AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Which Virginia primary routes actually satisfy the new transfer criteria?  (Read 1501 times)


  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13956
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: January 28, 2020, 07:00:37 PM

The Virginiazis waved their magic rod and adopted anal new criteria for transfers from secondary to primary in 2013. As I previously noted, there are no current rural secondary routes that would qualify for a transfer based on traffic volumes alone. But how many current primary routes would be acceptable if they were being added now?
*"Serves as link between activity centers not already linked by primary or Interstate" is rather ambiguous, so I'll assume everything satisfies it. (One obvious exception: surface routes that parallel Interstates.)
*"Meets current standards for lane width and shoulder width": I have no data on this, but it's reasonable to assume that any route would be upgraded if necessary before addition.
*"Designated as part of NHS": the map shows a pretty bare-bones system, even including the principal arterials that were recently added.
*"Functionally classified as arterial": these maps show arterials (red or green), or you can see the proposed 2014 system for the entire state (which is what I'll be using). There are actually a fair number of minor arterials, even in rural areas.
*"Minimum traffic volume of 10,000 vehicles per day (VPD)": this can be calculated from the GIS data by deleting ( "ADT" < 10000) and ( ("ADT" * ( "PERCENT_BU" + "PERCENT__2" + "PERCENT__3" )) < 20000).
*"Minimum tractor-trailer/bus volume of 200 per day": as can this.

Assuming everything in NHS is arterial, those all remain. Non-NHS arterials must meet one of the two traffic criteria. The following rural routes therefore remain (eliminating relatively short gaps):
*US 15, Keysville to MD
*US 17, I-66 to Winchester
*US 33, Ruckersville to Gordonsville
*US 50, Gore to Winchester (and west to WV for continuity) and US 15 to Fairfax
*US 58, Dot to Duffield (and west to Jonesville for continuity)
*US 60, Lexington to Buena Vista
*US 258
*US 301, Dawn to Bowling Green
*US 340, Greenville to Waynesboro and Front Royal to WV
*US 501, NC to Rustburg (and north to Lynchburg for continuity, unless it's rerouted to meet US 29 near Rustburg) and Big Island to SR 130
*US 522, Unionville to Culpeper and Front Royal to WV
*SR 3, Gloucester to SR 14 east and SR 33 west to Fredericksburg
*SR 6/151, US 29 to US 250
*SR 8, SR 103 to Stuart (and south to NC for continuity)
*SR 9
*SR 10, Surry to Suffolk
*SR 14, Little Plymouth to US 17
*SR 20, Orange to Wilderness
*SR 28
*SR 30
*SR 32
*SR 33, I-64 to SR 3 west
*SR 35 north of Courtland
*SR 40, Rocky Mount to Gretna, Brookneal to Keysville, Victoria to Kenbridge (disconnected island), and Stony Creek to Waverly
*SR 42, Bridgewater to near Linville
*SR 46 south of Alberta
*SR 72 north of Coeburn
*SR 83, Pound to Haysi
*SR 87
*SR 99
*SR 100, Newbern to Pearisburg
*SR 105
*SR 106 south of I-64
*SR 114
*SR 122, Bedford to Big Island
*SR 130, east of Elon (and west to US 501 for continuity)
*SR 134
*SR 156, Disputanta to SR 106 and US 60 to I-295
*SR 165
*SR 171 west of SR 172
*SR 172 south of SR 171
*SR 173, US 60 to US 17
*SR 203 west of SR 202
*SR 206 east of SR 218 west
*SR 208, I-64 to Mineral
*SR 256
*SR 257, Bridgewater to I-81
*SR 259, I-81 to near Bergton (would qualify to WV if it were arterial)
*SR 277
*SR 360, Halifax to US 360

Everything else (except NHS), including the extension of US 311, would not have been created under the new criteria.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 05:31:53 PM by NE2 »
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.


  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 34
  • Location: Washington, DC
  • Last Login: October 18, 2014, 08:26:10 AM
Re: Which Virginia primary routes actually satisfy the new transfer criteria?
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2014, 08:20:34 AM »

The revised transer policy sounds like another backdoor way to keep costs down.

For now, Virginia has a decent (albeit oversigned) highway system.  Nevertheless, its road funding policies became obsolete 50 years ago, and any move to direct resources more appropriately to where they are needed most has been fraught with political obstacles.
"I'll just stay on 6 all the way to Ely..." J. Kerouac


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.