AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Virginia  (Read 756230 times)

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2732
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 49
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 09:13:49 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4600 on: October 16, 2019, 09:39:46 PM »

95 NB is much better north of VA 123 than before the widening.
Agreed, but VDOT's RE/T study doesn't want you to know that - they look solely at the major chokepoint they added and say the whole thing doesn't work where in reality it works everywhere else.

Checking the traffic data from 2009 and 2018, the segment between Exit 160 and Exit 163 went from 184k (including HOV) to 230k (including HOT).  The traffic data showed a zero increase in the reversible lanes at this segment, so this ~25% increase in traffic is supposedly only on the mainline.  This means that without the 4th lane the speed value would've been worse.

Their study showing that even doubling the number of lanes makes no difference must be assuming a steady large increase in traffic that outpaces the widening.  Which means that I-95 should be in a state of paralysis in 2040 if no widening occurs at all.  Glad I will be retired NLT 2026.

The study does seem to show that from VA 3 to Garrisonville will be in good shape in 2030 with no widening, which is a recognition that the current projects are expected to be beneficial.

I will be curious to see once the Silver Line is fully opened if that reduces traffic significantly on I-66, VA 7 and/or VA 267.  If so this may suggest that getting Metro extended south from DC might be a viable solution.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5528
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:28:51 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4601 on: October 16, 2019, 10:05:44 PM »

Checking the traffic data from 2009 and 2018, the segment between Exit 160 and Exit 163 went from 184k (including HOV) to 230k (including HOT).  The traffic data showed a zero increase in the reversible lanes at this segment, so this ~25% increase in traffic is supposedly only on the mainline.  This means that without the 4th lane the speed value would've been worse.
These 'studies' that use speed from maximum peak hour in the mainline widening forecast ignore other important factors.

First, even if in 10 years it doesn't change much, the highway has higher overall volumes so it is moving more traffic and people, so it produces more mobility for more people.

Second, even if the speeds of the highest hours are the same, the extra capacity could shorten the timespan of the congested period.

Third, more options for incident management if one or more lanes are blocked.

Fourth, off-peak hours can get congested at times, and the extra lane(s) could reduce or eliminate that.

I will be curious to see once the Silver Line is fully opened if that reduces traffic significantly on I-66, VA 7 and/or VA 267.  If so this may suggest that getting Metro extended south from DC might be a viable solution.
Expansions in VRE service is probably the more impactful option of the rail proposals, given that commuter rail on a mainline railroad can go much further than rapid rail, such as to Fredericksburg, Warrenton, etc.

The bottleneck there is the Long Bridge, only 2 tracks between VA and DC.  The $1.6 billion project to add another 2 track bridge will help to increase both freight and passenger rail service, and I think that will be a valuable project. 
 
The Long Bridge Project funding package has not been finalized, but it is a joint US FRA and DDOT project --

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a Section 4(f) Evaluation in accordance with Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and a Programmatic Agreement in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for the Long Bridge Project jointly with the District Department of Transportation (DDOT).  The purpose of the Long Bridge Project is to provide additional long-term railroad capacity and to improve the reliability of railroad service through the Long Bridge Corridor between the RO Interlocking in Arlington, Virginia, and L’Enfant (LE) Interlocking near 10th Street SW in the District of Columbia (District) (the Long Bridge Corridor).

The existing two-track Long Bridge is owned and operated by CSX Transportation (CSXT), a Class I freight railroad, which also operates the Long Bridge Corridor.  In addition to CSXT freight, the bridge is also currently utilized by Amtrak and VRE [Virginia Railway Express].


https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1042
 
« Last Edit: October 16, 2019, 11:36:08 PM by Beltway »
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12722
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 11:14:32 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4602 on: October 17, 2019, 12:00:44 AM »

Route changes coming:

1.  VA 386 will be downgraded to secondary status during the Oct CTB meeting

2.  A 2019 General Assembly Act (to facilitate pedestrian safety at the seat of government) requires the CTB to add to the primary system:
  • Bank St from 9th to 14th
  • 10th from Main to Bank
  • 12th from Main to Bank
  • Governor St from Main to Bank

It did not indicate in the presentation (pg. 6 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf) what the designation would be.  Good chance it becomes part of existing VA 318 which serves the state capitol already.  These segments will be connected to the rest of the primary system because Main St is part of US 60/VA 147.

If it becomes part of VA 318, then that would end its isolation from the primary system. I'm kind of surprised there was no mention of upgrading 14th St between Main and Broad (both of which are primary already). Then again, considering that all of these streets will likely still be maintained by the City of Richmond (the presentation mentions VDOT can contract maintenance work out to them), it probably doesn't matter.

I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.
If what becomes part of VA 318? Just Bank, or all of the legs, or what? Will there be a bunch of Y routes? Is there a precedent for seven legged primaries?

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5528
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:28:51 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4603 on: October 17, 2019, 12:08:58 AM »

I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.

What was that … extending it down VA-653 Courthouse Road to US-360 Hull Street Road?  To VA-288 at Five Points?
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

WillWeaverRVA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1458
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: October 18, 2019, 03:50:53 PM
    • WillWeaverRVA Photography
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4604 on: October 17, 2019, 08:59:30 AM »

I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.

What was that … extending it down VA-653 Courthouse Road to US-360 Hull Street Road?  To VA-288 at Five Points?

I think the proposal was to extend the designation to US 360 since that segment is in the NHS, among other reasons.

Route changes coming:

1.  VA 386 will be downgraded to secondary status during the Oct CTB meeting

2.  A 2019 General Assembly Act (to facilitate pedestrian safety at the seat of government) requires the CTB to add to the primary system:
  • Bank St from 9th to 14th
  • 10th from Main to Bank
  • 12th from Main to Bank
  • Governor St from Main to Bank

It did not indicate in the presentation (pg. 6 at http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/oct/ctb_workshop_meeting_oct_2019.pdf) what the designation would be.  Good chance it becomes part of existing VA 318 which serves the state capitol already.  These segments will be connected to the rest of the primary system because Main St is part of US 60/VA 147.

If it becomes part of VA 318, then that would end its isolation from the primary system. I'm kind of surprised there was no mention of upgrading 14th St between Main and Broad (both of which are primary already). Then again, considering that all of these streets will likely still be maintained by the City of Richmond (the presentation mentions VDOT can contract maintenance work out to them), it probably doesn't matter.

I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.
If what becomes part of VA 318? Just Bank, or all of the legs, or what? Will there be a bunch of Y routes? Is there a precedent for seven legged primaries?

All the legs. VA 318 is a state facility route, and usually when a primary route is designated to serve some sort of state facility, multple streets on the facility's grounds carry that designation (VA 302 at UVA, VA 314 at Virginia Tech, VA 319 at Central State Hospital, etc).

VA 319 is actually really well posted to intersect itself a bunch of times on the Central State Hospital grounds because pretty much every street on the grounds is considered part of VA 319.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2019, 09:08:01 AM by WillWeaverRVA »
Logged
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5528
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:28:51 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4605 on: October 17, 2019, 09:40:26 AM »

I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.
What was that … extending it down VA-653 Courthouse Road to US-360 Hull Street Road?  To VA-288 at Five Points?
I think the proposal was to extend the designation to US 360 since that segment is in the NHS, among other reasons.
A modern 4-lane arterial highway, connects two U.S. highways, and VA-76 Powhite Parkway.

Seems like logical state traffic route candidate.
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2732
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 49
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 09:13:49 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4606 on: October 17, 2019, 10:02:11 AM »

I wish they'd act on extending VA 147 and VA 401 already like they proposed like six years ago.
What was that … extending it down VA-653 Courthouse Road to US-360 Hull Street Road?  To VA-288 at Five Points?
I think the proposal was to extend the designation to US 360 since that segment is in the NHS, among other reasons.
A modern 4-lane arterial highway, connects two U.S. highways, and VA-76 Powhite Parkway.

Seems like logical state traffic route candidate.

In case anyone wants a reminder of the current criteria to upgrade to primary status in Virginia or wants to see the other 28 segments identified for study.  They eliminated any route without 10k traffic including >200 trucks/busses, which left just 6 routes to consider...

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2013/apr/pres/Presentation_Agenda_Item_6_Sec_Primary.pdf

Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10370
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 10:14:18 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4607 on: October 17, 2019, 10:24:32 AM »

Regarding VA-401, Lee District Supervisor Jeff McKay told me at the time that Fairfax County had opposed the extension and the proposal was therefore dropped. He’s almost certain to be elected Chairman of the Board of Supervisors next month, so I doubt the county’s position will change.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2465
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 11:12:16 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4608 on: October 17, 2019, 05:55:48 PM »

The HRTPO Express Lanes Working Committee released recommendations for the proposed network in Hampton Roads -

Quote
1. The Committee recommends that the region endorse a consistent Express Lanes Network that begins on I-64 at Jefferson Avenue in Newport News, proceeds along I-64 through Bowers Hill in Chesapeake, and continues along I-664 to I-64 in the vicinity of the Hampton Coliseum. The Committee believes it is important to pursue the concept of a fully connected and consistent network to ensure the future needs of the region will be addressed.

2. The Committee recommends that the Express Lanes Network be a consistent HOT-2 network, with one HOT lane and one part-time HOT shoulder lane where practical and necessary.

3. To minimize impacts to the Region’s motorists, the Committee recommends that, wherever practicable, the roadways that make up the Express Lanes Network be restricted to HOT operation during peak traffic times and be open to all traffic outside of the restricted periods.

4. The Committee recommends that funding and operation of the Express Lanes Network be managed by HRTAC.

5. In consideration of policy recommendations to HRTPO, the Committee recommends that HRTAC consider the following items when developing the master tolling agreement with VDOT:
• Prioritize traffic throughput over revenue generation.
• Develop tolling approaches that mitigate impacts on Hampton Roads residents, including options that maximize revenue collection on weekends.
• Funding and operation of the Express Lanes Network be managed by HRTAC.
A few interesting things regarding these recommendations.

First, there is now consideration for implementation of HO/T lanes along I-664, presumably in a future expansion project like the HRBT or High Rise projects.

Secondly, they are recommending that only one HO/T lane in each direction be striped, along with a HO/T shoulder "where necessary". This goes against the ultimate High Rise Bridge build which features 2 GP lanes and 2 HO/T lanes each way. With the committee's recommendations, this would mean the ultimate build would be 3 + 1 each way, consistent with the current setup with the HOV lane east of I-464, the same way I think the HRBT should be done honestly, 3 + 1 with minimal left shoulder (this has been done in other metros with 1 left HO/T lane having minimal shoulder for sake of space). There is also other discussion (not in these recommendations) about immediately implementing a HO/T shoulder on the High Rise Bridge during peak hours, so immediately upon the Phase #1 completion, there would be 8-lanes (2 + 2 each way) during peak hours. The only issue I see with this is the existing High Rise Bridge can only handle 4-lanes, and they are already planning on making the right lane a -general purpose- shoulder lane during peak hours between I-464 and US-17 / US-17 Business, meaning 1 HO/T + 2 GP + 1 Shoulder during peak hours. The only thing they could realistically do is eliminate that GP shoulder lane and make it HO/T to the left side, but I'm sure that would only get more opposition to the project.

Third, unlike previous proposals, they are recommending that the HO/T lanes only be tolled during peak hours, and free to all traffic outside of peak hours, very similar to the existing HOV setup. I think it's reasonable, seeing as the HOV lanes are free off-peak, and putting some barriers up and some toll gantries should not make that 24/7 (as being done in Northern Virginia).



There was also another presentation given to the HRTPO which evaluates each proposed scenario and cost estimates for implementation.

Currently, the proposed scenario includes the following -

Jefferson Ave to Mercury Blvd -
- Existing: 3 GP + 1 HOV each way
- Proposed: 3 GP + 1 HO/T each way

Mercury Blvd to LaSalle Ave -
- Existing: 3 GP each way
- Proposed: 2 GP + 1 HO/T each way (this proposal would eliminate an existing free lane in favor of the HO/T network)

LaSalle Ave to HRBT -
- Existing: 3 GP each way
- Proposed: 2 GP + 1 HO/T + 1 HO/T shoulder each way (this proposal would eliminate an existing free lane in favor of the HO/T network)

I-564 to I-264 -
- Existing: 3 GP each way + 2 HO/T reversible lanes
- Proposed: 3 GP + 1 HO/T shoulder each way + 2 HO/T reversible lanes

The stretch between Jefferson Ave and HRBT is projected to cost between $600,000,000 - $650,000,000. Involved with the proposed project would be realigning on the LaSalle Ave south to I-64 East loop ramp & replacing the wetlands bridge, realigning the ramps at Settlers Landing Rd & Rip Rap Rd, replacing the I-64 mainline bridges over King St and the eastbound mainline bridge over the Hampton River, rehabilitating & widening the bridges over Settlers Landing Rd, New Market Creek and westbound mainline bridge over the Hampton River, right of way acquisition, and noise walls.

The stretch between I-564 and I-264 is projected to cost between $170,000,000 - $185,000,000. Involved with the proposed project would be replacing the mainline bridges over Tidewater Dr and Chesapeake Blvd, reconstructing the shoulders, and noise walls. One thing they're missing from this preliminary list is the ramp from Tidewater Dr north to I-64 West which is currently a left entrance. If they are making the left shoulder HO/T, this would necessitate relocating that flyover ramp to the right, which could be quite costly.

Thoughts?
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13558
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 03:47:56 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4609 on: October 17, 2019, 06:52:08 PM »


All the legs. VA 318 is a state facility route, and usually when a primary route is designated to serve some sort of state facility, multple streets on the facility's grounds carry that designation (VA 302 at UVA, VA 314 at Virginia Tech, VA 319 at Central State Hospital, etc).

A couple of years ago, I drove onto the grounds of Natural Tunnel State Park for the first time after years of driving by it on US 23. It's accessed by a secondary route, but once you get there, various places are posted with primary markers. Seems a bit odd to me to have a primary route accessed by a secondary route, not to mention multiple segments with the same number.

Of course, Kentucky has a state marked route that intersects no other state marked route. It's in Madison County. You have to drive on a county route to get to it. I have never been able to figure out why that independent segment of road is a state route. It's dead end and appears to serve only residents and farmland.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5528
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:28:51 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4610 on: October 17, 2019, 07:30:09 PM »

There was also another presentation given to the HRTPO which evaluates each proposed scenario and cost estimates for implementation.
Looks like the same presentation as at the CTB meeting yesterday, both given by the Commissioner of VDOT.

Between what he said in the presentation and comments by the board members, it was apparent that there is still considerable flux in exactly how certain major features will be worked out, such as how to seamlessly connect the current HOV terminal in Hampton to the new HRBT managed lanes, and how to connect the new managed lanes to the reversible roadway terminals at Wards Corner, and how to seamlessly connect the current HOV terminal in Chesapeake to the new High Rise Bridge managed lanes.  There are various schemes that are being evaluated for all three of these connections.

They didn't mention anything about I-564 … does that still have HOV lanes?
Logged
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com
On the Plains of Hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to rest, and resting died.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2465
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 11:12:16 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4611 on: October 17, 2019, 08:53:13 PM »

Between what he said in the presentation and comments by the board members, it was apparent that there is still considerable flux in exactly how certain major features will be worked out, such as how to seamlessly connect the current HOV terminal in Hampton to the new HRBT managed lanes, and how to connect the new managed lanes to the reversible roadway terminals at Wards Corner, and how to seamlessly connect the current HOV terminal in Chesapeake to the new High Rise Bridge managed lanes.  There are various schemes that are being evaluated for all three of these connections.
One thing I wish they would evaluate is the feasibility of providing direct connectors between the HO/T lanes and intersecting freeways, most notably I-464 / VA-168 / US-17. A significant amount of traffic exits from I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) to VA-168 / US-17 South, along with VA-168 North to I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) and the substandard and inadequate cloverleaf at that junction backs up 1-2 miles daily because of weaving at the largest part of the cloverleaf as the traffic streams converge. Traffic using the HO/T lane wishing to make this movement will have to be dumped out ~1 mile prior into stopped traffic in the left lane, be forced to make their way over 2-3 lanes in stopped / slow moving traffic, just to make the movement. An incentive to draw more people to the lane would be to provide a direct connector at minimum from I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill) to VA-168 / US-17 South, and maybe even between VA-168 North and I-64 East (towards Bowers Hill).

The reversible system built in the 90s indeed provides direct connectors between the lanes and I-264 on the east side, and the lanes and I-564 and they are well used. I couldn't imagine all that traffic being dumped into the mainlines of I-64 to then have to exit right. It'd be a nightmare. I feel it will only get worse at the Oak Grove Interchange if they don't also provide direct connectors.

They didn't mention anything about I-564 … does that still have HOV lanes?
Yes, I-564 is set up with 2 GP lanes and 1 HOV in each direction. The HRBT project I believe was going to evaluate constructing a direct connector between I-564 and the proposed HO/T lanes to/from the HRBT, similar to the counterpart connectors that take traffic from I-564 to/from the reversible lanes to I-264.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2019, 08:55:39 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12722
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 11:14:32 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4612 on: October 18, 2019, 12:40:21 AM »

Of course, Kentucky has a state marked route that intersects no other state marked route. It's in Madison County. You have to drive on a county route to get to it. I have never been able to figure out why that independent segment of road is a state route. It's dead end and appears to serve only residents and farmland.
And this is which route?

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13558
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 03:47:56 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4613 on: October 18, 2019, 11:26:48 AM »

Of course, Kentucky has a state marked route that intersects no other state marked route. It's in Madison County. You have to drive on a county route to get to it. I have never been able to figure out why that independent segment of road is a state route. It's dead end and appears to serve only residents and farmland.
And this is which route?

KY 938.

https://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/SPRS%20Maps/Madison.pdf
(look at the right side of the map, just to the "southwest" of where it denotes Estill as an adjoining county)

I drove by there earlier in the year, and there is indeed an "East KY 938" sign at the start of the route. It's also cataloged on the KYTC Roadway Photo Viewer available at http://maps.kytc.ky.gov/photolog/?config=Photolog&x1=5114935.959483551&y1=3868453.589951066&x2=5427435.959483551&y2=3971969.214951066&MODE=PL

https://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/State%20Primary%20Road%20System%20Lists/Madison.pdf
(Route description on page 3)
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2732
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 49
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 09:13:49 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4614 on: October 18, 2019, 01:20:31 PM »


All the legs. VA 318 is a state facility route, and usually when a primary route is designated to serve some sort of state facility, multple streets on the facility's grounds carry that designation (VA 302 at UVA, VA 314 at Virginia Tech, VA 319 at Central State Hospital, etc).

A couple of years ago, I drove onto the grounds of Natural Tunnel State Park for the first time after years of driving by it on US 23. It's accessed by a secondary route, but once you get there, various places are posted with primary markers. Seems a bit odd to me to have a primary route accessed by a secondary route, not to mention multiple segments with the same number.

Of course, Kentucky has a state marked route that intersects no other state marked route. It's in Madison County. You have to drive on a county route to get to it. I have never been able to figure out why that independent segment of road is a state route. It's dead end and appears to serve only residents and farmland.

These Virginia routes do not currently touch another primary route (although a handful of these once did):

318, 324, 325, 326, 330, 335, 336, 341, 342, 345, 353, 355, 370, 371, 379, 382, 392, 394, 398
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10314
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 11:11:50 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4615 on: October 18, 2019, 03:43:53 PM »

Regarding VA-401, Lee District Supervisor Jeff McKay told me at the time that Fairfax County had opposed the extension and the proposal was therefore dropped. He’s almost certain to be elected Chairman of the Board of Supervisors next month, so I doubt the county’s position will change.

This is unfortunate, for one simple reason.  Having VA-401 follow Van Dorn Street and run all the way from VA-611 (Telegraph Road) in the south to VA-7 (King Street) [using a short section of Menokin Drive to reach King Street] would seem to create a clear route for all to use - including signing the interchange at I-95/I-495 Exit 173 as VA-401 instead of 613.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10370
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 10:14:18 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4616 on: October 18, 2019, 06:59:01 PM »

Regarding VA-401, Lee District Supervisor Jeff McKay told me at the time that Fairfax County had opposed the extension and the proposal was therefore dropped. He’s almost certain to be elected Chairman of the Board of Supervisors next month, so I doubt the county’s position will change.

This is unfortunate, for one simple reason.  Having VA-401 follow Van Dorn Street and run all the way from VA-611 (Telegraph Road) in the south to VA-7 (King Street) [using a short section of Menokin Drive to reach King Street] would seem to create a clear route for all to use - including signing the interchange at I-95/I-495 Exit 173 as VA-401 instead of 613.

I don’t understand all the details, nor do I remember everything he said, but he said something about how the county’s ability to construct, or allow construction of, access to the road would be constrained if it were a primary route. I don’t recall the full details and I’m not sure what new access they really have in mind anyway, other than that the Top Golf is supposed to be replaced with residential development in the next few years—but I believe the plan is to use only the existing access point for that.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10314
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 11:11:50 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4617 on: October 19, 2019, 07:59:02 PM »

I don’t understand all the details, nor do I remember everything he said, but he said something about how the county’s ability to construct, or allow construction of, access to the road would be constrained if it were a primary route. I don’t recall the full details and I’m not sure what new access they really have in mind anyway, other than that the Top Golf is supposed to be replaced with residential development in the next few years—but I believe the plan is to use only the existing access point for that.

I took a quick look at VDOT's access management regulations  here (note that some of the links on this page seem to be broken) and as best as I can tell there is little difference between primary system and secondary system, but there is discussion of the differences in functional classification (which IMO makes sense).

Now there could be other matters that change if a public road in Fairfax County is moved from the secondary system to the primary system, but aside from increased maintenance (which was very obvious when the Commonwealth Transportation Board decided that VDOT should remove the secondary VA-7100 designation for the Fairfax County Parkway in favor of primary VA-286), I do not claim to know what those might be. 

I do know that county governments have more input on what improvements are made to secondary system roads than they do for the primary system.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2019, 08:07:37 PM by cpzilliacus »
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10370
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: October 20, 2019, 10:14:18 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4618 on: October 19, 2019, 10:28:50 PM »

I will see Jeff McKay on Thursday night, but I don't think I'll ask him about it. He has more important things on his mind in the final two weeks before Election Day.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

 


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.