By synthesizing data from the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, the Transportation Plans for Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, and the recent study of the Fairfax County Parkway Corridor, I have been able to map out (https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=11XFvs-s7tfLam7IBHXHrDlxaCN2iReZ2&usp=sharing) all of the currently planned interchanges for much of NoVa.
You probably know about the plans to make 7 into a freeway from Sterling to Purcellville, but did you know they also want to put in some interchanges east of Sterling?
They also want to grade separate several intersections on US 29 and US 1
Will all of this get built? Probably not. But if only half of it is, it will transform life for millions of Virginians (Virgins?)
Awesome work.
On a related note; was there ever an interchange planned between the Franconia-Springfield Parkway and I-95 for its regular lanes? I recall seeing one on the VDOT site around 2012-13.
There's also a few more; US 1/VA 123 in Woodbridge and PW Parkway/Minnieville.
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on November 24, 2020, 10:03:17 PM
Awesome work.
On a related note; was there ever an interchange planned between the Franconia-Springfield Parkway and I-95 for its regular lanes? I recall seeing one on the VDOT site around 2012-13.
There's also a few more; US 1/VA 123 in Woodbridge and PW Parkway/Minnieville.
Also, Prince William County is extending Godwin Road to be a bypass of Route 28 through Manassas. I assume it will also have grade separated interchanges but since the plans haven't been drawn up, I don't know where exactly they'll be.
^
I thought the bypass route was to be an arterial, at-grade route, not a freeway / grade separation? Appears to be too much constraint to do so, plus doesn't logically tie in with VA-28 on either side.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 24, 2020, 11:01:57 PM
^
I thought the bypass route was to be an arterial, at-grade route, not a freeway / grade separation? Appears to be too much constraint to do so, plus doesn't logically tie in with VA-28 on either side.
There's currently only one street in the right of way, Lomond, they could just make that an overpass. And it seems pretty clear that Route 28's future is as a freeway, perhaps one day serving as part of an Outer Beltway.
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on November 24, 2020, 10:03:17 PM
On a related note; was there ever an interchange planned between the Franconia-Springfield Parkway and I-95 for its regular lanes? I recall seeing one on the VDOT site around 2012-13.
I'm positive there was at one point, and I remember reading a Dr. Gridlock column in the Washington Post about it; it would have provided access from I-95 south to VA-289 and from VA-289 to I-95 north. The problem was, VDOT did not do a great job of explaining their plans and never dissuaded drivers of the notion that the end result would be a brand new direct connection to/from I-95. I've long had the notion that what VDOT planned to do was create an extension of the exit ramps to and from SR-644. The biggest issue with this plan would have been right-of-way concerns on the southbound side, and probably would have taken out private businesses and a commuter parking lot. To me, the following are the remnants of a plan that never came to fruition:
Patched signs:
I-395 south (https://goo.gl/maps/kT88MURj6aSEpRjLA), I-395 south (patch failing) (https://goo.gl/maps/pgm8ddreuwjBN4RH6), I-95 south (https://goo.gl/maps/D63epP7Gp69MhExQA), I-495 east (SR-7900 shield present) (https://goo.gl/maps/DaFEFFrb3J3ChF549), I-495 east (shield replaced with "TO") (https://goo.gl/maps/zCBiAahd217oxzpQ6)
I've never seen anything of this nature while heading on I-95 north, which is why I think access between I-95 to/from VA-289 would have been south/north only.
Also of note would be these abandoned bits of roadway:
I-95 south exit to SR-644 east (https://goo.gl/maps/uyHPhXWaC7eWU6zZ9), I-95 north exit to SR-644 west (https://goo.gl/maps/Ave1pRTkxkuxVu5m9)
For me, I've thought there would have been an overpass from VA-289 to the abandoned lanes on I-95 north, which would have then tied into the on-ramp from SR-644 west. This would also explain why there are two exits to I-495 north (via SR-644 west or Commerce St) when traffic on SR-644 is explicitly directed to use the exit on Commerce St, as it would have provided the needed movement from VA-289 to I-495 north.
As for the overly wide left shoulder, I can only speculate that the left lane would not have ended, instead continuing on, somehow weaving its way through the overpasses, before emerging on the right of them all and finally terminating at VA-289, which would have resulted in the loss of property mentioned above.
Quote from: HTM Duke on November 25, 2020, 12:04:36 AM
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on November 24, 2020, 10:03:17 PM
On a related note; was there ever an interchange planned between the Franconia-Springfield Parkway and I-95 for its regular lanes? I recall seeing one on the VDOT site around 2012-13.
I'm positive there was at one point, and I remember reading a Dr. Gridlock column in the Washington Post about it; it would have provided access from I-95 south to VA-289 and from VA-289 to I-95 north. The problem was, VDOT did not do a great job of explaining their plans and never dissuaded drivers of the notion that the end result would be a brand new direct connection to/from I-95. I've long had the notion that what VDOT planned to do was create an extension of the exit ramps to and from SR-644. The biggest issue with this plan would have been right-of-way concerns on the southbound side, and probably would have taken out private businesses and a commuter parking lot. To me, the following are the remnants of a plan that never came to fruition:
Patched signs:
I-395 south (https://goo.gl/maps/kT88MURj6aSEpRjLA), I-395 south (patch failing) (https://goo.gl/maps/pgm8ddreuwjBN4RH6), I-95 south (https://goo.gl/maps/D63epP7Gp69MhExQA), I-495 east (SR-7900 shield present) (https://goo.gl/maps/DaFEFFrb3J3ChF549), I-495 east (shield replaced with "TO") (https://goo.gl/maps/zCBiAahd217oxzpQ6)
I've never seen anything of this nature while heading on I-95 north, which is why I think access between I-95 to/from VA-289 would have been south/north only.
Also of note would be these abandoned bits of roadway:
I-95 south exit to SR-644 east (https://goo.gl/maps/uyHPhXWaC7eWU6zZ9), I-95 north exit to SR-644 west (https://goo.gl/maps/Ave1pRTkxkuxVu5m9)
For me, I've thought there would have been an overpass from VA-289 to the abandoned lanes on I-95 north, which would have then tied into the on-ramp from SR-644 west. This would also explain why there are two exits to I-495 north (via SR-644 west or Commerce St) when traffic on SR-644 is explicitly directed to use the exit on Commerce St, as it would have provided the needed movement from VA-289 to I-495 north.
As for the overly wide left shoulder, I can only speculate that the left lane would not have ended, instead continuing on, somehow weaving its way through the overpasses, before emerging on the right of them all and finally terminating at VA-289, which would have resulted in the loss of property mentioned above.
As a result of the recent statewide I-95 corridor study, there appear to indeed be talks of adding a general-purpose lane connection to VA-289 under the NOVA region's Potential Improvements that Require Further Study:
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/projects/major_projects/easset_upload_file75381_141080_e.pdf
So I suspect we'll probably hear more about this particular project in some way or another in the near future.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 24, 2020, 11:01:57 PM
^
I thought the bypass route was to be an arterial, at-grade route, not a freeway / grade separation? Appears to be too much constraint to do so, plus doesn't logically tie in with VA-28 on either side.
This is correct, at least in the near term. There might also be an at grade intersection with Sudley Manor Drive as well.
Regarding the OP, while I highly doubt that even 25% of all those future interchange locations will actually ever get built, I do think that the priority should be roads that don't have a non tolled freeway alternative. Therefore IMO that rules out US-1, VA-286 (north of I-66), and US-29 (north of Gainesville (South of Gainesville is another story)). Instead, I think that the priority should be US-50 and VA-234 (unfortunately PWC is already messing this one up with "innovative intersections" at University Blvd and Clover Hill road). While VA-7 is paralleled by the Dulles Toll Road, I wouldn't mind seeing a couple more interchanges go up between VA-28 and VA-286 and at Baron Cameron Avenue. Finishing the interchanges on the Leesburg Bypass (US-15) and building one at VA-28 and Braddock would be nice as well but corridor wise my 1st choice would be VA-234 followed by US-50 as a close second. Finally, because I'm curious, where did you find the plans for adding interchanges on US-29 in Fairfax county?
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2020, 12:33:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 24, 2020, 11:01:57 PM
^
I thought the bypass route was to be an arterial, at-grade route, not a freeway / grade separation? Appears to be too much constraint to do so, plus doesn't logically tie in with VA-28 on either side.
This is correct, at least in the near term. There might also be an at grade intersection with Sudley Manor Drive as well.
Regarding the OP, while I highly doubt that even 25% of all those future interchange locations will actually ever get built, I do think that the priority should be roads that don't have a non tolled freeway alternative. Therefore IMO that rules out US-1, VA-286 (north of I-66), and US-29 (north of Gainesville (South of Gainesville is another story)). Instead, I think that the priority should be US-50 and VA-234 (unfortunately PWC is already messing this one up with "innovative intersections" at University Blvd and Clover Hill road). While VA-7 is paralleled by the Dulles Toll Road, I wouldn't mind seeing a couple more interchanges go up between VA-28 and VA-286 and at Baron Cameron Avenue. Finishing the interchanges on the Leesburg Bypass (US-15) and building one at VA-28 and Braddock would be nice as well but corridor wise my 1st choice would be VA-234 followed by US-50 as a close second. Finally, because I'm curious, where did you find the plans for adding interchanges on US-29 in Fairfax county?
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/maps/transportation_plan_map.pdf
They are going ahead with a full interchange at Brentsville and I'm sure they'll build interchanges at the other intersections if traffic warrants.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Pages/Route-234-Brentsville-Road-Interchange-Project.aspx
And right now, the Route 28 bypass is probably a bigger priority for PWC, and it may eliminate the need for a 234 freeway altogether.
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on November 24, 2020, 10:03:17 PM
Awesome work.
On a related note; was there ever an interchange planned between the Franconia-Springfield Parkway and I-95 for its regular lanes? I recall seeing one on the VDOT site around 2012-13.
There's also a few more; US 1/VA 123 in Woodbridge and PW Parkway/Minnieville.
cpzilliacus and I had the following exchange about that in 2012. The reference to the "current supervisor's predecessor" is no longer accurate–at the time, the "current supervisor" was Jeff McKay, and last year he was elected Chairman of the Board of Supervisors.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2012, 03:34:49 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 16, 2012, 12:07:51 PM
Regarding access to your community, has anyone asked their elected officials if there is any prospect of building those ramps from the mainline of I-95 to Va. 289 (Franconia-Springfield Parkway)? I am pretty certain that there is no money for them, and because there are effectively "frontage" roads on both sides of I-95 near there (Va. 789, Loisdale Drive on the east side and Va. 617, Backlick Road on the west side), ramps like that would be extremely expensive.
Not recently. The current supervisor's predecessor (Dana Kauffman) mentioned it once and said not to hold your breath. It's not just the cost of the construction of the ramps themselves. There are also eminent domain issues due to private businesses butting right up against I-95 on the west side, and the Virginia constitution was just amended to make eminent domain proceedings more difficult. There's also the problem that you'd be squeezing in a new interchange adjacent to an existing one (Route 644) and so you would almost definitely have to build C/D roads, thus further increasing the cost and the construction mess (in a place that has seemingly been under construction at least since 1990).
....
I see the reference further up the thread showing that the CTB is apparently ready to "study" the idea again, but I'd still say not to expect it any time soon and not to expect it to be an easy project by any means. That is a very tight location.
It'll be interesting to see how the planned extension of Frontier Drive affects traffic flow in that area. I don't know when construction is scheduled to begin. It will involve reconstructing the interchange between Frontier Drive and the Parkway and changing the traffic flow around the Metro stop. Part of the reason for the project is the new (yet-to-open, insofar as I know) TSA headquarters southwest of that interchange. Since that matter is interchange-related, it fits in this thread. You can find diagrams of what's planned here: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/Frontier_Drive_Extension_Displays.pdf I like the idea of eliminating the "weave area" on the westbound Parkway where traffic using the loop ramp to leave the Metro currently comes to a stop sign and then has to cross over traffic heading for the exit ramp to Frontier Drive. The speed limit on the Parkway is 50, but it's not unusual to see 70+, so getting rid of the stop sign will be a safety improvement in multiple ways. I do wonder how well that roundabout is going to work. There's a lot of very bad driving on the roads around that parking garage, including people regularly driving the wrong way on the one-way access road in order to take a shortcut to a garage entry, so I have to wonder how many people will yield properly and such at the roundabout.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 25, 2020, 08:08:51 AM
I see the reference further up the thread showing that the CTB is apparently ready to "study" the idea again, but I'd still say not to expect it any time soon and not to expect it to be an easy project by any means. That is a very tight location.
It'll be interesting to see how the planned extension of Frontier Drive affects traffic flow in that area. I don't know when construction is scheduled to begin. It will involve reconstructing the interchange between Frontier Drive and the Parkway and changing the traffic flow around the Metro stop. Part of the reason for the project is the new (yet-to-open, insofar as I know) TSA headquarters southwest of that interchange. Since that matter is interchange-related, it fits in this thread. You can find diagrams of what's planned here: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/Frontier_Drive_Extension_Displays.pdf I like the idea of eliminating the "weave area" on the westbound Parkway where traffic using the loop ramp to leave the Metro currently comes to a stop sign and then has to cross over traffic heading for the exit ramp to Frontier Drive. The speed limit on the Parkway is 50, but it's not unusual to see 70+, so getting rid of the stop sign will be a safety improvement in multiple ways. I do wonder how well that roundabout is going to work. There's a lot of very bad driving on the roads around that parking garage, including people regularly driving the wrong way on the one-way access road in order to take a shortcut to a garage entry, so I have to wonder how many people will yield properly and such at the roundabout.
IMO now that VA-286 (Fairfax County Parkway, formerly 7100) is complete across Fort Belvoir North Area (including the interchange at Barta Road) between Fullerton Road (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B044'39.9%22N+77%C2%B011'34.5%22W/@38.7444182,-77.1951057,673m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89b652c374a0a4a1:0xaf239558b282f5a3!2sLorton,+VA!3b1!8m2!3d38.704282!4d-77.2277603!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d38.7444137!4d-77.1929169) and the TOTSO interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B045'33.0%22N+77%C2%B013'02.1%22W/@38.7591771,-77.2194467,673m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89b652c374a0a4a1:0xaf239558b282f5a3!2sLorton,+VA!3b1!8m2!3d38.704282!4d-77.2277603!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d38.7591746!4d-77.2172579) (for VA-286) at Rolling Road and VA-289 (Franconia-Springfield Parkway, formerly 7900), the connection between I-95 and VA-286 north of the TOTSO is not perfect, but much improved, I think the pressure may be off for completing a (
very expensive) interchange for all movements at I-95 and VA-289.
If I was deciding (and I am not), I would much rather see some of the at-grade signalized intersections on VA-286 converted to grade-separated interchanges.
Some of my candidates (south to north, not in order of merit):
Terminal Road (hundreds of petroleum tank truck trips are observed every day of the week);
Loisdale Drive (too close to I-95);
Reservation Drive (lot of pedestrians cross VA-286 here to get to the park areas on the west side);
Lee Chapel Road (busy intersection);
Old Keene Mill Road (many injury crashes and fatal crashes);
Burke Lake Road (also a busy intersection);
Burke Centre Parkway (busy intersection);
Popes Head Road (busy intersection);
Franklin Farm Road (lots of pedestrian traffic here);
West Ox Road (busy intersection);
Sunrise Valley Road; VA-267 (Dulles Toll Road) and Sunset Hills Road (all of this should be blown-up and rebuilt to eliminate the signals at Sunrise Valley and at VA-267; that the interchange at 267 was built as a rural-style diamond baffles me)
Quote from: kernals12 on November 25, 2020, 12:42:43 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2020, 12:33:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 24, 2020, 11:01:57 PM
^
I thought the bypass route was to be an arterial, at-grade route, not a freeway / grade separation? Appears to be too much constraint to do so, plus doesn't logically tie in with VA-28 on either side.
This is correct, at least in the near term. There might also be an at grade intersection with Sudley Manor Drive as well.
Regarding the OP, while I highly doubt that even 25% of all those future interchange locations will actually ever get built, I do think that the priority should be roads that don't have a non tolled freeway alternative. Therefore IMO that rules out US-1, VA-286 (north of I-66), and US-29 (north of Gainesville (South of Gainesville is another story)). Instead, I think that the priority should be US-50 and VA-234 (unfortunately PWC is already messing this one up with "innovative intersections" at University Blvd and Clover Hill road). While VA-7 is paralleled by the Dulles Toll Road, I wouldn't mind seeing a couple more interchanges go up between VA-28 and VA-286 and at Baron Cameron Avenue. Finishing the interchanges on the Leesburg Bypass (US-15) and building one at VA-28 and Braddock would be nice as well but corridor wise my 1st choice would be VA-234 followed by US-50 as a close second. Finally, because I'm curious, where did you find the plans for adding interchanges on US-29 in Fairfax county?
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/maps/transportation_plan_map.pdf
Ahh thanks. I definitely missed that key detail when I last looked at it. Well if the recently funded VA-294/Minnineville Road interchange in Prince William County is any indication (IMO that project totally came out of left field), new large housing/retail developments and subsequent proffers make anything possible.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 25, 2020, 12:42:43 AM
They are going ahead with a full interchange at Brentsville and I'm sure they'll build interchanges at the other intersections if traffic warrants.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Pages/Route-234-Brentsville-Road-Interchange-Project.aspx
And right now, the Route 28 bypass is probably a bigger priority for PWC, and it may eliminate the need for a 234 freeway altogether.
While I agree that Route 28 is definitely PWC's biggest transportation priority as it should be, I also hold the opinion that I don't think the bypass is the best option. Upgrading VA-234 north of VA-28 (at the very least) would serve both potential bypass traffic (coming from Bristow and southwest) as well as the existing heavy regional traffic that uses VA-234 already to cross the county to and from I-66 and I-95.
BTW on a side note, for anyone interested, PWC will be hosting a virtual VA-28 bypass meeting on December 7th.
https://www.insidenova.com/news/prince_william/prince-william-county-hosting-virtual-meeting-on-route-28-bypass-project/article_548c9844-2e9f-11eb-9847-87c7e3c2d84f.html#comments
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2020, 12:37:09 PM
While I agree that Route 28 is definitely PWC's biggest transportation priority as it should be, I also hold the opinion that I don't think the bypass is the best option. Upgrading VA-234 north of VA-28 (at the very least) would serve both potential bypass traffic (coming from Bristow and southwest) as well as the existing heavy regional traffic that uses VA-234 already to cross the county to and from I-66 and I-95.
Getting traffic out of the Battlefield for both VA-234 and U.S. 29 would be a good idea.
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2020, 12:37:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 25, 2020, 12:42:43 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2020, 12:33:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 24, 2020, 11:01:57 PM
^
I thought the bypass route was to be an arterial, at-grade route, not a freeway / grade separation? Appears to be too much constraint to do so, plus doesn't logically tie in with VA-28 on either side.
This is correct, at least in the near term. There might also be an at grade intersection with Sudley Manor Drive as well.
Regarding the OP, while I highly doubt that even 25% of all those future interchange locations will actually ever get built, I do think that the priority should be roads that don't have a non tolled freeway alternative. Therefore IMO that rules out US-1, VA-286 (north of I-66), and US-29 (north of Gainesville (South of Gainesville is another story)). Instead, I think that the priority should be US-50 and VA-234 (unfortunately PWC is already messing this one up with "innovative intersections" at University Blvd and Clover Hill road). While VA-7 is paralleled by the Dulles Toll Road, I wouldn't mind seeing a couple more interchanges go up between VA-28 and VA-286 and at Baron Cameron Avenue. Finishing the interchanges on the Leesburg Bypass (US-15) and building one at VA-28 and Braddock would be nice as well but corridor wise my 1st choice would be VA-234 followed by US-50 as a close second. Finally, because I'm curious, where did you find the plans for adding interchanges on US-29 in Fairfax county?
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/maps/transportation_plan_map.pdf
Ahh thanks. I definitely missed that key detail when I last looked at it. Well if the recently funded VA-294/Minnineville Road interchange in Prince William County is any indication (IMO that project totally came out of left field), new large housing/retail developments and subsequent proffers make anything possible.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 25, 2020, 12:42:43 AM
They are going ahead with a full interchange at Brentsville and I'm sure they'll build interchanges at the other intersections if traffic warrants.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Pages/Route-234-Brentsville-Road-Interchange-Project.aspx
And right now, the Route 28 bypass is probably a bigger priority for PWC, and it may eliminate the need for a 234 freeway altogether.
While I agree that Route 28 is definitely PWC's biggest transportation priority as it should be, I also hold the opinion that I don't think the bypass is the best option. Upgrading VA-234 north of VA-28 (at the very least) would serve both potential bypass traffic (coming from Bristow and southwest) as well as the existing heavy regional traffic that uses VA-234 already to cross the county to and from I-66 and I-95.
BTW on a side note, for anyone interested, PWC will be hosting a virtual VA-28 bypass meeting on December 7th.
https://www.insidenova.com/news/prince_william/prince-william-county-hosting-virtual-meeting-on-route-28-bypass-project/article_548c9844-2e9f-11eb-9847-87c7e3c2d84f.html#comments
But an VA-234 upgrade without a 28 bypass would also put more traffic on I-66 between Wellington and Centreville.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2020, 12:47:29 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2020, 12:37:09 PM
While I agree that Route 28 is definitely PWC's biggest transportation priority as it should be, I also hold the opinion that I don't think the bypass is the best option. Upgrading VA-234 north of VA-28 (at the very least) would serve both potential bypass traffic (coming from Bristow and southwest) as well as the existing heavy regional traffic that uses VA-234 already to cross the county to and from I-66 and I-95.
Getting traffic out of the Battlefield for both VA-234 and U.S. 29 would be a good idea.
Haven't heard much about that particular issue in a while (which is honestly pretty amazing considering how bad it gets at times). I suspect a big reason why is because of all the strong opposition to the north/south part of the proposed battlefield bypass, the bi-county parkway, which would largely follow Pageland road up to the current VA-234 near Catharpin. Unforunately I have yet to really see any alternative solution(s) to what to do here.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2020, 12:28:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 25, 2020, 08:08:51 AM
I see the reference further up the thread showing that the CTB is apparently ready to "study" the idea again, but I'd still say not to expect it any time soon and not to expect it to be an easy project by any means. That is a very tight location.
It'll be interesting to see how the planned extension of Frontier Drive affects traffic flow in that area. I don't know when construction is scheduled to begin. It will involve reconstructing the interchange between Frontier Drive and the Parkway and changing the traffic flow around the Metro stop. Part of the reason for the project is the new (yet-to-open, insofar as I know) TSA headquarters southwest of that interchange. Since that matter is interchange-related, it fits in this thread. You can find diagrams of what's planned here: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/Frontier_Drive_Extension_Displays.pdf I like the idea of eliminating the "weave area" on the westbound Parkway where traffic using the loop ramp to leave the Metro currently comes to a stop sign and then has to cross over traffic heading for the exit ramp to Frontier Drive. The speed limit on the Parkway is 50, but it's not unusual to see 70+, so getting rid of the stop sign will be a safety improvement in multiple ways. I do wonder how well that roundabout is going to work. There's a lot of very bad driving on the roads around that parking garage, including people regularly driving the wrong way on the one-way access road in order to take a shortcut to a garage entry, so I have to wonder how many people will yield properly and such at the roundabout.
IMO now that VA-286 (Fairfax County Parkway, formerly 7100) is complete across Fort Belvoir North Area (including the interchange at Barta Road) between Fullerton Road (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B044'39.9%22N+77%C2%B011'34.5%22W/@38.7444182,-77.1951057,673m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89b652c374a0a4a1:0xaf239558b282f5a3!2sLorton,+VA!3b1!8m2!3d38.704282!4d-77.2277603!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d38.7444137!4d-77.1929169) and the TOTSO interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B045'33.0%22N+77%C2%B013'02.1%22W/@38.7591771,-77.2194467,673m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89b652c374a0a4a1:0xaf239558b282f5a3!2sLorton,+VA!3b1!8m2!3d38.704282!4d-77.2277603!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d38.7591746!4d-77.2172579) (for VA-286) at Rolling Road and VA-289 (Franconia-Springfield Parkway, formerly 7900), the connection between I-95 and VA-286 north of the TOTSO is not perfect, but much improved, I think the pressure may be off for completing a (very expensive) interchange for all movements at I-95 and VA-289.
If I was deciding (and I am not), I would much rather see some of the at-grade signalized intersections on VA-286 converted to grade-separated interchanges.
Some of my candidates (south to north, not in order of merit):
Terminal Road (hundreds of petroleum tank truck trips are observed every day of the week);
Loisdale Drive (too close to I-95);
Reservation Drive (lot of pedestrians cross VA-286 here to get to the park areas on the west side);
Lee Chapel Road (busy intersection);
Old Keene Mill Road (many injury crashes and fatal crashes);
Burke Lake Road (also a busy intersection);
Burke Centre Parkway (busy intersection);
Popes Head Road (busy intersection);
Franklin Farm Road (lots of pedestrian traffic here);
West Ox Road (busy intersection);
Sunrise Valley Road; VA-267 (Dulles Toll Road) and Sunset Hills Road (all of this should be blown-up and rebuilt to eliminate the signals at Sunrise Valley and at VA-267; that the interchange at 267 was built as a rural-style diamond baffles me)
I've got some good news for you. The findings of the latest study (https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/transportation/sites/transportation/files/assets/documents/pdf/transportation%20projects,%20studies%20and%20plans/ffx%20co%20parkway/parkways-concept1-summer2020.pdf) recommend interchanges at
Sunrise, Franklin Farm, and Spring Mill. They also recommend converting Burke Center Parkway to RIRO with a flyover for left turns off the FCP. And the Popes Head Road interchange is a done deal. They also want innovative intersections at Lee Chapel and West Ox. They also plan interchanges/innovative intersections at several places you didn't list.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 25, 2020, 12:51:43 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2020, 12:37:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 25, 2020, 12:42:43 AM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on November 25, 2020, 12:33:48 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 24, 2020, 11:01:57 PM
^
I thought the bypass route was to be an arterial, at-grade route, not a freeway / grade separation? Appears to be too much constraint to do so, plus doesn't logically tie in with VA-28 on either side.
This is correct, at least in the near term. There might also be an at grade intersection with Sudley Manor Drive as well.
Regarding the OP, while I highly doubt that even 25% of all those future interchange locations will actually ever get built, I do think that the priority should be roads that don't have a non tolled freeway alternative. Therefore IMO that rules out US-1, VA-286 (north of I-66), and US-29 (north of Gainesville (South of Gainesville is another story)). Instead, I think that the priority should be US-50 and VA-234 (unfortunately PWC is already messing this one up with "innovative intersections" at University Blvd and Clover Hill road). While VA-7 is paralleled by the Dulles Toll Road, I wouldn't mind seeing a couple more interchanges go up between VA-28 and VA-286 and at Baron Cameron Avenue. Finishing the interchanges on the Leesburg Bypass (US-15) and building one at VA-28 and Braddock would be nice as well but corridor wise my 1st choice would be VA-234 followed by US-50 as a close second. Finally, because I'm curious, where did you find the plans for adding interchanges on US-29 in Fairfax county?
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/sites/planning-development/files/assets/documents/maps/transportation_plan_map.pdf
Ahh thanks. I definitely missed that key detail when I last looked at it. Well if the recently funded VA-294/Minnineville Road interchange in Prince William County is any indication (IMO that project totally came out of left field), new large housing/retail developments and subsequent proffers make anything possible.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 25, 2020, 12:42:43 AM
They are going ahead with a full interchange at Brentsville and I'm sure they'll build interchanges at the other intersections if traffic warrants.
https://www.pwcgov.org/government/dept/dot/Pages/Route-234-Brentsville-Road-Interchange-Project.aspx
And right now, the Route 28 bypass is probably a bigger priority for PWC, and it may eliminate the need for a 234 freeway altogether.
While I agree that Route 28 is definitely PWC's biggest transportation priority as it should be, I also hold the opinion that I don't think the bypass is the best option. Upgrading VA-234 north of VA-28 (at the very least) would serve both potential bypass traffic (coming from Bristow and southwest) as well as the existing heavy regional traffic that uses VA-234 already to cross the county to and from I-66 and I-95.
BTW on a side note, for anyone interested, PWC will be hosting a virtual VA-28 bypass meeting on December 7th.
https://www.insidenova.com/news/prince_william/prince-william-county-hosting-virtual-meeting-on-route-28-bypass-project/article_548c9844-2e9f-11eb-9847-87c7e3c2d84f.html#comments
But an VA-234 upgrade without a 28 bypass would also put more traffic on I-66 between Wellington and Centreville.
With the massive transform I-66 project set to wrap in late 2022, I would think that I-66 between Wellington and Centreville would be more than well equipped to handle any increase in traffic (assuming there is much of any since I'm not convinced that commuters in Bristow use current VA-28 through Manassas anyways). In addition, it's worth noting that the soon to be six laned VA-28 (still with traffic lights) north of where the four-lane future bypass will merge with the current four-lane VA-28 will likely present its own set of problems.
Quote from: HTM Duke on November 25, 2020, 12:04:36 AM
I'm positive there was at one point, and I remember reading a Dr. Gridlock column in the Washington Post about it; it would have provided access from I-95 south to VA-289 and from VA-289 to I-95 north. The problem was, VDOT did not do a great job of explaining their plans and never dissuaded drivers of the notion that the end result would be a brand new direct connection to/from I-95. I've long had the notion that what VDOT planned to do was create an extension of the exit ramps to and from SR-644. The biggest issue with this plan would have been right-of-way concerns on the southbound side, and probably would have taken out private businesses and a commuter parking lot. To me, the following are the remnants of a plan that never came to fruition:
Patched signs:
I-395 south (https://goo.gl/maps/kT88MURj6aSEpRjLA), I-395 south (patch failing) (https://goo.gl/maps/pgm8ddreuwjBN4RH6), I-95 south (https://goo.gl/maps/D63epP7Gp69MhExQA), I-495 east (SR-7900 shield present) (https://goo.gl/maps/DaFEFFrb3J3ChF549), I-495 east (shield replaced with "TO") (https://goo.gl/maps/zCBiAahd217oxzpQ6)
I've never seen anything of this nature while heading on I-95 north, which is why I think access between I-95 to/from VA-289 would have been south/north only.
Also of note would be these abandoned bits of roadway:
I-95 south exit to SR-644 east (https://goo.gl/maps/uyHPhXWaC7eWU6zZ9), I-95 north exit to SR-644 west (https://goo.gl/maps/Ave1pRTkxkuxVu5m9)
For me, I've thought there would have been an overpass from VA-289 to the abandoned lanes on I-95 north, which would have then tied into the on-ramp from SR-644 west. This would also explain why there are two exits to I-495 north (via SR-644 west or Commerce St) when traffic on SR-644 is explicitly directed to use the exit on Commerce St, as it would have provided the needed movement from VA-289 to I-495 north.
As for the overly wide left shoulder, I can only speculate that the left lane would not have ended, instead continuing on, somehow weaving its way through the overpasses, before emerging on the right of them all and finally terminating at VA-289, which would have resulted in the loss of property mentioned above.
I've certainly seen some of those Springfield Interchange BGS sign gaps. This I'm sure was illustrated. I would prefer something more direct though, not a full interchange; hopefully the signals for the HOT lane ramps can also be removed as well.
Back to the whole plan, it sure is crazy what's been proposed. I'll assume a lot of these interchanges, if built, would have to be compact kinds (such as Randolph/Georgia over in MD).
Odds that 28/New Braddock Road get an interchange, and high priority?
That would my top, along with extending New Braddock over I-66 to connect with Stone Road, and have an interchange with 66.
A 28/New Braddock interchange is probably desired, but a complication is the close proximity of the 28/Machen intersection.
Extending New Braddock across 66 is planned, but an interchange is not...too close to 66/29.
IMO extending the VA-28 freeway south of US-29 to the future split of VA-28 and the VA-28 bypass (assuming it gets built) may not be as difficult as some would think. I agree that the hardest part would likely be building the New Braddock Road interchange and figuring out what to do about the Machen Road and Old Centreville Road intersections. However, after that, I think that an overpass/underpass would be sufficient at both Green Trails Blvd and Bradenton Drive. The light at Compton Road could either be its own interchange or maybe integrated with whatever they plan to do with the northern terminus of the bypass. $400-$500 million in total would be my ballpark estimate.
Quote from: HTM Duke on November 25, 2020, 12:04:36 AM
....
Also of note would be these abandoned bits of roadway:
I-95 south exit to SR-644 east (https://goo.gl/maps/uyHPhXWaC7eWU6zZ9) ....
That particular piece of roadway was removed during the Springfield Interchange reconstruction. Prior to the rebuild, VDOT actually signed the old C/D lane through that area as if it were a thru lane, partly just to attempt to reduce the amount of weaving and the resulting crashes in that area. Past that spot, it used to become a standard acceleration lane that merged into the right lane of I-95 some distance south of that spot after the ramp from eastbound Route 644 merged into it. I believe they deleted it both because the many overpass support columns located in its path directly south of that spot obstructed its former path, plus there was less of a need to provide such a movement when the partial-cloverleaf loop ramp that used to connect westbound Route 644 to southbound I-95 was removed and replaced with a flyover (which is the reason for the bridge abutments mentioned before).
So the existence of that former connection had nothing to do with the Franconia—Springfield Parkway. It was part of the original interchange with Route 644.
^ As I recall, that extra pavement was also used during the Mixing Bowl rebuild.
Quote from: froggie on December 03, 2020, 09:36:28 AM
^ As I recall, that extra pavement was also used during the Mixing Bowl rebuild.
Almost certainly. I think, however, HTM Duke was referring less to the super-wide "shoulder" there than he was to the clearly-visible old roadbed further south after the loop ramp curves away: https://goo.gl/maps/Ek49t4kveF9qPLG37 At least, that's how I interpreted his comment. The old roadbed here is the remains of the old C/D road. You probably recall how that lane had pull-thru signs overhead indicating it was for I-95 South and that it was routine for people to engage in what Robert Thomson (the second Dr. Gridlock at the Post) used to call "ramp-running," i.e., exiting to the C/D road and re-entering at its far end without exiting the highway. I'd argue that move made more sense for people coming from the Beltway, for whom it was arguably less dangerous just to stay to the right, run the C/D road, and merge further down where there was no weave conflict with I-395 traffic trying to exit to Route 644. (Man, I do not miss that old configuration!)
^ Yes, that old roadbed is what I was referring to. I also recall it having a lot more pavement than what that GMSV is showing.
Quote from: froggie on December 03, 2020, 10:20:39 AM
^ Yes, that old roadbed is what I was referring to. I also recall it having a lot more pavement than what that GMSV is showing.
It did. If you click a bit further south under the next overpass, you'll see the remains of a wider roadbed. I don't remember for sure, but I'm guessing they dumped some fill in that area to create the sort of hill-like thing where those trees are now growing.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 02, 2020, 12:46:44 PM
Quote from: HTM Duke on November 25, 2020, 12:04:36 AM
....
Also of note would be these abandoned bits of roadway:
I-95 south exit to SR-644 east (https://goo.gl/maps/uyHPhXWaC7eWU6zZ9) ....
That particular piece of roadway was removed during the Springfield Interchange reconstruction. Prior to the rebuild, VDOT actually signed the old C/D lane through that area as if it were a thru lane, partly just to attempt to reduce the amount of weaving and the resulting crashes in that area. Past that spot, it used to become a standard acceleration lane that merged into the right lane of I-95 some distance south of that spot after the ramp from eastbound Route 644 merged into it. I believe they deleted it both because the many overpass support columns located in its path directly south of that spot obstructed its former path, plus there was less of a need to provide such a movement when the partial-cloverleaf loop ramp that used to connect westbound Route 644 to southbound I-95 was removed and replaced with a flyover (which is the reason for the bridge abutments mentioned before).
So the existence of that former connection had nothing to do with the Franconia—Springfield Parkway. It was part of the original interchange with Route 644.
Yes, I remember the old Springfield interchange well. I got my DL in 1999, and I drove through as the improvement project ran its course. (Also the seemingly never ending succession of projects until I left Alexandria in 2019.) I will admit that my thoughts on this 95/289 affair are more speculation than proven fact, and I've been trying to piece together the whole thing with what information I could find. It also doesn't help that VDOT's project page for this had one small picture of literal lines going here and there instead of something more detailed.
I'll also post this Washington Post article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1996/12/05/va-promises-i-95-exit-someday/46a527a4-4fd1-427b-91a1-160277766702/) I recently found, summarizing what VDOT had in mind back in 1996. Of note was the fear that if this project moved forward, it might have necessitated reworking the EIS for the entire Springfield Interchange project, and any resulting delays could have come at a cost of federal funds.
Quote from: HTM Duke on December 03, 2020, 11:59:07 PM
I'll also post this Washington Post article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1996/12/05/va-promises-i-95-exit-someday/46a527a4-4fd1-427b-91a1-160277766702/) I recently found, summarizing what VDOT had in mind back in 1996. Of note was the fear that if this project moved forward, it might have necessitated reworking the EIS for the entire Springfield Interchange project, and any resulting delays could have come at a cost of federal funds.
QuoteThe state Commonwealth Transportation Board voted late last month to spend $21 million to buy land and do design work for a future interchange between the Franconia/Springfield Parkway and Interstate 95. But it remains unclear when the interchange will be built, at a cost of about $61 million.
Wait so did this actually happen? Because there certainly doesn't appear to be much land available for it atm.
On the topic of the Springfield Interchange, I've noticed a few irregularities when it comes to how certain phases and elements of the project were completed.
For instance, I am certainly surprised how the aforementioned 95/644 interchange complex (Phases 2/3) was finished in 2 1/2 years, and ahead of time at that. I would believe that it'd take longer considering the tight area and varied elements they had to work with. Meanwhile, the SB I-95 flyover took 3 1/2 years to complete, whereas its NB counterpart was finished in just one. Wonder if these involved any actual structural differences each, or was a certain contractor simply lagging behind?
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on January 22, 2021, 10:32:03 PM
On the topic of the Springfield Interchange, I've noticed a few irregularities when it comes to how certain phases and elements of the project were completed.
For instance, I am certainly surprised how the aforementioned 95/644 interchange complex (Phases 2/3) was finished in 2 1/2 years, and ahead of time at that. I would believe that it'd take longer considering the tight area and varied elements they had to work with. Meanwhile, the SB I-95 flyover took 3 1/2 years to complete, whereas its NB counterpart was finished in just one. Wonder if these involved any actual structural differences each, or was a certain contractor simply lagging behind?
If I recall correctly, sequencing of the project required that only one flyover be built at a time. I think the contractor was the same (Archer-Western) for both structures.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2021, 02:45:30 PM
If I recall correctly, sequencing of the project required that only one flyover be built at a time. I think the contractor was the same (Archer-Western) for both structures.
Which phases of the project exactly? If it happens to be those of the 644 interchange complex, it does provide an interesting case as to how the project sped along.
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on January 24, 2021, 03:50:17 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2021, 02:45:30 PM
If I recall correctly, sequencing of the project required that only one flyover be built at a time. I think the contractor was the same (Archer-Western) for both structures.
Which phases of the project exactly? If it happens to be those of the 644 interchange complex, it does provide an interesting case as to how the project sped along.
I do not remember exactly the phasing as it related to the VA-644 interchange (some of which remains unchanged to this day), but the construction of the two structures went up separately and not as one large project. Driving I-495 Outer Loop (VA-620 to VA-613) or I-395 northbound (conventional roadway, not the managed lanes) it becomes pretty obvious that the two are not in any way twins of each other.
The entirety of the Springfield Interchange project was completed on time.
Scott Kozel's website has a detailed summary of it that may answer some of the questions - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Springfield_Interchange_Project.html
Any forum discussions would have been on the old MTR
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 25, 2021, 06:37:37 AM
The entirety of the Springfield Interchange project was completed on time.
Scott Kozel's website has a detailed summary of it that may answer some of the questions - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Springfield_Interchange_Project.html
Any forum discussions would have been on the old MTR
Even scheduled on time, I am wondering as to why elements like the 95 SB flyover and the Outer Loop overpass (within Phase 5) took as long as they did versus those in phases 6 and 7. Haven't seen such on said site, though it certainly fills in on a lot.
That being said, what would have been the MTR? Bit out of the loop on this one.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2021, 08:53:23 PM
I do not remember exactly the phasing as it related to the VA-644 interchange (some of which remains unchanged to this day), but the construction of the two structures went up separately and not as one large project. Driving I-495 Outer Loop (VA-620 to VA-613) or I-395 northbound (conventional roadway, not the managed lanes) it becomes pretty obvious that the two are not in any way twins of each other.
I can understand that given the varied circumstances of the project.
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on January 28, 2021, 03:11:06 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 25, 2021, 06:37:37 AM
The entirety of the Springfield Interchange project was completed on time.
Scott Kozel's website has a detailed summary of it that may answer some of the questions - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Springfield_Interchange_Project.html
Any forum discussions would have been on the old MTR
That being said, what would have been the MTR? Bit out of the loop on this one.
misc.transport.road. This community used Usenet before 2009.
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on January 28, 2021, 03:11:06 PM
....
That being said, what would have been the MTR? Bit out of the loop on this one.
He's referring to a USENET group, misc.transport.roads (hence, "MTR"). It would have been in its heyday during the Springfield Interchange construction, especially the early years.
Quote from: MillTheRoadgeek on January 28, 2021, 03:11:06 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 25, 2021, 06:37:37 AM
The entirety of the Springfield Interchange project was completed on time.
Scott Kozel's website has a detailed summary of it that may answer some of the questions - http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Springfield_Interchange_Project.html
Any forum discussions would have been on the old MTR
Even scheduled on time, I am wondering as to why elements like the 95 SB flyover and the Outer Loop overpass (within Phase 5) took as long as they did versus those in phases 6 and 7. Haven't seen such on said site, though it certainly fills in on a lot.
That being said, what would have been the MTR? Bit out of the loop on this one.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2021, 08:53:23 PM
I do not remember exactly the phasing as it related to the VA-644 interchange (some of which remains unchanged to this day), but the construction of the two structures went up separately and not as one large project. Driving I-495 Outer Loop (VA-620 to VA-613) or I-395 northbound (conventional roadway, not the managed lanes) it becomes pretty obvious that the two are not in any way twins of each other.
I can understand that given the varied circumstances of the project.
It could also be a function of defining "when did the phase start". Suppose they had to do some small thing on a later phase early while there was easy access and then left the rest of it until other work was done in the meantime?
This could mean that one phase took 3 years even though they didn't do anything with it for a huge chunk of that time.
Something to keep in mind is that, until the Beltway HO/T lane project came around, the Springfield Interchange represented VDOT's largest dollar project. VDOT couldn't afford it all at once, and so this is in part why the schedule stretched out as long as it did.
Quote from: 1 on January 28, 2021, 03:14:28 PM
misc.transport.road. This community used Usenet before 2009.
Thank you. I simply forgot about that Usenet board for a minute. It's interesting to see how long that was the main hub for road/highway discussion; I would have thought of Usenet as being a 1990s thing just prior to the dot-com boom.
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 28, 2021, 03:27:10 PM
It could also be a function of defining "when did the phase start". Suppose they had to do some small thing on a later phase early while there was easy access and then left the rest of it until other work was done in the meantime?
This could mean that one phase took 3 years even though they didn't do anything with it for a huge chunk of that time.
I believe that may be the case for phases 4-5. Hopefully they figured that out with 6-7, as there were more larger overpasses going up in three years' time there.
For example; the SB 95 flyover already had several pillars in place by Fall 2001, 2 1/2 years before its opening. While finished earlier (June 2003), the Outer Loop viaduct was also beginning to take shape around that same time. The only other challenges they had was to get the westward widening of 495 down and schedule the railroad overpass to the east.
On another note: The PW Parkway/Dumfries/Battlefield interchange complex outside Manassas has been officially approved by PWCDOT and contractors have been selected. No timeline yet as to breaking ground, though it is scheduled to wrap by late 2023.