I got was in relationship to businesses with their trucks,"  Bob Warren, a supervisor representing the Chatham-Blairs district, said at a recent work session.

It presented an added traffic headache with drivers not being allowed to turn left and instead having to go right, travel a little ways down the road and navigate a U-turn.

To wipe the slate clean and start over, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors sent a letter to VDOT requesting the solution with the RCUT be canceled.

In turn, that goes through the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The board likely will take formal action to cancel the project in October, according to VDOT Lynchburg district engineer Chris Winstead.

The original cost was pegged at about $11.43 million, which would be paid for fully via VDOT Smart Scale funding.

The Lynchburg team from VDOT presented another option last week that appeared to be a better fit, supervisors signaled.

The latest plan is to add another left-turn lane on Tightsqueeze Road heading north on U.S. 29 and put an additional right-turn lane on Fairview Road.

A raised median on Tightsqueeze Road for access management would be added and a traffic signal pole would be relocated.

VDOT also plans to put down rumble strips for the northbound and southbound lanes of U.S. 29. The strips – true to the name – create a rumbling sound when drivers veer out of the lane. They are often put at the edge or center of a roadway.

Going this route would reduce backups along Tightsqueeze Road by about 50% and scale back delays a the intersection by 35%, a presentation by VDOT explained.

"The alternative appears to be within the original budget,"  Stevens said when asked if the new plan would add to the price.

So far, about $270,000 has been spent. Although the code of Virginia states if a locality requests a project be terminated, they could be on the hook to reimburse funds already spent, Winstead said that wouldn't be the case this time.

However, he noted if supervisors pursued a revised option and then later canceled that one, he "cannot predict how that would turn out."

With the wheels in motion to nix the RCUT-centered plan, the next step for VDOT is to hold what it calls a citizen information meeting in September. That's when they'll give updates to the public and gauge feedback to the new plan.

Winstead said it likely will cost about $50,000 to get ready for that meeting.

If the county wanted to officially proceed with the revamped plans, VDOT would need a resolution from the board of supervisors.

"It just seems very logical to me,"  Warren said of the new changes for the intersection.