From the 1980s through 2001, there were several 400-series Virginia state routes in Virginia Beach. Much of the time I lived there (1994 through 2001), I don't recall there being much signage for these routes.
- I don't recall ever seeing any signage for SR 410 (Holland Road) nor SR 411 (Rosemont Road) at all.
- The only signage I have seen for SR 414 (Lynnhaven Parkway) was an erroneous installation at the Salem Road intersection, which was installed in 2000. SR 414 did not actually ever include this part of Lynnhaven Parkway.
- SR 407 (Indian River Road) and 409 (Providence Road) I have only seen at their intersections with US 13 (Military Highway).
- SR 408 (First Colonial Road) I have only seen circular signs at its intersection with SR 279 (Great Neck Road), and one of them (heading northbound on SR 279) was pointing the wrong way into a neighborhood.
I was wondering, were these routes ever fully signed?
http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va401-420.htm
Quote from: NE2 on March 20, 2015, 02:05:29 AM
http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va401-420.htm
Looks like 410 and 411 were never signed at all. 414 was also never signed except for the erroneous installation that I mentioned in my OP. 407 and 409 were only signed at their intersections with US 13, with 409 also being signed on the I-64 overpass.
However, the page does state that 408 was at one point fairly well signed, although using circular shields instead of the correct primary state route shield. The last shields were removed by 2013 according to the page.
The VA 414 shields are still up as of 2013 GMSV. Their existence is news to me.
https://goo.gl/maps/xk9mQ
Within Virginia Beach the only 4xx route posted "well" was 408 (2007 GMSV shows the last ones at VA 279 gone). VA 409 was also identified from the I-64 overpass.
https://goo.gl/maps/uxDfG
VA 407 is still signed in places west of US 13 including parts that have never been 407 and some US 407 shields...
Mapmikey
Quote407 and 409 were only signed at their intersections with US 13
As Mike noted, 407 was and still is well signed in Chesapeake and Norfolk, including erroneous shields (one of the US 407 shields still exists) west of VA 168.
Quote from: froggie on March 20, 2015, 11:01:17 AM
Quote407 and 409 were only signed at their intersections with US 13
As Mike noted, 407 was and still is well signed in Chesapeake and Norfolk, including erroneous shields (one of the US 407 shields still exists) west of VA 168.
407 still officially exists in Norfolk and Chesapeake; only the Virginia Beach portion was decommissioned.
Well aware of that. You were implying earlier about the entire route posting...I'm presuming you meant just within Virginia Beach instead.
Quote from: froggie on March 20, 2015, 01:21:04 PM
Well aware of that. You were implying earlier about the entire route posting...I'm presuming you meant just within Virginia Beach instead.
Yep, I just meant only in Virginia Beach.
It gets weirder...
Here is VA 225 posted both directions at Salem and S. Independence which has never been primary.
https://goo.gl/maps/qZMNF
https://goo.gl/maps/qTTFD
Here is VA 225 posted on S. Independence at Holland
https://goo.gl/maps/rcQYJ
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 20, 2015, 01:50:40 PM
It gets weirder...
Here is VA 225 posted both directions at Salem and S. Independence which has never been primary.
https://goo.gl/maps/qZMNF
https://goo.gl/maps/qTTFD
Here is VA 225 posted on S. Independence at Holland
https://goo.gl/maps/rcQYJ
Those are some
hideous Virginia shields.
Quote from: froggie on March 20, 2015, 01:21:04 PM
Well aware of that. You were implying earlier about the entire route posting...I'm presuming you meant just within Virginia Beach instead.
Why in the world would a primary highway in a Virginia city
ever get decommissioned?
Because soon after the 4xx routes were created, the funding formula was changed to use functional classification rather than primary extension mileage. So there was no benefit to the city in having these poorly-signed routes.
As a side topic, here are two other erroneous sign installations I remember:
- SR 149 was signed at the intersection of Dam Neck Road and General Booth Boulevard. While General Booth Boulevard is a continuation of SR 149, SR 149 only actually included the Princess Anne segment of the road between General Booth and North Landing (SR 165).
- There was once SR 190 signage pointing both ways at Independence Boulevard and Witchduck Road. SR 190 is actually one light south at Pembroke Boulevard, and only in the southbound/westbound direction.
Also, of interesting note, while most of the Princess Anne segment of SR 165 is signed east-west, it was signed north-south at the Kempsville/Witchduck Road intersection.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on March 20, 2015, 09:10:54 PM
As a side topic, here are two other erroneous sign installations I remember:
- SR 149 was signed at the intersection of Dam Neck Road and General Booth Boulevard. While General Booth Boulevard is a continuation of SR 149, SR 149 only actually included the Princess Anne segment of the road between General Booth and North Landing (SR 165).
- There was once SR 190 signage pointing both ways at Independence Boulevard and Witchduck Road. SR 190 is actually one light south at Pembroke Boulevard, and only in the southbound/westbound direction.
Also, of interesting note, while most of the Princess Anne segment of SR 165 is signed east-west, it was signed north-south at the Kempsville/Witchduck Road intersection.
The VA 149 signs on WB Dam Neck Rd are also news to me. There have been two different ways this has been signed:
2007 - https://goo.gl/maps/RmdHB
2011 - https://goo.gl/maps/lbP4X
As for VA 190, Witchduck appears to have been the through street to Independence up through at least 1986 so VA 190 ran on Witchduck all the way at first. There is also another VA 190 jct shield on SB Independence about 1/4 mile north of Witchduck that replaced this shield in 2006 or 2007:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fva-ends%2Fva100%2Fva190_et_03.jpg&hash=a343b105f9fee1ffcf40b6b720b36686eb76ae06)
Virginia Beach also has trouble when routes move. VA 279 was posted at W. Great Neck Rd from US 60 well after it moved. And don't even start about VA 305.
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 20, 2015, 09:53:27 PM
The VA 149 signs on WB Dam Neck Rd are also news to me. There have been two different ways this has been signed:
2007 - https://goo.gl/maps/RmdHB
2011 - https://goo.gl/maps/lbP4X
As for VA 190, Witchduck appears to have been the through street to Independence up through at least 1986 so VA 190 ran on Witchduck all the way at first. There is also another VA 190 jct shield on SB Independence about 1/4 mile north of Witchduck that replaced this shield in 2006 or 2007:
Virginia Beach also has trouble when routes move. VA 279 was posted at W. Great Neck Rd from US 60 well after it moved. And don't even start about VA 305.
Mapmikey
The white background unisigns seem to be the city's current standard installation practice. It seems that the city has poor knowledge of state routes.
Quote from: NE2 on March 20, 2015, 09:02:52 PM
Because soon after the 4xx routes were created, the funding formula was changed to use functional classification rather than primary extension mileage. So there was no benefit to the city in having these poorly-signed routes.
I disagree - not signing them (but having them appear on maps provided to in-vehicle navigation systems) does many highway network users a major disservice.
I think a lot of the 4xx routes were requested specifically to get more money and once the formula changed that no longer became necessary. So I also assume the cities who have decommissioned primary routes (Richmond, Williamsburg, Va. Beach) or fail to post some (Alexandria, Norfolk) do so because they do not want these routes to be viewed as traveling thoroughfares that putting a primary shield on them would suggest.
Mapmikey
God help you if you use Google Maps to navigate by route number. They show quite a few 6XX routes as primary highways in VA Beach.... that is if they even exist!
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 22, 2015, 12:19:00 PM
God help you if you use Google Maps to navigate by route number. They show quite a few 6XX routes as primary highways in VA Beach.... that is if they even exist!
Not since 1963...
Quote from: froggie on March 22, 2015, 03:55:45 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 22, 2015, 12:19:00 PM
God help you if you use Google Maps to navigate by route number. They show quite a few 6XX routes as primary highways in VA Beach.... that is if they even exist!
Not since 1963...
Though as you almost certainly know, (former) Va. 615 is posted with very VDOT-standard-looking Virginia Scenic Byway (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Princess+Anne,+VA&ll=36.552439,-76.004351&spn=0.006981,0.01163&cid=8975571545258799964&hnear=Princess+Anne,+Virginia&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=36.552647,-76.004384&panoid=8Vn35UryeaosOb-H3CYrNA&cbp=12,36.9,,0,7.39) signs.
I don't think I have ever seen such a sign within a municipality in Northern Virginia (and I know that huge swaths of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Suffolk don't look much like municipalities).
The only secondary road that is pretty consistently posted within a municipality (that I am aware of) is Va. 606 in the Town of Herndon.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 22, 2015, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: NE2 on March 20, 2015, 09:02:52 PM
Because soon after the 4xx routes were created, the funding formula was changed to use functional classification rather than primary extension mileage. So there was no benefit to the city in having these poorly-signed routes.
I disagree - not signing them (but having them appear on maps provided to in-vehicle navigation systems) does many highway network users a major disservice.
But they probably never were signed well. So getting rid of them made sense.
Quote from: NE2 on March 22, 2015, 06:02:56 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 22, 2015, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: NE2 on March 20, 2015, 09:02:52 PM
Because soon after the 4xx routes were created, the funding formula was changed to use functional classification rather than primary extension mileage. So there was no benefit to the city in having these poorly-signed routes.
I disagree - not signing them (but having them appear on maps provided to in-vehicle navigation systems) does many highway network users a major disservice.
But they probably never were signed well. So getting rid of them made sense.
As best as Mike and I could tell, several of the 400-series routes (404, 405, former 410, former 414, former 416-418, 420) were never signposted to begin with. They were effectively paper routes for the funding purposes described up-thread.