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 666615 times)

BrianP

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 375
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 10:41:02 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3275 on: September 28, 2018, 10:28:08 AM »

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.
I agree about the elevation.  But having the bridge being a little bit higher 0-10 ft I think could be in the cards. 

Good eye on the bridge's age.  Bridge hunter has 1939. 

The obsolete alignment is evident by the curve on the VA side. 

But I think the replacement bridge would likely be longer than the current bridge.  There looks to be max ~2500 ft of valley to span.  I'm not sure how much of that would be bridge and how much would be raised land.  Due to the tracks on MD side the landing of the bridge on that side would be similar to the current bridge.  The question is where would the bridge land on the other end? 
Logged

WillWeaverRVA

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1428
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:57:47 AM
    • WillWeaverRVA Photography
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3276 on: September 28, 2018, 10:31:31 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 Chippenhan 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.

I'm not sure. It must have been fairly recently. I'm probably going to go up and down that stretch tonight to double check and make sure I'm not losing my mind, but the "End State Maintenance" signage was definitely there, bolted onto the city limits sign.
Logged
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

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

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:31 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3277 on: September 28, 2018, 10:35:06 AM »

I agree about the elevation.  But having the bridge being a little bit higher 0-10 ft I think could be in the cards. 
Good eye on the bridge's age.  Bridge hunter has 1939. 
The obsolete alignment is evident by the curve on the VA side. 
But I think the replacement bridge would likely be longer than the current bridge.  There looks to be max ~2500 ft of valley to span.  I'm not sure how much of that would be bridge and how much would be raised land.  Due to the tracks on MD side the landing of the bridge on that side would be similar to the current bridge.  The question is where would the bridge land on the other end? 

1,500 to 2,000 feet southeast of the current abutment.  I now notice that the state boundary weaves well inland for about a mile, I suppose due to that being the shoreline 200+ years ago, and that would mean that the new bridge would be entirely within Maryland.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:31 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3278 on: September 28, 2018, 10:38:08 AM »

I live a few miles from the Chippenham extension to Parham Road, so I can check that out this afternoon, as I am curious.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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 #3279 on: September 28, 2018, 10:40:52 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.

Current Point of Rocks bridge was built in 1939 following the highest recorded flood there in 1936 (41 ft per https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=01638500) washed away the previous one.  It is 22 ft above the river per uglybridges.com. 

Per https://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?gage=porm2&wfo=lwx, the 1996 flood was 5 ft lower than the 1936 flood and Agnes flooding in 1972 was 4 feet lower than the 1936 flood.  The NWS says at 22 ft water covers the towpath and at 35 ft MD 28 is covered in 2 feet of water.  Can't find anything that says at what flooding level gets the bridge.  Rough estimate is that they built the 1939 bridge just high enough to be over the 1936 flood level.

It looks like if you build a new bridge much higher it will be harder to connect to MD 28 though an interchange with US 15 as the overpass could be a natural way to get the bridge 16+ higher than now.

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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:31 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3280 on: September 28, 2018, 02:20:56 PM »

I live a few miles from the Chippenham extension to Parham Road, so I can check that out this afternoon, as I am curious.

Here is what I found --

"End State Maintenance" sign on northbound VA-150 at south end of bridge over the railroad just south of Forest Hill Avenue.
"Begin State Maintenance" sign on northbound VA-150 at south end of Willey Bridge.
"End State Maintenance" sign on northbound VA-150 at River Road Connector intersection in Henrico County (where VA-150 has always ended and where Parham Road begins).

"Begin State Maintenance" sign on southbound VA-150 at River Road Connector intersection in Henrico County (where VA-150 has always begun and where Parham Road ends).
"End State Maintenance" sign on southbound VA-150 at south end of Willey Bridge.
"Begin State Maintenance" sign on southbound VA-150 at south end of bridge over the railroad just south of Forest Hill Avenue.

Trailblazer roadside sign for VA-150 on northbound VA-150 between Huguenot Road and Stony Point Parkway.
Trailblazer roadside sign "Begin 150" for southbound VA-150 at River Road Connector intersection in Henrico County (I know this has been there for many years).
Trailblazer roadside sign for southbound VA-150 between Stony Point Parkway and Huguenot Road.

I don't know when those "End/Begin State Maintenance" signs were posted, as I often don't notice minor signing.  But according the signing the segment between the railroad bridges and the Willey Bridge is not state maintained.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 02:23:05 PM by Beltway »
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

WillWeaverRVA

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1428
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:57:47 AM
    • WillWeaverRVA Photography
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3281 on: September 28, 2018, 03:27:47 PM »

I live a few miles from the Chippenham extension to Parham Road, so I can check that out this afternoon, as I am curious.

Here is what I found --

"End State Maintenance" sign on northbound VA-150 at south end of bridge over the railroad just south of Forest Hill Avenue.
"Begin State Maintenance" sign on northbound VA-150 at south end of Willey Bridge.
"End State Maintenance" sign on northbound VA-150 at River Road Connector intersection in Henrico County (where VA-150 has always ended and where Parham Road begins).

"Begin State Maintenance" sign on southbound VA-150 at River Road Connector intersection in Henrico County (where VA-150 has always begun and where Parham Road ends).
"End State Maintenance" sign on southbound VA-150 at south end of Willey Bridge.
"Begin State Maintenance" sign on southbound VA-150 at south end of bridge over the railroad just south of Forest Hill Avenue.

Trailblazer roadside sign for VA-150 on northbound VA-150 between Huguenot Road and Stony Point Parkway.
Trailblazer roadside sign "Begin 150" for southbound VA-150 at River Road Connector intersection in Henrico County (I know this has been there for many years).
Trailblazer roadside sign for southbound VA-150 between Stony Point Parkway and Huguenot Road.

I don't know when those "End/Begin State Maintenance" signs were posted, as I often don't notice minor signing.  But according the signing the segment between the railroad bridges and the Willey Bridge is not state maintained.

Interesting. The "end/begin state maintenance" signs at the railroad bridge and the Willey Bridge are definitely new, and it's interesting to see that the VA 150 trailblazers on the VA 150 freeway segment between Huguenot Rd and Stony Point Pkwy are still there. I guess either VDOT or the city must have removed signage on the non-freeway segment and had the "end/begin state maintenance" signage posted.

The city usually signs state routes within the city limits (well, sort of), so it's weird they haven't replaced any signage on the non-freeway segment of VA 150, and that segment is still signed as being part of VA 150 from Forest Hill Ave and Huguenot Rd.
Logged
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

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

plain

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 625
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Richmond Virginia
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 02:42:50 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3282 on: September 28, 2018, 07:08:36 PM »

The portion of VA 150 inside Richmond is definitely maintained by the city, but indeed the entire extension may have been built by VDOT, not sure. Even in that case VDOT could've gave maintenance duties to the city afterwards, sort of like when Midlothian Tpk in the city was reconstructed several years back by VDOT but maintenance duties remained with the city.

The BEGIN/END STATE MAINTENANCE signs has been there since at least 1997 (when I first spotted them). I haven't drove this stretch over the last year or so but If they're new then they're replacements.

Logged
Newark born, Richmond bred

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10178
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: December 09, 2018, 10:08:13 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3283 on: September 28, 2018, 10:22:53 PM »

Per https://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?gage=porm2&wfo=lwx, the 1996 flood was 5 ft lower than the 1936 flood and Agnes flooding in 1972 was 4 feet lower than the 1936 flood.  The NWS says at 22 ft water covers the towpath and at 35 ft MD 28 is covered in 2 feet of water.  Can't find anything that says at what flooding level gets the bridge.  Rough estimate is that they built the 1939 bridge just high enough to be over the 1936 flood level.

It looks like if you build a new bridge much higher it will be harder to connect to MD 28 though an interchange with US 15 as the overpass could be a natural way to get the bridge 16+ higher than now.

I did not see personally the 1936 flood because I was not around then. 

I do remember the floodwaters of Agnes in 1972, but not at Point-of-Rocks (the waters of the Potomac River were so high at Great Falls Park on the Montgomery County side that there was no obvious sign of the falls under all of that water).

But I did see what happened at Point-of-Rocks in January 1996.  While I did not get out and measure it, my memory says the waters of the Potomac were more like 2 or 3 feet below the bottom of the bridge deck then.  Maryland DOT/SHA senior management was sufficiently concerned that they had their response people at both ends of the bridge, ready to close it to all traffic if that became necessary.
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 #3284 on: October 02, 2018, 07:58:28 PM »

Checked around the internet to see if the I-564 Intermodal Connector has a number of any kind.  I found a facebook video of someone driving it EB from the terminal and it was signed at that end as TO I-564 EAST.

https://www.facebook.com/I564IC/videos/557277574618894/

There is a BGS on I-564 WB that says NIT Gate 1 with something covered underneath. 

But the more important discovery is that I-564 now has exit numbers:
1 - Intermodal Connector
2 - Terminal Blvd
3 - I64
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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:31 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3285 on: October 02, 2018, 09:27:56 PM »

Checked around the internet to see if the I-564 Intermodal Connector has a number of any kind.  I found a facebook video of someone driving it EB from the terminal and it was signed at that end as TO I-564 EAST.

The project site and published literature calls it the I-564 Intermodal Connector.

They don't say exactly but they make it sound like I-564 will be rerouted onto the new Intermodal Connector.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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 #3286 on: October 03, 2018, 06:18:53 AM »

Checked around the internet to see if the I-564 Intermodal Connector has a number of any kind.  I found a facebook video of someone driving it EB from the terminal and it was signed at that end as TO I-564 EAST.

The project site and published literature calls it the I-564 Intermodal Connector.

They don't say exactly but they make it sound like I-564 will be rerouted onto the new Intermodal Connector.

I agree that current materials suggest I-564 is supposed to end up on the Connector, especially with the idea of extending it west to I-664 at some point.  Although if that is the near term intention, seems like Hampton Blvd would've been Exit 1 and I-64 would've become Exit 4.

Originally VA 510 had been assigned to the Intermodal Connector from at least 2001-03.  See pdf pg. 45 at http://vahighways.com/route-log/VDOT%20logs/route-index-07012003.pdf
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

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9916
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 09:37:34 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3287 on: October 03, 2018, 07:30:45 AM »

Quote
There is a BGS on I-564 WB that says NIT Gate 1 with something covered underneath.

Most likely, what's covered underneath is something related to "Gate 6" at NOB.
Logged

WillWeaverRVA

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1428
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:57:47 AM
    • WillWeaverRVA Photography
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3288 on: October 03, 2018, 09:23:53 AM »

Checked around the internet to see if the I-564 Intermodal Connector has a number of any kind.  I found a facebook video of someone driving it EB from the terminal and it was signed at that end as TO I-564 EAST.

The project site and published literature calls it the I-564 Intermodal Connector.

They don't say exactly but they make it sound like I-564 will be rerouted onto the new Intermodal Connector.

I agree that current materials suggest I-564 is supposed to end up on the Connector, especially with the idea of extending it west to I-664 at some point.  Although if that is the near term intention, seems like Hampton Blvd would've been Exit 1 and I-64 would've become Exit 4.

Originally VA 510 had been assigned to the Intermodal Connector from at least 2001-03.  See pdf pg. 45 at http://vahighways.com/route-log/VDOT%20logs/route-index-07012003.pdf

So if I-564 ends up on the Connector, what happens with existing I-564? Would it become an extended VA 337?
Logged
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

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

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:31 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3289 on: October 03, 2018, 09:45:59 AM »

The project site and published literature calls it the I-564 Intermodal Connector.
They don't say exactly but they make it sound like I-564 will be rerouted onto the new Intermodal Connector.
I agree that current materials suggest I-564 is supposed to end up on the Connector, especially with the idea of extending it west to I-664 at some point.  Although if that is the near term intention, seems like Hampton Blvd would've been Exit 1 and I-64 would've become Exit 4.
Originally VA 510 had been assigned to the Intermodal Connector from at least 2001-03.  See pdf pg. 45 at http://vahighways.com/route-log/VDOT%20logs/route-index-07012003.pdf

This will be the first project built in the Third Hampton Roads Crossing, that is the original design.

The statewide long range needs plan around 2005 (I can't find it now) listed the crossing in a table with the route number 564 (that is why I tend to call it the I-564 Extension).  The crossing still is in the long range plans, albeit unfunded at this point.

Not sure if they will make the route number switch upon completion of this project, or not until the whole crossing is complete.  Exit numbering would probably change to fit the whole thing as well.

Also what happens to rest of I-564, does it become I-364?

« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 09:52:51 AM by Beltway »
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:31 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3290 on: October 03, 2018, 11:11:45 PM »

The portion of VA 150 inside Richmond is definitely maintained by the city, but indeed the entire extension may have been built by VDOT, not sure. Even in that case VDOT could've gave maintenance duties to the city afterwards, sort of like when Midlothian Tpk in the city was reconstructed several years back by VDOT but maintenance duties remained with the city.

This quote is from my website concerning the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike and a group of local projects funded from a toll extension --

The $103 million of 1973-issued toll revenue bonds used to pay for the 6-lane widening projects were paid off and retired in 1985.  The last 7 years (1985-1992) of toll revenue (mostly Northerner and Floridian toll revenue since the locals could buy heavily discounted commuter tickets) was used to build 5 local road projects.  These projects were 6.5 miles of the VA-288 beltway between VA-10 and US-1/US-301 in Chesterfield County, 3.5 miles of 2-lane parallel roadway (dualization) for the VA-144 Temple Avenue Extension from Conduit Road in the City of Colonial Heights to VA-36 near the City of Hopewell, 0.6-mile of the mostly 4-lane Leigh Street Extension from near the Department of Motor Vehicles central office to VA-161 Boulevard in the City of Richmond, 0.7-mile of 4-lane widening and reconstruction of Belt Boulevard in the City of Richmond between VA-10 and Terminal Avenue, and the 4.4-mile-long 4-lane limited access VA-150 Parham-Chippenham Connector between 1/2 mile south of Forest Hill Avenue in the City of Richmond and 1/2 mile north of River Road in Henrico County.  Legislation of the General Assembly in 1983 (Senate Bill 304) provided for this toll extension and usage of the toll revenues for these local road projects.  These five local road projects were all completed by 1991.  Due to a later shortfall of funding to complete the projects, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) authorized the March 1989 toll increase to cover the shortfall.

So the VA-150 Parham-Chippenham Connector was built as a VDOT administered project.

Chippenham Parkway was widened to 6 lanes (3 each way) about 1997-2000 between Powhite Parkway and US-1, and this included full paved shoulders and with 8 lanes (4 each way) on 4 segments between closely spaced interchanges where the right auxiliary lane was made continuous between the pair of interchanges.

There actually still is 1/3 mile of Chippenham Parkway that is in its original design with 4 lanes and gravel shoulders, that segment between the extension project and the widening project described above.  Basically between the Forest Hill Avenue ramps and the Powhite Parkway ramps, including the bridge over the CSXT Railroad, you can see that the bridges are of the late 1960s vintage.  I suppose this will eventually be upgraded like the widening projects south of there, with the bridges widened and redecked and the auxiliary right lanes being made continuous between the two interchanges, and full paved shoulders installed on the right.
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 #3291 on: October 04, 2018, 04:55:26 PM »

The portion of VA 150 inside Richmond is definitely maintained by the city, but indeed the entire extension may have been built by VDOT, not sure. Even in that case VDOT could've gave maintenance duties to the city afterwards, sort of like when Midlothian Tpk in the city was reconstructed several years back by VDOT but maintenance duties remained with the city.

This quote is from my website concerning the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike and a group of local projects funded from a toll extension --

The $103 million of 1973-issued toll revenue bonds used to pay for the 6-lane widening projects were paid off and retired in 1985.  The last 7 years (1985-1992) of toll revenue (mostly Northerner and Floridian toll revenue since the locals could buy heavily discounted commuter tickets) was used to build 5 local road projects.  These projects were 6.5 miles of the VA-288 beltway between VA-10 and US-1/US-301 in Chesterfield County, 3.5 miles of 2-lane parallel roadway (dualization) for the VA-144 Temple Avenue Extension from Conduit Road in the City of Colonial Heights to VA-36 near the City of Hopewell, 0.6-mile of the mostly 4-lane Leigh Street Extension from near the Department of Motor Vehicles central office to VA-161 Boulevard in the City of Richmond, 0.7-mile of 4-lane widening and reconstruction of Belt Boulevard in the City of Richmond between VA-10 and Terminal Avenue, and the 4.4-mile-long 4-lane limited access VA-150 Parham-Chippenham Connector between 1/2 mile south of Forest Hill Avenue in the City of Richmond and 1/2 mile north of River Road in Henrico County.  Legislation of the General Assembly in 1983 (Senate Bill 304) provided for this toll extension and usage of the toll revenues for these local road projects.  These five local road projects were all completed by 1991.  Due to a later shortfall of funding to complete the projects, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) authorized the March 1989 toll increase to cover the shortfall.

So the VA-150 Parham-Chippenham Connector was built as a VDOT administered project.

Chippenham Parkway was widened to 6 lanes (3 each way) about 1997-2000 between Powhite Parkway and US-1, and this included full paved shoulders and with 8 lanes (4 each way) on 4 segments between closely spaced interchanges where the right auxiliary lane was made continuous between the pair of interchanges.

There actually still is 1/3 mile of Chippenham Parkway that is in its original design with 4 lanes and gravel shoulders, that segment between the extension project and the widening project described above.  Basically between the Forest Hill Avenue ramps and the Powhite Parkway ramps, including the bridge over the CSXT Railroad, you can see that the bridges are of the late 1960s vintage.  I suppose this will eventually be upgraded like the widening projects south of there, with the bridges widened and redecked and the auxiliary right lanes being made continuous between the two interchanges, and full paved shoulders installed on the right.

Yeah that's right, I did read that on your site some years back, not sure how I forgot about that. Definitely VDOT built.

The city is definitely maintaining their portion though. One way to tell is the pedestrian signals at Weyburn Rd: they're black instead of yellow. Also there's the street blades on the mast arms there that has the street names and 2 block numbers, a style that Richmond, ummmm..... "borrowed" from Henrico County. 

I was working for the crew (Mega Contractors) that did the widening on VA 150 between just south of US 360 and US 1/301 (north of there was completed just before I started working there). This occurred at the same time VA 895 was being built.
Logged
Newark born, Richmond bred

dvferyance

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1022
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: November 29, 2018, 07:49:22 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3292 on: October 08, 2018, 06:16:23 PM »

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.
I thought Parham Rd was VA-73 so state maintenance ends signs make no sense.
Logged

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 #3293 on: October 08, 2018, 06:22:40 PM »

Only Parham road between US 1 and I95 is VA 73.

There are also begin/end maintenance signs on parham rd at the I64 overpass.
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

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1568
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 07:57:03 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3294 on: October 12, 2018, 09:52:38 AM »

Roanoke County Board of Supervisors sent a resolution to the General Assembly. Among the items listed is improvements to I-81 while opposing a pilot program that would allow trucks heavier than 90,000 lbs due to concerns of additional truck traffic, funding for I-73, and keeping an eye on SmartScale to make sure local needs are met.

https://media.wsls.com/document_dev/2018/10/10/10-09-2018%20Agenda_1539207581380_12791139_ver1.0.pdf
Logged
"You forget a thousand things everyday. How about you make sure this is one of them?"--Michael De Santa, GTA V

dvferyance

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1022
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: November 29, 2018, 07:49:22 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3295 on: October 12, 2018, 09:22:12 PM »

Only Parham road between US 1 and I95 is VA 73.

There are also begin/end maintenance signs on parham rd at the I64 overpass.
Then who in the world maintains the rest of it then? I thought VDOT did every road outside the cities.
Logged

74/171FAN

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1538
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: December 10, 2018, 11:28:23 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3296 on: October 12, 2018, 09:46:13 PM »

Only Parham road between US 1 and I95 is VA 73.

There are also begin/end maintenance signs on parham rd at the I64 overpass.
Then who in the world maintains the rest of it then? I thought VDOT did every road outside the cities.

Henrico County does.  Henrico and Arlington Counties maintain all roads that are not primary routes or interstates.
Logged
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:31 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3297 on: October 17, 2018, 03:42:43 PM »

I got an e-mail with the VDOT news release about the publication of the 2018-19 state highway map.  I was downtown for awhile today so I went and got a copy.

I will review in more depth but the two major changes I saw were the results of the completion of the ERT Tunnels Project and the Dominion Boulevard Project.  The HR insert got it right.

-- VA-164 seamlessly connecting to the Midtown tunnel, the MLK Freeway extending to I-264, these being shown as limited access (blue) with 4 or more lanes, and that tunnel and the Downtown Tunnel is green meaning tolled in addition to being limited access with 4 or more lanes.

-- US-17 Dominion Boulevard all with 4 or more lanes, with it being limited access (blue) from south of Cedar Road to the northern end at VA-168, with the interchanges shown, and the bridge over the canal is green.
Logged
Scott M. Savage
-- Borders, Language and Culture
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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 #3298 on: October 17, 2018, 04:01:32 PM »

I got an e-mail with the VDOT news release about the publication of the 2018-19 state highway map.  I was downtown for awhile today so I went and got a copy.

I will review in more depth but the two major changes I saw were the results of the completion of the ERT Tunnels Project and the Dominion Boulevard Project.  The HR insert got it right.

-- VA-164 seamlessly connecting to the Midtown tunnel, the MLK Freeway extending to I-264, these being shown as limited access (blue) with 4 or more lanes, and that tunnel and the Downtown Tunnel is green meaning tolled in addition to being limited access with 4 or more lanes.

-- US-17 Dominion Boulevard all with 4 or more lanes, with it being limited access (blue) from south of Cedar Road to the northern end at VA-168, with the interchanges shown, and the bridge over the canal is green.

The new VA 167 is shown in the Roanoke inset...(but so is the long-decommissioned one in Hampton)

New Stadium Dr interchange in Blacksburg is shown...
« Last Edit: October 17, 2018, 04:17:50 PM by Mapmikey »
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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3487
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:32:31 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #3299 on: October 17, 2018, 04:29:24 PM »

The new VA 167 is shown in the Roanoke inset...(but so is the long-decommissioned one in Hampton)
New Stadium Dr interchange in Blacksburg is shown...

I wonder why they show the Coalfields Expressway as proposed, but not I-73?  (Not changed from previous map, BTW).

Both have approved routes but I don't think that the Coalfields Expressway is any more likely to get built than I-73, other than the segment that will carry US-460.
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.