AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Virginia  (Read 800057 times)

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6435
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:42:27 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4925 on: February 14, 2020, 12:32:16 PM »

Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!

That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"

Weasel word, IMHO.
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: 3482
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 11:01:44 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4926 on: February 14, 2020, 04:22:46 PM »

Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!

That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"

Weasel word, IMHO.
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.

A big example of this is shoulders.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3482
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 11:01:44 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4927 on: February 14, 2020, 04:41:19 PM »

Chesapeake’s Centerville Bridge will reopen on Saturday
Quote
After six months of traffic jams caused by the Centerville Turnpike Bridge’s closure, drivers are finally getting some relief.

The two-lane bridge, which was closed in August for repairs, will open at 7 a.m. Saturday.

Additional weekend closures will be needed over the next few months as the bridge’s rehabilitation is completed.

Earl Sorey, the city’s assistant director of public works, said he anticipates the project to be completed in August.

“This was a very aggressive schedule from the very start,” he said. “We had it as an aggressive schedule because we knew it was going to have a tremendous impact on those who depend on that bridge for their daily commute.”

The overhaul cost $8.5 million and was funded by the city and the Virginia Department of Transportation’s State of Good Repair program. Replacing the surface and the mechanism that allows the bridge to pivot so vessels can pass through were the major elements of the project.

The remaining work includes curing the bridge deck’s concrete and building the bridge fender system.

“They are rebuilding some, and then there’s another that was a victim of a vessel strike, and they are reconstructing that now,” Sorey said. The accident was not related to construction.

Extensive testing on the bridge has been completed, but staff will continue to closely monitor the bridge once traffic is flowing.

The bridge is expected to last another 15 or 20 years before it will have to be entirely replaced.

“Obviously with an aging bridge, we wanted to do rehabilitation to extend the service. … What’s also going on now is a feasibility study for replacement bridge options,” Sorey said. The study is expected to be completed in late 2020.

Reopening of the bridge is expected to relieve commuters who had to take a 5- to 8-mile detour to the Va. 168 Bypass over the waterway.

Sorey said the traffic impact was similar to what city staff anticipated.

“What we could deal with were signal timings and re-designating some of the traffic lanes at the busier intersections,” he said. “On the bypass itself and some of the merge areas, there was just nothing we could do about that and that’s where we saw the daily traffic backups.”

The bridge regularly carried 16,000 vehicles a day. Almost 30,000 vehicles travel across the Veterans Bridge and 26,000 across the Deep Creek Bridge per day.

“Rest assured, we fully recognize that there were major traffic impacts and that had quite a significant impact on the community,” Sorey said. “The most painful part is behind us.”
The Centerville Turnpike Bridge in Chesapeake re-opens tomorrow, Saturday, February 15 at 7 a.m. after being closed for 6 months apart of an ongoing $10.5 million rehabilitation project. The project will continue on, with periodic weekend closures though will be completed in the next few months.
Quote
The Centerville Turnpike Bridge reopens to vehicle traffic ahead of schedule on Saturday, February 15 at 7 a.m. The bridge will resume normal weekday openings (on the hour and half-hour), and on-demand openings on weekends to permit the passage of maritime traffic in the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal, in accordance with Federal regulations.

Forthcoming Weekend Closures To Be Scheduled
Additional weekend closures of the Centerville Turnpike Bridge to vehicle traffic will be required in the coming months as the bridge rehabilitation project continues into its final phases. These closures will not be scheduled during weekdays, and will be announced and posted via the City of Chesapeake website and social media channels, sent through text message notification via Chesapeake Alert, and will be provided to local media outlets to ensure widest dissemination. The detour route during these weekend closures will be the existing project detour route, which utilizes the Chesapeake Expressway.

http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/Page13809.aspx
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 05:13:24 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6375
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 05:07:45 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4928 on: February 14, 2020, 04:46:33 PM »

Scott: I object to your use of "should" when discussing a traffic control device. You know well that "should" has a specific meaning in the context of the MUTCD. You ought to state "my opinion is", and then we would have less reason to argue it, since all we have are opinions on this.
Of course it is my opinion, and not some official statement.  And we are talking about a practice utilized decades ago on missing links on the original Interstate highway system that was authorized in 1956 and 1968, after it was mostly built but missing links remained.  Like before 1990.

I am a stickler (maybe too much so but, hey) for how the English language is utilized, that should be obvious based in various comments (complaints) over the years.  In this case it is when to call something a "temporary Interstate highway."

Perhaps another term for a facility, qualifying freeway or not, that is or has been used to provide a continuation or "bridge" between completed Interstate segments would be a "temporary Interstate routing", which is specific enough to convey that meaning but not exclusionary regarding the temporary route's format.  That would have been optimally applicable in the case of the I-5 "bridge" between Stockton and Sacramento in the late '70's and early 90's that primarily used CA 99.  The roadway types included:  surface streets (CA 4), a 2-lane expressway (the western isolated leg of CA 26, formerly US 50), a substandard 4-lane freeway (at the time) around the east side of Stockton, and a mixture of freeway types the remainder of the signed temporary route to the (then) I-80/5 junction in Sacramento, where traffic was returned to a completed I-5 facility.  The term "routing" would take in all roadway types and simply indicate what was signed in the field.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6435
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:42:27 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4929 on: February 14, 2020, 05:28:36 PM »

Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
Weasel word, IMHO.
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."

The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
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.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6435
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:42:27 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4930 on: February 14, 2020, 05:30:41 PM »

Perhaps another term for a facility, qualifying freeway or not, that is or has been used to provide a continuation or "bridge" between completed Interstate segments would be a "temporary Interstate routing", which is specific enough to convey that meaning but not exclusionary regarding the temporary route's format.  That would have been optimally applicable in the case of the I-5 "bridge" between Stockton and Sacramento in the late '70's and early 90's that primarily used CA 99.  The roadway types included:  surface streets (CA 4), a 2-lane expressway (the western isolated leg of CA 26, formerly US 50), a substandard 4-lane freeway (at the time) around the east side of Stockton, and a mixture of freeway types the remainder of the signed temporary route to the (then) I-80/5 junction in Sacramento, where traffic was returned to a completed I-5 facility.  The term "routing" would take in all roadway types and simply indicate what was signed in the field.
This would work fine --

TO  I-5
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: 3482
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 11:01:44 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4931 on: February 14, 2020, 05:38:11 PM »

Perhaps another term for a facility, qualifying freeway or not, that is or has been used to provide a continuation or "bridge" between completed Interstate segments would be a "temporary Interstate routing", which is specific enough to convey that meaning but not exclusionary regarding the temporary route's format.  That would have been optimally applicable in the case of the I-5 "bridge" between Stockton and Sacramento in the late '70's and early 90's that primarily used CA 99.  The roadway types included:  surface streets (CA 4), a 2-lane expressway (the western isolated leg of CA 26, formerly US 50), a substandard 4-lane freeway (at the time) around the east side of Stockton, and a mixture of freeway types the remainder of the signed temporary route to the (then) I-80/5 junction in Sacramento, where traffic was returned to a completed I-5 facility.  The term "routing" would take in all roadway types and simply indicate what was signed in the field.
This would work fine --

TO  I-5
But it was TEMP I-5.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6435
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:42:27 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4932 on: February 14, 2020, 05:39:49 PM »

The Centerville Turnpike Bridge reopens to vehicle traffic ahead of schedule on Saturday, February 15 at 7 a.m. The bridge will resume normal weekday openings (on the hour and half-hour), and on-demand openings on weekends to permit the passage of maritime traffic in the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal, in accordance with Federal regulations.
Right down the road from where I was today, so I checked it out.

The truss span is installed on the center pier and looks fresh and newly painted, and the signal lights are lit and seemingly ready for use.  I didn't realize how close the bridge was to reopening. 
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.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6435
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:42:27 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4933 on: February 14, 2020, 05:42:30 PM »

This would work fine --
TO  I-5
But it was TEMP I-5.
Right, but ought to have been "TO  I-5" 
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: 13069
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 37
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 09:59:45 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4934 on: February 14, 2020, 05:50:24 PM »

Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
Weasel word, IMHO.
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."

The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
Should does not mean voluntary. Should means you need an engineering reason not to do it.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6435
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:42:27 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4935 on: February 14, 2020, 05:58:01 PM »

Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
Weasel word, IMHO.
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."
The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
Should does not mean voluntary. Should means you need an engineering reason not to do it.
I don't see that here -- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should

Nor do I see any engineering-specific definition of 'should.'
[search on Should definition engineering]
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: 13069
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 37
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 09:59:45 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4936 on: February 14, 2020, 06:59:40 PM »

Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
Weasel word, IMHO.
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."
The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
Should does not mean voluntary. Should means you need an engineering reason not to do it.
I don't see that here -- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should

Nor do I see any engineering-specific definition of 'should.'
[search on Should definition engineering]
MUTCD... maybe you didn't work in sign design.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10767
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 09:31:48 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4937 on: February 14, 2020, 08:14:12 PM »

Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
Weasel word, IMHO.
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."

The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
Should does not mean voluntary. Should means you need an engineering reason not to do it.

What about "should be considered"? As in 4D.11.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6435
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:42:27 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4938 on: February 14, 2020, 09:00:28 PM »

Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."
The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
Should does not mean voluntary. Should means you need an engineering reason not to do it.
What about "should be considered"? As in 4D.11.
There are many "should be considered" statements in the MUTCD manual.

There are many "shall" statements as well.

Shall = mandatory
Should = recommended by not mandatory

Here is an engineering approach to the use of "Shall vs. Should."
http://asq.org/standards-shall-should

"Because of the built-in flexibility of the word, if the document writer intends to mandate a requirement, should is not an appropriate choice."
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.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10767
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 09:31:48 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4939 on: February 14, 2020, 10:22:05 PM »

Use of the word "should" in engineering -- !!
That means to me, "you oughta do this" but "you don't hafta do this!"
When used in road design specifically, minimum standards vs. ideal standards.
A big example of this is shoulders.
Not really, and having worked in road design, I would not say that was the interpretation of "should."  "Should" means "voluntary."
The design manuals listed "standards," not "minimum" vs. "ideal."
Should does not mean voluntary. Should means you need an engineering reason not to do it.
What about "should be considered"? As in 4D.11.
There are many "should be considered" statements in the MUTCD manual.

There are many "shall" statements as well.

Shall = mandatory
Should = recommended by not mandatory

Here is an engineering approach to the use of "Shall vs. Should."
http://asq.org/standards-shall-should

"Because of the built-in flexibility of the word, if the document writer intends to mandate a requirement, should is not an appropriate choice."

Could be that "should", in engineer-speak, is de facto for "shall" under most circumstances. In regular English, obviously the definition will vary, as will someone's personal definition.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6435
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:42:27 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4940 on: February 14, 2020, 10:44:10 PM »

There are many "should be considered" statements in the MUTCD manual.
There are many "shall" statements as well.
Shall = mandatory
Should = recommended by not mandatory
Here is an engineering approach to the use of "Shall vs. Should."
http://asq.org/standards-shall-should
"Because of the built-in flexibility of the word, if the document writer intends to mandate a requirement, should is not an appropriate choice."
Could be that "should", in engineer-speak, is de facto for "shall" under most circumstances. In regular English, obviously the definition will vary, as will someone's personal definition.

Really?  I worked with and around engineers for over 40 years and I don't think I ever heard the two words defined as the same.
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.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10767
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 09:31:48 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4941 on: February 15, 2020, 12:24:06 AM »

There are many "should be considered" statements in the MUTCD manual.
There are many "shall" statements as well.
Shall = mandatory
Should = recommended by not mandatory
Here is an engineering approach to the use of "Shall vs. Should."
http://asq.org/standards-shall-should
"Because of the built-in flexibility of the word, if the document writer intends to mandate a requirement, should is not an appropriate choice."
Could be that "should", in engineer-speak, is de facto for "shall" under most circumstances. In regular English, obviously the definition will vary, as will someone's personal definition.
Really?  I worked with and around engineers for over 40 years and I don't think I ever heard the two words defined as the same.

I dunno, I'm not an engineer. But I think an outside-looking-in perspective might be due here, since Steve and you are both engineers and are equally trained, yet disagree on this.

I don't think either if you have this 100% right. That said, I'm inclined to agree with you on this, as Steve hasn't provided any evidence to his statement that "'should' means you need an engineering reason not to do it", and you're simply stating that "should" doesn't mean "shall", and I would agree with that.

I am also inclined to agree with you, on account of sheer number of "should" statements in the MUTCD that are ignored by so many places. I doubt many engineers would be going to great lengths to avoid those "should" items.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2020, 12:26:30 AM by jakeroot »
Logged

Alps

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

  • Posts: 13069
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 37
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 09:59:45 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4942 on: February 15, 2020, 02:31:07 AM »

There are many "should be considered" statements in the MUTCD manual.
There are many "shall" statements as well.
Shall = mandatory
Should = recommended by not mandatory
Here is an engineering approach to the use of "Shall vs. Should."
http://asq.org/standards-shall-should
"Because of the built-in flexibility of the word, if the document writer intends to mandate a requirement, should is not an appropriate choice."
Could be that "should", in engineer-speak, is de facto for "shall" under most circumstances. In regular English, obviously the definition will vary, as will someone's personal definition.
Really?  I worked with and around engineers for over 40 years and I don't think I ever heard the two words defined as the same.

I dunno, I'm not an engineer. But I think an outside-looking-in perspective might be due here, since Steve and you are both engineers and are equally trained, yet disagree on this.

I don't think either if you have this 100% right. That said, I'm inclined to agree with you on this, as Steve hasn't provided any evidence to his statement that "'should' means you need an engineering reason not to do it", and you're simply stating that "should" doesn't mean "shall", and I would agree with that.

I am also inclined to agree with you, on account of sheer number of "should" statements in the MUTCD that are ignored by so many places. I doubt many engineers would be going to great lengths to avoid those "should" items.
I did provide a reason - the MUTCD defines "should" as Guidance:
Guidance—a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. All Guidance statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb "should" is typically used. The verbs "shall" and "may" are not used in Guidance statements.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10767
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 09:31:48 PM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4943 on: February 15, 2020, 03:46:14 AM »

I did provide a reason - the MUTCD defines "should" as Guidance:
Guidance—a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. All Guidance statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb "should" is typically used. The verbs "shall" and "may" are not used in Guidance statements.

Thanks. Do you think "deviations" is interpreted as being after the "should" statement is included in plans (i.e. implementing the "should" statement with some deviation)? Or, as I'm suspecting it means, deviating from guidance and ignoring the "should" statement entirely?

I think the problem is that individual engineers can justify just about anything, to the point that "should" statements are meaningless (apart from states where things are taken a bit more seriously -- NJ I presume).
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6435
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:42:27 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4944 on: February 15, 2020, 09:27:45 AM »

I did provide a reason - the MUTCD defines "should" as Guidance:
Guidance—a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. All Guidance statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb "should" is typically used. The verbs "shall" and "may" are not used in Guidance statements.
Thanks. Do you think "deviations" is interpreted as being after the "should" statement is included in plans (i.e. implementing the "should" statement with some deviation)? Or, as I'm suspecting it means, deviating from guidance and ignoring the "should" statement entirely?
I think the problem is that individual engineers can justify just about anything, to the point that "should" statements are meaningless (apart from states where things are taken a bit more seriously -- NJ I presume).
As well as engineering managers, engineering departments, and highway agencies themselves.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.
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: 13069
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 37
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 09:59:45 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4945 on: February 15, 2020, 10:52:36 AM »

I did provide a reason - the MUTCD defines "should" as Guidance:
Guidance—a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. All Guidance statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb "should" is typically used. The verbs "shall" and "may" are not used in Guidance statements.

Thanks. Do you think "deviations" is interpreted as being after the "should" statement is included in plans (i.e. implementing the "should" statement with some deviation)? Or, as I'm suspecting it means, deviating from guidance and ignoring the "should" statement entirely?

I think the problem is that individual engineers can justify just about anything, to the point that "should" statements are meaningless (apart from states where things are taken a bit more seriously -- NJ I presume).
It depends on the agency, and it depends on which statement. If you're talking about guide sign progression, field conditions such as limited visibility, tunnels, right-of-way, etc. may require you to change up the progression or limit your messaging. If you're talking about use of a stop/yield sign, you better have a good reason to deviate, since none of the above tend to apply.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6435
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:42:27 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4946 on: February 15, 2020, 09:57:03 PM »

It depends on the agency, and it depends on which statement. If you're talking about guide sign progression, field conditions such as limited visibility, tunnels, right-of-way, etc. may require you to change up the progression or limit your messaging. If you're talking about use of a stop/yield sign, you better have a good reason to deviate, since none of the above tend to apply.
In this case we're discussing a signing practice that ended, what, 30+ years ago, and existed in some states but not in others?

I worked with the MUTCD manual in one of the highway engineering jobs I had (many) years ago, signing plans for maintenance of traffic on construction projects, so far be it for me to be dismissive about any aspect of MUTCD.

I don't recall any "temporary Interstate routes" in Virginia, so I don't know what VDOT's policy with them might have been.
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.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6435
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:42:27 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4947 on: February 18, 2020, 09:50:21 PM »

Excerpt:
Shropshire said VDOT expects to select a contractor for the Chatham Bridge’s [Business VA-3 Rappahannock River] $23.4 million makeover in April, and will then have a better timeline for work on the span’s superstructure.  The nearly 80-year-old bridge, which VDOT has determined is structurally deficient, is expected to close no earlier than late May for the project.  The work is expected to take 16 to 18 months, and VDOT is offering an incentive if it is completed early.

Plans call for widening the bridge from 50 feet to a little more than 57 feet—an additional 3 feet and 7 inches per side, removing the narrow sidewalks and adding the shared-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists.  The existing sidewalks don’t meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards, and aren’t bicycle friendly.  Currently, bicyclists are expected to share traffic lanes with vehicles.


Revamped Chatham Bridge will feature overlook for pedestrians, bicyclists
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/local/revamped-chatham-bridge-will-feature-overlook-for-pedestrians-bicyclists/article_3bb6b00c-90ca-5361-aa8b-2f81f4d3b2ac.html
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.

jmacswimmer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: February 20, 2020, 09:31:39 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4948 on: February 20, 2020, 08:13:13 AM »

I was driving I-81 in VA this past weekend and had a random question that might have been answered elsewhere: Did there used to be a rest area northbound somewhere around exits 200 or 205? Besides the 103-mile gap between Ironto and Mt Sidney, I noticed 2 other clues:

-The "Next Rest Area" sign on 81 NB opposite the SB Troutville rest area looks like the mileage was patched over to reflect distance to Mt Sidney:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4682889,-79.8121033,3a,75y,70.6h,86.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-p62NSpMXiW0oSs_F0gwpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en

-The "Next Rest Area" sign on 64 EB approaching the Jerry's Run welcome center shows 69 miles to the next area on 81 NB, which would be right around MM 205 during the 64/81 overlap:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8002996,-80.2038668,3a,75y,70.02h,84.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suVut9LlZLvoave6o9QGQjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6435
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:42:27 AM
Re: Virginia
« Reply #4949 on: February 20, 2020, 08:49:54 AM »

I was driving I-81 in VA this past weekend and had a random question that might have been answered elsewhere: Did there used to be a rest area northbound somewhere around exits 200 or 205? Besides the 103-mile gap between Ironto and Mt Sidney, I noticed 2 other clues:
Not that I know of, and my knowledge of I-81 goes back 50 years.

The missing Fairfield NB rest area is a hole in the system, and there have been proposals to build it.  I-64 also overlaps, and it is over 100 miles between their eastbound rest areas as well, and the same for I-64 EB to I-81 NB traffic.  It would be well placed for the I-64 corridor as well.

Since the 1990s it has gotten more difficult to build a new rest area, with current environmental standards, and construction cost inflation.  Originally they had their own sewage treatment plant, but they were not very efficient or long-lasting, so most of them have been connected to municipal sewage systems, but that has its own costs as well as needing to have one nearby in the first place.

I would like to see it formally studied and scoped for costs and impacts.
 
« Last Edit: February 20, 2020, 08:53:06 AM 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.

 


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.