AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Virginia  (Read 666631 times)

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9347
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 10:53:15 AM
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: 10178
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: December 09, 2018, 10:08:13 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3251 on: September 04, 2018, 11:58:19 AM »

Then there are these green signs on the outbound GW Parkway approaching the Beltway. They're ugly, but I guess at least they were consistent.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9642265,-77.1650245,3a,75y,267.95h,93.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqLKNh_UqYhwlESPM2j7EQQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9637602,-77.1681394,3a,75y,328.19h,88.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sswNaNbmLS3EJ0mRrlfzfYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9639582,-77.1709724,3a,75y,328.19h,88.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZwdu2n8pj-Wry2Wx7vW8rA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

NPS trying to comply with the requirement to do BGS while still keeping the signs small and modest. 

The BGS panels on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway approaching the Beltway in Prince George's County are much larger, at least in part because they were designed by consultants and contractor-installed when that parkway got  a major facelift in the 1990's.
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.

D-Dey65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1912
  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: December 07, 2018, 10:58:57 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3252 on: September 05, 2018, 09:57:13 AM »

The one next to the southbound lanes (the old Knights Inn) was demolished. The one next to the northbound lanes is still there.
Well, that makes sense, since there's a huge clearing next to the Gateway Inn.

In the meantime when I go up (which is now starting to look like it might be closer to October), maybe I'll check out the traffic circle at Exit 45.

Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:13:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3253 on: September 12, 2018, 10:13:16 PM »

I had wondered in the past what was the reason for this highway.
Per this article "to create a 30-mile corridor for new commercial development."
Given the rural character of much of southern Chesterfield County I can imagine that a lot of people would be opposed.
….

https://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/articles/county-reassessing-freeway-project/
County reassessing East-West Freeway project
September 12, 2018
BY JIM McCONNELL SENIOR WRITER

Excerpts:

After more than a year of occasionally contentious discussions about a proposed road project some citizens say will destroy the rural character of southern Chesterfield, the county government is headed back to the drawing board.

Jesse Smith, director of the county’s Transportation Department, confirmed last week that his staff is in the early stages of a new federal environmental assessment for the initial 2 ½-mile segment of the East-West Freeway that would link Interstate 95 with a 1,675-acre south Chester property the county may acquire for future use.

County Transportation staff began working early last year on an environmental assessment for the new road in conjunction with the Chesterfield Economic Development Authority’s plan to acquire the sprawling residential parcel south of State Route 10, rezone it and develop it as an industrial megasite.

County leaders said they needed the first two-lane stretch of the East-West Freeway to market the megasite and meet industrial manufacturers’ demands for easy access to the regional transportation network.

The Transportation Department was waiting for the federal government to issue a “finding of no significant impact” on its initial environmental assessment when community opposition prompted the EDA to withdraw its zoning application in May. Because the traffic assumptions included in that environmental assessment were tied to the development of the property for a single, large industrial end-user, Transportation staff now have to return to square one and demonstrate to the Federal Highway Administration that the county still needs the road to manage future traffic in that area.

The East-West Freeway has been included in the county’s Thoroughfare Plan, which guides future roadway construction, since the late 1980s. The plan envisions the freeway ultimately extending from Interstate 95 in Walthall to U.S. Route 360 west of Grange Hall Elementary, where it would connect with the proposed Powhite Parkway extension to create a 30-mile corridor for new commercial development.

Chesterfield leaders see that corridor as a way to bring balance to the county’s tax base, which historically has been too reliant on residential property taxes to fund local government services.

Critics of the project say it will cut a swath through southern Chesterfield and eventually lead to destruction of thousands of pristine, forested acres.

According to Smith, the preferred alignment for the road isn’t likely to change as a result of the new environmental assessment, which is expected to take about a year.

If the county gets approval from the federal government, Smith expects to hold a public hearing, then ask the Board of Supervisors for permission to begin negotiating right-of-way acquisitions with property owners who live in the path of the new road and are willing to sell.

« Last Edit: September 12, 2018, 10:16:48 PM by Beltway »
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

WillWeaverRVA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1428
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:00:57 AM
    • WillWeaverRVA Photography
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3254 on: September 13, 2018, 12:48:50 PM »

I had wondered in the past what was the reason for this highway.
Per this article "to create a 30-mile corridor for new commercial development."
Given the rural character of much of southern Chesterfield County I can imagine that a lot of people would be opposed.
….

https://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/articles/county-reassessing-freeway-project/
County reassessing East-West Freeway project
September 12, 2018
BY JIM McCONNELL SENIOR WRITER

Excerpts:

After more than a year of occasionally contentious discussions about a proposed road project some citizens say will destroy the rural character of southern Chesterfield, the county government is headed back to the drawing board.

Jesse Smith, director of the county’s Transportation Department, confirmed last week that his staff is in the early stages of a new federal environmental assessment for the initial 2 ½-mile segment of the East-West Freeway that would link Interstate 95 with a 1,675-acre south Chester property the county may acquire for future use.

County Transportation staff began working early last year on an environmental assessment for the new road in conjunction with the Chesterfield Economic Development Authority’s plan to acquire the sprawling residential parcel south of State Route 10, rezone it and develop it as an industrial megasite.

County leaders said they needed the first two-lane stretch of the East-West Freeway to market the megasite and meet industrial manufacturers’ demands for easy access to the regional transportation network.

The Transportation Department was waiting for the federal government to issue a “finding of no significant impact” on its initial environmental assessment when community opposition prompted the EDA to withdraw its zoning application in May. Because the traffic assumptions included in that environmental assessment were tied to the development of the property for a single, large industrial end-user, Transportation staff now have to return to square one and demonstrate to the Federal Highway Administration that the county still needs the road to manage future traffic in that area.

The East-West Freeway has been included in the county’s Thoroughfare Plan, which guides future roadway construction, since the late 1980s. The plan envisions the freeway ultimately extending from Interstate 95 in Walthall to U.S. Route 360 west of Grange Hall Elementary, where it would connect with the proposed Powhite Parkway extension to create a 30-mile corridor for new commercial development.

Chesterfield leaders see that corridor as a way to bring balance to the county’s tax base, which historically has been too reliant on residential property taxes to fund local government services.

Critics of the project say it will cut a swath through southern Chesterfield and eventually lead to destruction of thousands of pristine, forested acres.

According to Smith, the preferred alignment for the road isn’t likely to change as a result of the new environmental assessment, which is expected to take about a year.

If the county gets approval from the federal government, Smith expects to hold a public hearing, then ask the Board of Supervisors for permission to begin negotiating right-of-way acquisitions with property owners who live in the path of the new road and are willing to sell.



I mean, hey, I like transportation and transit development as much as anybody, but they really ought to take the hint that this really isn't needed.
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: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:13:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3255 on: September 13, 2018, 01:29:14 PM »

https://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/articles/county-reassessing-freeway-project/
I mean, hey, I like transportation and transit development as much as anybody, but they really ought to take the hint that this really isn't needed.

I can see building the 2 1/2 mile segment in the Walthall area, as a lot of that area has been zoned and developed with industrial development.  But the rest goes thru residential and semi-rural areas, and I don't see the need, especially if the only real "need" is economic development.

Planned with 6 lanes!

See pages 139 and 142 --
https://www.chesterfield.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2092/Chapter-13-Transportation-PDF
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

plain

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 625
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Richmond Virginia
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 02:42:50 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3256 on: September 14, 2018, 01:21:03 AM »

As I've said before an E-W freeway in that area is completely unnecessary (and SIX lanes???) given the fact that VA 288 is already near the proposed routing and already has plenty of ROW for widening. The most I could see for southern Chesterfield, as far as an E-W corridor goes, is maybe a standard 4-lane boulevard.
Logged
Newark born, Richmond bred

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:13:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3257 on: September 14, 2018, 03:35:22 AM »

As I've said before an E-W freeway in that area is completely unnecessary (and SIX lanes???) given the fact that VA 288 is already near the proposed routing and already has plenty of ROW for widening. The most I could see for southern Chesterfield, as far as an E-W corridor goes, is maybe a standard 4-lane boulevard.

VA-288 ranges 8 to 10 miles north of the East-West Freeway alignment, so wouldn't call that close.   But I am getting from the article that this is not for a transportation or traffic need, but to stimulate economic development.  I have already described why I don't think that is appropriate or needed.  I don't see the need or justification for it as a 4-lane arterial either.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:13:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3258 on: September 16, 2018, 11:52:43 PM »

There is a project that was just advertised on Jahnke Road in south Richmond.  I live only a few miles from here and I for some reason didn't know about this project, until I noticed last week that there is utility pole relocations underway parallel to the road, which is a good sign that a widening project will start soon.  It is a VDOT Six-Year Program project and has a federal project number, although the contract is city administered.

Jahnke Road is mostly 4 lanes between Powhite Parkway and Forest Hill Avenue, except for this segment which has 2 lanes.  I don't know if I like the widening scheme which is still 2 lanes but with a 16-foot median, and streetscape improvements including curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm sewer drainage, and landscaping.  It carries about 12,000 AADT now and projected about 17,000 AADT in 2030, so I would think that 4 lanes would be better.

http://www.richmondgov.com/PublicWorks/JahnkeRoadImprovementProject.aspx

The Jahnke Road Improvement Project is designed to improve traffic safety, improve traffic flow and enhance overall livability for the residents and users of the Jahnke Road Corridor. Jahnke Road not only carries automobile traffic, but also pedestrians, cyclists, GRTC bus riders and children who attend the three public schools located along the project corridor.

Important project elements within the design will include a shared use path, sidewalks, and landscaping. The existing roadway drainage will be upgraded from an open system with roadside ditches to a closed system with storm sewer pipe and curb and gutter which will eliminate areas slow to drain during prolonged periods of heavy rainfall.

Construction plans are complete and the project was advertised for construction on June 29, 2018. The acquisition of right-of-way and easements for roadway construction, drainage improvements and utility relocations has concluded by the City Consultant, Stantec, for a total of 84 parcels.

Jahnke Road Design Elements
o Raised 16-ft landscaped median separating two travel lanes (one lane in each direction)
o New curb and gutter
o New storm sewer system
o Left turn lanes are provided at Newell Road, Spruance Road, Forestview School Drive (entrance to Elizabeth Redd Elementary School), Irby Drive and Leicester Road
o 5-ft sidewalk with a 6-ft green space for landscaping on the south side of Jahnke Road
o 8-ft shared use path with a 8-ft green space for landscaping on the north side of Jahnke Road
o ADA (American with Disabilities Act) compliant for pedestrian traffic and bus commuters
o New Signal at Forestview School Drive (entrance to Elizabeth Redd Elementary School)
o Safety improvements at CSX rail crossing

Estimated Costs
o Preliminary Engineering Costs: $2,000,000
o Utility and Right of Way Costs: $1,500,000
o Roadway Construction Costs: $10,500,000
o Total Estimated Costs: $14,000,000
o The project is funded with Federal, State, and City funds.

[hyperlinks to these on the project webpage]
Jahnke Road Plans - April 2016
Improvement Plan Exhibit 1 - June 2012
Improvement Plan Exhibit 2 - June 2012
Landscape - Divided Raised Median Typical Section
« Last Edit: September 16, 2018, 11:55:03 PM by Beltway »
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

WillWeaverRVA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1428
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:00:57 AM
    • WillWeaverRVA Photography
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3259 on: September 17, 2018, 12:23:54 PM »

There is a project that was just advertised on Jahnke Road in south Richmond.  I live only a few miles from here and I for some reason didn't know about this project, until I noticed last week that there is utility pole relocations underway parallel to the road, which is a good sign that a widening project will start soon.  It is a VDOT Six-Year Program project and has a federal project number, although the contract is city administered.

Jahnke Road is mostly 4 lanes between Powhite Parkway and Forest Hill Avenue, except for this segment which has 2 lanes.  I don't know if I like the widening scheme which is still 2 lanes but with a 16-foot median, and streetscape improvements including curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm sewer drainage, and landscaping.  It carries about 12,000 AADT now and projected about 17,000 AADT in 2030, so I would think that 4 lanes would be better.

http://www.richmondgov.com/PublicWorks/JahnkeRoadImprovementProject.aspx

The Jahnke Road Improvement Project is designed to improve traffic safety, improve traffic flow and enhance overall livability for the residents and users of the Jahnke Road Corridor. Jahnke Road not only carries automobile traffic, but also pedestrians, cyclists, GRTC bus riders and children who attend the three public schools located along the project corridor.

Important project elements within the design will include a shared use path, sidewalks, and landscaping. The existing roadway drainage will be upgraded from an open system with roadside ditches to a closed system with storm sewer pipe and curb and gutter which will eliminate areas slow to drain during prolonged periods of heavy rainfall.

Construction plans are complete and the project was advertised for construction on June 29, 2018. The acquisition of right-of-way and easements for roadway construction, drainage improvements and utility relocations has concluded by the City Consultant, Stantec, for a total of 84 parcels.

Jahnke Road Design Elements
o Raised 16-ft landscaped median separating two travel lanes (one lane in each direction)
o New curb and gutter
o New storm sewer system
o Left turn lanes are provided at Newell Road, Spruance Road, Forestview School Drive (entrance to Elizabeth Redd Elementary School), Irby Drive and Leicester Road
o 5-ft sidewalk with a 6-ft green space for landscaping on the south side of Jahnke Road
o 8-ft shared use path with a 8-ft green space for landscaping on the north side of Jahnke Road
o ADA (American with Disabilities Act) compliant for pedestrian traffic and bus commuters
o New Signal at Forestview School Drive (entrance to Elizabeth Redd Elementary School)
o Safety improvements at CSX rail crossing

Estimated Costs
o Preliminary Engineering Costs: $2,000,000
o Utility and Right of Way Costs: $1,500,000
o Roadway Construction Costs: $10,500,000
o Total Estimated Costs: $14,000,000
o The project is funded with Federal, State, and City funds.

[hyperlinks to these on the project webpage]
Jahnke Road Plans - April 2016
Improvement Plan Exhibit 1 - June 2012
Improvement Plan Exhibit 2 - June 2012
Landscape - Divided Raised Median Typical Section

Some local news (not broadcast) sites mentioned this project a little while ago. It's been hung up for quite a while but some sort of improvement on Jahnke Road between Blakemore Road and Forest Hill Avenue is definitely needed. It definitely isn't pedestrian friendly, which is a problem with three schools along that stretch...and honestly, given that alone it probably should be 4 lanes. Drainage has been a problem for a long time too, but the City of Richmond honestly has an epidemic of poor drainage along various city streets.
Logged
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

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

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9916
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:37:34 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3260 on: September 17, 2018, 12:55:50 PM »

^ If there's that many schools, that would actually be a good reason to keep it at 2 lanes.  Makes the school crossings much safer for children.  Also shortens the distance they have to cross which means they'll get across faster.
Logged

SSOWorld

  • 'Sconsin
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2963
  • Interstate <Make up your mind!>

  • Age: 45
  • Location: MAH House!
  • Last Login: Today at 04:55:26 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3261 on: September 17, 2018, 10:07:13 PM »

The 3 post above were moved to the Tropical Cyclone tracking thread

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15473.msg2357318#msg2357318
Logged
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ssoworld-roads/

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:13:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3262 on: September 18, 2018, 07:24:04 AM »

Some local news (not broadcast) sites mentioned this project a little while ago. It's been hung up for quite a while but some sort of improvement on Jahnke Road between Blakemore Road and Forest Hill Avenue is definitely needed. It definitely isn't pedestrian friendly, which is a problem with three schools along that stretch...and honestly, given that alone it probably should be 4 lanes. Drainage has been a problem for a long time too, but the City of Richmond honestly has an epidemic of poor drainage along various city streets.

Based on seeing the utility pole relocations, many homeowners along the road are losing 20 to 25 feet strip of land.  By eyeball it looked like there will be room for 4 lanes undivided.  Adding a 16 foot median to that would bring the road very close maybe within 10 to 15 feet to those houses.  Probably the reason for not making it 4 lanes is because of the problems of a 4 lanes undivided road with respect to pedestrians.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

tckma

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 536
  • I only came for the Appelflappen!

  • Age: 40
  • Location: Westminster, MD (weekends) / King of Prussia, PA (weekdays)
  • Last Login: November 16, 2018, 02:21:05 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3263 on: September 25, 2018, 09:03:10 AM »

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 354
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: December 08, 2018, 07:24:54 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3264 on: September 26, 2018, 11:20:29 PM »

https://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/politics_and_government/transportation/widening-project-on-u-s-in-virginia-expected-to-have/article_552b23a9-a5aa-5173-b529-c9d7f7900deb.html

Quote
A decision by Loudoun County officials to widen a section of U.S. 15 north of Leesburg, Virginia, is not expected to have much impact on traffic into Frederick County, although Loudoun continues to look at the possibility of widening the road up to the Potomac River.

Loudoun’s Board of Supervisors voted 9-0 on Sept. 20 to widen U.S. 15 from two lanes to four, with a median, between Battlefield Parkway in Leesburg to Montresor Road, south of the village of Lucketts.

The $78.9 million project includes improvements and changes at several intersections, including a two-lane roundabout at U.S. 15 and Montresor Road.

Next, the county staff will develop a request for proposals, solicit design proposals, and begin the design process, Joe Kroboth, director of transportation and capital infrastructure, told the supervisors.

While that project moves along, county staff is also looking at a companion study for possible widening north of Montresor Road to the Potomac River, which will likely come to the supervisors in the late winter or early spring, Kroboth said.

The county has been studying the U.S. 15 corridor for many years, said Glen Barbour, a spokesman for the Loudoun County government.

“It’s not like construction is going to start tomorrow,” he said.

Loudoun County and Virginia have approached Frederick County and the Maryland Department of Transportation to participate in planning for the U.S. 15 corridor, said Ron Burns, transportation engineer manager in Frederick County’s Department of Development Review.

“They want to make sure what they do is consistent with what’s going on over here,” he said.

Maryland has always thought of U.S. 15 as a four-lane divided highway, Burns said.


The area around Leesburg has always been a constraint in the U.S. 15 corridor, he said. But if the road is widened further, the constraint could be the bridge on the Potomac River, which has one lane in each direction.

There are no plans to widen the bridge on U.S. 15 on the Potomac in Maryland at this time, State Highway Administration spokeswoman Shantee Felix said in an email Wednesday.

The bridge is used by about 21,000 vehicles a day.

Glad to see this desperately needed project finally moving forward. I only hope that the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors don't stick their heads in the sand and refuse to eventually widen the segment north of Montresor Road. As its been stated numerous times in other threads, US-15 from at least Leesburg needs to be four lanes all the way up to US-340. The only reason why Maryland hasn't widened their portion of US-15 south of US-340 is due to I suspect an unwillingness to construct(and pay for) a new Potomac River Bridge at or near Point of Rocks.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10178
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: December 09, 2018, 10:08:13 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3265 on: September 27, 2018, 04:51:01 PM »

The only reason why Maryland hasn't widened their portion of US-15 south of US-340 is due to I suspect an unwillingness to construct(and pay for) a new Potomac River Bridge at or near Point of Rocks.

The Maryland Highway Location Reference says the bridge is 0.32 miles long, of which 0.06 of the structure is in Virginia.   

That's a pretty long bridge. 

There is also the matter of the height of the bridge deck over the river. The current bridge was nearly swept-away in the significant flooding event of January 1996, when a sudden warm-up caused snow and ice upstream of the bridge to melt all at once, bringing raging floodwaters to within a foot or two of the bottom of the structure. Should  a new bridge be built higher over the river?                                             
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.

BrianP

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 375
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 10:41:02 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3266 on: September 27, 2018, 05:33:00 PM »

I think Maryland would widen their section of US 15.  The holdup I think is more Virginia since Maryland seemed to anticipate widening the highway since they have a four lane divided highway ROW.  Although the 15-340 interchange would need some work.  I'm surprised this widening is happening.  But not as surprised as I would be if they widened the road north of Lucketts.

As for the bridge, it would have to be new four lane bridge.  The curve on the Virginia side of the current bridge is too tight to keep.  And that next ~1/2 mile just south of that is not conducive to widening since it's on the side of a hill.  I think a new bridge would be built by Maryland with a more north-south orientation which avoids these problems.  I just wouldn't anticipate that happening in the next several years.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:13:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3267 on: September 27, 2018, 05:42:47 PM »

At this point I would favor building US-15 on new location between the Leesburg Bypass and Maryland, and four lanes divided.  Relegate the existing highway to secondary status.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 354
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: December 08, 2018, 07:24:54 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3268 on: September 27, 2018, 06:01:49 PM »

At this point I would favor building US-15 on new location between the Leesburg Bypass and Maryland, and four lanes divided.  Relegate the existing highway to secondary status.

While I don't think that all of US-15 from Leesburg to Maryland needs to be on a new location(nor would Loudoun ever probably allow it), I do agree that there would probably need to be a new bypass of Lucketts(Likely on the western side).

Regarding the Point of Rocks Bridge, a new higher four lane bridge should be built where there is more room further east, bypassing Point of rocks, and connecting back to the current US-15 just south of the Doubs Substation.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:13:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3269 on: September 27, 2018, 07:46:23 PM »

The Maryland Highway Location Reference says the bridge is 0.32 miles long, of which 0.06 of the structure is in Virginia.   
That's a pretty long bridge. 

Not really ... 1,690 feet is not long by river standards.  The various James River bridges in the Richmond area are in the 4,000+ foot range, and some of them are 90+ feet high.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10178
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: December 09, 2018, 10:08:13 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3270 on: September 27, 2018, 10:51:50 PM »

The Maryland Highway Location Reference says the bridge is 0.32 miles long, of which 0.06 of the structure is in Virginia.   
That's a pretty long bridge. 

Not really ... 1,690 feet is not long by river standards.  The various James River bridges in the Richmond area are in the 4,000+ foot range, and some of them are 90+ feet high.

I am not going to argue with you about the relative length of the bridge. 

But a new four lane span with accommodation for non-motorized traffic with the bridge deck higher above the riverbed than the current structure will cost tens of millions of dollars (hopefully it does not get into the hundreds of millions of dollars).
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.

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2456
  • www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 49
  • Last Login: Today at 07:28:36 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3271 on: September 27, 2018, 11:10:29 PM »

Today's VDOT throwback twitter picture reveals a couple things...


1.  The route marker used prior to the spade shape's introduction in 1925 was introduced early enough for the original set of route numbers in place 1918-23.  In the photo it is showing original VA 3 (the character at the bottom of the V is an 'A' with a 3 above it.
2.  Route markers included milepost location and it appears this one (63) is being measured from the West Virginia state line.
3.  I have seen exceedingly few photos of this style of route marker but this is I believe the only one I've seen as a free-standing marker as opposed to being painted on a telephone pole or other object.
Logged
Clinched:
I: 4 12 16 17 20 26 27 30 59 64 66 68 72 73 ew74 77 78 79 82 83 ew84 85 ew86 e88 97 99
US: 4 6N 9W 11E 11W 13 15 19W 21 44 46 48 58 72 92 113 117 123 130 158 163 176 178 192 206 209 211 219 220 221 222 258 264 276 290 311 319 322 340 360 378 401 ew422 501 521 522 601 701
PriSystems: VA, DE

Beltway

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:13:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3272 on: September 28, 2018, 12:23:00 AM »

1,690 feet is not long by river standards.  The various James River bridges in the Richmond area are in the 4,000+ foot range, and some of them are 90+ feet high.
I am not going to argue with you about the relative length of the bridge. 
But a new four lane span with accommodation for non-motorized traffic with the bridge deck higher above the riverbed than the current structure will cost tens of millions of dollars (hopefully it does not get into the hundreds of millions of dollars).

OK, but it is still not a very long bridge in the overall scheme of things.  I am not convinced that it will need to be built at a higher elevation, and it looks like a high-speed new alignment would 'cut the bend' and probably result in an alignment that crossed the river at close to a right angle and with less distance to span.
https://tinyurl.com/yacwmwal

The bridge's deck was replaced about 1980, but the original bridge's trusses are still in use and they look like about 1935 vintage.  So the bridge's alignment was based on the needs of a road network of a very early automotive era, obsolete by today's needs and standards.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

WillWeaverRVA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1428
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:00:57 AM
    • WillWeaverRVA Photography
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3273 on: September 28, 2018, 10:10:01 AM »

So interestingly, I've noticed that VDOT has mounted "End State Maintenance" signs on northbound VA 150 entering the City of Richmond, and all the northbound VA 150 reassurance markers have been removed along the stretch with at-grade intersections (although VA 150 signage on Forest Hill Ave and VA 147 is still up). This means there are now no northbound VA 150 reassurance markers past VA 76. I haven't checked the southbound lanes, and I know the City of Richmond maintains the portion of VA 150 within the city limits anyway, but I just found that a little weird.
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: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:13:44 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3274 on: September 28, 2018, 10:25:22 AM »

So interestingly, I've noticed that VDOT has mounted "End State Maintenance" signs on northbound VA 150 entering the City of Richmond, and all the northbound VA 150 reassurance markers have been removed along the stretch with at-grade intersections (although VA 150 signage on Forest Hill Ave and VA 147 is still up). This means there are now no northbound VA 150 reassurance markers past VA 76. I haven't checked the southbound lanes, and I know the City of Richmond maintains the portion of VA 150 within the city limits anyway, but I just found that a little weird.

Since when did they do that?  The Chippenham extension to Parham Road was built as a VDOT project, and it is a 4-lane limited access highway, and I don't understand why VDOT would not maintain it.


« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 10:38:33 AM by Beltway »
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

 


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.