Richmond Region Transportation

[Brent114]

So are we starting from scratch? 
5 -7 years ago the city had multiple meetings about this replacement (over several years).  
 

The community already weighed in (and if I recall every option had dedicated bike lanes and pedestrian paths).  If they start all over I’m going to go nuts. 

 

BTW, what a shame the city couldn’t have pulled this off years ago.  A two year closure will be devastating  for the strip of Hull Street that is just starting to fill in.  Only a year ago there were no businesses along this route (aside from Vera pizza).  A few years ago was the time to replace the bridge. 
 

[I miss RVA]

28 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

 A few years ago was the time to replace the bridge. 
 

Tbh, a few decades ago was the time to replace this bridge. I'm honestly surprised it's held together for this long, given the stresses it has endured from age, use and -- particularly -- flooding.

I get where you're coming from, though - and I fully agree. Manchester is on fire development-wise - and I am very curious how shutting down this span for two years will impact development in lower Manchester.

If I recall something in the news story - I believe that they said that based on the amount of funding available now ($14M) versus how much the projected cost of replacement will be ($80M) it could still be upwards of two years before this even gets started. And as we all know, a LOT can happen in the span of two years.

My question is: what are the odds this old span will STILL be in place five or more years down the road -- and how will Manchester be impacted if a replacement project doesn't start before then? Imagine Manchester even MORE heavily developed over the course of the next five or so years. Maybe South Falls 2 AND 3 will have risen on the Manchester riverfront. And the Hull Street corridor will be even more densely built up, given projects currently underway. So we can already anticipate a sizeable increase in Manchester's population by then. This could get very interesting.

Edited March 28, 2022 by I miss RVA

[georgeglass]

Agree completely that the 14th bridge needs to be replaced. We walk it often as well and we definitely want it to incorporate the bike and pedestrian needs that were agreed to previously.

All that said, my husband and I both feel strongly that a new bridge is needed in a new location. With everything at Rocketts and what is coming at Fulton Yards there is too much stress on Dock and Main St and Broad. To an extent, traffic downtown is good but it also becomes a detriment. We feel that something should be built off 95 from the south of town that would take someone directly to a location near Rocketts... perhaps slightly east going a bit toward Varina. I'm sure it won't be a popular idea, but at some point the current roadways will be maxed out with the pace of current growth and development.

Edited March 29, 2022 by georgeglass

[wrldcoupe4]

Maybe at Maury interchange linking up near the Dock Street roundabout?

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, georgeglass said:

Agree completely that the 14th bridge needs to be replaced. We walk it often as well and we definitely want it to incorporate the bike and pedestrian needs that were agreed to previously.

All that said, my husband and I both feel strongly that a new bridge is needed in a new location. With everything at Rocketts and what is coming at Fulton Yards there is too much stress on Dock and Main St and Broad. To an extent, traffic downtown is good but it also becomes a detriment. We feel that something should be built off 95 from the south of town that would take someone directly to a location near Rocketts... perhaps slightly east going a bit toward Varina. I'm sure it won't be a popular idea, but at some point the current roadways will be maxed out with the pace of current growth and development.span widget

Fully agreed. I'd love to see it. How it would be handled from an engineering standpoint might be a challenge mainly from the standpoint of how built up Rockett's is now (relative to, say, 15 or 20 years ago). Depending on who owns the land on the Manchester side, I believe the Manchester component could be a lot easier and already has part of the route in place. Indeed, a span over the river connecting, say, Nicholson Street in Rockett's and the Maury Street interchange in Manchester very much could benefit both sections of town. It could -- in a way -- turn the Maury Street interchange into more of a "local" street, even though it would have direct access to/from I-95. I actually do believe both parts of the city could benefit from the connection.

The other engineering challenge (and getting it paid for) would be reconfiguring the Maury Street interchange. If on-off ramps are merely added (so as to not take away the current interchange structure), it would result in a pretty robust set of spaghetti works, depending on just how fully connected to the interstate folks would want this built out. Getting federal and state dollars to go that route would take some doing because I could see adding ramps and the bridgework necessary to fit the ramps in would come with a fairly hefty price tag. Not sure if it would be easier and less costly to simply shut down the interchange altogether for a year or two (or however long it takes to do these things) and simply re-configure with a standard cloverleaf design.

I shudder to even try to imagine what the total cost would be.

Either way, I put together a little schematic of the route, which would have to certainly be cognizant of and sensitive to the location of the Richmond Slave Trail on the west bank of the James. The yellow flanked by orange would indicate the elevated bridge portion. It could start at grade level just west of Nicholson and East Main in Rockett's and elevate as it crosses the river and maintain elevation into Manchester such that it can connect smoothly with the existing Maury Street interchange. That's how I have it shown here. Conversely, it could drop to grade level for an intersection at Brander Street and continue north of the wastewater treatment facility until it needed to elevate to match the overpass for the Maury Street interchange.

This is just an idea - I somehow doubt I'll see this in my lifetime - though I'd honestly love to see something like this come to pass. Heck, perhaps the bridge could be named after any two famous Richmonders, one each who hailed from Rockett's/Fulton and Manchester, or it could simply be called the Rockett's-Fulton Bridge. Or perhaps getting REALLY clever - "the Nicholson Street Bridge". I'm sure the community could certainly get involved in the naming portion of this project.

Who knows - if this ever came to pass, perhaps GRTC would add a bus route to connect Rockett's/Fulton and Manchester. No idea how much demand there would be - but it would be the "big city" thing to do.

Anyway - my two cents.

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by I miss RVA

[Richmonopoly]

@I miss RVAI love this idea.  

[123fakestreet]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

Fully agreed. I'd love to see it. How it would be handled from an engineering standpoint might be a challenge mainly from the standpoint of how built up Rockett's is now (relative to, say, 15 or 20 years ago). Depending on who owns the land on the Manchester side, I believe the Manchester component could be a lot easier and already has part of the route in place. Indeed, a span over the river connecting, say, Nicholson Street in Rockett's and the Maury Street interchange in Manchester very much could benefit both sections of town. It could -- in a way -- turn the Maury Street interchange into more of a "local" street, even though it would have direct access to/from I-95. I actually do believe both parts of the city could benefit from the connection.

The other engineering challenge (and getting it paid for) would be reconfiguring the Maury Street interchange. If on-off ramps are merely added (so as to not take away the current interchange structure), it would result in a pretty robust set of spaghetti works, depending on just how fully connected to the interstate folks would want this built out. Getting federal and state dollars to go that route would take some doing because I could see adding ramps and the bridgework necessary to fit the ramps in would come with a fairly hefty price tag. Not sure if it would be easier and less costly to simply shut down the interchange altogether for a year or two (or however long it takes to do these things) and simply re-configure with a standard cloverleaf design.

I shudder to even try to imagine what the total cost would be.

Either way, I put together a little schematic of the route, which would have to certainly be cognizant of and sensitive to the location of the Richmond Slave Trail on the west bank of the James. The yellow flanked by orange would indicate the elevated bridge portion. It could start at grade level just west of Nicholson and East Main in Rockett's and elevate as it crosses the river and maintain elevation into Manchester such that it can connect smoothly with the existing Maury Street interchange. That's how I have it shown here. Conversely, it could drop to grade level for an intersection at Brander Street and continue north of the wastewater treatment facility until it needed to elevate to match the overpass for the Maury Street interchange.

This is just an idea - I somehow doubt I'll see this in my lifetime - though I'd honestly love to see something like this come to pass. Heck, perhaps the bridge could be named after any two famous Richmonders, one each who hailed from Rockett's/Fulton and Manchester, or it could simply be called the Rockett's-Fulton Bridge. Or perhaps getting REALLY clever - "the Nicholson Street Bridge". I'm sure the community could certainly get involved in the naming portion of this project.

Who knows - if this ever came to pass, perhaps GRTC would add a bus route to connect Rockett's/Fulton and Manchester. No idea how much demand there would be - but it would be the "big city" thing to do.

Anyway - my two cents.

 

Love this. As it stands now Fulton is pretty far away from Manchester. This makes them real close.

 

My dream has long been for them to completely relocate the water treatment plant much further south.  Free up some prime riverfront development and make Rockett's more appealing that it's not across form a big unsightly stink.  Won't ever happen though, you're talking hundreds of millions to do that.

Edited March 30, 2022 by 123fakestreet

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, 123fakestreet said:

Love this. As it stands now Fulton is pretty far away from Manchester. This makes them real close.

 

My dream has long been for them to completely relocate the water treatment plant much further south.  Free up some prime riverfront development and make Rockett's more appealing that it's not across form a big unsightly stink.  Won't ever happen though, you're talking hundreds of millions to do that.

So very true - as it stands right now, Fulton is like driving to the other side of the moon from Manchester - when as the crow flies, it's not much more than a pitch-and-putt distance away. A bridge connecting Nicholson Street with the Maury Street interchange is all but a straight "point 'A' to point 'B'" kind of line. 

Movingt the wastewater treatment plant further south: this would techincally count as 'infrastructure', no? If so, couldn't federal (and for that matter, state) money to toward this? The city would never be able to take on this kind of project in a million years. But if a sizeable chunk was taken care of with federal and state funds as infrastructure improvements, perhaps it's something that could happen at some point. Probably not in my lifetime - but it's something worth dreaming about.

Wow - if that ever WERE to come to pass - just THINK about the development that could take place (well, once the whole toxic cleanup portion, etc. is taken care of -and that alone ,I imagine, would have a pretty hefty price tag)  That whole big bend in the river -- all that land on the western riverbank just totally opens up. I know -- a lot of folks (NIMBY's in particular) are going to want to keep it as open space, yada yada. Not saying that some portion can't be used for green/open space. But holy wow - from an urban planning perspective, we'd all be like kids in a candy store with our wish lists for this project and that project. Just envisioning what that whole chunk of the city could look like on Manchester's eastern flank - is almost staggering. Even split off from the main body of Manchester - it could still stand as it's own -- very impressive -- part of the city. Perhaps even carrying its own name - something like "East Manchester" .. or "Riverside" (RVA has a "Riverview" but not a "Riverside")  The possibilities are almost endless.

Edited March 30, 2022 by I miss RVA

[Icetera]

16 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Fully agreed. I'd love to see it. How it would be handled from an engineering standpoint might be a challenge mainly from the standpoint of how built up Rockett's is now (relative to, say, 15 or 20 years ago). Depending on who owns the land on the Manchester side, I believe the Manchester component could be a lot easier and already has part of the route in place. Indeed, a span over the river connecting, say, Nicholson Street in Rockett's and the Maury Street interchange in Manchester very much could benefit both sections of town. It could -- in a way -- turn the Maury Street interchange into more of a "local" street, even though it would have direct access to/from I-95. I actually do believe both parts of the city could benefit from the connection.

The other engineering challenge (and getting it paid for) would be reconfiguring the Maury Street interchange. If on-off ramps are merely added (so as to not take away the current interchange structure), it would result in a pretty robust set of spaghetti works, depending on just how fully connected to the interstate folks would want this built out. Getting federal and state dollars to go that route would take some doing because I could see adding ramps and the bridgework necessary to fit the ramps in would come with a fairly hefty price tag. Not sure if it would be easier and less costly to simply shut down the interchange altogether for a year or two (or however long it takes to do these things) and simply re-configure with a standard cloverleaf design.

I shudder to even try to imagine what the total cost would be.

Either way, I put together a little schematic of the route, which would have to certainly be cognizant of and sensitive to the location of the Richmond Slave Trail on the west bank of the James. The yellow flanked by orange would indicate the elevated bridge portion. It could start at grade level just west of Nicholson and East Main in Rockett's and elevate as it crosses the river and maintain elevation into Manchester such that it can connect smoothly with the existing Maury Street interchange. That's how I have it shown here. Conversely, it could drop to grade level for an intersection at Brander Street and continue north of the wastewater treatment facility until it needed to elevate to match the overpass for the Maury Street interchange.

This is just an idea - I somehow doubt I'll see this in my lifetime - though I'd honestly love to see something like this come to pass. Heck, perhaps the bridge could be named after any two famous Richmonders, one each who hailed from Rockett's/Fulton and Manchester, or it could simply be called the Rockett's-Fulton Bridge. Or perhaps getting REALLY clever - "the Nicholson Street Bridge". I'm sure the community could certainly get involved in the naming portion of this project.

Who knows - if this ever came to pass, perhaps GRTC would add a bus route to connect Rockett's/Fulton and Manchester. No idea how much demand there would be - but it would be the "big city" thing to do.

Anyway - my two cents.

 

I have updated your concept with something that may be a bit cheaper as it reuses most of existing ramps and does not need new flyovers by utilizing a Diverging-Diamond Interchange.  It also accounts for the need to have significant clearance over the James but may not require as much height due to the old terminal dock being located prior to the new bridge (barges have used it as recently as this month).  The new Eastern approach begins at a higher elevation by utilizing the new Main-Dock St. roundabout  (with additional slip-lanes) and allows for a shorter and less complex main bridge span.  Given the ample space, roundabouts could be used as an alternative to the traditional signaled crossover points on the DDI.

Eastbound lanes (BLUE)

Westbound lanes (RED)

 

 

[wrldcoupe4]

Honestly, this would be pretty awesome. 

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, Icetera said:

I have updated your concept with something that may be a bit cheaper as it reuses most of existing ramps and does not need new flyovers by utilizing a Diverging-Diamond Interchange.  It also accounts for the need to have significant clearance over the James but may not require as much height due to the old terminal dock being located prior to the new bridge (barges have used it as recently as this month).  The new Eastern approach begins at a higher elevation by utilizing the new Main-Dock St. roundabout  (with additional slip-lanes) and allows for a shorter and less complex main bridge span.  Given the ample space, roundabouts could be used as an alternative to the traditional signaled crossover points on the DDI.

Eastbound lanes (BLUE)

Westbound lanes (RED)

 

 

@Icetera-- 100% agreed on the standard cloverleaf interchange. It would indeed be much less expensive to construct and eliminating the spaghetti works of flyovers would be a real cost savings.

However, I have to push back on the routing, recommending a direct connect to Nicholson Street in Rockett's as originally proposed for the following reasons:

The more northerly re-route to Dock Street you suggest:

1.) Requires cutting through a portion of riverfront land that the city just recently set aside for conservation. No development (recall, Echo Harbor was originally to go here) - is to take place. I believe an education center may be included as part of this initiative. This alone would be sufficient to kibosh the project altogether.

2.) Takes the bridge over a wider stretch of the river. The more direct route to Nicholson Street goes over a narrower portion of the James just after the bend.

3.) Does not relieve traffic along that portion of Dock and E. Main Street (recall the poster earlier discussing how a direct connect to Manchester is needed to help that section of local streets between the eastern-most portion of the bottom and the northern entry into Rockett's/Fulton. If anything, it would ADD to the traffic coming from Manchester to Rockett's and Fulton, whereas a direct connect to Nicholson Street eliminates the need for traffic to travel down Dock or E. Main.

4.) Does not provide the DIRECT link between Manchester and Rockett's/Fulton. I know distance-wise, it's not far - but that's not the point. The point is to DIRECTLY link Manchester and Rockett's/Fulton -- such that signage could direct motorists (say along I-95 as well as on local streets in Manchester and in Rockett's/Fulton) what direction to travel to access either part of the city.

I recommend that we combine our proposals - your outstanding interchange (which is a FAR better design all the way around!) with my direct routing/connection to Nicholson Street.  The access point in Rockett's could be engineered to be comprised of two ramps on/off the bridge -- one westbound, one east bound, along/adjacent to Wharf Street with a turn toward the river at the north end of the Intermediate Terminal, angling across the northern end of the parking lot, thereby keeping the main entry into Rockett's at Nicholson Street but simply routing the ramps and the start of the bridge deck a few hundred feet north in order to not interfere with activity at the dock. Some minor engineering could be in place to ensure no interference with the Virginia Capital Trail as well.

Reconfiguring the entry point at Nicholson to go just north of the Intermediate Terminal dock actually would further simplify and shorten the main bridge span, particularly if the roadway is taken back to grade level between the riverbank and Brander Street on the Manchester side. (I simply left it as a bridge in the rendering - but the bridge portion could be quite short with much of the roadway at grade approaching I-95.)

Below is how the access point in Rockett's could be configured. Again, orange-borders around the yellow indicate elevated bridgework.

Edited March 30, 2022 by I miss RVA

[Brent114]

Any route would have to be east of these.   Cutting a road through the Salve Trail is a deal killer. 

[I miss RVA]

13 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

Any route would have to be east of these.   Cutting a road through the Salve Trail is a deal killer. 

I think the bridge can be engineered to not impact the slave trail. Taking the route farther out of the way defeats the purpose of having the bridge. The whole point is to provide a direct connect from Manchester to Fulton & Rockett's. Technology & engineering is such today that bridge pylons could be spaced so that ample clearance can be given on either side of the slave trail so that the trail is not disturbed.

[Icetera]

22 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

The more northerly re-route to Dock Street you suggest:

1.) Requires cutting through a portion of riverfront land that the city just recently set aside for conservation. No development (recall, Echo Harbor was originally to go here) - is to take place. I believe an education center may be included as part of this initiative. This alone would be sufficient to kibosh the project altogether.

2.) Takes the bridge over a wider stretch of the river. The more direct route to Nicholson Street goes over a narrower portion of the James just after the bend.

3.) Does not relieve traffic along that portion of Dock and E. Main Street (recall the poster earlier discussing how a direct connect to Manchester is needed to help that section of local streets between the eastern-most portion of the bottom and the northern entry into Rockett's/Fulton. If anything, it would ADD to the traffic coming from Manchester to Rockett's and Fulton, whereas a direct connect to Nicholson Street eliminates the need for traffic to travel down Dock or E. Main.

4.) Does not provide the DIRECT link between Manchester and Rockett's/Fulton. I know distance-wise, it's not far - but that's not the point. The point is to DIRECTLY link Manchester and Rockett's/Fulton -- such that signage could direct motorists (say along I-95 as well as on local streets in Manchester and in Rockett's/Fulton) what direction to travel to access either part of the city.

I recommend that we combine our proposals - your outstanding interchange (which is a FAR better design all the way around!) with my direct routing/connection to Nicholson Street.  The access point in Rockett's could be engineered to be comprised of two ramps on/off the bridge -- one westbound, one east bound, along/adjacent to Wharf Street with a turn toward the river at the north end of the Intermediate Terminal, angling across the northern end of the parking lot, thereby keeping the main entry into Rockett's at Nicholson Street but simply routing the ramps and the start of the bridge deck a few hundred feet north in order to not interfere with activity at the dock. Some minor engineering could be in place to ensure no interference with the Virginia Capital Trail as well.

Reconfiguring the entry point at Nicholson to go just north of the Intermediate Terminal dock actually would further simplify and shorten the main bridge span, particularly if the roadway is taken back to grade level between the riverbank and Brander Street on the Manchester side. (I simply left it as a bridge in the rendering - but the bridge portion could be quite short with much of the roadway at grade approaching I-95.)

Below is how the access point in Rockett's could be configured. Again, orange-borders around the yellow indicate elevated bridgework.

1) The educational center and developments are at the Northern end of the property so the bridge avoids those areas.

2) Taking the bridge diagonally across a slightly narrower section of the river likely ends up being the same length.  Regardless, there are still clearance concerns unless brought up to the other side of the Intermediate Terminal building.

3)  As a resident over here, I can tell you that backups on the stretch of E. Main from roundabout to Rocketts are not much of a concern, nor is Williamsburg Rd. in general.   The major backup is Dock St. from 14th to 21st St.  Simply adding protected left-turn lanes would alleviate a lot of this but relocating Fulton/Rocketts/Varina traffic would be ideal.  The next major backups are E. Main from the 15th St. to 21st (I-95 exit traffic), 18th from Dock St. to Broad St. (I-95 entrance traffic), and backups caused by Westbound traffic at the E. Main St. and Williamsburg Rd. intersection (traffic light too close to the roundabout).

4)  Note that a large part of the traffic is also from Varina and Eastern Henrico.


In taking your ideas into consideration, here is an updated proposal.  This cuts out the conservation land entirely and relieves traffic concerns around the roundabout by continuing the bridge over  E. Main and then dropping under the CSX viaduct to connect to a potentially built Fulton Gas Works street-grid (need to calculate grade concerns and clearance with descent from E. Main to under viaduct).  Ramps are added to E. Main as well for direct Rocketts/Varina traffic.  Additional direct traffic flow from the bridge to Williamsburg Rd. for Fulton/Shockoe/Church Hill traffic.  Street parking potentially eliminated on E. Main in favor of merge and dedicated bus lane (why is there even a bike lane here with the trail right there?!).   This now spreads traffic through four intersections versus two as exists now and both alleviates Shockoe Bottom congestion while adding better access to Rocketts/Fulton/Varina.  Due to the flood-zone, the stretch on the Western shore would have to remain elevated up to the I-95 interchange.

 

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, Icetera said:

1) The educational center and developments are at the Northern end of the property so the bridge avoids those areas.

2) Taking the bridge diagonally across a slightly narrower section of the river likely ends up being the same length.  Regardless, there are still clearance concerns unless brought up to the other side of the Intermediate Terminal building.

3)  As a resident over here, I can tell you that backups on the stretch of E. Main from roundabout to Rocketts are not much of a concern, nor is Williamsburg Rd. in general.   The major backup is Dock St. from 14th to 21st St.  Simply adding protected left-turn lanes would alleviate a lot of this but relocating Fulton/Rocketts/Varina traffic would be ideal.  The next major backups are E. Main from the 15th St. to 21st (I-95 exit traffic), 18th from Dock St. to Broad St. (I-95 entrance traffic), and backups caused by Westbound traffic at the E. Main St. and Williamsburg Rd. intersection (traffic light too close to the roundabout).

4)  Note that a large part of the traffic is also from Varina and Eastern Henrico.


In taking your ideas into consideration, here is an updated proposal.  This cuts out the conservation land entirely and relieves traffic concerns around the roundabout by continuing the bridge over  E. Main and then dropping under the CSX viaduct to connect to a potentially built Fulton Gas Works street-grid (need to calculate grade concerns and clearance with descent from E. Main to under viaduct).  Ramps are added to E. Main as well for direct Rocketts/Varina traffic.  Additional direct traffic flow from the bridge to Williamsburg Rd. for Fulton/Shockoe/Church Hill traffic.  Street parking potentially eliminated on E. Main in favor of merge and dedicated bus lane (why is there even a bike lane here with the trail right there?!).   This now spreads traffic through four intersections versus two as exists now and both alleviates Shockoe Bottom congestion while adding better access to Rocketts/Fulton/Varina.  Due to the flood-zone, the stretch on the Western sure would have to remain elevated up to the I-95 interchange.

 

Very interesting - and the more I look at it, the more I can see it working.

My question: what purpose is served by routing it so far to the north of Rockett's, particularly when new streets would end up being cut through (as shown in your proposal) whereas by taking it farther south to a more direct connect-up with Nicholson Street, it's a straight shot from Manchester-to-Rockett's/Fulton and cuts E. Main Street out altogether. Nicholson Street can certainly handle traffic flow from Williamsburg Road, no?

I'm curious what is accomplished by taking it out of Rockett's altogether. The bridge can easily be routed/engineered to not disturb the Slave Trail and the Intermediate Terminal dock, yet keep the feeder going direction to and from Nicholson Street -- and to me that's the whole point. Pushing the connection farther north defeats the purpose of a specific connection of these two parts of town. Does it work? Sure. But I just am not seeing the need to take it so far to the north. I can honestly say that, as a motorist, if I was going from Manchester to Fulton/Rockett's, every time I crossed and ended up north of Rockett's and then had to turn and travel south to Rockett's, I'd be asking the rhetorical question: "why the hell didn't they just build the damn bridge farther south and go directly into Rockett's?"  ... Maybe it's just me, but even though the distance is short, it would be a pain in the tuchus to not be able to go directly between the two parts of town.

Unless - you're thinking in terms of also serving the Bottom and Church Hill (as opposed to just Fulton/Rockett's and points east) - and are splitting the difference with a more northerly crossing to accommodate folks who would come from neighborhoods to the west/northwest -- in which case, I can see it, and this routing would work.

Agreed on bike lanes - and I would hope there would be some kind of consideration for GRTC to establish a route between Manchester and Fulton.

I forget you live over that way. (Are there more pictures of the new construction in the offing, by chance? BTW - I saved the day AND night pix of the new apartment building construction with the skyline off in the distance as slideshow wallpaper on my desktop! )

Edited March 30, 2022 by I miss RVA

[wrldcoupe4]

It works because it helps tie into rt 60 and rt 5. And it avoids the bottle necks in the Bottom. I don’t see a feasible crossing south of rockett’s. 

[I miss RVA]

18 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

It works because it helps tie into rt 60 and rt 5. And it avoids the bottle necks in the Bottom.

I don’t see a feasible crossing south of rockett’s. 

Two thoughts:

1.) So does the routing that connects directly to Nicholson Street.

2.) 100% agreed - nothing works south of Rockett's.

[Wahoo 07]

https://richmondbizsense.com/2022/03/31/henrico-county-representatives-come-aboard-the-grtc-board-of-directors/

Not to derail the Rockett's bridge conversation (which is interesting), but here is some progress towards a truly regional transportation system.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Wahoo 07

[asies]

Just some Thursday musings, but with 14th Street Bridge reconstruction happening in the next few years, I'm even more convinced that the future south-bound Pulse line should run down 9th Street bridge and Commerce before turning down Hull Street. That way the bridge construction doesn't delay a future Pulse line. Commerce offers more opportunities for new development and the northern portion of Hull Street will be mostly built out by the time the line would open. Also, Commerce could better accommodate exclusive bus lanes and mid-street stations and anyone living north of Commerce would still be walking distance to the new Pulse line.

[Icetera]

17 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Unless - you're thinking in terms of also serving the Bottom and Church Hill (as opposed to just Fulton/Rockett's and points east) - and are splitting the difference with a more northerly crossing to accommodate folks who would come from neighborhoods to the west/northwest -- in which case, I can see it, and this routing would work.

This.  Traffic would not only come from Fulton/Rocketts and Southeast so they need to be accounted for and having an alternative to traversing Shockoe will be critical (especially with expected density increases).  This will also help relieve traffic at the I-95 15th St/Broad St. ramps that back traffic up to Maury St.

Another key part of bringing it North is to completely keep it out of the active shipping channel, therefore, potentially allowing a lower, cheaper bridge. 

1 hour ago, asies said:

Just some Thursday musings, but with 14th Street Bridge reconstruction happening in the next few years, I'm even more convinced that the future south-bound Pulse line should run down 9th Street bridge and Commerce before turning down Hull Street. That way the bridge construction doesn't delay a future Pulse line. Commerce offers more opportunities for new development and the northern portion of Hull Street will be mostly built out by the time the line would open. Also, Commerce could better accommodate exclusive bus lanes and mid-street stations and anyone living north of Commerce would still be walking distance to the new Pulse line.

That makes sense and then a future second line could run along 14th after the bridge is completed.

[I miss RVA]

26 minutes ago, Icetera said:

This.  Traffic would not only come from Fulton/Rocketts and Southeast so they need to be accounted for and having an alternative to traversing Shockoe will be critical (especially with expected density increases).  This will also help relieve traffic at the I-95 15th St/Broad St. ramps that back traffic up to Maury St.

Another key part of bringing it North is to completely keep it out of the active shipping channel, therefore, potentially allowing a lower, cheaper bridge. 

That makes sense and then a future second line could run along 14th after the bridge is completed.

Okay - to allow for traffic coming from/going to points north/west of the bridge crossing point makes sense. That works.

Question: exactly how far north does the active shipping channel go? Who uses Intermediate Terminal? Does the Annabelle Lee (or something comparable) even exist nowadays? WAYYYYYY back when (as in back in the 90s) I went on a few dinner cruises on the Annabelle Lee. One was work-related when I worked for Philip Morris. Lots of fun. Minus passing the wastewater treatment plant. Ugh...

Anyway - if the bridge came in just north of intermediate terminal, what shipping would be interrupted? I'm asking earnestly because I don't know what actually comes north of Deepwater Terminal.

[Icetera]

4 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Question: exactly how far north does the active shipping channel go? Who uses Intermediate Terminal? Does the Annabelle Lee (or something comparable) even exist nowadays? WAYYYYYY back when (as in back in the 90s) I went on a few dinner cruises on the Annabelle Lee. One was work-related when I worked for Philip Morris. Lots of fun. Minus passing the wastewater treatment plant. Ugh...

Anyway - if the bridge came in just north of intermediate terminal, what shipping would be interrupted? I'm asking earnestly because I don't know what actually comes north of Deepwater Terminal.

The most recent was a few weeks ago  with a  delivery of large tanks to Stone Brewing for their current expansion.  I have seen some other ships docked at the Sugar Pad (also note this is a popular park) but have not seen anything passed any further North of the Gilley's Creek inlet.

[wrldcoupe4]

Burt used to talk about the shipbuilding operation on Chapel Island that would use the lock at Great Shiplock Park. I think I recall him mentioning a floating restaurant there as well. Wonder when the lock was last opened?

[Icetera]

Upgrades to Broad Street corridor beginning this month including the red Pulse lanes, curbing improvements, and sidewalk investments.

https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/traffic-alert-broad-street-improvement-project-will-take-more-than-a-year-to-complete
 

Quote

The project will replace sidewalks throughout the corridor and upgrade curb ramps to improve accessibility for pedestrians, individuals who use mobility devices, people with visual impairments etc. New trees will be planted to provide greenery and shade to pedestrians and street furniture such as benches, trash cans, and bike racks will be placed along Broad Street. Decorative light fixtures will be installed on existing poles to illuminate sidewalks for additional pedestrian safety at night.
To improve traffic safety, curb bump-outs will be constructed to guide vehicles through existing lane shifts and prevent illegal parking. At locations where properties have multiple access points to a parking lot or property, select driveway entrances on Broad Street will be permanently closed to further improve traffic safety and reduce rear end crashes.

Quote

Pulse BRT Red Pavement

• Project timeframe: Construction is expected May through August 2022
• Area: Broad Street from I-195 to 1st Street

The Pulse BRT Red Pavement project will install red-colored pavement marking in the dedicated bus-only lanes from I-195 to 1st Street. The project is funded through a Department of Rail and Public Transit grant and is intended to improve driver and pedestrian awareness of the dedicated bus-only lanes, reduce unauthorized use of the bus-only lanes, and improve bus operations.

 

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, Icetera said:

Upgrades to Broad Street corridor beginning this month including the red Pulse lanes, curbing improvements, and sidewalk investments.

https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/traffic-alert-broad-street-improvement-project-will-take-more-than-a-year-to-complete
 

 

This is a tad worrisome... I'm sure it's needed - but this will make a bit of a mess of downtown traffic for a bit.

Public Utility Waterline Replacement

• Timeframe: Construction is expected in the spring of 2023
• Area: Along Broad Street from 3rd Street to I-95

This project will be handled by the Department of Public Utilities