Richmond Region Transportation

[wrldcoupe4]

Wait - are they paving broad street now and  then next year tearing it up for water line replacement. Is this a effing joke? 

[eandslee]

2 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Wait - are they paving broad street now and  then next year tearing it up for water line replacement. Is this a effing joke? 

That was my first thought too!  What in the "out of proper order" crap is this?  Why pave Broad St. only to tear it up in 6 months for utility work?  This is what's wrong with the city.  SMH.....

[123fakestreet]

2 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Wait - are they paving broad street now and  then next year tearing it up for water line replacement. Is this a effing joke? 

Isn't this exactly what they always do? Lombardy just got repaved a year or 2 ago and literally weeks after the lines and everything were finished they tore a bunch up for utility work. I remember them doing the same to Cary about 10 years ago.

[wrldcoupe4]

Yes can anyone explain why this makes sense? It seems so stupid to me. 

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Yes can anyone explain why this makes sense? It seems so stupid to me. 

Probably a line item in the current city budget for money that needs to be spent, lest they lose it next year. Yet another wonderful cart before horse scenario from our friends at 900 E. Broad Street. Placeholder spending is so bloody wasteful.

Edited April 7, 2022 by I miss RVA

[Brent114]

I love  everything about this project. 
 

The water line thing stuck out to me too but whatever.  To everything turn, turn, turn.  There is season….  If for whatever  reason the water cannot be done first, don’t hold up everything else.  By the time the waterlines are done Broad will need repaving anyway because that’s how time and travel works on pavement.  The city will also build sidewalks around existing trees that will blow down in storms. You patch, you rebuild. You enjoy it while you can. 

[I miss RVA]

Mind you, this well-ordered spate of public works projects comes from the same outfit (just a different generation of personnel and an obviously different department) that decided more than 50 years ago that it would be a great idea for "revitalizing" a dying downtown retail core to plop the Richmond Coliseum into a location a full two and a half blocks north of said retail core and to surround said Coliseum with city-owned land upon which either parking decks or flat surface parking lots would be built. And they did it with the honest-to-goodness pitch line of "it will spur economic development in the area immediately around the Coliseum." 

Uhhhh... yeah... right... On city-owned land... Land that the city deemed was best used for... EVENT PARKING...

Ummmm...  ???? 

Edited April 7, 2022 by I miss RVA

[Brent114]

I’m not sure when you were last in Richmond but Broad  Street defiantly needs these improvements.  
 

I’m most excited about additional street lights and trash cans. Broad street is incredibly dark, especially when the trees leaf out (such big trees should have never been planted downtown).   There’s one trash can every 6-8 blocks it seems.    You can count the trees on one hand between Lombardy and 195.   This section in particular is wayyyyyyyyy overdue for a facelift.  

[I miss RVA]

26 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

I’m not sure when you were last in Richmond but Broad  Street defiantly needs these improvements.  
 

I’m most excited about additional street lights and trash cans. Broad street is incredibly dark, especially when the trees leaf out (such big trees should have never been planted downtown).   There’s one trash can every 6-8 blocks it seems.    You can count the trees on one hand between Lombardy and 195.   This section in particular is wayyyyyyyyy overdue for a facelift.  

Oh understood. It just could be organized much better. Especially if money is being spent to really cull out with red asphalt (paint?) the PULSE line lanes - glad they're going to knuckle down and tackle these issues. 

Agreed the huge trees are a bit overdone on Broad - not a good choice. Tbh, I actually much prefer Broad Street looking like it did way back when -- lots of pictures of how it looked in the 50s & 60s when, at night, the storefronts and their signs were all lit up - ditto billboards on buildings -- to the point that it resembled a miniature RVA-version of Broadway in NY. LOTS of lights - just gorgeous to look at.

The trees are nice and serve an important function, to be sure - but Broad Street has lost much of its 'big city' urban feel from that era. I grew up in the tail end of that era (during the '60s and '70s) - and I recall Broad Street in the late '60s. Wow - made me think I was in the big city - something very important for a little boy growing up in RVA. 

[Downtowner]

Im wondering if this was all just poorly worded. I’m wondering if the workers repaving the roads and the workers replacing all of the water pipes will coordinate with each other and have it all going on at the same time in segments. This will be an interesting thing to see how they do it. Like I have said I work for an electrical contractor Davis and green. We have worked with everyone from hourigan and armada hoffler to brinkmann constructors on some pretty big projects. All of the subcontractors are supposed to coordinate with one another so I’m hoping this is all done at the same time.

[wrldcoupe4]

57 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

I’m not sure when you were last in Richmond but Broad  Street defiantly needs these improvements.  
 

I’m most excited about additional street lights and trash cans. Broad street is incredibly dark, especially when the trees leaf out (such big trees should have never been planted downtown).   There’s one trash can every 6-8 blocks it seems.    You can count the trees on one hand between Lombardy and 195.   This section in particular is wayyyyyyyyy overdue for a facelift.  

All those things totally agree as I am in the city every day. But how many times do you see a freshly paved road torn up for utility work and then we have to endure a crapty patch job for 5 years until it’s time to pave again? I’m just saying schedule this out so that it makes sense. 

[Brent114]

It has been scheduled to make sense… in some way. 

I too roll my eyes at torn up fresh asphalt.  It certainly feels  illogical to replace some utilities after paving .  But sometimes it works out that way, for whatever reason.  I can only speculate that the water line replacement is a newer project (that may be part of the new infrastructure package?).  If the planning for everything else has been finished and contractors are scheduled and supplies are sourced,  it doesn’t make sense to delay the full project another two years.  The logistics of the pipe line work can be worked out while sidewalks are being rebuilt  and streetlights are added/replaced. 

One of the best parts is the effort to eliminate as many curb cuts as possible.  I’m excited to see the driveways/ entrances going away. 

[I miss RVA]

16 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

It has been scheduled to make sense… in some way. 

I too roll my eyes at torn up fresh asphalt.  It certainly feels  illogical to replace some utilities after paving .  But sometimes it works out that way, for whatever reason.  I can only speculate that the water line replacement is a newer project (that may be part of the new infrastructure package?).  If the planning for everything else has been finished and contractors are scheduled and supplies are sourced,  it doesn’t make sense to delay the full project another two years.  The logistics of the pipe line work can be worked out while sidewalks are being rebuilt  and streetlights are added/replaced. 

One of the best parts is the effort to eliminate as many curb cuts as possible.  I’m excited to see the driveways/ entrances going away. 

AMEN to that! Glad to see it.

[eandslee]

Would love to hear what everyone here thinks which projects should get the funding and why:

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/what-central-virginia-will-buy-with-276-million-in-infrastructure-funding/

Here is a list of possible infrastructure projects:

https://planrva.org/wp-content/uploads/CVTA_-Scenario-for-Public-Review.pdf

Just an example:  Richmond City is throwing most of of its recommendations toward funding to replace the Mayo Bridge.  

[I miss RVA]

4 hours ago, eandslee said:

Would love to hear what everyone here thinks which projects should get the funding and why:

https://www.wric.com/news/local-news/what-central-virginia-will-buy-with-276-million-in-infrastructure-funding/

Here is a list of possible infrastructure projects:

https://planrva.org/wp-content/uploads/CVTA_-Scenario-for-Public-Review.pdf

Just an example:  Richmond City is throwing most of of its recommendations toward funding to replace the Mayo Bridge.  

There are a lot of high-priority, high-necessity projects for localities across the board - but in my mind, the bridge replacement should be at the top of the list. The two spans are more than 100 years old and need to be replaced.

Something I find BEYOND bothersome though: How is it that two high price-tag road projects in the suburbs (one each in Chesterfield and Henrico) - and the CVTA is budgeting in to grant what was requested in full, but the city is basically getting shafted on their request for their biggest project? Chesterfield is requesting $37.6 M for construction of a new road (total price tag $54.3 M) - and the authority is recommending granting them the entire $37.6 M request (100% of what was requested); Henrico is requesting $27.8 M for a $62.6 M project to widen Woodman Road - and the authority is recommending granting the entire $27.8M request (100% of what was requested). HOWEVER - the CITY is requesting $38 M for the bridge replacement project, which comes with a price tag of $80 M ... and the authority is willing to pony up alllllllllll of a whopping $5 million - which is a mere 13.2% of what was requested.

Ummmmm... WT eff???

Can someone PLEASE explain this? (And I'm sure there's plenty of politics in all of this...)

Edited April 16, 2022 by I miss RVA

[123fakestreet]

Take the VDOT survey to improve the 95/64 and Belvidere/Chamberlyane interchange.

Vote 5 stars for 1A to include the ramp at Leigh - that would alleviate backup on the left turn from Leigh to Belvidere quite a bit.

https://live.metroquestsurvey.com/?u=qp1s1y#!/?campaign=FB&fbclid=IwAR1POZ3m9QDQlfPFhT1WKx6PbEOpatMeZnJzOjyjD-arcvTzvW1Fpa0JcG4&p=web&pm=dynamic&s=4&popup=none

 

For the other changes I think it has to be 2A. 2B doesn't seem to have a ramp for 95N/64W to get to southbound Belvidere

 

 

 

[Wahoo 07]

Hopefully VDOT can find a solution that reduces the footprint of the interchange, thereby recovering more land for development.  As a landlocked city, Richmond needs all the space it can get.

[Shakman]

I agree with less footprint, but with appropriate size acceleration /deceleration and merge lanes.

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, Wahoo 07 said:

Hopefully VDOT can find a solution that reduces the footprint of the interchange, thereby recovering more land for development.  As a landlocked city, Richmond needs all the space it can get.

100% agreed! The interchange and the highway itself already occupies too large of a footprint. VDOT should implement that which is both the most effective from a traffic perspective AND has the smallest and least impact on the footprint of the interchange.

[123fakestreet]

13 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

100% agreed! The interchange and the highway itself already occupies too large of a footprint. VDOT should implement that which is both the most effective from a traffic perspective AND has the smallest and least impact on the footprint of the interchange.

Well given the detail of these plans and that it's already out for public input, unless there is massive outcry I'm pretty sure it's one or the other for each option, doubt they will completely go back to the drawing board.  For the southbound improvements they are moving things over slightly, I don't see any real effect on losing developable land.  For the interchange improvements looks like you actually gain a bit east of the intersection off of Brook, as well as along Baker St. 

It's the west side of the interchange that is rough.  2A gives you more land off of Brook but you lose that whole block where Stratton Metals is.  I would be very glad to see that eyesore go, but agree it would be nicer to see it go with a 5 story apt complex than an on ramp.  2B  uses less land there but it's not land that's going to be very accessible either way, because the Chamberlayne/Brook loop is still in tact, between that and the on ramp and RR tracks that tract of land only has slight access off of Brook.

Overall I think we need the on ramp improvement more than we need an apt complex there.  Currently you can't get to 95N/64W from Chamberlayne, which is ridiculous.  Those other ramps are all pretty bad too.  This is a much needed project.

 

 

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, 123fakestreet said:

It's the west side of the interchange that is rough.  2A gives you more land off of Brook but you lose that whole block where Stratton Metals is.  I would be very glad to see that eyesore go, but agree it would be nicer to see it go with a 5 story apt complex than an on ramp. 

This!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

From your keyboard to God's eyes, my friend! 

[Brent114]

I think we can do without a north bound option here.  There isn’t one now and traffic is already backed up to Franklin. Add in a bunch of north bond traffic and one can assume that traffic will nearly double?  
 

In a perfect world the whole interchange would just go away, dispersing traffic over multiple streets.  I’m not an anti-interstate person by any means but I hate everything about this intersection (95 and Belvedere) and get angry that my local traffic needs get trumped by interstate traffic needs lol.   I lived in Jackson Ward for 15 years and lost many hours of my life trying to get to Marshall Street from the South side of Broad Street.   These plans will make it easier to get onto the interstate but won’t alleviate traffic between Main Street and the exists.   It will just introduce even more cars to the area.  A new even bigger interchange will make everything north of 95 seem even more removed from the rest of town too.   With all of the new housing being added, making this stretch walkable is more important to me than making it easier for commuters to leave the city (prioritizing commuters over actual city dwellers). Send those folks up to Arthur Ashe or Hamilton (where they have been going for the last 60 years). 
 

Now I’m in Manchester with the world’s easiest interstate access so screw everyone else  

That said, I look forward to the improvements from  a visual standpoint.  New infrastructure always makes a city look more relevant and healthy.  

[123fakestreet]

17 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

I think we can do without a north bound option here.  There isn’t one now and traffic is already backed up to Franklin. Add in a bunch of north bond traffic and one can assume that traffic will nearly double?  
 

In a perfect world the whole interchange would just go away, dispersing traffic over multiple streets.  I’m not an anti-interstate person by any means but I hate everything about this intersection (95 and Belvedere) and get angry that my local traffic needs get trumped by interstate traffic needs lol.   I lived in Jackson Ward for 15 years and lost many hours of my life trying to get to Marshall Street from the South side of Broad Street.   These plans will make it easier to get onto the interstate but won’t alleviate traffic between Main Street and the exists.   It will just introduce even more cars to the area.  A new even bigger interchange will make everything north of 95 seem even more removed from the rest of town too.   With all of the new housing being added, making this stretch walkable is more important to me than making it easier for commuters to leave the city (prioritizing commuters over actual city dwellers). Send those folks up to Arthur Ashe or Hamilton (where they have been going for the last 60 years). 
 

Now I’m in Manchester with the world’s easiest interstate access so screw everyone else  

That said, I look forward to the improvements from  a visual standpoint.  New infrastructure always makes a city look more relevant and healthy.  

These plans should alleviate some of the backups.  To your point that might mean more people try to use it, I guess we'll see. 

But much of the traffic is people on Leigh turning left to Belvidere to make that 95N exit.  This backs up traffic down Leigh westbound as they wait to turn, and eastbound as people turn left in front of them.  Adding the on ramp at Leigh greatly eases this congestion.  Most of the traffic is people northbound on Belvidere trying to get to the right for both 95S and 95N, this splits them in half.  95S goes to the right and 95N goes to make a left turn, and it's a long left turn lane so hopefully it doesn't back all the way up onto Belvidere.  Both the N and S ramps themselves also tend to back up, pushing traffic on to Belvidere, the new ramps are much longer with more merge room so that should alleviate that issue as well.   With no southbound Belvidere access directly from 95N that traffic is now forced to divert to Leigh and make a left turn down Belvidere, which we all know left turns block traffic and slow everything else down, now they have direct access.

The last issue is traffic on Broad turning to Belvidere to head to the interchange. While not direct, savvy locals heading 95S would start using the new Leigh st on ramp, heading N on Harrison up to Leigh, or if the city makes Gilmer two way westbound  Broad st traffic could pass Belvidere by 1 block and head N on Gilmer to get there. So it does give you some other options.

 

 

[Brent114]

Thanks for that info.  It helps me visualize it more. 
 

I’d still rather the interchange go away all together.   With interstate traffic out of the picture, Chamberlayne  can be reduced to  two lanes in each direction (turning the other lanes into BRT and pedestrian lanes) making it more visually and psychologically connected to the rest of Richmond.  Those cloverleafs could have housing built on them, really helping to connect the two areas too.    There’s a lot of hoopla around redeveloping Gilpin.  If I recall all of these plans call for elongating the bridges going into that neighborhood making it even more of an island.  Prioritizing interstate traffic over making the actual city work better seems like a waste of all of those very expensive studies:) 

[123fakestreet]

36 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

Thanks for that info.  It helps me visualize it more. 
 

I’d still rather the interchange go away all together.   With interstate traffic out of the picture, Chamberlayne  can be reduced to  two lanes in each direction (turning the other lanes into BRT and pedestrian lanes) making it more visually and psychologically connected to the rest of Richmond.  Those cloverleafs could have housing built on them, really helping to connect the two areas too.    There’s a lot of hoopla around redeveloping Gilpin.  If I recall all of these plans call for elongating the bridges going into that neighborhood making it even more of an island.  Prioritizing interstate traffic over making the actual city work better seems like a waste of all of those very expensive studies:) 

See my "rerouting the interstates" thread!